Stephen Gill about India and
Pakistan
WORDS: 5289
PAGES:
12
(c)copyright Stephen Gill
===================================================
BLASPHEMY LAWS OF PAKISTAN
Dr. Stephen Gill
===================================================
In 1860, the British Government introduced
Sections 295, 296, 297 and 298 (chapter XV) in the Indian Penal Code. These
sections imposed a two-year prison sentence and a fine on those who defiled or
damaged places of worship, disturbed religious rites, or uttered words
intending to offend religious feelings. The Republic of Pakistan inherited
these sections when it was carved out of India in 1947. In a span of 35 years,
there were only six blasphemy charges under these laws.
However, the demand for the stronger laws in favour of 95% population of Muslims was there from the
beginning of the formation of Pakistan. This process began soon after the death
of Jinnah in 1948, and was speeded up by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who nationalized Christian schools,
colleges and hospitals and changed holiday from Sunday to Friday.
During his last years, Zulfikar
Bhutto maintained his control over the country by using religious tactics. In
1982, Zia-ul-Haq took over the reign of the
government by force. When Zia snatched power from
Bhutto to be the supreme authority himself, he used religious tactics in a more
extreme way. He used the weapon of religion to please the mullahs (Muslim
clergy). Through his Martial Ordinances in 1980, 1982 and 1984, he declared
that Ahmdis, a minority group within Islam, were not
Muslims.
The main goal of Zia-ul-Haq
was to tighten the grip of his reign with the weapon of the extreme use of
terror. When the rest of the world was thinking of removing the death penalty
because it has not been able to decrease crimes, Zia
vehemently supported it. Zia never converted any
death penalty into life imprisonment though he received petitions for clemency several times. One of the victims whom he
could treat mercifully was his friend and promoter-- Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. He approved his death by hanging.
It would not be correct to say that Zia did that in
the name of justice. If that were so, he would not have gotten himself declared
above the law.
If Zia were for justice,
there would not have been a sharp increase in the number of cruel, inhuman and
degrading punishments handed down by the military courts. "The enactment of religious laws on drinking, adultery and theft have
not reduced crimes, but have significantly broadened the opportunities for
corruption. Smuggling, gambling, prostitution, and bootlegging thrive under the
protection of powerful functionaries."1
"In 1986, Zia's
handpicked Majlis (parliament) promulgated Section
295(C) stipulating life imprisonment or death for denigrating the Prophet of Islam
(PBUH) by words written or spoken or by insinuation--a definition so sweeping
that it was clearly apparent that the law could be misused. In 1990, Nawaz Sharif's Federal Shariat Court amended Section 295(C), eliminating life
imprisonment and making the death sentence mandatory. "As of 1996, there
have been 658 blasphemy cases pending against 2467 persons. Five more have been
added in 1998."2
Below are the blasphemy laws:
295-A : Use of derogatory
remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages: Whoever by words, either spoken
or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or
insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles a sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of
the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (PBUH),
or any of the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashideen)
or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
295-B : Defiling,
etc. of copy of Holy Quran: Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom
or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be
punishable for imprisonment for life.
295-C : Use
of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet : Whoever by words,
either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation,
innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of
the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
298-B : Misuse
of epithet, descriptions and titles, etc. reserved for certain holy personages
or places:
(1) Any person or the Quadiani
group or the Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or by any other name) who by words, either spoken
or written or by visible representation :-
(a) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or
companion of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), as "Ameerul
Momneen", "Sahaabi"
or "Razi Allah Anho";
(b) refers to or addresses, any person, other than a wife of
the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), as Ummul-Mumineen;
(c)
refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family (Ahle-Bait) of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), as Ahle-Bait; or (d) refer to, or names, or calls, his place
of worship as Masjid; shall be punished with
imprisonment or either description for a term that may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Any person of the Qadianigroup
or Lahore group, (who call themselves Ahmadis or by
any other names), who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible
representations, refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his
faith as "Azan" or recite Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be
punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
298-C : Persons
of Qadiani group, etc. calling himself a Muslim or
preaching or propagating his faith: Any person of the Quadiani
group or the Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or any other name), who, directly or indirectly,
posses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or
preaches or propagates his faith, invites others to accept his faith, by words,
either spoken or written, or by visible representation or in any manner
whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.3
"Before the 1980s, Section 295-A of the
Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) dealt with defiling objects or places and outraging
religious feelings with deliberate intent to insult the religion of any class.
It carried a maximum punishment of 10 years with a fine.
"From 1980 to 1986, the PPC was amended to
include punishment for blasphemy or insulting the feelings of Muslims. The most
serious was Section 295-C, added in 1996.
"Section 295-C provides that 'whoever by word,
either spoken or written or by visible representation or by imputation,
innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the
holy prophet Mohammed shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life,
and shall be liable to fine.'4
The law was challenged in the Islamic court to
prove that the life imprisonment was repugnant to the Koran. As a result, life imprisonment was removed.
The Islamic court ruled in October 1990 that the punishment according to Islam
was death. On May 1, 1991, death punishment became mandatory for those found
guilty under the new statute.
One serious fault with the Penal Code 295-C is that
it does not define where defilement starts and where it ends. It defines the
death penalty but does not define the crime. For instance, laws in democratic
nations first define stealing and then crime and penalty. So it is with other
crimes. But the blasphemy laws are confusing. It appears that the laws were
produced deliberatly in this way to confound human
rights activists and critics.
At a Karachi rally in protest of Bishop John
Joseph's death, Arnold Heredia, the Secretary of the
Commission for Peace and Justice, said that "they did not believe in
Blasphemy Law since it was an ambiguous passage to the level that Justice Dorab Patel used to term it as world's most vague
law."5
"The blasphemy laws of
The motive of the crime should play a key role in
the decision-making process. It is important to include clauses about the
intentions of criminals to protect the innocent. For instance, a person who
takes his own book in a library and replaces it by mistake with the book of the
library that he is reading, cannot be called a thief because the action happens
unintentionally. The blasphemy laws do not have such clauses. That is
why, among others, The Frontier Post condemns
the laws in the strongest possible way, terming them inhuman and against Islam.
The newspaper comments:
"Under Section 295-C PPC, one of the sections
under which three were charged, (Manzoor, Rahmet and Salamat) there
is no reference
to motive that
is of crucial significance in criminal law. To this
extent it is a departure from other similar laws as well... There is little doubt that the law is being
misused to settle personal scores ..."7
The law says that anything against Mohammad. What is
it that is against? Even among Muslims there are different sects who differ
about the prophethood of Mohammed. All of them can be
held responsible for saying something against prophet
Mohammed. Who is right in this case?
Concepts, faiths and treatments are so different within Islam that
everything could be considered as blasphemy.
It could be illustrated through an example of the
money that is paid by the bridegroom for the bride in Muslim religion. In some
places in Pakistan, a price is settled and paid before marriage is solemnized
among Muslims. In Pakistan itself, this
practice is considered bad by a section of Muslims. Any talk about the price
for the bride is taken as an insult. Both the sections belong to the same
Islamic religion.
To serve justice properly, it is essential that a
law should explain its extent and purpose before it is implemented. What
lawyers and judges will do with the law that does not explain the crime, and
penalty is no less than death.
Besides, there is so much religious and social
pressure on judges and lawyers that they do not want to create problems for
themselves by going against the trend of the country. There is a problem for
police as well. If they do not arrest the alleged criminal, the peace can be
disturbed. The police would register the case if there is an accuser. In most
cases, the accused were never asked to describe their part of the story-- only
an accusation was enough to register the case, and to put the alleged criminal
behind the bars.
Another serious flaw in these laws is that there is
nothing to check their misuse. The law that is impotent to defend the innocent
cannot be effective. Under the blasphemy laws, the culprits have become false
witnesses and false accusers. It is
because there are no provisions in these laws to punish false accusers. They
are not even arrested.
How to stop the misuse of the blasphemy laws is a
question that the majority class of Pakistan does not want to legislate or even
suggest. The majority does not want to find out why in the span of 35 years before Zia,
there were only six cases of blasphemy. After the introduction of these
blasphemy laws by Zia there were more than 700 such
cases in the first fifteen years. Those who were freed by the superior courts
were not freed in the real sense. In most cases, the mobs took the law in their
own hands. Those who were freed had to seek asylum in other countries.
Obviously, there is something wrong with the blasphemy laws. The misusers of the laws should be given the same punishment--
a death penalty. Moreover, the majority should be educated to start thinking in
terms of human rights as well. Bishop John Joseph was correct when he said in
his last letter:
"295 C is the greatest block in the good and
harmonious relations between Muslims and the religious minorities in
M.R. Farooqi, supports the Bishop when he says:
"If Dr. Joseph has expressed his will, asking
Christians and non-Muslims to carry out protests and demonstration against
misuse of 295C, then why only Christians and non-Muslims. Let all Muslims also
join our Christian brethren. To protect the life of a Christian is as
obligatory for a Muslim as to protect his own life. Why the non-Muslim minority
want to isolate them, when for a noble cause their Muslim brethren will be too
happy to join them shoulder to shoulder."9
The purpose of a law should be to stop crimes. It
seems that the purpose of the blasphemy laws is not to stop crimes, but to kill
the alleged criminals. Bishop Rumalshah in his
presentation before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States
Senate states:
"The intent behind this law seems perfectly
reasonable because we should respect the great leaders of all religions. Such a
law is there simply to counter any disrespect to such persons. Unfortunately,
great problems arise when these laws get exploited and abused. In Pakistan, for
us Christians and other religious minorities, the misuse of this law by members
of the majority community has achieved draconian proportions. Its burgeoning
and wide spread use since 1986 has caused panic in my
community, as well as to other religious minorities. It is indeed like a
Damocles sword hanging over our heads. It has been used by private citizens to
settle old scores and to take out vendettas. There have been some frightening
incidents related to it. The worst aspect is that 90% of such cases never reach
a court of law; the mobs resolve these cases in impromptu "Kangaroo
Court". And even if they do reach court, the courts increasingly tend to
lean towards the Muslim accuser, whose single testimony is enough proof of the
crime and, of course, the witness of a Christian is not even admissible."10
In addition to the absence of deterrent elements,
the blasphemy laws are destructive in nature. They have spread the culture of
fear. Referring to death penalties, a study of Amnesty International states:
"It is always dangerous to retain the death penalty.
Under any judicial system, an innocent person may be sentenced to death, and
the punishment is irreversible. In August 1994, when setting aside a death
sentence in a murder case, the Supreme Court in Pakistan observed that the
sentence had been seriously flawed and suffered from lack of jurisdiction,
gross carelessness and illegality. It added, `the error committed by the
court...is so serious that had the accused eventually been hanged, we are
afraid it would have amounted to murder through judicial process.' ...Amnesty
International agrees with the assessment of the director of the Human Rights
Commission of Pakistan, I.A. Rahman, who said : `Even in countries where the system of justice is
unexceptionally sound, the death penalty is considered a miscarriage of
justice. Considering the state our system of justice has fallen into and the
known penchant of police for prosecuting the innocent even when the guilty ones
can be apprehended, in Pakistan the death penalty can only be described as
unmitigated bestiality.' "Frequently, when a gruesome murder, gang-rape or
dramatic shoot-out is reported, the authorities have announced and the public
demanded that the culprits be publicly hanged. The truth, however, is that the
death penalty is no more of a deterrent than other punishments.... A UN Committee on Crime Prevention and
Control concluded in 1988 that `research has failed to provide scientific proof
that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such
proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no
positive support to the deterrent hypothesis.'"11
About the problems which these laws have created,
Bishop John Joseph writes:
"One reason why we are especially targeting
death sentences in 295 C is that this is the greatest obstacle in the Christian
Muslim Relations. As the target given to us by our master, Jesus Christ, is
that all may be one, we shall remove this obstacle to fraternal unity, cost
what it may! After consulting various groups who are working for human rights,
we shall give an ultimatum to the government, fixing a date for the repeal of a
death sentence from the Blasphemy Law. Otherwise, we shall protest in such a
way that the government will really be astonished!"12
Normally a government feels obliged to make laws
against something that is disturbing the peace of the country. For instance,
Canada often faced the situation of violence. To curb violence, the Canadian
Government had to pass laws to control guns. In Pakistan, there was no need for
any government to make blasphemy laws because such offenses were not heard.
Pakistan society was tolerant. It was only after the implementation of these
laws, such cases began to multiply and the society began to grow more and more
intolerant. Surprisingly, the words which parliament had to invent for these
laws were non-existent in the vocabulary of the local and national languages.
It is because such cases did not happen before.
While addressing a Christian rally, Dr. Shamshad Sanaullah, a Christian
leader and educator, stated: "there
was no need of introducing this law for Muslims who were in majority while the
minority could not dare involve them in any such act."13
Moreover, it is the duty of law to protect the
weaker section. The blasphemy laws do not have such clauses and have failed to
protect innocents. Under the blasphemy laws, the accusers have taken laws of
the country in their own hands and have killed many accused, including Manzoor Masih and Iqbal Tahir.
On top of all, these laws were introduced by a body
which was not elected democratically. These laws were passed by a Government
which was formed by the Martial Administrator General Zia. Bishop John
Joseph expressed his concerns in 1997:
"In the last twenty despotic years, minorities
in
It is not fair to impose the blasphemy laws on non-Muslims
because they do not consider Mohammed as their prophet. There are also
irreligious people. To compel them for a
particular belief is against the democratic principal of one's right for
expression.
To expect Jews, Parsis,
Hindus and Christians to accept Mohammed even if they have never heard anything
about him is not right. It is like punishing a blind man because he does not
know what colour is the moon or the deaf because he
cannot hear the voice of his accuser.
It is believed that the honours
of prophethood were granted to selected persons by
God. It would be demeaning the honour to think that a
person has power to defile that honour.
Usually, authorities try to find the mental
condition of criminals. They might have suffered from permanent or temporary
insanity, or were excited to commit the crime.
Also laws take the age of the criminal into consideration, and create a
satisfactory situation to produce liable witnesses.
Nothing like these factors were
considered when these blasphemy laws were framed. It seems the framers of these
laws were either ignorant of the basic norms, or they were in a hurry to spread
a wave of terror in the country.
The blasphemy laws give the impression that the
citizens had already vilified prophet Mohammed and the
Koran and the country only needed laws to arrest and punish them with death
by hanging. These laws also give the impression that there was no need to find
out who had committed the crime, why the crime was committed, what were the
motives, and the age of the criminal.
Under the blasphemy laws of Pakistan, insanes who happen to say something that may mean blasphemy
to a hearer can be led to the gallows. Even a child will be taken to the
gallows if knowingly or unknowingly, he or she says something that means an
insult to the prophet. Salamat Masih
was illiterate and 12 years old when he was condemned to death for writing
something against Prophet Mohammad on the walls of a mosque.
It has happened that when non-Muslims defile the
founder of Muslim religion, they are condemned to be hanged. On the other hand,
if Muslims do so against the founder of non-Muslims, the Muslims are condemned
to be imprisoned for a few years or are freed on monetary punishment.
This situation of inequality before law has been
fomenting tension between Muslims and non-Muslims in a country which is already
divided in so many ways. The National Catholic Register is right when it
asks "How
can religious minorities achieve equal rights in
The attack on Shanti Nagar , Khanewal and other cities on
"The citizens who were attacked are the weaker
section of the same societies which have been living for many centuries
together in harmony and brotherhood but the Islamization
imposed by General Zia-ul-Haq and then later on the
induction of different Islamic laws, particularly the Blasphemy laws have
created an atmosphere of hatred, prejudice and jealousy...16
Aziz-ud-Din
Ahmad fairly observes that
"The Blasphemy Law has been applied mostly, if
not always, to non-Muslims notwithstanding the fact that it is unimaginable in
a society like
The law encourages "Muslim extremist to stir
up vigilantes to destroy and murder in the name of religion."18 The
blasphemy law is "religious cleansing," and "
Ms. Amina Jilani is right when she says :
"(r)Removing the
immediate cause of so much distress and
misery--PPC's Section 295 B and C-- will only
mean going back to the position before 1985. Surely Islam was not weaker before the
Soldier of Islam (Zia-ul-Haq) arrived on the scene.
Nor is Prophet Muhammad's sanctity so brittle as to acquire the protection of
Pakistan's Penal Code. Was that sanctity more vulnerable before Section 295 C?... The convictions by the session courts were either wrong
(illegal) or those trials were a miscarriage of justice in one way
or other. There can
be no other meaning of those acquittals.
Over these 13
years there have
been many much miscarriages of
justice. Not only that. Not one of those thus acquitted is to be found enjoying
his restored liberties anywhere in Pakistan. Everyone had to seek asylum abroad
to stay alive. One who did not do so, or did not have time enough for it, was
shot dead outside the very court that released him."23
In early July of 1994 there were rallies and
campaigns against any move to amend the Blasphemy Laws. The protester called
the amenders as infidels who should be killed. They targeted the prominent
politicians and Christians for assassinations.
One of the targets was Iqbal
Haider, the Minister for Law in the government of Benazir Bhutto. The Islamists said that the proposal for amendment
is a blasphemy. They put a price of $40,000 dollars on his head. It was the
Islamist leader Maulana Abdullah Darkhwasti
who at a public rally on the 9th of July pronounced the price and called him an
infidel. He represents the party of Islamic Clerics who enjoy a strong support
in the mosques of the villages of the Punjab. The Nawa-i-Waqt said that the leader announced that
the killer will be the martyr for Islam.24
On the 9th of the July, bumper stickers appeared in
Prime Minister Benazir
Bhutto devised two amendments to make the blasphemy laws difficult to
misuse. One amendment was that the
police should not have the authority to charge anyone under the blasphemy laws;
this work should be done through courts. The other was that false accusers
should be imprisoned for ten years.
According to different newspaper reports, the
mullahs (Muslim clergy) came on the streets protesting continuously for ten days
against amendments. After a protest
outside the Pakistani Embassy on the 22nd of February, a meeting took place
between Christian representatives and Pakistan's Secretary of Minority Affairs,
Zulfikar Ali Quereshi, in
Washington. Eleven demands were submitted
to him including "eliminating laws forbidding Christian lawyers from representing
Christians against blasphemy charges; repealing marriage laws which
reduce Christians to the status of second class citizens with unequal
protection before the law; restoring confiscated Christian properties,
including colleges, schools and churches."25
Obviously, the blasphemy laws have brought only
miseries to the nation of Pakistan. The feudal lords who are very powerful in
the social, religious and political life of Pakistan support these laws to get
rid of Christian farmers to occupy their lands. Zia
and after him the Prime Minister Nowab Sharif wanted to create an atmosphere of terror. They
succeeded largely in their designs with the help of religious parties and
feudal system. Because they are afraid of extremists, lawyers do not want to
represent blasphemy cases. Even children of the judges are not free from the
wrath of the extremists. Benazir Bhutto was right
when she said that in a country in which one can buy witnesses for rupees
twenty (less than a Canadian dollar), such laws cannot work impartially. The
blasphemy laws are discriminatory because they protect the majority, although
the majority is being protected because of its numerical strength. These laws
have been used mostly against Christians because they are more vocal than other
minorities in Pakistan. These laws have
proved to be divisive, dangerous and repressive, and
are being used to terrorize the minorities legally.
Dictionaries describe blasphemy as something that
shows disrespect to God or a religion. But the interpretation of the blasphemy laws
of
Christians have become infidels along the lines of
Hindus and nature worshippers. In public life, these blasphemy laws have
strengthened the dragons of intolerance. In several restaurants, Christians are
served food and tea in separate utensils; they are forbidden to enter certain
public places; they are not allowed to rise to certain positions like that of
prime minister and commander of the armed forces; in federal elections they
could not represent Muslims till 2002. These blasphemy laws
have led to several bizarre behaviours which are
difficult to understand by the citizens in the western democracies of
today.
======================
BIBLIOGRAPHY
*1Encyclopedia of the
*2Dawn (
*3Human
Rights Monitor 97,
pages 31,32,33
*4National Catholic Register. December 25, 1994
*5Frontier
Post, The (
*6Amnesty
International Report, July 1994
*7Frontier
Post, The (
*8Letter that Bishop John Joseph wrote before his death.
*9Muslim,
The (
*10Being a Christian in
*11PAKISTAN : Time to take human rights
seriously. Amnesty International, June 1997, p.35
*12Christian
Voice (Karachi, Pakistan). May 24, 1998, page 4
*13Frontier
Post (Pakistan). May 11, page 3
*14Christian
Voice (Karachi, Pakistan). April 20, 1997
*15National Catholic Register, The. December 25, 1994, p.6
*16Christian
Community Bulletin (Pakistan). February 15, 1997, p. 3
*17Nation,
The (
*18Washington Post. Oct. 21, 1992.
*19News Network International. Anglican
Bishop of
*20PAKISTAN : Time to take human rights
seriously. Amnesty International, June 1997, p.35
*21Emerging
Trends in Human Rights Situation in
*22Herald magazine. Aamer Ahmed Khan. May 1994
*23Dawn (
*24Nawa-i-Waqt,
The (
*25News Network International. March 26, 1993, page 10
================================================