By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology declared using VPNs to access blocked content as un-Islamic, citing the facilitation of immoral activities and the spread of disinformation. Simultaneously, the government, citing terrorism and pornography concerns, is implementing a nationwide firewall and requiring VPN registration, a move critics see as increasing surveillance and limiting free speech. This registration process demands personal information from users, raising privacy concerns. The government denies attempting to throttle the internet, but experts suggest the new system enhances state monitoring capabilities. The push for greater online control coincides with increased criticism of the military’s alleged political interference.
Read the original article here
A Pakistani religious body recently declared the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to be against Islamic law. This announcement has sparked considerable debate and highlights the complex interplay between religious interpretation, technological advancement, and government control in Pakistan. The core issue, however, seems less about the inherent nature of VPN technology and more about controlling access to information deemed undesirable by certain authorities.
The declaration itself feels less like a theological pronouncement and more like a convenient tool to suppress dissent and limit access to online content deemed “unIslamic.” This interpretation conveniently sidesteps the actual technological functionality of a VPN, focusing instead on its potential for circumventing internet censorship.
It’s easy to see the real motivation behind this declaration as a means to maintain control over the flow of information. The statement doesn’t engage with the technical aspects of VPNs; instead, it focuses on the potential misuse of the technology to access content considered inappropriate. This approach neatly avoids a more complex discussion about internet freedom and the right to access information.
This declaration echoes previous instances where religious pronouncements have been used to justify actions unrelated to religious doctrine. Remember the humorous, and ultimately impotent, declaration that the moon was Haram after a successful Indian space mission? This incident, just like the current VPN ban, demonstrates how religious authority can be weaponized to stifle progress and suppress dissent, rather than genuinely reflecting religious principles.
The timing of this announcement is particularly suspicious, coinciding with efforts to restrict access to social media platforms and other online content. The government’s prior actions, such as blocking Twitter and shutting down internet access during political rallies, suggest a concerted effort to control the narrative and limit public discourse. The use of VPNs provided a workaround to these restrictions, thus making the religious decree seem less about religious principle and more about maintaining power.
Interestingly, the argument against VPNs based on religious grounds seems to contradict the principle of freedom of belief and expression often cited within Islamic teachings. This inherent contradiction raises questions about the selective application of religious texts to justify political control. The irony is not lost on many, who point out the hypocrisy of using religion to restrict access to information while ignoring other pressing societal issues like poverty, food insecurity and political instability.
Many critics also suggest this isn’t solely about religious doctrine but rather about the government using religious bodies as a front to exercise control. The use of religion to justify the suppression of dissent is a common tactic employed by authoritarian regimes worldwide. This strategy allows them to appeal to religious sentiments while simultaneously stifling opposition and silencing critical voices.
It’s difficult to view this declaration as anything other than an attempt to curtail freedom of information and maintain the status quo. This strategy relies on the existing societal structures and the acceptance of religious authority as the basis for political control. The focus is not on moral or theological arguments against VPNs themselves, but rather on preventing citizens from bypassing censorship measures and accessing potentially controversial online content.
The irony is palpable: a country grappling with issues like terrorism and economic hardship is prioritizing a seemingly minor issue like VPN usage, highlighting a deeper problem of misplaced priorities and a lack of focus on genuine societal needs.
Ultimately, the declaration against VPNs is indicative of a broader struggle for control over information and the ongoing tension between religious authority, government power, and the aspirations of a population seeking access to a free and open internet. The real battle isn’t over VPNs themselves, but over who controls the narrative and who has access to information. This situation throws into sharp relief the complex challenges faced by societies navigating the intersection of technology, religious belief, and political power.