Blasphemy

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Great article!

It is about time a spade is called a spade!!

Let us hope that this would lead to a crystal clear recognition of MULLAH-TERRORISTS!!!

So that a learer thinking can emerge for appropriate corrective action planning.

``My accusers, the two Mullahs and the Islamist students had lied under oath.

murder by Islamic fundamentalist inmates in jail for murder and gang rape, and by some religiously-minded prison warders

``crush the heads of those who think and talk like that``.


Dil Dil PakSATAN, Jaan Jann PakSATAN!

Sobering.

What groups in Pakistan work in these issues? If anyone knows of the names of these orgs, please post them here so that Pak-Ams can send letters to the appropriate officials in a unified manner.

Dr. Shaikh:

now that you have escaped the clutches of misplaced fervour and unmitigated zeal i hope you will continue this fight against decadent and draconian ``laws`` imposed illegally to further their devious agenda...

abuse of blasphemy and hudood laws are a matter of shame for every silent muslim

Agreed! Muslims are indeed the worst victims of the blasphemy laws.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Sick people. Need to get their heads examined for enacting these laws.

``abuse of blasphemy and hudood laws are a matter of shame for every silent muslim `` #5 by temporal on April 13, 2004 8:08am PT

Temporal you can do something about it - start a group! or if you are in NY area visit our soirees and if you like us join us !
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Secularize_Pakistan/

If you don`t like my personal opinions then do it yourself but please do something about it.

Contact your friends, tell them about this and sign the petition requesting abrogation of the blasphemy law! and then when you have it signed CC it to Secularize_Pakistan@yahoogroups.com OR send it directly to President Pervez Musharraf

I am posting this petition here. Copy and Paste it and send it to your friends.

START OF EMAIL

Instructions For Recipient(s) of this Email
Enclosed with this petition is a heart breaking statement by Dr. Shaikh who appeals for revocation of Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan. Dr. Shaikh calls it the ``shame of Pakistan``.
Send this email around to your friends sign it and pass it on to atleast 5 other friends CCing the email to :
Secularize_Pakistan@yahoogroups.com or send it directly to President Musharraf.


Petition Requesting Abrogation of Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan.

Dear President Musharraf,

Please give the people of Pakistan the right to free speech , expression and press.
Please save Pakistanis from the tyranny of Blasphemy laws.

Signed
Athar Shiraz Siddiqui (Elmsford, NY 10523)

Wednesday 7th April 2004
Statement by Dr M. Younus Shaikh,

Blasphemy

Muslims are the first victims of Islamism. In a novel and unethical way, Pakistani Mullahs have started abusing the dreadful Islamic Blasphemy laws to terrorise liberal and moderate Muslims.

I am a Pakistani doctor, a physiologist, a patriotic and law-abiding citizen, a Muslim by birth. I trained as a surgeon and worked for some years in the United Kingdom. I gave up my job in the UK in order to return to Pakistan to serve the people of my own country. I obtained a position as a lecturer in Physiology at the Capital Homeopathic Hospital, Islamabad.

One of my reasons for returning to Pakistan was to campaign for Human Rights and civil liberties in Pakistan: to work for the Pakistan-India peace movement, to struggle for liberalism, secularism and humanism, and to counter the forces of religious extremism and fundamentalism.

My Case

On 1st October 2000 I attended a meeting of the South Asian Union in Islamabad on the topic of Pakistani-India Relations and Nuclear War. In a statement from the floor of the meeting I expressed the view that Pakistan and India should agree that in the interest of the people of Kashmir, that the present line of demarcation should become the peace line: the international border between the two countries. I also expressed the view that if Pakistan continued to support “freedom fighters”- terrorists - in our neighbouring country, then our neighbour might respond in a similar way, culminating in a new calamity like the one we experienced in the 1971 Civil War and the loss of East Pakistan. Following my statement, Mr. Shaukat Qadir, a brigadier from military intelligence, the ISI, threatened me and said that he would “crush the heads of those who think and talk like that”.

Two days later, I was called into the office of the principal of the college and was summarily dismissed from my job without notice. No reason was given. On 4th October, I received a message asking me to present myself in the principal’s office. I did so, and was immediately handed over to the police. I was arrested on a charge of blasphemy. The complaint had been filed under section 295/ C of the Pakistan Penal Code by a Muslim cleric of the Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-i-Nabuwat (Committee for the Finality of the Prophethood) with the added suspicion that I might belong to the “heretical” Ahmedi community.

The charges against me centred on some utterances I was alleged to have made in the course of a lecture at the college on 2nd October 2000, that neither the Prophet of Islam nor his parents could have been Muslims before Islam was revealed to the Prophet. I was also alleged to have said that the Prophet was unlikely to have shaved under his armpits since the custom was probably unknown to his tribe at the time. These remarks were interpreted by my accusers, the Mullahs, as an insult to the Prophet. I did not actually make the alleged remarks. The mullahs themselves never heard me make any such remarks, nor did they investigate whether any such incident had ever occurred. In fact, I gave no lecture at the time alleged. During the course of the trial the chief witness against me was totally discredited. He admitted that he was not actually present in the college on the day the alleged remarks were made.

My trial

If you are accused of blasphemy in Pakistan, you will usually be denied bail and held in custody until trial. If found guilty, you will face a mandatory death sentence. My trial was held in a series of sessions throughout the summer of 2001. Although neither a body of crime was established nor did the evidence prove any occurrence of blasphemy, I was pronounced guilty on 18th August 2001, fined 100,000 rupees, and sentenced to death - nearly nine months after my arrest.

The specific charge on which I was found guilty was “Insulting the Prophet”. To many European observers it might seem illogical that death sentence could be awarded without proving the incidence or establishing the body of crime, however, that is the way blasphemy cases are adjudicated upon in the very Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

For the next two years, I was held in solitary confinement in a very small death cell in the Central Jail, Rawalpindi, a dark and dirty death cell with unbearable, stinking and distasteful food. There was no facility for walking or exercise, and I was without books, newspapers, medication or treatment for my worsening diabetes. I remained constantly under threat of murder by Islamic fundamentalist inmates in jail for murder and gang rape, and by some religiously-minded prison warders. I appealed. My appeal was heard over several sessions lasting 15 long months before the two judges managed to disagree over their verdict, one Islamic/minded judge rejected the appeal without giving any legal grounds for doing so, while the other legal-minded judge stated that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the witnesses were neither trustworthy nor reliable. The referee High Court judge took another year and sent the case for retrial.

The retrial was held in November 2003 at the Court of the Session in Islamabad. Because of threats and harassment no lawyer was ready to plead my case, and I was forced to defend myself for survival, which I did after secretly smuggling law books into my death cell. At the retrial the courtroom was full of mullahs and the Pakistani Taliban. The two mullah advocates and the Public Prosecutor tried to exploit the religious feelings of the court but I confined my defence to legal arguments. I was inspired by the defence speech of Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons. Fortunately the outcome in my case was different. The judge accepted my legal arguments and found charges against me baseless. My accusers, the two Mullahs and the Islamist students had lied under oath. I was acquitted on 21st November 2003.

My Ordeal

I feel I have been a victim of Islamic Mullah terrorism through he abuse of the state apparatus and the civil law. My first trial was a show trial almost reminiscent of the trials and tortures of the infamous Spanish inquisition, and the trials and burning of European women as witches. After my acquittal and release, I wanted to stay in my country with my family and friends but instead I found myself under a fatwa by the same mullahs that I should be killed. I had to say goodbye to my loved ones and flee to Europe for my safety.

I am very thankful to the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the various humanist organisations and individual humanists, and all of the other human rights organisations who campaigned on my behalf: Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights USA, the Jubilee Campaign USA, and the many honourable senators and congressmen from the United States, and UK members of parliament. I also want to thank the Swiss and US embassies in Islamabad and the Swiss government for their ceaseless support for justice and equity in my case. I am very grateful to the Swiss government for granting me refugee status in Switzerland.

What is blasphemy?

What then constitutes blasphemy? Unfortunately the Pakistani Penal Code provides little guidance. The law is vague and the term is undefined. In view of the mandatory death penalty for the offence this would seem to be an important oversight. The law is a relic of 1860 British colonial criminal law, but was modified in 1926 again under the British, then in 1986 by General Zia to make it more strictly in accordance with the Sharia, and finally in 1992 when the death penalty was made mandatory – this under the democratically-elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Whereas the original law had been even-handed and applied equally to all religions, under the revised law the death penalty applies only to blasphemy against Islam. More than a hundred victims are currently in jail awaiting trial, 15 of whom face the death penalty under section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code. Mercifully, none have so far been executed.

In another famous case, a Christian, Ayub Masih was condemned to death for blasphemy on the unsupported evidence of a neighbour, Muhammad Akram who was involved with him in a land dispute and who was awarded property belonging to the accused after the case was decided. The verdict and sentence were upheld by the Lahore High Court on July 25, 2001. However, after seven long years of unnecessary incarceration in the death cell, he was found innocent and acquitted by the Supreme Court.

Despite their successes in obtaining convictions, the fundamentalists have not been willing to leave judgement and execution to the courts. Several people have been murdered by Islamic zealots after having been acquitted by the courts. Others accused of blasphemy have been murdered in jail while awaiting trial and even a High Court judge was murdered after finding one prisoner not guilty.

Pakistan’s shame

The blasphemy law has brought shame on Pakistan. The law itself is unjust and inequitable, the offence it treats is poorly defined and open to abuse, and its operation has been widely misused and abused. Since the introduction of Sharia law in Pakistan in 1986, the blasphemy law has been used on hundreds of occasions by fundamentalists to silence moderate opponents, to intimidate non-Muslims and to settle personal scores.

While praising President General Pervez Musharraf for his liberal and secular steps, and for his courageous fight against Islamic jihadi terrorism, I appeal to him to curb this menace of Islamic Mullah terrorism: the abuse of Pakistani Islamic blasphemy laws. I call upon the Commission on Human Rights to press the government of Pakistan:

1) to urgently review the cases of all those currently charged or convicted of blasphemy and awaiting execution, including an urgent judicial review of all cases currently sub-judice;
2) to immediately review the application of the blasphemy law and to introduce safeguards against its abuse;
3) to replace the blasphemy law by laws which respect the human rights of individuals in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Pakistan is a signatory.
4) and finally to compensate the victims of these unjust and iniquitous laws and to punish the false accusers and untruthful witnesses.

Thank you.

Interesting story and article. Quite an ordeal. I think the key points in this article is the following:

``Because of threats and harassment no lawyer was ready to
plead my case, and I was forced to defend myself for survival, which
I did after secretly smuggling law books into my death cell. At the retrial the courtroom was full of mullahs and the Pakistani Taliban. The two mullah advocates and the Public Prosecutor tried to exploit the religious feelings of the court but I confined my defence to legal arguments.``

Why weren`t there any secularists in the court? This is the difference between the Islamists and the secularists. The former takes action, while the later only talks. The former walks the walk (however, wrong or right it maybe), the later only talks the talk (however, wrong or right it maybe). At most the later writes articles. The former is interested in a cause, the later is interested mostly in themselves.

``The law is a relic of 1860 British colonial criminal law, but was modified in 1926 again under the British, then in 1986 by General Zia to make it more strictly in accordance with the Sharia, and finally in 1992 when the death penalty was made mandatory – this under the democratically- elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif.``

I thought this law had been originated in its current form, under Zia. I didn`t realize the British originated it. And I didn`t realize it was Nawaz Sharif, who made the death penalty mandatory.

``While praising President General Pervez Musharraf for his liberal and secular steps, and for his courageous fight against Islamic jihadi terrorism, I appeal to him to curb this menace of Islamic Mullah terrorism: the abuse of Pakistani Islamic blasphemy laws.``

Good to see some credit being given, where it is due. I wonder what would have happened NS Shariah Bill had passed. I think Musharaff may have been able to get rid of the Blasphemy law, during his Martial Law time.

The Blasphemy law should be removed from the books of Pakistan. Though I doubt it will be, since the more secular parties of Pakistan were the ones who brought in the Ahmedi legislation and the death penalty for Blasphemy, to begin with. I doubt they will change it now, when they are in alliance with the MMA.

``In a statement from the floor of the meeting I expressed the view that Pakistan and India should agree that in the interest of the people of Kashmir, that the present line of demarcation should become the peace line: the international border between the two countries.``

This is the only part of the article I disagree with. Everyone should be allowed to speak their mind. So nothing wrong with that. However, imposing one`s own will on the Kashmiris and forcing them to accept a solution, they may not want, is no difference than the mullahs imposing their own will on the society and forcing them to accept something the society does not want.

solitude #10: You have made two big mistakes in your email,. Though well-intentioned, the errors will make the argument in the email counter-productive.

1. Secularize_Pakistan@yahoogroups.com : This address will drive away most of the people in Pakistan - including those who actually want to get rid of this law, or are indifferent to it. They will view your effort, to get rid of this law, as a broader, ``conspiracy`` to secularize Pakistan. And they will view you, as using this issue, to achieve some other objective.

It is the equivalent of someone sending out a mass email, about providing peasants with land, under the title of Islamisize_Pakistan@yahoogroup.com. A lot of people who may want to help the peasants, will not participate, because they will be scared by the title.

A better approach is to keep it outside the debate of secularism and Islamism, and present it as a human rights issue (which is what it actually is). Islam, in no way, encourages people to kill others for any kind of Blasphemy. This law is no more than a political ploy by Nawaz Sharif to get votes. Just like the Ahmedi legislation was one by Bhutto to get votes. These two are the flagholders of, ``secularism`` in Pakistan. If they are the ones who brought these laws in to begin with, why in the world would they get rid of them.

2. Dear President Musharraf,

Please give the people of Pakistan the right to free speech , expression and press.
Please save Pakistanis from the tyranny of Blasphemy laws``:

This is the second error. Musharraf cannot do much now. We have an elected govt. in place. This law could only have been removed dictatorially, however many liberals consider Musharraf unConstitutional to begin with. His actions to remove this law would be unConstitutional also (though I would support them).

Blasphemy laws, from what I know, are primarily used to suppress other people in land disputes, conflicts, etc. They are never actually used for Blasphemy. This is what seemed to have happened to the Mr. Shaikh. This makes them the prime tool for anyone in power to suppress others. Hence, very few MNAs will vote against it. After all, most of the MNAs in parliament are the same ones who were there in 1992.

The second mistake is that Pakistanis already have, ``Free speech, expression and press.`` Even the press people agree on this. What they need is to get rid of the Blasphemy law. So any govt. who can act on this law, will be offended by the first sentence, since you are accusing them of something which they have already provided (at least by South Asian and third-world standards).

So if the aim is to actually get rid of the Blasphemy Law, then the emails should be targeted specifically at that law, i.e. ``Please save Pakistanis from the tyranny of Blasphemy laws.`` However, if the aim is to secularize Pakistan, or to oppose mullahs, and Mr. Shaikh and the Blasphemy law is being used as a convenient vehicle, then I am afraid, most Pakistanis will see through it and not support it.

Pakistan, according to surveys, is at a stage, where a majority of the population wants religion in their public life. At the same time, I doubt they support Blasphemy laws. So if someone really wants to get rid of this law, through a mass movement, they will only be successful if they can eloquently articulate a counter-argument using Islam. Not one using secularism. Even if the later argument is accurate, most people will view it as a movement to, ``secularize`` and de-Islamisise the country. Much like, most secularists don``t bother to listen to anyone with a beard, even if he is making a good argument.

This is similar to the rise of Hinduvta in India. I have always felt that if someone wants to oppose Hinduvta in India, they will have to counter it with an argument, from within Hinduism. Not from an argument coming from secularism. After all, the whole rise of BJP and MMA and any other religous party is based on a rejection of secularism (at least as a political force, if not as a social force, also) in these countries/areas.

The problem with secularists in Pakistan is that they are in a state of denial. They have refused to accept the fact that their political ideas have been hijacked by corrupt political parties, which are slowly losing the political space. As the political parties are being rejected, so is the idea of secularism (even though secularism, itself, may not be at fault, just like religion itself may not be at fault). This is causing the non-religous parties to move more and more towards religion also, since they have nothing else to offer. Just like the Congress in India (a one-time true secular party, if you ask me, unlike the parties in Pakistan that claim to be secular) is moving more and more towards Hinduism.

In this sense, secularists in Pakistan are lucky that Musharraf came along. Otherwise, Pakistan`s complete legal system, was 100% certain to be under a blanket Shariah Bill, by now. That would have been curtains for secularism in Pakistan.

So the secular forces need to either come up with new, more credible leadership, and reject the status-quo parties. Or they need to be able to out-argue the religious parties, through religious arguments. Or they need to get ready for a BJP-type rise of Islamism in Pakistan, through a democratic process, in which the PPP, PML and MMA will be competing agaisnt each other in who can Islamasise the country fastest.

At the very least, the secularists need to show up in court, when people like Mr. Shaikh are being tried. A mass email, as noble an idea as it maybe, will have a microscopic affect, in comparison to individuals physically showing up.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

This is absolutely outrageous. If this is what Pakistan’s law of the land is then Pakistan, like its present or past, does not have a future. What a disgrace. And these people have the audacity to call themselves good Muslims while shamelessly lying with their hands on the Koran!

Thank you, Arthur, for making me aware of this atrocity and jihalat in Pakistan. I’m e-mailing this to everyone, especially to those who never tire of saying that the “faithful” will “save” Islam and the Muslims. What a disgrace...what a disgrace...

thank god ur out of it now... what is the presidents email address? its nowhere to be found, and the site http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/ only gives u contact info for diff vazraat within govt.

i am going to email this out to everyone, but i would like a contact email address for sadar sahib.

thanks

Being accused of something you never did? Surprised that you survived through those years.

The problems Pakistan faces because of Mullahs are not limited to Blasphemy. Their 50 ft beards have to interfere everywhere unjustifiably. PLEASE stop referring to them as being ``Islamists`` or belonging to ``Islamic`` parties because they follow their own violent beliefs. Not Islam.

``My accusers, the two Mullahs and the Islamist students had lied under oath`` proves their so-called faith.

Romair...

The `secularists` were not in the court... because this case was held behind closed doors in a jail... and the proceedings were kept private. Under pressure from the Mullahs who were threatening to kill the judge if he gave a verdict in favor of the good doctor.


You are damn right... that is difference between us Secularists and them mullahs... ?the `secularists` are also `constitutionalists`... we don`t go around threatening judges with murder to secure the verdict of our choice ... unlike the mullahs we don`t run amok creating havoc in the streets, killing other Pakistanis and Muslims in the name of religion. Pakistan is not under threat by the secularists... but the mullahs who are intolerant fanatics.

So yes... we are not the people of action as the mullahs are. As for your `secular parties`... here is a question... if a party brought along the `Ahmadi legislation`... could you truly call it secular?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I agree with Romair that there should be no place for blasphemy laws in the constitution, and that it is incorrect to assume a position (such as what the author expresses of the Kashmir dispute) without considering the will of the people involved.

A little while ago, waiting at Istanbul Airport, I met with an Indian Physician. We started talking to kill time. I asked him about the political situation in India and the Gujrat incident. This is what he replied ``In that part of the world we are still living in the dark ages. The only difference is that now we have computers and weapons and nuclear arms, but we are without reason and logic. And so we have become more dangerous.``

Then he laughingly said that he thinks that about 90% of the people living in the sub-continent suffer from some mental illness.

Extremism and fundamentalism (in either direction), I believe, are nothing but mental illnesses. And unfortunately those who think that they are fighting extremism, are really becoming extremes on the other end. Like a pendulum that oscillates from one end to the other.
The question is can we stop it if we reach the middle? Will we ever reach a moderate ground?

Thank God ... Dr. Younus Sheikh that you are alive and well. These laws were never `enacted`. They were put there by an ordinance... put in place by a military dictator.

The whole article 295 (A B C) is disgraceful. It should be abolished immediately.


When in 1920s the British colonial law (today 295 A of PPC) was being enacted, the sole voice that spoke out against it in the national assembly of India was that of Jinnah who had warned against its most blatant misuse which according to him would have starved academic debate and progress. How sad that his nation now stands under an even more regressive law than the one he fought against.

---

PAKISTAN`S BLASPHEMY

By A. G. NOORANI - From The FRONTLINE, April 7, 1995, INDIA.

AUGUST 17, 1947 was a Sunday.The Anglican Archdeacon had arranged for a
special service of prayer and thanksgiving in the Holy Trinity Church in
Karachi. He had also composed a special prayer in which the founder of the
new state of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was mentioned. When Jinnah
heard of it, he asked that he might be allowed to attend the service, in
state. He did. As Wilfred Russell remarked in his book Indian Summer,
Jinnah ``who knew only too well the orthodox fervour of many Muslims, might
well have been taking a political risk in making this graceful and moving
gesture to the Christian community of Karachi``.

In 1995, two Christians - the 14 year-old Salamat Masih and his uncle
Rehmat Masih - were forced to flee from Pakistan to save their lives
despite their acquittal, on February 23, by a Division Bench of the Lahore
High Court of charges of blasphemy of which they were convicted on
February 9. Everyone knew the charges were false. Salamat could not
possibly have scrawled the writings on the wall; he is illiterate. The
acquittal was denounced not only by the mullahs but also by prosecution
counsel. One of them, Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, stormed out of the courtroom
screaming it was a ``kangaroo court``. Another, Inayatullah Hasmi, alleged
that the Government had dictated the ruling. ``The decision of the court is
not its own. ``

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto`s spontaneous reaction gave her away.
``Shocked and surprised`` as she was, she deplored its timing - just weeks
before her coveted trip to the U.S. This is not to suggest that she
approves of the blasphemy laws which disgrace Pakistan`s statute book.
Indeed, she had proposed amendments to prevent their abuse, as distinct
from their deserved repeal. But she backtracked even on that.

Pakistan`s blasphemy laws deserve to be studied closely in themselves. But
more instructive is the political climate which produced such appalling
legislation over the years. Dr. Zaki Bedawi, Principal of the Muslim
College in London, said on the BBC on February 23 that there is no
foundation for such laws in Islam. It is the exploitation of religion for
political ends, a game in which all parties participate, which has brought
Pakistan to the sorry state in which it now finds itself.

Not long ago, the Religious Affairs Minister in the Nawaz Sharif
Government, Abdus Sattar Niazi, called Benazir Bhutto an infidel for her
criticisms of judgments of the Federal Shariat Court; criticism which, he
said, ``have made her liable to execution``. Asma Jehangir, counsel for the
Masihs, touched the roots of the problem when, on February 23 on the BBC,
she pleaded for a rapprochement between the Government and the Opposition.

The report of Justices M. Munir and M. R. Kayani as the Court of Inquiry
into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953 - the Munir report, as it is
popularly known - traced the beginnings of the abuse of religion in the
political contest. It began with a campaign against the Ahmadis. Justice
Munir bearded one mullah after another in his own den, as it were, by
asking them to define who a Muslim was and what constituted an Islamic
state. The report, a veritable classic, is relevant still and not in
Pakistan alone, either. ``No two ulama have agreed before us as to the
definition of a Muslim.`` Neither Government, Central and Provincial, gave
a fight to the charlatans. Both lost power. Ideologically Pakistan was
being transformed radically in the 1950s. The results are there for all to
see.

Twenty years after the Munir report, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto repeated the
mistake and met the same fate. Following the riots in May 1974 - a repeat
of the ones of 1953 - he yielded to the demand to declare Ahmadis
non-Muslims. On September 7, 1974, the National Assembly unanimously
adopted the Constitution (Second) Amendment Act, 1974. It added Ahmadis to
the list of minorities and included a clause in Article 260 of the
Constitution which took Ahmadis out of the definition of a Muslim. Thirty
Years earlier, in Srinagar on May 28, 1944, Jinnah had categorically
rejected precisely such a suggestion that the Ahmadis, also known as
Qadianis, are not Muslims.

When Zia-ul-Haq stagcd a military coup in July 1977 he had no option but
to use religion in the service of power. This was the ``ideology`` he
propagated, an ``ideology`` by which the likes of Nawaz Sharif and very many
in Pakistan`s politics, media and academia still swear.

What are known as the blasphemy laws formed part of the legislation for
Pakistan`s ``Islamisation`` by a military despot. They are in the form of
amendments to Pakistan`s Penal Code (PPC), an adaptation of Macaulay`s
Indian Penal Code (1860). Chapter XV contains ``offences relating to
religion``, from destroying a place of worship (Section 295) to uttering
words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Later, Section
295-A was inserted to punish ``deliberate and malicious acts intended to
outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion``. Two
features are common to the provisions in Chapter XV - applicability to all
religions and the ingredient of the deliberate intention of the offender
in the definition of the offences.

When Section 295-A was discussed in the Central Assembly, Jinnah sounded a
warning: ``I thoroughly endorse the principle, that while this measure
should aim at those undesirable persons who indulge in wanton vilification
or attack upon the religion of any particular class or upon the founders
and prophets of a religion, we must also secure this very important and
fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works,
those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion,
shall be protected.`` (emphasis added, throughout).

Few share values such as these in Pakistan. In 1980, Section 298-A was
inserted in the PPC, by which the use of derogatory remarks, ``by words...
or by imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly``, in
respect of persons revered in Islam was made a criminal offence punishable
with up to three years` imprisonment.

In 1986 the PPC was amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1986. It
added the blasphemy law ``under Section 295-C to the PPC. It reads thus:
``295-C: Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet:
Whoever by words, either spoken or by visible representation, or by any
imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the
sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), shall be punished
with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.`` A
liberal judge would construe this very strictly. But liberals are an
endangered species in Pakistan.

In October 1990, the Federal Shariat Court, set up in 1980 to ``examine and
decide the question whether any law or provision of law is repugnant to
the injunctions of Islam`` (Article 203-D of the Constitution), ruled that
``the penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet... is death and nothing
else``. It also noted that ``no one after the Holy Prophet... exercised or
was authorised the right of reprieve or pardon``. This is false, of course.

The Court directed the Government of Pakistan to effect the necessary
legal change and added, ``in case this is not done by 30 April, 1991 the
words `or punishment for life` in Section 295-C, PPC, shall cease to have
effect on that date``. Decisions by the Federal Shariat Court are binding
on the Government under Article 203-D(3) of the Constitution. The
Government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif did not file an appeal against
the decision making the death penalty the only punishment available for
blasphemy.

In April 1994, the Lahore High Court extended the application of the
blasphemy law. It ruled that defiling the names of ``all the true prophets
of Allah mentioned in the Koran``, including Abraham and Jesus, constitute
blasphemy. The Federal Shariat Court in its judgment of 1990 had already
recommended that the words ``any prophet`` be substituted for ``the Holy
Prophet``, meaning the Prophet Mohammed, in Section 295-C.

This resume draws on a document produced by an organisation some in India
love to hate. It is Amnesty International`s report Pakistan: Use and Abuse
of Blasphemy Laws, published in July 1994. It mentions that ``Commentators
in Pakistan have pointed out that the recent decision of the Lahore High
Court could open the door to further litigation as the ruling reflects the
Muslim interpretation of such prophets who may be viewed differently in
other faiths``. Most notably, Jesus Christ whom Christians revere as son of
God and Muslims as a prophet of God. Will the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
pillory Christians for their beliefs?

Besides Amnesty`s report, there is the report of a mission sent by the
International Commission of Jurists entitled Pakistan: Human Rights after
Martial Law, published in April 1987. It has a resume of anti-Ahmadi
legisla- tion: ``A more direct interference with the religious beliefs and
practices of the Ahmadis came with the adoption, also during martial law,
of the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani, Lahori Group and Ahmadis
(Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance (No. 20 of 1984). (The Lahori Group
consists of the followers of those who seceded from among the Ahmadis
shortly after Mirza Ghulam Ahmed`s death: in 1908. They do not accept the
latter`s prophethood but adhere to his views regarding jehad and the death
of Christ and are always included in the legislation directed at the
Ahmadis.)

``This ordinance, through the introduction of Sections 298-B and 298-C into
the Pakistan Penal Code, made Ahmadis liable to a penalty of up to three
years` imprisonment for a range of activities which identified their faith
with the Islamic faith or involved its propagation. Thus, they were
thenceforth prohibited from using the various epithets, descriptions and
titles discussed above in referring to or addressing any person other than
those listed in the ordinance and could no longer refer to their place or
worship as Masjid (Sechon 298-B (1). Nor could they thereafter refer to
the mode or form of call to prayers followed by their faith as Azan or
recite Azan as used by Muslims (Section 298-B (2).

``Furthermore, any Ahmadi who `directly or indirectly poses himself as a
Muslim, or calls, or refers to his faith as Islam, or preaches or
propagates his faith, or involves others to accept his faith, by words,
either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner
whatsoever outrageous the religious feelings of Muslims` is also liable to
imprisonment (Section 298-C).``

The report points out that the effect of these additions to the PPC has
been to impose stringent limitations on the religious freedom of the
Ahmadis. Not only are they prevented from using many of the Islamic forms
that have been part of their traditional religious practices, but they are
also expected to repudiate a central tenet of their beliefs as a result of
the prohibition on associating themselves or their faith in any way with
Islam.

The ICJ`s report cites instances of prosecutions under these laws -
displaying extracts from the Koran; printing a verse from the Koran on a
wedding invitation card; displaying in shops the Kalima Tayyiba (meaning
there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his Messenger.)

Amnesty`s report documents meticulously the systematic abuse of the
blasphemy laws in Pakistan; laws which are intrinsically susceptible to
abuse. ``The available evidence in all of these cases suggests that charges
were brought as a measure to intimidate and punish members of minority
religious communities, or as a consequence of accusations brought by
individuals motivated by personal enmity or a desire to gain political
advantage...

``A common feature of accusations of blasphemy in Pakistan is the manner in
which they are uncritically accepted by prosecuting authorities, who
themselves may face intimidation, threats and accusations should they fail
to accept them. Similarly, ill-treatment is frequently reported, and may
be exac- erbated by the emotional manner in which charges of blasphemy are
brought and publicised and those accused vilified by their accusers.``

Manzoor Masih, who was charged along with Salamat and Rehmat Masih, was
shot dead near the Lahore High Court on April 5, 1994 while under trial.
Last year there were grave instances of killings of members of minority
communities in Lahore and Gujranwala. ``The Government of Pakistan has not
publicly condemned such acts and taken all possible measures to ensure the
safety of members of religious minorities. None of the major political
parties have publicly condemned the incidents,`` Amnesty`s report noted.

During a debate in the National Assembly following the murder of Manzoor
Masih, a former Supreme Court Judge, Dorab Patel, Chairman of the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan, declared that the blasphemy law should be
amened as it contributes to religious ``fanaticism``. He was interrupted by
Maulvi Azam Tariq of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, a Sunni Muslim
organisation, who shouted that ``anyone who commits blasphemy will meet the
fate of Manzoor Masih``.

Amnesty`s report recalled: ``When Naimat Ahmer was killed by a student who
believed that he had blasphemed and considered himself to be acting in
accordance with Islam, the police officers arresting the student
reportedly embraced him and praised him for his commitment to Islam. The
police investigation in this case appeared to have been very slow and
geared to delaying trial and conviction. The student was, however,
sentenced to 14 years` rigorous imprisonment in June 1994.``

Many lawyers and members of the lower judiciary exhibit the same bias
against persons charged with blasphemy. In almost all the cases known to
Amnesty International no local lawyer was willing to take up the case of
the defendant. For instance, the case of Tahir Iqbal, arrested in December
1990 on a charge of blasphemy, was not taken up by any lawyer until May
1991, when a lawyer of the non-governmental Human Rights Commission of
Pakistan assumed his defence.

Trials are invarlably accompanied by agitation by local clergy baying for
the blood of the accused. The report has detailed descriptions of nine
cases; the last being that of the two Masihs.

The sectarian strife which is tearing Karachi apart is a direct result of
the Islamisation policy. If that policy has survived Zia, it is because it
pandered to the prejudices of large sections of Pakistan`s society.
Analysing the basic orientation of the intelligentsia in The Muslim, an
Islamabad daily (January 8 and 9, 1995), Dr. Mohammad Waseem remarked:
``Our mainstream national consciousness is characterised by anti-communism,
anti-secularism and anti-Indianism; that is, characteristics which are
shared by the official circles.`` In this ideological vacuum the plank of
Islamisation had no rivals and religious intolerance no check whatever.

The usual suspects (see#6) will now descend and proclaim that
``blasphemy laws victimize muslims`` so they should be revoked.

So it is always playing the part of a victim !!

Always blame others, blame feudalism, blame politicians, blame the British,
blame US, blame Israel....

There is no introspection, no thinking as to what is right or wrong.

The so called ``educated pakistanis`` are also a product of the Pakistani
education system - and it shows.

Dr. Sheikh,
From your article, it seems that your root ``crime`` was championing Indo-Pak peace. You were basically being targeted for your peacenik views. The blasphemy laws were merely being used as a tool to harass you and shut you up. If these laws were not there, some other laws would have been used to punish you. Also, the mullas that went after you were probably provoked by the ISI who perceived you as a threat to the establishment and they conspired to create a false blasphemy case against you.
The blame for such a state of affairs lies with the elite in Pakistan who control the establishment. Mullahs on their own could be a nuisance but they cannot do much unless the state machinery is behind them. The elite in Pakistan has always misused religion and religious feelings in sinister ways to ensure that their own vested interests are not threatened. The reason for this is that ordinary muslims, in general, are strongly attached to their religion and have considerable religious fervour. These strong emotions can be tapped in positive or negative ways. The Pakistani elite has always been tempted to tap these emotions in negative ways as a short-cut to establish their narrow agenda. It is really a shameful state of affairs. Thankfully the recent Indo-Pak peace moves are finally steering Pakistan to the road of moderation and hopefully Pakistan will use religion as a positive force in life in the future.

One thing I am surprised about...what the hell was the good doctor thinking to give up living in the UK to go to Pakistan?? I mean, gimme a break!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Just reading this can make it all sound so hopeless. And it all started because some Brigadier was upset that a Pakistani could voice a differing opinion on Kashmir? I thought the faujiz were very tolerant of everyone.

Mantolives posts on Jinnah`s views are confidence building. Jinnah was valiant enough to stand up these unconstitutionalist forces and desires.

Thanks Chowk editors for this wondrful work on formatting and bolding out the words!

Wow! you guys really care :)

I emailed you pictures of Dr. Shaikh could you please put that up along with a note about which email address to contact if people want to send in their petitions. There are a lot of interacts that wish to know the central place for sending this request for revocation of the blasphemy laws. Those who are interested please look at my previous post or email Secularize_Pakistan@yahoogroups.com for more information.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

damn..
I should have guessed it...Mantolives will bring in some old statement that
the good old gujju JeehNabhai made :))

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair and Mantolives:

Secularists like Former Senator of PPP viz. Iqbal Haider have done a good job. Kindly recall his famous anti-Honor Killing bill of the Senate and more recently his handling of Shaista Almani case.

Instead of running our own campaign, perhaps a better option would be to strengthen the arms of people already fighting against such evils like Hudood Ordinance, honor killings, etc. Iqbal Haider and human right organizations like Ansaar Burney Trust do need our financial and moral support.

I hate to write but it is a fact that the worst victims of this fanatic law are Christians. Mullahs etc apply 295C with impunity, they openly call Christians as Kafirs ( infidels) which itself is blasphemy under 295A and B. Thus the application of this discriminatory law is discretionary. Its a shame.

#23 by Mantolives on April 13, 2004 10:13am PT

Yasser Latif Hamdani you have a come a long way from someone who used to froth like a Mullah :) Congratulations and welcome to the civilized world. Do we mind if I send what you posted to the rest of our members ?

Thanks for the article.

See if you can join us in NYC - if you can`t join us start a secular pakistan movement whereever you are and be careful. Our members do things because they want to live free not because they want to die for some religion.

Here is a picture of Dr. Shaikh :




and a statement from Islamabad :


“We may draw some satisfaction and may even feel like celebrating that our efforts in pursuing this case led to the acquittal of Dr. Sheikh, but let`s not forget that as long as the Blasphemy law is on the statute book, it will continue to be misused. At this very moment there are several innocent people, victims of this black law, languishing in various jails and lock-ups of the country awaiting an uncertain future. And these victims may not be as fortunate as Dr. Sheikh was. Dr. Sheikh had a circle of committed friends inside and outside the country.

“It is also a sad reflection on the state and society of Pakistan that even when individuals are exonerated by law of any guilt, they are forced to flee the country for their safety. The state or society is unable or unwilling to provide them protection. Dr. Sheikh was not at all eager to leave the country. If he had a choice he would have stayed with his family and friends. I could see his reluctance to leave the country written large on his face when I accompanied him to the airport.”

“The bottom line is that we must continue our campaign until this draconian law, along with similar other medieval laws, is undone or at least modified to save the innocent people from its abuse.”

kaurasach at # 32:

Good observation. This works across the border too.

When Farzana Varsey writes an article, Indians of Hindu faith show the same level of shock, disbelief, and surprise at a Muslim writing protest articles.

Also, Indian Muslims, Sikhs and Christans settled in the USA tell us about many horror stories of their experince in India too.

Its about time both people took corrective measures. In Pakistan, progressive Muslims have begun to challenge regressive Muslims. I wonder what Hindutva supporters in majority and sitting in the Government will do when they attain more power?

ahmadzai #31: PPP had power twice, in the 90s. They did nothing about the blasphemy law. Infact Z. Bhutto is the person who declared Ahmedis to be non-Muslim. Nawaz Sharif is the person who, according to this article, introduced the death penalty for blasphemy.

Blasphemy laws are not a religious phenomenon. They are a social phenomenon. Just like the Shariah Bill is not a religious phenomenon. It is a political phenomenon. It was a political attempt by Nawaz Sharif to gain power in the garb of religion. Blasphemy laws and honor killings, and what not, are used to suppress people from other groups/religions, when the arguments are actually over land, and other such things.

Every now and then, someone from PPP and PML tries to propose a bill against this or that. It never gets anywhere, because even their own party members do not support it. Otherwise, these laws would have been dead long ago.

One of the worst things that can happen to Pakistan is if it gets split along religious and secular lines. This will result in a very polarized society, with each group completely out to get the other group. This is what has happened in India, and you have seen the political results. A better split would be along human rights lines. Groups supporting human rights and groups opposing it. The dividing line should be humanism. Not secularism and Islamism.

I have certain issues with people trying to wrap human rights violations in secularism or Islam. People should oppose the Blasphemy law, because it is against human rights; not because they are secular or Islamic. No need to throw in their own religion or secularism in there. Using the blasphemy law to push secularism is like a maulvi using a date rape to push Islam. Blasphemy laws are not due to Islam, just like date rapes are not due to a spread of secularism and lack of Islam.

I think Mr. Shaikh was a victim of the Pakistani social system. He became a victim of a law that was put in place by the British, strengthened by Zia, and strengthened even more by Nawaz Sharif, and accepted by PPP (and Musharraf), and encouraged by MMA. This covers the whole social spectrum of the Pakistani society, from most secular to most religious. There is thus no part of the Pakistani political structure that has opposed this law. If he had the correct connections, he would have been let of in a day, I assume. That is another social phenomenon.

I seriously doubt too many people in Pakistan buy secular arguments, any longer. Maybe they should, but they don`t. If anything, wrapping this in a secular argument will actually turn people away from it. This is the Pakistani audience. The only way people will rise up against this law is if people use a religious argument to discredit it.

This is where secularists and Islamists fail. They end up pushing their own agenda, rather than concentrating on removing the problem. I think the Blasphemy law should be removed. Not because I am secular or Islamic. But because I am a human being.

ijaz_gul #30: You are correct. Christians are the biggest victims of this law. And of many other forms of discriminations, in Pakistan, if you ask me.

I have always wondered how much discrimination Christians face in Pakistan. I have many Christian friends, but obviously it is hard for me to judge, what level of prejudice they face, since I am not a Christian myself. The only place I have seen very little discrimination against Christians, Ahmedis etc. is when I was in the military (except at high ranks), or when I moved abroad.

It would be interesting to get your point of view, on how much discrimination Christians face, in Pakistan. And whom you consider to be the best leader for minorities in Pakistan (Zia, Musharraf, Bhutto, Ayub, Altaf etc.).

Judging by your comments and Patrick`s comments, the discrimination faced by Christians is quite a bit less than I would have thought. However, I have a feeling both of you are letting your patriotism get the better of you, when commenting on this subject......

Romair, 35

“One of the worst things that can happen to Pakistan is if it gets split along religious and secular lines. This will result in a very polarized society, with each group completely out to get the other group. This is what has happened in India, and you have seen the political results.”

Actually, a better example is Algeria, another Muslim country...look what happened there...Pakistan needs to learn that lesson well...and quick.

Ahmadzai #34,

``When Farzana Varsey writes an article, Indians of Hindu faith show the same
level of shock, disbelief, and surprise at a Muslim writing protest articles.``

That is grossly incorrect - I think the objections to Farzana`s articles precede
the acknowledgement of her religion. Seasoned journalists like M.J. Akbar,
Saeed Naqvi, Mushirul Hassan and numerous others have written far more damning
articles about problems in India. By and large, their religion has never been
brought into the equation. I personally consider Akbar to have a more nuanced
understanding of Indian politics than most other people; many Indians would agree
with me.

Surely, people`s problems with Farzana lie elsewhere; however, the fact that her
detractors here feel the need to bring up her religion is completely distasteful.

Congrats to you Dr Sheikh to come out of jail alive. We read about your case few years ago and there was some discussion on you also on this web site but then you slipped out of our minds with time. Never heard about you again either. I was just wondering few days ago about what happened to your case. Glad to hear the way it turned out.

shiraz/solitude:

If you don`t like my personal opinions...

..that is water under the bridge...we can differ all we want in a responsible manner:)

check out petitions on line and set up your letter there...

rgds,

t

i dislike long cut n paste jobs -- the link here expires and TFT does not archive -- so am reluctantly posting the entire article -- hope am forgiven -- it is relevant

Ten reasons to repeal the Hudood laws

Sherry Rehman

---

For the first time in twenty-five years, the National Assembly has been heatedly debating the Hudood Ordinances for the last three weeks on every Private Member’s Day. The five criminal laws remain stubbornly on the statute books despite the much-repeated promises of General Pervez Musharraf that they should be done away with. But while the General ran a virtual ordinance factory during his three-year tenure as Chief Executive, and even promulgated ordinances after the NA was elected, he chose not to repeal these laws. Given that the government has the numbers to do away with the ordinance, which the two PPP governments did not have during their fragmented tenures, it has come as a shock to many that now when the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians has actually challenged these laws by tabling a bill that includes their repeal, the government has opposed it on entirely spurious grounds

The Advisor on Women’s Development, Ms Niloufer Bakhtiyar, opposed the bill on the floor of the House on March 24th saying that while she agreed in principle with the contents of the Women’s Empowerment Act 2004, she could not but oppose it on ‘technical ‘ grounds. She argued that the bill carried too many clauses for the ministry to deal with. Interesting, because if that were indeed the case, the bill would have long ago been disallowed on technical grounds and returned by the Speaker’s chamber to the prime mover. So Ms Bakhtiyar was either moved by partisan pique that she has not been able to introduce her own bill, with all the resources of her ministry, or she was defending the government party’s commitment to the religious right to not support the repeal of the Hudood Ordinances.

The sad fact is that only a few weeks ago the leader of the PML-Q, Chaudhry Shujaat, gave such a commitment to the Amir of Jama’at-e Islami, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, on the floor of the House during the critical last round of voting on the 17th amendment. The amendment subsumes all the interventions made by General Musharraf in the Constitution and empowers him at the cost of the Parliament. Unsurprisingly, the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal members fired the heaviest salvos against the repeal of Hudood Ordinances. The Alliance is increasingly relying on a dangerous mix of propaganda and hagiography, often cast in chaste Arabic, to throw theological red herrings into the debate. It is important, therefore, in this growing atmosphere of acrimony and obfuscation, to understand the facts about the Hudood Ordinances and why they must be repealed.

Is it, as the religious right maintains, a conspiracy of the liberal classes? Or is it a case of an imperfect justice system needing less flawed laws that create social injustices? A dispassionate look at the laws throws up at least ten, if not more, reasons to repeal them. Let’s consider them.

1. The disrespected Constitution of Pakistan, even in its tattered state still prohibits any laws that discriminate against women and minorities.

2. It would be salutary to remember that General Ziaul Haq introduced these laws in 1979 without any public or parliamentary debate. There is consensus now that he misused Islam to legitimise his blatant and unconstitutional usurpation of power. Therefore, they are entirely man-made and have no sacral link to the spirit, and in many cases, even the letter of Islam.

3. More than one National Commission on the Status of Women has recommended their repeal. Justice Majida Rizvi has condemned these laws as repugnant to Islam. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid has said that they were drafted in a hurry and were not in conjunction with the principles of Quran and Sunnah.

4. The crux of the matter is that the HOs have transformed the landscape of tazir punishments as well; most Hudood laws are now applied as tazir punishments for zina, for qazf, for prohibition etc. A compelling application in point is the fact that prior to the HOs, children under the age of seven, for instance, bore no criminal liability. Now they do.

5. Despite the fact that Islam forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, colour, caste, or creed, this law makes minorities victims of double jeopardy, because while their testimony is second rated, punishments opposed to their own Shariah [creed] are still applicable to them in an arbitrary manner.

6. Findings reveal that the HOs are the most misused laws to keep poor, dispossessed women in police lock-ups without access to defense counsel or speedy justice. A sample survey of Lahore’s Central Jail shows that from 1980-87, 47 percent of the women imprisoned were booked under the offence of zina. Data from Karachi Police Station (South) shows that 80 percent of the cases registered are under this law. Specifically, the application of the zina or adultery laws has legally blurred the distinction between rape and extra-marital sex. This has resulted in the absurd situation of rape victims being treated as accomplice since they are unable to produce witnesses, which in turn has invariably led to their imprisonment and physical punishment. The notion that the Zina Ordinance is not an issue since 90 percent of women get acquitted under it ignores completely the social realities in any country, particularly the semi-feudal Pakistan. Clearly, something is drastically wrong with a law under which 90 percent of the women are kept behind bars unjustifiably. (One woman was known to be under trial for seven years before she was released on acquittal).

7. These laws encourage honour killings and injuries because they allow these crimes to be compoundable offences. Statistics reveal that most honour crimes are perpetrated by close kin or family members, who are then conveniently forgiven by the heirs of the victim. As it stands, only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia accept these laws in their totality. All other Muslim countries have rejected or amended them in the interests of justice and equality.

8. These laws discriminate against women as they de-link puberty from adulthood. In contemporary society a girl can reach puberty at the age of ten. But at age ten, no girl can tell the difference between paedophilia and rape, nor should she be allowed or forced to enter into contracts such as the marriage contract. The HOs also reject the definition of adulthood as defined under the 1973 Constitution which puts it at a minimum of eighteen years of age.

9. They reduce the testimony of women to half, despite the fact that most of the recorded Islamic Hadith are based on the sole testimony of Hazrat Ayesha. If one woman’s testimony is acceptable for the basis of much sacral law, then why is one woman’s testimony not acceptable in a case of rape in a women’s hostel, for instance?

10. So far hadd has never been executed but it has been awarded. That means that these laws have little use except to keep our superior courts busy in overturning their sentences. Most jurists and experts on law have concluded that the defects in these ordinances are so basic that amending these would serve no useful purpose and will cause more miscarriages of justice. If the delivery of justice is the objective of law, the only option is the total repeal of the Hudood Ordinances 1979.

Sherry Rehman is the former Editor of the newsmagazine Herald, and currently a member of the National Assembly. She is also the prime mover of the Women’s Empowerment Bill by the PPPP.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Another blasphemy case...in the land of the pure
http://www.dawn.com/2004/04/13/top2.htm

#21 amit and #25 arjun..
you folks dont miss much do you..smartypants..

this was a sobering read. though i support the existence of blasphemy laws in principle--they are a part of shariah law--the form of them in pakistan is a travesty and not islamic at all and prone to misuse. either you have a full shariah system with its extremely strict levels of evidence required or you have a secular system; in pakistan we have a complete hotch-potch of a system based on the british system with bits of `islamic` law tacked on. no wonder it is a joke. in a real islamic system dr. shaikh would not never have been jailed on such flimsy evidence.

Naqshbandi (re #45):

Blasphemy laws are against Quranic commandments that deal specifically with this issue. FYI.

Quran commands believers to merely avoid company of those who blaspheme. That`s all. Apparently your revered sheikh forgot to tell you this ... as he continues to treat Quranic position as a minor technical detail ...

I can clearly visualize the world of that Brigadiar from ISI. That is the mindset of majority of the military and it was carefully cultivated during the Zia days.

But all this is a tip of the iceberg. The trouble lies with the political Islam in vogue in the country. No one clearly takes it head on. Everyone is scared and apologetic. Only PPP & MQM are somewhat clear headed about it.

Muslim League is worst and more dangerous than MMA. It is Muslim League that politised Islam in the first place.

Jay is absolutely right when he says that TNT should have been buried & forgotten after creation of Pakistan.

....... i am glad the good doctor managed to get out of adiala jail alive ........ i believe while he was there, another blasphemer was shot to death by a fellow prisoner armed with a gun supplied by the muslim police ............. but that is not really important ........ what is really important is the fact that the fundamental questions that the doctor had raised are still unanswered :

a)was the prophet of islam and his parents muslim before Islam was revealed to the prophet and b) did the prophet shave under his armpits since the custom was probably unknown to his tribe at the time..............

.......... they are fundamental questions that form the basis of islam ......... these - along with the eternal question about which is more impure: the pig, woman, the hindoo or the ahmedi - must be answered before the muslims can reconquer spain and new delhi ..........

godot #39: ``Actually, a better example is Algeria, another Muslim country...look what happened there...Pakistan needs to learn that lesson well...and quick.``

Yes. And it is happening all over other Muslim world. Muslim socieities will always have political groupings of Islam and secularism. So far they have been ruled by the secular side. Now the Islamic side is emerging. Dividing the societies along these two lines is as dangerous as dividing the society along ethnic lines. Once the division occurs, there is no going back.

This is one of the reasons why I have always opposed those on this site, who try to push their Islamism and/or Secularism as the only rule for Pakistan. They don`t realize that their efforts will produce a violent backlash, from the other side. Pretty soon a situaiton will be reached where Islamists will oppose anything the secularists say, regardless of how much sense it makes. And vice-versa. This will create a situation where both groups will be able to get away with murder, while still being able to hold onto their respective followers.

Successful societies need to learn to take everyone along. And successful leaders need to learn to do what the population wants. Not try to shove their own agenda down the population`s throats. A successful Pakistani leader will be the one who can take both the Islamists and the secularist along. Not one who tries his/her best to destroy the other.

The Blasphemy law should be removed. This removal should be supported by everyone in the society, and it should not be turned into a battle cry of the secularists or the Islamists. Unfortunately, what will happen is that when one group sees it being opposed by the other, they will automatically take the counter position, due to the divisions that have appeared between secularists and Islamists.

The worst thing that could happen to Pakistan is to turn into Algeria or Egypt or Iran or Iraq (or Turkey) - societies which are highly, and in some case militantly, divided along religious and secular lines.

Naqshbandi #45: ``though i support the existence of blasphemy laws in principle--they are a part of shariah law-``

Could you highlight whose Shariah they are a part of? Can you name any incidence in Prophet Muhammad`s life, where someone was prosecuted due to blasphemy? Also could you point me to some Quranic verses which justify such a law? Not verses from ulema, but from the Quran.

When I was in third grade, we were taught a story about a lady who repeatedly used to throw trash on Prophet Muhammad`s head (I always wondered whether that was a true story). I cannot recall how the story ended? Do you recall what Prophet Muhammad did to her? Did he try her for blasphemy and sentence her to death?

Abey Hamid, you need new material.

nazarhayatkhan #47: ``The trouble lies with the political Islam in vogue in the country. No one clearly takes it head on. Everyone is scared and apologetic.``

The reason no one takes it on is because they are afraid they will lose their votebase. PPP has pushed it quite a bit. The Ahmedi case being a good example. Benazir, herself, walks around with a tasbeeh. Not to mention the fact, that her govt. created the Taliban (according to Ahmad Rashid). I have no problem with people walking around with tasbeehs, but they should not be doing it for political purposes.

This is another reason why I don`t think Pakistan is ready for democracy. All the non-religious parties really have no credibility left. Primarily because they are too corrupt, and too undemocratic. And because their followers are too fickle. They switch sides very easily. The maulvis parties hardly ever have anyone switch sides. They know what they want, and are in it for the long term.

Pakistan is slowly becoming a conservative society, after being run by non-religious groups for four of its five decades. Now, this has resulted in all the political parties moving in the conservative direction also. The same thing has happened in India. India`s whole political space has moved quite a bit to the religious side, including Congress. In fact, this phenomenon has occured in India quite a bit quicker than in Pakistan.

POLITICAL ISLAM WHICH INFACT IS POLITICAL EXPLOITATION OF RELIGION FOR SEEKING LEGITIMACY AND PERPETUATING RULE OUGHT TO FALL IN SOME CATEGORY OF BLASPHEMY TOO. WHAT ARE YOU COMMENTS?

Romair,
Yes the patriotism gets the better of us. Christians are discriminated and no matter how loyal and efficient, can get nowhere near what is called the ESTABLISHMENT. THEY ARE THOUGHT NOT TO POSSES THAT STRAIN OF OBJECTIVES, MINDSET AND IDEOLOGY THAT MAKES A PAKISTANI TO HANDLE SENSITIVE ISSUES.

IF YOU HAVE FOLLOWED MY ARGUEMENTS ON VARIOUS ISSUES ON CHOWK, YOU WOULD REALISE THE WAY I THINK. HOWEVER, DESPITE BEING ACCESIBLE, MY TALENTS GO WASTE. THE COUNTRY OR THE ESTABLISHMENT COULD HAVE MADE BETTER USE OF THEM.

YES, I AGREE THAT THE ARMED FORCES ARE PERHAPS THE MOST TOLERANT. PERHAPS ITS A HANGOVER OF THE COLONIAL TIMES AND WOULD CHANGE. IT IS ALREADY CHANGING ON THE PERIFERY.

Well Mussaraf has taken some tangible steps. He has reintroduced the joint electorate, but made it a MENNA BAZAR for big political parties. He hold an annual Christmas dinner for Christian elites, which is a noble gesture. With his special background of St. Patricks and FC College, he understands the Christian point of view. However, he alone cannot change everything and has to depend on the establishment.

Yes the patriotism gets the better of us. Christians are discriminated and no matter how loyal and efficient, can get nowhere near what is called the ESTABLISHMENT. THEY ARE THOUGHT NOT TO POSSES THAT STRAIN OF OBJECTIVES, MINDSET AND IDEOLOGY THAT MAKES A PAKISTANI TO HANDLE SENSITIVE ISSUES.

iF YOU HAVE FOLLOWED MY ARGUEMENTS ON VARIOUS ISSUES ON CHOWK, YOU WOULD REALISE THE WAY I THINK. HOWEVER, DESPITE BEING ACCESIBLE, MY TALENTS GO WASTE. THE COUNTRY OR THE ESTABLISHMENT COULD HAVE MADE BETTER USE OF THEM.

YES, I AGREE THAT THE ARMED FORCES ARE PERHAPS THE MOST TOLERANT. PERHAPS ITS A HANGOVER OF THE COLONIAL TIMES AND WOULD CHANGE. IT IS ALREADY CHANGING ON THE PERIFERY.

Well Mussaraf has taken some tangible steps. He has reintroduced the joint electorate, but made it a MENNA BAZAR for big political parties. He hold an annual Christmas dinner for Christian elites, which is a noble gesture. With his special background of St. Patricks and FC College, he understands the Christian point of view. However, he alone cannot change everything and has to depend on the establishment.

Ijaz_gul #53: Thanks for your comments.

I would tend to agree. I think there is discrimination against minority religions in Pakistan. Though the biggest discrimination is against Ahmedis. While Parsis are the most successful (even more successful than Muslims) and least discriminated against. The plus side is that Pakistan has never had a streak of militant violence against minorities. That is usually only between Shias and Sunnis.

The military is still the fairest place I have seen, in regard to minorities. This used to exist at all levels of the military. However, now it discriminates at the General ranks, but not at lower ranks. At least, I never saw any. Even the discrimination at higher ranks is more due to civilian pressures than anything else. I have always found it interesting to see old retired Christian war heroes get ordinary treatment as civilians, but the moment they step into the squadrons and units they used to command, they get treated like celebrities.

I think it is due to old colonial traditions, as well as due to the importance of rank. A major is senior to a captain, regardless of religion. It is also due to the excellent track record that minorities have in the military, specifically Christians. In the 65 war, there were six Christian fighter pilots in the PAF. They received five Sitar-e-Jurats. The second highest decorated fighter pilot in PAF history is a Christian, who died in 71.

I don`t think minorities have a political outlet now in Pakistan. PPP was somewhat of any option, but now it has moved to the religious right, also. Musharraf is, thus, their best hope. Christians, interestingly, are now more enfranchised that Muslims in Pakistan, due to the current govts. joint electorate policies. As they can vote for Christian candidates, as well as for Muslim candidates. However, Pakistani politics has moved too far to the religious right, as a whole. It is, unfortunately, going in the same direction as Indian politics. Pretty soon, it will be religious parties (MMA) on one side, and semi-religious parties (PPP, PML etc.) on the other. There really isn`t a secular party in Pakistan, nor a leftist party. Asghar Khan is the only true secular leader in Pakistan (interestingly, another guy from the military). He is the only one, I have seen, who openly declares on TV that Pakistan should be secular. However, no one votes for him. At the moment Musharraf is, thus, the only powerful person, occupying the secular sphere. Once he goes, it will disappear also. He is the most popular leader currently amongst minorities, as you have indicated. However, most of the Pakistan Muslim elite (including secular elite) is gunning for his head (specifically on this site) because he is not enough of an Ata-turk, for them; not realizing that his replacements will be much worse.

I blame the bankrupt and corrupt PPP and PML for the above scenario. They occupy the secular space in Pakistani politics. And due to their feudal and non-progressive nature, have given secularism a bad name. Much like MMA has given Islam a bad name in Pakistani politics. Personally speaking, I think Imran Khan and his party would be good candidates to occupy the religious non-secular sphere of Pakistani politics. While Omar Asghar Khan (marhoom) and his group would have been good candidates to occupy the secular sphere. These are the two guys I would vote for with my eyes closed. Both would look after the minorities, quite well. It is an indication of the backwardness of Pakistani politics that neither has been successful politically, even though they have been exceptionally successful at everything else they tried in life.

Its because of things like this that I am an eradicateur. Bad as the secularist generals in Algeria might be, the FIS will be worse. Why?

Very simple. Poltical islam is a totalitarian ideology that leaves no room for dissent/differing viewpoints. Of course, this is not to say that the Algerian generals are true-blue democrats either. However, the essential difference boils down to this?

For the Islamists, if you are not with them, you are against them and they will hunt you down.

For the generals, if you are not activley against them, they don`t care about you (not that they are going to help you but they aren`t going to hunt you down either).

There is no such thing as the ``acceptable`` face of political Islam because it is a slippery slope/``camel`s nose in the tent`` argument. Once you give in to the hijab, the next demand is segregated schools, or other such nonsense.

So, given these two choices, guess which one is ``better?``

http://www.petitiononline.com/UN_FREE/petition.html

or click here

Will the editors please put the link in the article ? because not everyone will go through the interacts.

Thanks.

#40 by temporal on April 13, 2004 2:57pm PT

Thank you for your help and for being so kind :)

Following is the oath of secular humanist pakistanis. If you disagree with us that is fine - it is still under revision and we are receiving input from our members. Please don`t let our ideas get in the way of the effort against Blasphemy laws and Hudood ordinance:


I affirm the necessity of separation of religion and state.
I affirm that in matters public reason comes before revelation.
I affirm the superiority of a rational, secular, common law over a religious and divine law.
I affirm that I defend and uphold universal human rights.
I affirm to defend scientific truths and knowledge for the sake of knowledge against religious and ethical attacks.
I affirm that after human rights my loyalties lie with my nation.
I affirm that after human rights I shall defend the pursuit of scientific truths.
I affirm that I defend the right of every adult to live with or without religion.
I affirm that I defend the right of every child to live free of indoctrination and physical abuse and mutilation.
I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my religious affiliation.
I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my tribe or my family.
I affirm to uphold the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as developed in Europe and the United States of America.
I affirm to enlighten the third world with the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and age of Enlightenment.

You can look at what we are doing nowadays in NYC at :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Secularize_Pakistan/
or here

Romair at # 35:

My observations:

1. Lawyer Iqbal Haider is above PPP in character. Hence, he was not given ticket for the senate seat last time around. Btw, in his famous bill, another senator of PPP viz. Ch. Aitezaz Ahsan had stood by him.

2. I agree with your `humanism` approach as dividing line rather than Islamism and secularism. President Musharraf also warns us falling into bad Muslims and good Muslims trap. Imho, another good approach, which I use as a dividing line, is forces that lead us to economic prosperity versus those obstructing it.

Hence:

a. President Musharraf and his team are pro-economic prosperity by virtue of their track record.

b. MMA has no economic agenda. By virtue of its agenda its anti-economic prosperity.

c. PPP and PML N have failed us in the 90s (twice each) i.e. they have bad track record.

Since we have democracy, Pakistanis may pick what they want - everybody for himself/herself.

plats8 at 38:

You have your answer from Kaurasack at # 44.

It was very unfortunate, what happened with Dr. Younis. These laws of Hudood and Blasphamy must be repealed. I am a muslim and always try to be a good muslim but i am against the mullahs of Pakistan. We are with you Dr. Younus.

Imran Hafeez
Islamabad

sad what happened to dr sheikh -- but even sadder is the standard of comment in response to this article -- most people seem to have no idea how things work in pakistan these days -- saminasha -- u suggested a list of organizations involved in repealing the blasphemy laws -- that`s quite a naive question -- other than the HRCP, which probably gets more than its fair share of its death threats each time it issues a statement on such issues, or the English language press, there isn`t anyone doing any `work` on this -- and then there is someone who has come up with an idea of a petition on this !! noble but quite laughable -- where have you guys been ? i presume most people here live outside of pakistan otherwise they wouldn`t be coming up with such impractical suggestions -- and for the record, musharraf in 2001 toyed with the idea of just modifying the procedure under which a blasphemy case is filed -- he wanted the district magistrate (an administrative post no longer in use in pakistan after the local bodies reforms) to first investigate whether a blasphemy case was even necessary against someone accused of violating the law -- the religious right made such an issue that he had to backtrack -- so, even a procedural change in the law, something which was needed to prevent innocent people from being lynched, was not allowed by the obscurantists -- i am afraid petitions don`t really work in such cases