For context: this "religious body" is governmental.
In pakistan, military has gotten so powerful that they literally kidnap and torture you for being critical of them. And if you live outside pakistan they kidnap and torture your family members, demanding you to remove your posts.
And recently pakistani people have started to become more and more anti-military. So they are using VPNs to hide their identity to protect themselves.
This "religious body" is making it seem like this is to stop porn but in reality its about stopping people from being critical of military rule.
Edit: they banned twitter in february because people were organizing anti-military protests there. So the people started using VPNs and now they want to ban VPNs.
Its not about religion, its politics. A few years ago the Pakistani military overthrew a very popular prime minister who publicly said that it was the military behind his removal. Then slowly and gradually there was more and more evidence behind military involvement which as a result, made the public anti-military. They have been kidnapping and torturing anyone critical of them.
But the more they oppress, the more people become anti-military. It got to the point that in february the government blocked access to twitter because of anti-military sentiment, so people started using VPNs. Now this "religious body" which is government appointed claims to block VPN because "people are watching immoral things via VPN". But in reality, it is to stop people organizing protests.
Also a governmental body can not decide what is islamic or not, thats not how islamic law works. It has to come from islamic scholars and there needs to be consus on it.
I don't think any major islamic scholar who lives inside pakistan has signed or approved this message even though they want to stop porn they know its not about stopping porn, its about making it difficult to criticize the military.
It's about religion. In a theocracy religion is politics, and law, and culture too.
Religion isn't something that empowers people to do more or live more freely. Religious dogma is nothing more than a set of arbitrary laws and norms, written and decided by man, but given the weight and authority of god(s)--the fear of eternal damnation in the afterlife being the only way that people knew to keep others in line in a world devoid of secular laws.
How did we convince women that they were lesser beings throughout human history? Why do we consider some forms of consensual adult sexuality to be morally wrong? Why do we believe that human beings are destined and entitled to live on this planet forever no matter how poorly we treat it?
The answer is religion. Religion is mass delusion, used mainly as a tool of oppression. Socrates was sentenced to death by a jury of Athenians for thought crimes against Athena, showing that religion, democracy and justice simply do not mix. Thousands of years ago (or more) gods and religious law were the inventions that ushered humanity into the post-truth world that we live in today.
You know how some people make the claim that atheism is a religion? This is why. People who think that anyone who believes something different from them is a moron and/or in need of conversion. I don't like it when religions behave like this, and I don't like it when nonreligions behave like this, either.
Using allegory as a moral proxy is fine. And even a really great way of making complex or dry topics more approachable.
What is not ok is when you take allegory as literal, such that you actually believe that there is a sky wizard who will punish you for showing your hair in public. What is incredibly fucked up is when you then project that literal belief to a prescriptive action framework which commands you to murder heretics.
Friendly reminder that VOA, aka Voice of America, is a subsidiary of the US Agency for Global Media. It was established to convince people in the Soviet sphere that the US was better in every way. It continues that mission with America's allies and enemies today.
The process of opening up a country's media space is integral to getting those State department messages in there.
David Kahn notes in The Codebreakers that modern cryptology originated among the Arabs, the first people to systematically document cryptanalytic methods.[15] Al-Khalil (717–786) wrote the Book of Cryptographic Messages, which contains the first use of permutations and combinations to list all possible Arabic words with and without vowels.[16]
The invention of the frequency analysis technique for breaking monoalphabetic substitution ciphers, by Al-Kindi, an Arab mathematician,[17][18] sometime around AD 800, proved to be the single most significant cryptanalytic advance until World War II. Al-Kindi wrote a book on cryptography entitled Risalah fi Istikhraj al-Mu'amma (Manuscript for the Deciphering Cryptographic Messages), in which he described the first cryptanalytic techniques, including some for polyalphabetic ciphers, cipher classification, Arabic phonetics and syntax, and most importantly, gave the first descriptions on frequency analysis.[19] He also covered methods of encipherments, cryptanalysis of certain encipherments, and statistical analysis of letters and letter combinations in Arabic.[20][21] An important contribution of Ibn Adlan (1187–1268) was on sample size for use of frequency analysis.[16]
Ahmad al-Qalqashandi (AD 1355–1418) wrote the Subh al-a 'sha, a 14-volume encyclopedia which included a section on cryptology. This information was attributed to Ibn al-Durayhim who lived from AD 1312 to 1361, but whose writings on cryptography have been lost. The list of ciphers in this work included both substitution and transposition, and for the first time, a polyalphabetic cipher[23] with multiple substitutions for each plaintext letter (later called homophonic substitution). Also traced to Ibn al-Durayhim is an exposition on and a worked example of cryptanalysis, including the use of tables of letter frequencies and sets of letters which cannot occur together in one word.
The Council of Islamic Ideology said the technology was being used in Pakistan to access content prohibited according to Islamic principles or forbidden by law, including “[...]websites that spread anarchy [...].”
So they admit it's not (only) about morals, but also (or mostly) about their position of power not being threatened.
BTW: By blocking access to the internet, they stop people from following the order in the Quoran which states that people should educate themselves.
they stop people from following the order in the Quoran which states that people should educate themselves.
That's the beauty of the major world religions. When you have power in your hands you can pick and choose what you want to honor and make it public policy, and there's nothing the plebs can do about it.