The society has evolved over the last decade or so to dislike hatred. It is ridiculously strange that a literate class of Pakistanis settled in the West, overwhelmed by its intellectual, scientific and financial progress, finds it difficult to accept the genuine greatness in almost anything sublime in their native culture. Mostly, they deny it. The parameters of judgment they use are often Western too. Due to intellectual lethargy or personal bias, when they carry out the superficial comparison, they are inclined to conclude that every local hero, literary work or institution is mediocre or outdated Syed Kamran Hashmi’s The Political Scope of Blasphemy is a case in point. The leap he takes to extend the connotative scope of blasphemy is astounding. How can an expression of socio-cultural, socio-religious and socio-political diversity be called blasphemy? People in almost every society have contradictory beliefs and opinions. They express these opinions vehemently, that doesn’t make them blasphemous. It simply makes them different communal groups. If the writer is implying that the group holding political power wins in all such cases, then it’s not a phenomenon limited to Pakistan; it actually happens everywhere, and that’s one of the foundation stones of capitalist democracy. Many people are aware of some yet respect and laud them on account of their contributions; some may be eulogising them as saints excluding every possibility of their being human yet many in Pakistan disagree with the sentiment. Both opinions are openly expressed in blogs, books and lectures Even more remarkable is the jump to Pakistan. He has not provided an authentic reference in support of his view. Different communal groups don’t take each other’s beliefs, social values, and political views as blasphemy. The society has evolved in the last decade or so to dislike hatred. There is more freedom of expression available to all groups than ever. Using print, electronic and social media, everybody is free to express almost any opinion. The literate young generation is more interested than ever in knowing the other persons’ perspective. There is a miserable attempt by the writer to connect Iqbal and Jinnah’s personalities to support his shallow claims. There is a huge extrapolation with no substantial evidence that speaking against Iqbal and Jinnah is taken as blasphemy in Pakistan. The relevant point is Iqbal and Jinnah’s genius lies firmly on their personal competence and contributions to Pakistan movement. As individuals they must have shortcomings. Many people are aware of some yet respect and laud them on account of their contributions; some may be eulogising them as saints excluding every possibility of their being human yet many in Pakistan disagree with the sentiment. Both opinions are openly expressed in blogs, books and lectures. There are people who called Jinnah as Kafir-i-Azam, and still take part in mainstream politics. There is much criticism of Iqbal on account of his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam in many religious circles. His own son, Javeed Iqbal held secular views. As for security institutions, like most countries and their powerful and important institutions or personalities, they take as much criticism locally and internationally as they can. Yes, there are better models than ours but due to lack of genuine political leadership, challenging strategic realities, international establishment’s great game, lack of institutional discipline and grooming, and the taste of power, they have always been at the helm of affairs. People with vested interests fail to see or don’t care to see the lines that should not be crossed. The poor and illiterate in all developing countries tend to be narrow and sentimental. Such people can been manipulated, misguided even mistreated under the banners of democracy, religion, socialism, monarchy or imperialism. This is as true of Pakistan as it is of the world. The article sounds like a weak attempt to malign Pakistan. The writer can be reached at kips.butt@gmail.com