Now KSA: Half of all Saudi women are fat

Female obesity is a Gulf-wide problem (File)

Nearly half of Saudi women aged between 30 and 45 years are fat and this makes them more vulnerable to heart diseases, according to a medical study published in a local newspaper on Monday.
The study about heart problems in the Gulf Kingdom was conducted by Salman Medical Centre at King Fahd Health City in Riyadh and covered Saudi women aged 30-45 years, Alyoum Arabic language daily said.
“The study found that nearly 50 per cent of the women surveyed are suffering from obesity,” the paper said, quoting Dr Mustafa Yousuf, the Centre’s head.
“These results constitute an alert for the future because obesity often leads to high blood pressure, diabetes and heart problems.”
He said the study also found that  23-25 per cent of those women suffered from hypertension, adding that 55-75 per cent of the heart patients at the Centre had diabetes. “This means we have a big problem, which should be taken into consideration and attended to.”

On secularism, Jinnah and Pakistan

Raza Rumi 

My contribution for Jinnah Institute’s secular space
What are we fighting for? What are we aiming at? It is not theocracy, not for a theocratic state – Mohammad Ali Jinnah
Sixty-three years after the country was created, the term secular remains the most contested and misunderstoodpolitical concept in Pakistan. Mention the word secular and there is a litany of protests. The right wing thinks that secularism is an outright blasphemy of sorts, while the liberals hold that the genesis of Pakistan was through an anti-secular process. It is amazing that this happens in a country which was founded by a genuinely secular leader of the subcontinent. Until the 1930s, Jinnah was an undisputed ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity and even in 1946 he was willing to make political bargains within the context of a secular and decentralized India.
If anything, the Indian National Congress despite its rhetoric of secularism failed the ultimate test of being accommodative of the Muslim demands. Here ‘Muslim’ was not a religious identity but a broad banner for a community’s cultural, economic and political interests. It would be naïve to suggest that there was no religious motivation in Pakistan’s creation. In fact there were many who interpreted Pakistan as an Islamic country. However, Jinnah was categorical in his stance. There is enough evidence to suggest that he shunned the notion of a theocracy. Yet the contradiction of creating a country for Indian Muslims posed a challenge to the new state-project. For instance Jinnah is said to have told Raja Saheb of Mahmoodabad as to whose Shariah would Pakistan follow. Iskandar Mirza’s version is even starker when he quoted Jinnah: “Shariah? Whose shariah? No. I shall have a modern state.”
Whatever doubts on Jinnah’s intentions or political rhetoric employed by the Muslim League, Pakistan was meant to be a polity where state was separate from religion. Jinnah was unequivocal about the vision of the state when he spoke on the floor of Pakistan’s first constituent assembly on August 11, 1947:
“You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in the State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the State.”
The controversies surrounding Jinnah’s politics were quashed when the statesman and the formal head of the state-to-be said: “Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in due course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of the individual, but in thepolitical sense as citizens of the State.”
This rare speech by the founder of an ostensibly “Muslim” country was a watershed in history. Fortunately, unlike his successors he was not a mere rhetorician. His decision to retain J.N. Mandal as the first law minister of Pakistan made it amply clear that the Quaid did not want politics to be influenced by faith. It is a separate matter that Mandal resigned in 1950 once the pledges made by Jinnah were squandered by his successors.
Jinnah’s failing health and the capture of the Pakistani state by men, whom Jinnah reportedly described as khottey sikay (counterfeit coins), driven by power-quests and shortsightedness unleashed a process of Pakistan’s descent into ideological anarchy and a serious identity crisis that haunts us to date.
Less than a year after Jinnah’s death in 1948, the passage of Objectives Resolution was the first blow to the secular, progressive vision of Jinnah. The Objectives Resolution promised a vague sense of Islamic identity and statehood and was a clear attempt to pander to the hardcore religious lobby that had opposed Pakistan in the first place. The Resolution since 1949 has haunted us; and today it is an operative part of the Constitution (Article 2-A) thanks to a dictator who abused religion to amass and sustain power. Article 2-A of today’s Constitution cannot be touched. Not because there is nopolitical will, but because religious lobbies and fundamentalism writ large have gripped the Pakistani state, turning it into a sectarian and brutal society.
Religious fanaticism gained momentum in the early 1950s when a handful of Mullahs encouraged by an ambivalent state incited violence against the Ahmadiyya minority. The destruction of Pakistan’s democracy in 1958 meant that the legitimate political process was truncated and damaged resulting in social upheavals and break up of Pakistan in 1971. Even then the religious lobby supported the persecution of Bengalis – Muslims and non-Muslims – for Bengal’s essential secular culture was unacceptable to the West Pakistan-dominated institutions of the state.
Bhutto’s turbulent years and political mobilization of the 1970s was challenged by politics based on religion. Bhutto made his greatest mistakes by appeasing the religious lobby and playing with the fire of political Islam. This too was not enough, and a right wing movement fully backed by unelected institutions of the state led to Bhutto’s decline and fall in 1977.
General Zia’s draconian era (1977-88) saw the worst perversion of the ideology of Jinnah, when the state was turned into a flag-bearer of one particular school of religious thought. A systemic perversion of history and textbooks was carried out as a state policy and the inaccurate slogan ‘Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Illaha Illala (What is the meaning of Pakistan? There is no God but Allah) was sold as the ‘truth’. This conception of Pakistan was patently false. Worse, children were indoctrinated with myths, such as that stating the raison d’être for Pakistan was the implementation of Sharia.
The persecution of minorities was sanctified and man-made laws against women were promulgated, citing them as divine pronouncements. The Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union financed this ideological ascendancy and stuck the last nail in the coffin of Jinnah’s Pakistan.
Today, a distorted ideology of Pakistan and the misconstrued concept of secularism have so deeply penetrated the minds of Pakistanis, especially the youth, that it will take nothing short of a revolutionary social change to bring back the Pakistan which Jinnah had envisaged.
In 21st century Pakistan, secularism is un-Islamic and anti-religion. The Urdu translation of ‘secularism’ is ‘La-Deeniyat’ (irreligious). Most importantly, the demonizing of this ideology through state institutions has resulted in deliberate engineering of Pakistan’s history and ethos, and Jinnah is now patronized as a devout and pious Muslim.
Pakistan’s secular irony is deepened when one looks at history. Many have argued that the idea of a secular state and the ascendancy of reason was something that traveled to Europe via the scholarly works of Muslim thinkers such as Ibne Rushd and Ibne Khaldun. Even the Charter of Medina negotiated by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was a treaty between believers and non-believers, which gave equal rights to non-Muslims. The primitive nomadic society of Medina was secular – a fact that the denizens of political Islam conveniently forget in the Land of the Pure.
The implications of abandoning Jinnah’s ideological path have been disastrous. Pakistan is now at the forefront of Islamist militancy and a haven for several variants of political Islam. Tragically,political Islam wants to capture the Pakistani state and has orchestrated a reign of terror for civilians and state institutions alike. Yet there are people in denial about this gritty reality. At the end of the day, recourse to Jinnah’s vision is the only answer to our existentialist crisis.
Pakistan’s first Law Minister Mandal’s resignation letter addressed to the then Prime Minister of Pakistan stated: “Every one of these pledges is being flagrantly violated apparently to your knowledge and with your approval in complete disregard of the Quaid-e-Azam’s wishes and sentiments and to the detriment and humiliation of the minorities.”
We share Mandal’s anguish and pose the same question to Pakistan’s ruling classes, especially the moderate and progressive politicians who have a rare chance to undo several failures of the past. It may be late but any reformation within the Pakistani society will require these essentials: bringing back secularism into public discourse, adding Jinnah’s August 11 address to the Constitution, and thwarting the onslaught of political-sectarian Islam by reverting to Jinnah’s lost ideals.

Mulla: the real problem of Pakistan

By Bilal Ahmed

Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947, on September 11, 1948 Mr. Jinnah passed away. Just after six months of his death on March 12, 1949 Objective Resolution was passed, literally it buried Jinnah’s legacy and initiated unchecked authority of mullas in Pakistan.
After it in every development in political corridors of our country, our mulla had a stake and an opinion. It blocked land reforms by calling it un-islamic, it exploited religion to serve its masters whether they were military rulers or elected one. It supported killings of innocent Bengalis in 1971 by justifying it from religion. Even today many atrocities and rape allegation are present against our army and religious military units.
During Bhutto’s government it compelled it to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims, Bhutto did it thinking of getting support in return, which was offered to him by portraying him as being solver of 90 years old problem. But sadly had these mullas shown little loyalty to that great solver he would never had been hanged.
In Zia’s era, mulla got the best opportunity that any clergy has got in history to fulfill its dream of Islamization. But sadly it produced nothing but a militant and bigot society, which pursued Jihad in which many religious opponents and innocents were also killed. They helped Zia in terrorizing Indians and blackmailing them by nuclear weapons.
After Zia’s death they saw new horizon of their Jihad because they felt Soviet Union collapsed due to their successful Jihad. But every step that they took put Muslims into more trouble. Had they been successful in helping Afghanistan, millions would not have left and thousands would not have died after Najibullah’s government.
Today just because of their intolerant and barbaric interpretation of Islam, the people who were seen as narrow minded in past are now privileged by their people to legislate to ban hijab in West. Today our World has become most insecure after WWII.
All above happenings compelled me to say that mulla had a very active role in whatever happened in our national life. Nothing happened that our mulla has opposed to, even smart politicians like Bhutto were unable to turn-down their demands, wherever we are standing today, it is with consent of mulla, in fact a result of whatever our mulla wanted. Then why the hell they cry in mosques and in their televised sessions, where they ask their listeners to pray for forgiveness. Can they tell us what sins we as nation did that today we are the most destroyed nation.
Whenever you put this question to a mulla, their reply is that the only solution is to enforce Sharia. Didn’t they get chances in past to enforce Sharia, which Israeli or US agent stopped them from doing anything. Why didn’t they impress our nation to turn into a nation immersed in love of Sharia. Fact is they never struggle for anything good in the name of religion, all their commitments and actions were meant to grab a political and social authority. Time did give them what they wanted but they have failed this country every time and on every point in history.
If we had a communist or socialist or a pure capitalist government, we would have been correct in saying that it is all because the system is wrong. But there was nothing wrong with the system, we always kept modifying it whenever a mulla got out on roads with angered mobs. We declared Ahamdis as non-Muslims, made Friday off, banned alcohal, made hudood ordinance, made blasphemy law, disgraced Dr Abdus Salam by not letting him epitaph of his choice, accepted Swat agreement. We did almost everything that our mullas asked us to do, even then they are angry with the literate class of this country for being pro-secular and pre-democratic and anti-Islam.
Our mulla has got taste of political power under the patronage of our State, whenever it names Sharia as the only solution, it means nothing but just to throw away responsibility of the great mess that we have arrived at in our national life.
I don’t oppose Sharia, in fact I support every solution that can help my country. But to me our society is into so much depth of ignorance and lawlessness that our national attitude will only put a bad name on Sharia. We will be out to behead and cut hands of our opponents on false allegations. In fact after those abundant fatwas of infidels against different sects, I don’t think we as nation will have anything less than a civil war in our country if Sharia is enforced.
So to all mullas, in last 100 years whoever and whenever somebody followed you, he got failed and embarrassed at the hands of their opponents. And whoever dared to get this nation out of trouble, he met with you aggression and fatwas of being infidel and wajib-ul-qatl. Whether it was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Jinnah, Attaturk or anyone. I believe Jinnah was fortunate enough to get opposition from you, had it been opposite he would have never achieved Pakistan.
And for those who want any betterment in Pakistan, please don’t let these mullas decide or affect anything. As long as we have Rehmat ul lil Alameen (P.B.U.H.) as our guider, we don’t need any mulla who orders beheadings, floggings, kidnap for ransom, and reward for killing accused like Aasia bibi.

The Blasphemy Charade

By Taha Kehar

Recent developments in what can aptly be dubbed “The Blasphemy charade” highlight that a law which should ideally be targeted to root out heretics is being utilized as a mechanism for retaliation.
Naushad Valiyani, a doctor from Hyderabad, was taken into custody on charges of blasphemy after a medical representative who frequented his clinic launched a complaint with the police. According to the medical representative, Muhammad Faizan, Valiyani threw his business card – which bore his full name, Muhammad Faizan – into a dustbin.
A dispassionate analysis of the situation implies nothing more than a misinterpretation of the penal code. Within Pakistan’s Penal Code, Section 295-C indicates that the use of pejorative remarks – through words or actions – against the Holy Prophet is punitive and “liable to a fine”. Having said that, it is vital to clarify two very important points:
a)     The law pertains to Prophet Muhammad alone, not every single person who bears the name Muhammad. By overlooking this fact, we are simply casting aspersions on the level-headedness in our country and – not to mention – demonstrating our insecurities about a religion that still remains a strong spiritual force for the global Muslim community.
b)    According to a prominent Hadith, actions are judged by intentions. This can be applied rather convincingly in this case. Muhammad Faizan, who, it appears, was offended by the fact that Naushad Valiyani flung his card into a dustbin sought to seek revenge (his implied intention). But Dr. Valiyani’s decision to discard the business card was not driven by the intention to disparage any religious figure. His implied intentions may not be clear, but it is reasonable clear that he has not blasphemed. Therefore, this is a conspicuous example of the misuse of the blasphemy laws.
Last month, the Federal Minister for Minority Affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, ensured journalists that the government would not allow the blasphemy laws to be misused to inflict personal vendetta. An in-depth scrutiny of the present state of affairs reflects the need for such ambitious statements to be translated into strong policy initiatives.
The ground realities are that the blasphemy laws are not only proving how bigoted we are, but they are also hampering the nation’s potential to act lawfully and practically. No statute should mislead the nation to such a degree that it cannot perceive the difference between absurdity and rightfulness.
Moreover, if we explore the context of the unwarranted arrest of Dr. Valiyani, we realize that it also a blatant assault on Muslim brotherhood. Naushad Valiyani is a member of the Ismaeli community – a community which has neither been destructive, nor fundamentally fanatical. The fact that these laws are now being used as artillery against fellow Muslims speaks volumes about their outrageously destructive nature.
In an interview with Newsline, PPP-MNA Sherry Rehman points towards the rather antiquated nature of these laws when she argues, “If so many centuries later, gross and egregious injustice is being perpetrated on the basis of these laws, then there is no place for them in Islam. You don’t have to be a religious scholar of one sect or the other to see that…How long are we going to be on the defensive and allow the religious right’s fatwas and vetoes against us? Countries where majorities are silent don’t get anywhere.”
We can easily concede with her point-of-view simply because of its brutal honesty. It serves to both instigate and enlighten us about the debate on liberalism vs. Prejudice which is very cornerstone of The Blasphemy Charade that has plagued Pakistan.
The unjustifiable arrest of Naushad Valiyani in Hyderabad is the most recent example of how prejudice presides over the ideals of justice, equality and tolerance. Greater vigilantism is needed to ensure that these bouts of discrimination are weakened.

Minorities in Pakistan: Living a marginalised reality

By Nicholas Sharaf (Originally a blog on Express tribune)

 I’ve found the reaction to Pakistan’s current blasphemy laws surprising.
 Not because I think the whole Aasia Bibi (and more recently Naushad Valiyani) issue has been blown out of proportion but because of how long it has taken Pakistan to acknowledge the malicious nature of the blasphemy laws. I feel that our nation’s reaction is luke warm – one that has flourished just so most of us can sleep at night feeling good about ourselves as genuine ‘online philanthropists’.

These blasphemy laws have existed in Pakistan as long as I can remember. They are a product of what General Ziaul Haq and then our champion of democracy, Mr Nawaz Sharif brought about and legalized. Where were Pakistanis when this was happening? It’s all well and good when a person uses Facebook or Twitter as a tool to spread their opinion across the globe but how many of us have actually gone out and tried to aid Aasia Bibi or any minority member for that matter?
The newspapers and TV shows have found a sensitive topic to debate on. They have found the necessary artillery to berate guests on their shows and enough controversy to have the general public glued to their seats and empty their wallets to listen to the media. But what has ever become of it? Images of the eight Christians being burnt alive on the streets of Gojra still burn my eyes. When something as radical as that can go unnoticed by the local authorities why would we minorities want to believe that they could do otherwise? And all the while the media tries to cloak the situation with ‘non anti-relegious’ view.
Were we not all one when Pakistan was being formed?
One must remember the basic driving force behind the whole independence movement of the 1920s was to ensure that minorities got their due share in the sub-continent. Were not our founding fathers worried about the possibility that minorities such as Muslims were going to be disadvantaged and oppressed if they remained in India? And so we had the struggle for independence and the Radcliffe Award where many non-Muslim ‘minority’ leaders opted for Pakistan – they thought they were securing their rights, citizen status and a better life overall.
Sadly, wherever the road might have led, the fact is that the hope of the government facilitating better lives for the minorities was soon drowned amid the misery and sham of the Objectives Resolution. A document which conflictingly claimed that all members of society were equal and that minority communities would be given special allowances to survive in Pakistan. So much for living as First Class citizens. Now minorities have special seats reserved for them in the Senate and a Minorities Minister who everyone does their best to ignore. We have the whole slum community, who are labeled ‘Christians’ just because of their social standing, dedicated to cleaning the houses of the more fortunate. So I ask you, why should minorities expect anything better from Pakistan?
Growing up in a privileged home certainly had benefits that go beyond the realm of what’s served on the dinner table. My family’s social stature demanded that we be treated with respect wherever we went and as I attended very good academic institutions, I have never been the victim of religious discrimination. Growing up in a privileged home certainly had benefits that go beyond the realm of what’s served on the dinner table. However, since I have stepped into a more diverse environment, like university, I have come across people are less accepting. They may  simply refuse to shake hands or offer a simple greeting such as ‘Merry Christmas’ on the basis of religion.
Being raised in fear
From the very beginning, our parents have emphasized not letting our tongue slip in public when it comes to religion and to making sure that we don’t give anyone a reason to pin the blasphemy laws against us. We’ve been made aware of the importance of not making enemies with anyone or pursuing an activity where the other person might be vindictive enough to pull out these charges against us. After all, it’s not as if we get a fair chance at the hearing (if any) that follows. We’ve been brought up in an environment of fear where we are supposed to always keep an eye over our shoulders for our safety. For most, it’s like living in constant fear, waiting for air raid sirens to go off.
Beware the blasphemy laws
Cases have always been quoted to us about how people have used the blasphemy as a weapon to take over a non-Muslim’s business, household, property and sometimes even to harass and rape their women. It’s a fail-safe method to get away with anything you do to a minority. The local population will riot and demand for blood and the police and courts will be only too happy to oblige booking their passage to Heaven by doing what has been demanded of them by our less than literate scholars. They serve as a reason for minorities to keep their mouths shut and evade public exposure as much as possible. One only needs to pick up a minority journal to realize just how many incidents of religious persecution are taking place and going unnoticed (or kept in the dark) in Pakistan.
Where was the support before today?
So when NGOs and Pakistanis raise their voices in support of Aasia Bibi and Naushad Valiyani against their prosecutors, I cannot help but not take them seriously. To me, this support is more about making themselves feel good about themselves as opposed to actually helping the minority cause. After all, Aasia Bibi isn’t the only recent victim of the blasphemy. Rahid and Sajjid Emmanuel died before her and Gojra was already burning. Shanti Nagar had already become a desolate wasteland and us minorities had already been cheated out of our basic rights – rights promised to us before the new age Pakistanis ever came calling.
We are a great nation indeed,
If only we can pull sheets over
Everything that’s wrong with us
And evade the gaze of the Almighty
This is the country I was born in,
I’m destined to spend my life here.
Long live Pakistan!

The forgotten prayers of a people

By Sadef A. Kully

A Hindu woman arranges earthern lamps near to Hindu Goddesses to celebrate ‘Diwali’ the festival of lights, at her home in Lahore, Pakistan on Saturday, Oct. 17, 2009. Hindus living in Pakistan are celebrating Diwali where people decorate their homes with light. – AP Photo

KARACHI:  The legend is almost as old as the Indus River, Lord Shiva and his consort Sati, daughter of King Dakhsha, were vexed by Sati’s father for not inviting them for a ceremony. Sati went to the ceremony uninvited and in return was ignored. She was hurt by the behavior that she sacrificed herself in the fires and was burnt alive. Upon hearing the fate of his love, Lord Shiva went mad and began chaos on earth.
In order to help Lord Shiva deal with his grief, Lord Vishnu cut Sati’s body in 12 pieces and scattered them across the earth where her head fell upon Hingol. Wherever the pieces of Sati’s body fell became Shakti Peethas, holy places of cosmic power, for all gods and worshippers.
Hingol is not a legend – as a matter of fact – today it is known as Hingol National Park and lies almost 170 km outside of Karachi in Balochistan. Sati’s head fell by Hinglaj Matajee Temple located inside a natural cave of a hill which is a holy pilgrimage site for the 2.5 million Hindus in Pakistan, although many feel the numbers have doubled in the last decade, and more than 90 per cent of them live in the Sindh province.
Hindus are the third religious group, after Muslim and Christians, and Hinduism is considered the indigenous religion of the sub-continent by local and international historians, which is not far from the truth.
There are over 40 Hindu temples across Pakistan, and in Sindh alone there are almost 30 temples in Karachi and interior Sindh.
Many Hindu families are indigenous to the land and some claim to have been for centuries. Over the centuries, empire after empire, some families facing persecution converted to Islam but others have remained Hindus.
“The Hindu community is not protected here,” said Dr. Raj Motwani, a general physician who sits as the Vice President for Shree Ratneshwar Mahadev Welfare Shewa Mandly, a committee for the Hindu community in Karachi.  “I remember that Lee Market, Bolton Market, Nagam Colony, and Food Street belonged to Hindu families that lived there for decades before Pakistan’s existence.”
“We never left this land – people migrated here,” he said. “We are still here – fighting for what we deserve as humans.”
During the 1947 partition, almost 15 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims left Pakistan for India and vice versa but some families stayed behind because they considered the land in Pakistan their home. More than half a million people died during the migration.
“Everyone knows the truth, but we cannot speak it out loud,” he said. “The minute that we speak up – we are automatically accused of being part of an enemy intelligence agency and we can get questioned without any legal support.”
Most Hindus families come from lower class backgrounds and those that live in rural areas like interior Sindh are forced into bonded labour by influential landlords. In the past few years, kidnappings have increased among the Hindus, for ransom and women, who are kidnapped and then convert to Islam, have been reported but with no real legal repercussions from the local government.
“The Hindu community is not protected here,” repeated Dr. Motwani. “The converting is explainable; once a girl is kidnapped the men have their way with her and she knows that she won’t be accepted back into her community so she converts and becomes a servant- girl for the men or the family that kidnapped her – tragic but the culture in interior Sindh is traditional, especially when it comes to women.”
The constitution clearly states that religious minorities have many rights and freedom however in the political system Hindus, Christians and Sikhs are still treated as second-class citizens.
After General Pervez Musharraf took power, he wanted to remove the separate electorate system put in place by the former dictator General Ziaul-Haq.
The separate electorate system limited non-Muslims to only vote for candidates from their own religion – the government had a reserved number of seats for minorities in the provincial and national assemblies.
General Musharraf and many others felt that it limited Muslim candidates from reaching out to minority groups to solve the major problem in their communities. He was thwarted in his efforts and many minorities felt that the removal of the policy would not have made a difference in their communities. 
“I have friends of all faiths in Pakistan – friendships made up of decades,” mentioned Dr. Motwani. “But that is not the problem – the system is the problem; a small example, the Hindu Gymkhana has finally been given back to us after so many years spent in court yet the management is Muslim and we still do not have a safe place to congregate and celebrate our holidays. Who do I go to for help? a MPA or an MNA – not possible.”
Since the recent attack on the Shah Ghazi Shrine, the security at mandirs across Karachi has tightened but it has not stopped Hindu worshippers from making their offerings to their gods and goddesses who wait patiently for their prayers of better days ahead.

Is there an end?

Time and again religious minorities have demanded repeal of the Anti-blasphemy law often used to target minorities, but the government remains indifferent. -Photo by AFP

Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law, enacted by President General Zia-ul-Haq in1986 and later amended by the parliament in 2004, is one of the most stringent laws. The penalty includes a mandatory death sentence for defaming Prophet Mohammad and life imprisonment for desecrating the Holy Quran. According to official reports, to date, over 500 people have been charged for breaching the Blasphemy Law. Dawn.com traces the history of some of these cases that have been highlighted in the media since 1990. 2009 – August 05: An angry mob attacked the house of an elderly woman in District Sanghar, Sindh, accusing her of desecrating the Holy Quran. A case has not yet been registered but the District Bar Association assured the mob that if the woman – identified as Akhtari Malkani – is found guilty, she will be charged under the Blasphemy Law.

2009 – August 01: Seven people were burnt alive and 18 others injured in Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh in Punjab after fresh violence erupted in the town over the alleged desecration of the Holy Quran three days ago. More than 50 houses were set on fire.
2009 – July 31: A mob burnt 75 houses of members of the Christian community over the alleged desecration of the Holy Quran in the village Azafi Abadi at Gojra-Faisalabad Road. Seventy-five houses and two churches were burnt by the residents of a neighbouring village.
2009 – February: Five Ahmadis in Punjab’s Layyah district were arrested on charges of writing blasphemous remarks in the toilets of Kot Sultan’s Gulzar-e-Madina mosque. No evidence or witness was presented. They were just detained on a ‘presumption of guilt,’ stated the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
2009 – January 28: The Punjab police arrested a labourer and four students for blasphemy, all of whom were Ahmadis. They were accused of writing the name of Prophet Mohammed on the wall of a toilet in a Sunni mosque. Investigations into the case revealed that the accusation was baseless.
2008 – May: The Punjab police jailed Robin Sardar, a Christian physician, upon an accusation of blasphemy from a Muslim street-vendor who wanted to set up his shop in front of Sardar's clinic.
2008 – April 08: Jagdesh Kumar, a 27 year old Hindu worker, was beaten to death by fellow Muslim workers in his factory in Karachi on the charge of blasphemy. The incident took place in the presence of policemen. Some reports suggested that the victim was in love with a Muslim girl that angered the Muslim workers, who decided to teach him a lesson.
2008 – March 06: An elderly man, Altaf Hussain, was arrested for desecrating the Holy Quran in Kabir wala Town of Khanewal District in Punjab. The spokesman for the Ahmadiya community countered that the charges against the 80-year-old were false.
2007 – October 28: The police arrested Muhammad Imran of Faisalabad for allegedly setting the Holy Quran on fire. He was kept in a torture cell for three days and later in solitary confinement without anyone attending to his injuries. He was released in April 2009.
2007 – May 17: The nursing school at Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in Islamabad was shut down and seven Christian staff members suspended after female students of Jamia Hafsa protested over allegations that blasphemy had been committed at the school. Rumours spread that verses from the Quran posted on a wall had been defaced. School authorities denied all such claims.
2007 – April 13: Sattar Masih, a 29-year-old worker at a water pumping station in Kotri city of Sindh, was allegedly attacked by Muslim extremists for uttering blasphemous remarks. An imam of a local mosque, Maulvi Umer, announced some written papers against Prophet Mohammad were found outside the mosque authored by Sattar. Muslim worshipers attacked Masih's house and tried to kill him but the police arrived before that could happen. Masih was later arrested. Later, in January 2009, the accusation was declared baseless.
2007 – April 01: A case against Salamat Masih, 45, and four other Christians was filed for the desecration of Islamic posters and stickers containing the name of Allah, Prophet Mohammad and other Islamic verses in the Toba Tek Singh (Punjab) police station. The SHO allegedly converted the report into an FIR within 20 minutes without initiating any investigation. Subsequently, 80 young Muslims from the neighbourhood ransacked the houses of Christians in the colony.
2007 – January 22: Martha Bibi, a Christian woman from Kot Nanak Singh, District Kasur, was accused of making derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad and defaming his sacred name.
2006 – September 21: Shahid Masih, 17, was jailed on suspicion of ripping book pages containing Quranic verses in Punjab.
2006 – June 03: Christians and Muslims in Pakistan condemned Dan Brown's novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’ as blasphemous. The then Minister for Culture, Ghulam Jamal, banned the promotion of the movie.
2006 – May 24: A Christian, Qamar David, was arrested from Karachi for allegedly sending blasphemous messages to some Muslims via cell phone as revenge for attacks against churches by Muslims in Sukkur, Sindh, and Sangla Hill, Punjab, earlier that year.
2005 – December 23: Five members of the Mehdi Foundation International were arrested in Wapda Town, Lahore, for putting up posters of their leader Riaz Gohar Shahi showing him as ‘Imam Mehdi’. The Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced each to five years of imprisonment under 295-A of PPC. Their prisoners’ records posted outside the cell falsely indicate that they had been sentenced under 295-C – the Blasphemy Law.
2005 – November 12: After receiving frequent death threats, Parvez Aslam Chaudhry, a lawyer who defended many accused for blasphemy, was allegedly charged with flinging a burning matchstick on an Islamic school in the Sangla Hill stadium in Punjab which caught fire. Chaudhry was also physically assaulted outside Lahore High Court.
2005 – August 11: Judge Arshad Noor Khan of the Anti-Terrorist Court found Younus Shaikh guilty of defiling a copy of the Quran, and propagating religious hatred among society. Shaikh was convicted because he wrote a book ‘Shaitan Maulvi’ (Satanic Cleric) in which he mentioned stoning to death as a punishment for adultery was not mentioned in the Quran. The judge imposed a fine of Rs100, 000 rupees and sentenced him to lifetime imprisonment.
2003 - November 20: Anwar Masih, a Christian labourer and resident of Shahdara, Lahore, was charged for insulting the Prophet in front of his neighbour. Masih had converted from Islam to Christianity. He was acquitted by the Lahore High Court in December 2004. Later, in August 2007, he lost his job in a factory when his employer was threatened for employing a ‘blasphemer’. Masih went into hiding.
2003 – July 09: A journalist in NWFP was sentenced to life imprisonment for blasphemy. Munawar Mohsin, a sub-editor at the Frontier Post newspaper, was convicted of publishing a blasphemous letter in the editorial section that led to violent protests across the country.
2002 – July 18: Additional sessions judge in Lahore imposed death penalty and a fine of Rs500,000 on Anwar Kenneth, a former officer of the Fisheries Department, in a blasphemy case registered with the Gawalmandi police. He was arrested on June 15, 2001, while distributing a pamphlet (Gospel of Jesus).
2002 – June 11: A 55-year-old Muslim cleric, Mohammed Yousaf Ali, convicted of blasphemy was shot dead in the Lahore prison. The murderer was another prisoner, Tariq Mota, a member the banned Sunni militant group Sipah-e-Sahaba. Ali had been sentenced to death for blasphemy on August 5, 2000, in a case filed by another militant group who disapproved of his religious views. Ali had been vocal in condemning religious extremism.
2000 – October: Pakistani authorities charged Younus Shaikh, a teacher at a medical college in Islamabad, with blasphemy on account of remarks that students claimed he made during a lecture. The students alleged that Shaikh had said Prophet Mohammed’s parents were non-Muslims because they died before Islam existed. A judge ordered that Shaikh pay a fine of Rs100,000, and be hanged. In November 2003 he was acquitted after which he left Pakistan. 
1998 – May 6: Roman Catholic Bishop John Joseph of Pakistan shot himself in the Sahiwal courthouse to highlight the case of Ayub Masih, a Christian sentenced to death for allegedly uttering blasphemous remarks against Prophet Muhammad. The death of the 66-year-old led to protests by Christians. Subsequently, the Lahore High Court ordered a stay of execution for Masih. His fate remains undecided.
1997 – October 19: Judge Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti was assassinated in his Lahore office after acquitting two people who were accused of blasphemy.
1996 – October 14: Ayub Masih, a Pakistani Christian bricklayer, was arrested for violation of Section 295-C. The complaint was filed by Masih’s neighbour who claimed that Masih had invited them to accept Christianity and recommended that they read Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. He later made legal history when his appeal against the death penalty was turned down by the High Court in 2002. 
1995 – July: Catherine Shaheen, a teacher in Lahore, Punjab, was denied her salary on grounds of blasphemy. Since then she has been in hiding because of threats against her life made by some fundamentalists.
1993 – November 21: Riaz Ahmad, his son, and two nephews from the Ahmadi community were arrested in Mianwali District for their blasphemous remarks. The rivalry over Ahmad's position as village headman was the real motivation for the complaint against him. The Sessions Court rejected the bail applications of the accused, however, the Supreme Court granted him bail in December 1997.
1993 – May: Twelve-year-old Salamat Masih, Manzoor Masih, 37, and Rehmat Masih, 42, were charged with writing derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammed on the wall of a mosque in Ratta Dhotran village of district Gujranwala - where they lived. All the three were in fact illiterate and did not know how to write.
1993 – February: Anwar Masih, a Christian from Samundri in Punjab, went to jail upon a Muslim shopkeeper's allegation that, during an argument over money, Masih had insulted the Prophet Mohammed.
1992 – November: Gul Masih, a Christian, was sentenced to death after having remarked to his Muslim neighbour in Punjab that he had read that ‘Prophet Mohammed had 11 wives, including a minor.’
1992 – Bantu Masih, 80, and Mukhtar Masih, 50, were arrested on the allegation of committing blasphemy. Both died in the Lahore police station. Bantu Masih was stabbed eight times by a fundamentalist in the presence of policemen. He later succumbed to his injuries, whereas Mukhtar Masih was tortured to death in police custody.

1992 – January 06: Christian teacher Naimat Ahmar, 43, was butchered by a young member of a militant religious group, Farooq Ahmad, on the office premises of the District Education Officer in Faisalabad while on duty. Ahmad killed him because the deceased had reportedly used highly insulting remarks against Islam and Prophet Mohammed and by killing a blasphemer he had won his way into heaven. No case of blasphemy was registered against him nor was he tried by any court. Ahmar left behind a widow and four children.

1991 – December 10: Gul Masih of Faisalabad was charged for using sacrilegious language about the Prophet and his wives. The complainant, Sajjad Hussain, had a quarrel with him over repair of a street water tap. Masih was sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, Sargodha, on November 02, 1992. Years later he was acquitted but continued to receive death threats. He is now in Germany on asylum.

1991 – October 08: Chand Barkat, 28, a bangle stall holder in Karachi, was charged with blasphemy by another bangle vendor, Arif Hussain, because of professional jealousy. Hussain decided to teach Barkat a lesson by accusing him of using derogatory language against Prophet Mohammed and his mother. Barkat was charged under section 295-C of PPC, however, he was acquitted by the Sessions Court for want of evidence.

1990 – December 07: Tahir Iqbal, a Christian convert from Islam and resident of Lahore, was accused of abusing Prophet Mohammad at the time of Azaan and imparting anti-Islamic education to children during tuitions. The sessions judge in July 1991 turned down his bail application after he learnt that Iqbal had converted to Christianity, which, he stated, was a cognisable offence. Later on July 21, 1992, before Iqbal’s defence lawyer could appear in court, he was poisoned in police custody

Fundamentalism malaise

By Faisal Siddiqi

WE are plagued by the disease of fundamentalism. We, the much troubled Pakistani nation, have been force-fed all editions of fundamentalism i.e. religious, liberal, military and American imperialist versions.

This fundamentalist narrative of `I am the Truth` has now infected the current debate about the blasphemy laws (specifically Sections 295-A, B & C, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860). In one corner, we have the Islamic fundamentalists (i.e. constitutional fundamentalists like the Jamaat-i-Islami, JUI-F), who want to retain or strengthen this law. In the other corner are the liberal fundamentalists, who want this law repealed or, at the least, radically reformed. Can this violent confrontation be avoided? And is there a non-fundamentalist way forward through which we can strike an appropriate balance?
This debate about the blasphemy laws was bound to be infected by fundamentalism because it is taking place either on the plane of ideology or hermeneutics/interpretation.
According to the liberal fundamentalist, the present text of the blasphemy laws and its constant misuse make the law, in its current form, morally and ideologically unjust, whereas, according to Islamic fundamentalists, this is God`s law and, thus, morally and ideologically superior to any liberal ideology or argument.
I am not a great fan of post-modern philosophical doctrine but its post-modern exponents are right in arguing that we live in a world of irreconcilable ideological conflict and this ideological conflict between the Islamist and liberal fundamentalist cannot be intellectually resolved. Therefore, the road to victory, for either side, does not lie on the ideological highway.
But what about the hermeneutical/interpretational plane? The Islamists argue that there is a consensus among the ulema that this blasphemy law is the correct interpretation of God`s law. The liberals object that there is no such consensus and the present text of these laws is not in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah.
Who will resolve this hermeneutical debate about authentic interpretation? What both classical and modern hermeneutical philosophers tell us is that the Islamic and liberal fundamentalists` interpretation is just that —a human interpretation of a sacred text and nothing more. In other words, no one has direct access to the religious text and no one can claim un-refutable interpretation. Therefore, the hermeneutic road, for either side, will not lead to victory.
But what is more important to us? The so-called principles of both the Islamists and liberals and their desire to please their respective audiences? Or, shouldn`t the central concern be the punishment of persons who maliciously violate these laws to cause religious conflict, as well as justice for the innocent victims of these laws?
Sadly, we are also infected by helplessness, cynicism and conflict and this leads to our failure to see the implied consensus among us on even these contentious issues. On this issue of blasphemy and its law, both the liberals and the Islamist agree on the following principles:
(a) Any sane person who maliciously and deliberately commits blasphemy to cause religious conflict should be punished. (b) No innocent person should be tried and punished under the blasphemy laws. (c) The courts of law should decide these cases under the law without fear of the state or the public mob. (d) If any person has been declared innocent by the courts of laws, it is the duty of every person and institution to protect his/her life and liberty. (d) Even the guilty under these blasphemy laws have legal rights and they can only be punished by the courts and their sentences can only be executed in accordance with the law. No private person or mob can be allowed to try, convict and punish any person.
Further, the Islamists and liberals may be surprised at the fact that both might also agree on the issue of reform. The liberals need to reform the blasphemy laws because of its misuse and the growing number of innocent victims they claim. But the Islamists must also reform this law to strengthen it because its misuse and its growing list of innocent victims might ultimately lead to its repeal.
Therefore, my Islamic brothers, reform this law before the momentum for its repeal becomes unstoppable. In other words, if you oppose Sherry Rehman`s bill, why not bring your own bill to strengthen this law in a manner that it mutes criticism by controlling its misuse, and by humanising it?
But this is where the consensus ends and the hard work begins. The liberals and the Islamists will not agree on the text of the blasphemy law presented by either side. There is only one way to resolve this textual debate over the blasphemy law. A vote in the Pakistani parliament. There are two main reasons for resolving this debate through parliament.
Firstly, it comprises all shades of Pakistani opinion i.e. both the religious and liberal opinions are represented in parliament. Secondly, it is historically tested. Both the Islamic and liberal camps have resolved much tougher disputes (e.g. the consensus documents like the 1973 constitution and the 18th Amendment) through parliament.
The blasphemy law issue is a reflection of a potentially violent ideological war between the liberals and Islamists. Both sides should be conscious that the ultimate winners of this violent ideological warfare will be either the Taliban (i.e. militant non-constitutionalists) or Bonaparte generals or American imperialism and each one of these victors considers both the liberals and constitutional Islamists as either kafirs , civilian fools or collateral damage. If any one of these victors takes charge of Pakistan, there will be nothing left of this country and we would all be blasphemous in the eyes of these victors from a worldly hell.
The writer is a lawyer

Religious Fundamentalism Grown Beyond Proportions

Naeem Shakir

The minorities in Pakistan are caught up in a grave situation, with gory incidents occurring. A wild wave of sectarianism has engulfed the society, which has resulted in unethical sentiments of religious prejudices. The armed religious extremists are playing havoc in the society. A situation of religious intolerance has spread suffocation in our lives. The doors of dialogue are being closed. Religious fundamentalism has grown beyond proportions. Muslim clerics are demanding complete imposition of Islamic Shariah in Pakistan, making it applicable also to the non-Muslim citizens.

The minorities in Pakistan have already suffered seriously on account of sectarian legislation which has thrown non-Muslim citizens out of the mainstream of national life. They are no more part of the mainstream activities of the state and are being discriminated against in all fields of life. The claim of the minorities as equal and respectable citizens is at stake. The life and property of people in minority community is no longer safe. A sense of insecurity is growing fast among the minorities.

The Christians are being roped in false cases under the blasphemy law. They are being murdered by zealots to win heavens for themselves. They take the law in their hands and do not even wait for the judicial verdict. The judgements of the superior courts have proved that this law on blasphemy is being ruthlessly abused for settling personal scores and, of course, for religious persecution. This law is proving to be a sword hanging on the heads of non-Muslims and the secular-minded people.

Bishop John Joseph, Roman Catholic Bishop of Faizalabad, who was an ardent spokesman for peace and inter-religious dialogue, had waged a struggle on war footing against fundamentalism, religious intolerance, and discriminatory laws, particularly against the amended provisions of the law about blasphemy. And in order to give an impetus to the struggle and focus world attention on this crucial issue, he sacrificed his life for the just cause on May 5, 1998. He shot himself right in front of the iron gate of the Sessions Court of Sahiwal, which convicted Ayub Masih a charge of blasphemy and sentenced him to death vide its judgement passed on April 27, 1998. This death sentence has once again raised fear and panic amongst the minority communities in Pakistan as the law of blasphemy casts the net wide open to rope in anyone - Christians and Ahmedias more easily, maybe due to personal malice or religious prejudice.

The death of Bishop John Joseph excited a wave of anger among the Christians. They spontaneously came on the roads to publicly mourn the death of their leader and demonstrate their will to continue the struggle against oppression and discriminatory laws, including the law on blasphemy. The peaceful processions were brutally suppressed by the police and the state apparatus.

In order to underplay the impact of the self-sacrifice of Bishop John Samuel, the Muslim clerics treacherously launched a move to field a counter version that the Bishop was murdered by a Catholic Father due to some rivalry. The print media was fully used by the clerics in a malicious way so as to diffuse the zealous spirit among the Christians. However, they have miserably failed in their nefarious designs.

Collaboration of Dictatorship and Fundamentalism

In order to get a clear picture about the law on blasphemy it would be better to discuss the issue in a broader perspective which will enable us to have a better understanding about the whole situation.

Pakistan came into being in 1947. It was earlier part of united India. The united struggle of people of India for independence was meant to overthrow the yoke of British colonial rule which prolonged for more than a century. On August 14, 1947 when people won independence, simultaneously the partition of India took place and thus a new state of Pakistan emerged. Though Islam was used as a catchword during the movement for Pakistan, the great leader and founder of this new nation, Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had categorically made it clear that the country will not be a theocratic state. In his presidential address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan at Karachi, on September 11, 1947, he said, "We are starting with this fundamental principle that we all are citizens and equal citizens of one state. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state." It is however, most unfortunate that since the death of the Father of the Nation in September 1948, politics based on religious sectarianism has been in vogue in Pakistan. Politicians tried to take mileage on the basis of religion. This approach in politics has not only negated the fundamental principle (referred to above) but has also generated the baneful sentiment of religious prejudice among the people at large. Therefore, soon after his demise this infant nation was thrown out of the cradle of democracy. The country went into the hands of opportunists, fundamentalists and colonial agents.

Here, I would like to mention a crucial point: later on, a complete departure from the earlier spelt-out state structure was made. The net result was that the religion (Islam) was introduced in the socio-political corpus through an Objectives Resolution, which has served as a preamble to all the three Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973. This resolution, while speaking for Islam, however, in a sixth paragraph, provided that "an adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religion and develop their culture". During the military rule of 1977-1987 the Objectives Resolution which was serving as a preamble to the 1973 Constitution was through a Presidential Order made substantive part of the Constitution by incorporation of Article 2-A:

While doing so the word "freely" was deliberately deleted from the text. Now it reads as "an adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practise their religion and develop their culture." It was a deliberate and dishonest act on the part of the military ruler to delete the word "freely". Earlier in the preamble of the Constitution of Pakistan, the word freely was present whereas in the new Article 2-A the word freely was missing. I think this is a singular example of reading history through prejudice. This deliberate deletion later had serious repercussions in our socio-political set-up. It introduced an element of religious extremism in our society. And from that point of time the treatment meted out to the non-Muslims citizens has been very harsh.

In order to remain in the seat of power General Ziaul-Herq, the military dictator collaborated with the religious fundamentalists. Those who were never voted for the Assemblies were brought to the corridors of power through administrative measures. The army general took upon himself the task of Islamising the society. In that process of Islamisation, sectarian legislation was promulgated.

First of all, he amended the Penal Code and introduced Islamic punishments in the form of Hudood laws. You may call it an Islamic version of criminal law. The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 related to theft cases. "Hadd" means "punishment ordained by the Holy Quran or Sunnah". The punishment for theft liable to Hadd for the person committing the offence first time is amputation of his right hand from the joint of the wrist. And if such a person commits the offence a second time, he shall be punished with amputation of his left foot up to the ankle. The proof of theft liable to Hadd shall be the evidence of "at least two Muslim adult male witnesses who are supposed to be truthful persons who abstain from major sins". Section 25 of this ordinance says that the Presiding Officer of the court by which a case is tried, or an appeal is heard, under this ordinance shall be a Muslim.

The second ordinance was called the "Offence of Zina" (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979. Zina was defined thus: "a man and a woman are said to commit Zina if they wilfully have sexual intercourse without being validly married to each other". The punishment provided includes stoning to death at a public place; or one hundred lashes with the whip at a public place.

The proof of Zina shall require the evidence of at least four Muslim adult male witnesses about whom the court is satisfied that they are truthful and abstain from major sins. The Presiding Officer of the court is required to be a Muslim.

Both these Ordinances are applicable to non-Muslims as well. The next law was Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. It prohibited the use of liquor and other intoxicants. The Christians may use liquor for religious ceremonies provided they are issued liquor permits by the government. The punishment provided for offences under this Order includes life imprisonment or imprisonment of not less than two years along with thirty lashes with the whip. For purposes of enforcing Hadd punishment the evidence of at least two Muslim adult male witnesses is required. As in other Hudood laws the Presiding Officer is to be a Muslim. The other Hudood laws relating to Qazaf (perjury) and "Execution of the Punishment of Whipping" were promulgated in 1979.

The Evidence Act was also Islamised thereby the credibility of a non-Muslim witness was brought down to a secondary position. The witness is supposed to be truthful who abstains from major sins as defined in holy Quran and Sunnah.

Thereafter the Islamic Shariah was made the supreme law of the land through Enforcement of Shariah Act 1991. The Shariah under this act has been defined as the "injunctions of Islam as laid in the Holy Quran and Sunnah". Section 4 of this Act says, "While interpreting the statute-law, if more than one interpretation is possible, the one consistent with the Islamic principles and jurisprudence shall be adopted by the court". According to this Act, the education system, the judicial system, the economic system and the media shall be Islamized. The Act, however, lays down in a provision to section 1(4)". "Nothing contained in this Act shall effect the personal laws, religious freedom, traditions, custom and way of life of the non-Muslims".

When every field of life is Islamised, how on earth can the non-Muslims lead their own way of life? There has been a serious invasion against the personal laws of non-Muslims. And the institution of marriage has been rendered as a fragile thing because the laws are interpreted according to the injunctions of Islam. I may inform you that ours is a feudal society. Abduction of non-Muslim women (who belong to the marginalised section of the society) is a common feature. The Muslim abductor forcibly takes away a married Christian woman. In order to avoid the rigours of penal law, he converts the abductee to Islam and undergoes the procedure of Islamic marriage with her. The whole exercise is undertaken in such a mechanical manner that the law is made a sheer mockery. It is practically a preparation of the required papers in this whole exercise. Since Islamic Shariah has become the supreme law, and the statute law is to be interpreted according to the injunctions of Islam, her earlier marriage under the Christian Marriage Act stands dissolved ipso facto. Why, because she has now embraced Islam and thus her personal law shall prevail. Islam does not allow a Muslim woman to get married with a non-Muslim man. Her fist husband being Christian shall cease to hold that marital status with her. This situation has many times created serious problems regarding custody and guardianship of minor children born out Christian wedlock.

Judicial System Shaken

The judicial system was completely disturbed. The Constitution was amended and Federal Shariat Court was constituted to adjudicate appeal of cases under Shariah law. Under Article 230- D of the Constitution, the Federal Shariat Court has been empowered to strike down any statute law which may be deemed repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The establishment of Shariat Court has introduced a parallel judicial system and has dealt a serious blow to the supremacy of Parliament. It would not be out of place to mention here that although Shariah laws are applicable to non-Muslims but a non-Muslim lawyer is not entitled to appear as a legal practitioner before this Federal Shariat Court.

Non-Muslim Rights Abused

A stunning blow causing serious damage to the socio-political status of non-Muslim citizen was administered through amendments to the electoral law in 1979. This amendment introduced an apartheid mode of separate electorates in the country vide President's Order 14 of 1985. The electoral laws were changed and framed in a manner which divided citizens on the basis of religion. The electoral lists have been separated as Muslim voters and non-Muslim voters. Both cannot vote for each other. At the time of general elections it appears as if two nations are living in this country. The delimitation of constituencies of non-Muslims is rather ridiculous. It's the whole country for National Assembly seats reserved for non-Muslims and likewise the whole of province for the reserved seats in Provincial Assemblies. The non-Muslim citizens stand marginalised under this apartheid mode of separate electorates as they have been thrown out of the mainstream of national life. They are no more part of the business of the state as their right of franchise has been subjected to religious classification. This renders them as second class citizens of the state.

The legislative measures introduced to Islamise the society leave no room for non-Muslims to freely profess and practise their religion. The sectarian legislation based on supremacy of one particular religion, i.e. Islam has promoted a culture of religious intolerance. Religion has played a vital role in human development but wherever and whenever it was used for purposes opposed to its inherent spirit of peace, brotherhood and social justice, it not only lost its relevance in the process of social development but its image was also tarnished in the minds of those who were subjected to oppressive measures adopted in the name of religion.

The law on blasphemy also belongs to this era when the country was under military rule. The subject law is part of the Penal Code of Pakistan. Its Chapter XV deals with offences relating to religion, which contains Sections 295 to 298. The British during their colonial rule framed the Indian Penal Code in 1860. The authors of the Penal Code deemed it proper to provide a preface to Chapter XV dealing with offences relating to religion. And the same is reproduced as under, " The principle on which this chapter has been framed is a principle on which it would be desirable that all Governments should act, but from which the British Government in India cannot depart without risking the dissolution of society : it is this, that every man should be suffered to profess his own religion, and that no man should be suffered to insult the religion of another."

The British authors were conscious of the religious feelings of the people of the multi- ethnic and multi-religious Indian culture. And it was perhaps for this reason that the authors provided the afore-mentioned preface.

Section 295 provided: "Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both."

It may be mentioned here that these provisions still exist on the statute book as framed in 1860. During the independence movement in early twentieth century in India, religious decrees were also used to accelerate the pace of struggle. In those days different religious groups fanned religious sentiments of the people. However, the process of polemics continued in the society in an atmosphere of religious tolerance.

The British, however, were obliged to add a new section as 295-A because a Hindu writer (Raj Pal) published a book on Prophet Mohammed about which the Indian Muslims took serious exception as some objectionable material amounting to insult to the Prophet was observed. Agitation by the Muslims continued for some time. The writer was later murdered by a Muslim zealot (Illam Din). Resultantly the following section was introduced in 1927: " Whoever with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of His Majesty's subjects, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both."

As adapted in the Pakistan Penal Code the words "His Majesty's subjects", were deleted and "the citizens of Pakistan" were incorporated. At the same time a punishment of "ten years" was substituted in place of "two years" in the original. The change was effected through the Criminal Law (Third Amendment) Ordinance XXI of 1991.

A new Section 295-B was introduced vide Ordinance 1 of 1982 to deal with defiling of the Holy Quran. This section reads as follows: "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 with imprisonment for life".

As days passed, religious extremism grew. Religion was used in politics to steal a march over rivals. Gen. Zia formed a Parliament on the Islamic pattern, called Majlis-e-Shoora. Through this Assembly of chosen 'representatives' Section 295-C was added. It is reproduced as below: "295-C: Whoever by word, 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 Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine".

Gen. Zia, through a constitutional amendment, constituted the Federal Shariat Court which under the new Article 203-D had the following powers and jurisdiction.

"203-D (1). The Court may (either of its own motion or on the petition of a citizen of Pakistan or the Federal Government or a Provincial Government) examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provisions of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet hereinafter referred to as the injunctions of Islam".

The story does not end here. A petition was moved before the Federal Shariat Court for declaring the punishment provided in Section 295-C, null and void, as the same was repugnant to Quran and Sunnah. The plea was made that the injunctions of Islam provide punishment in the form of Hadd only, and not otherwise, and that too in mandatory form - meaning thereby that the punishment of life imprisonment was void and thus be deleted and mandatory punishment of death be retained. The Shariat Court accepted the petition. The relevant part of the judgement of October 30, 1990, is reproduced below:

"In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the alternate punishment of life imprisonment as provided in Section 295-C PPC is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as given in Holy Quran and Sunnah and therefore, the said words be deleted therefrom".

"A copy of this Order shall be sent to the President of Pakistan under Article 203-D (3) of the Constitution to take steps to amend the law so as to bring the same in conformity with the injunctions of Islam. In case, this is not done by April 30 1991 the words" or imprisonment for life" in Section 295-C, PPC shall cease to have effect on that date. Therefore, now there is only one punishment provided in section 295-C and that is the death penalty.

The rest of the amendment in this chapter particularly relates to Ahmadies in the form of 298-A, 298-B and 298-C. I will not discuss them now due to time constraints.

It would not be out of place to mention here that till the pronouncement of this judgement, by the Federal Shariat Court, which provide mandatory death penalty, no case of blasphemy was reported to have been registered under Section 295-B or 295-C PPC. The amended sections are so wide in their connotation, including 'innuendo' or 'insinuation', that to allege blasphemy against any one has been made so easy. The import of these provisions is quite vague in nature. These provisions are discriminatory as supposedly these are meant to Islamise the criminal law whereas these are applicable to non-Muslims as well. A non-Muslim is supposed to adhere to his own belief. And if a non-Muslim professes his belief publicly that would amount to blasphemy according to the amended provisions. Thus, these amendments in the Pakistan Penal Code relating religion have cast the net wide open to rope in anyone on mere allegation of blasphemy. And once someone is charged with this offence, he is doomed as the offence is non-bailable, the death penalty is mandatory in law, justice is being subjected to sectarian affiliation and because religious frenzy is being promoted in the society by the vested interests and the religious fundamentalists.

The Blasphemy Law in Pakistan and its Impact

(Ed. note: In July's issue of Human Rights SOLIDARITY Naeem Shakir has given an in-depth analysis of the origin and the impact of the law. The second part of the article consists of vivid accounts of how Christians are being victimised under such tyrannical law.)

Since I have been involved as a defence lawyer in high profile cases about blasphemy, I have painfully experienced the tyrannical nature of this law. Apart from the accused, the lawyers, and even judges are not safe in this highly vulnerable situation. Before winding up I would like to give a few examples of blasphemy cases against Christians.

" Conversion from Islam to Christianity is in itself a cognisable offence"

Tahir Iqbal was a Christian convert from Islam. He had suffered from paralysis. The lower part of his body had been paralysed rendering him invalid. He could not walk. He could not stand even. He used a wheel chair. He was an engine mechanic in the Pakistan Air Force. His conversion to Christianity had annoyed Muslims. He lived in the southern part of Lahore close to a mosque. The Muslim cleric in charge of that mosque finally decided to teach him a lesson. He got a case of blasphemy registered against him on December 7, 1990, alleging that "when he recites 'Azaan' (call for prayer) early in the morning in the mosque, Tahir Iqbal feels infuriated and starts abusing Prophet Mohammed at the top of his voice, imparts anti-Islamic education to children who come to him for tuition, has defiled Holy Quran by underlining with green marker, and thus has seriously injured our religious feelings."

He was arrested by the police on blasphemy charges and that's all. He was doomed. Despite his physical inability, he was not bailed out. As earlier stated, justice has been subjected to sectarian affiliations. A very crude example may be cited of Tahir Iqbal. The Sessions Judge who dismissed his bail application on July 7, 1991, passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded before me that the petitioner has converted as Christian. With this admission on the part of petitioner's counsel there is no need to probe further into the allegations as contained in the FIR because learned DDA has disclosed that charge has already been framed and the accused is facing trial. Since conversion from Islam to Christianity is in itself a cognisable offence involving serious implication, I do not consider the petitioner entitled to the concession of bail at this stage".

Though it is needless to comment, it may be mentioned that no law in Pakistan has yet been framed which makes conversion from Islam to Christianity a cognisable offence. The case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on July 21, 1992, before the Sessions Court. When I as the defense lawyer, appeared in the court I was informed by the State Counsel that the accused had died in the jail the previous night. Tahir Iqbal was poisoned to death in jail under a conspiracy about which he had informed all authorities concerned beforehand. He was killed because he had embraced Christianity.

Innocent People Seek Asylum

Chand Barkat, 28, a bangle stall holder in Mangle Bazar, Karachi was charged with blasphemy by a co-bangle vendor because of professional jealousy. Arif Hussain used to sit beside him for selling bangles in the bazaar. He did not tolerate women going to Chand Barkat, a Christian, for buying bangles. One day Arif warned him to quit that place as otherwise he would teach him a lesson. Chand Barkat did not leave the place. Arif involved Chand Barkat in a case of blasphemy on October 8, 1991, alleging that he used derogatory language against Prophet Muhammad and his mother. He was charged under Section 295-C. Chand Barkat was acquitted by the Sessions Court for want of evidence.

Gull Masih of Faisalabad was charged under section 295-C for using sacrilegious language about the Prophet and his wives on December 10, 1991. The complainant Sajjad Hussain, had a quarrel with him over repair of a street water tap. Out of this quarrel had emanated the blasphemy case. Gull Masih was tried under the blasphemy law and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, Sargodha, on November 2, 1992. This death sentence created a commotion. Human rights organisations and the Church agitated against the death sentence. We filed a criminal appeal in the High Court against the judgement of the Sessions Judge. Gull Masih was bailed out neither by the Sessions Court nor by the High Court. I moved an application for early hearing in the High Court but it took two years for the final hearing. The appeal was heard by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which held that it was a case of no evidence and thus set aside the death sentence and acquitted Gull Masih. It became difficult for Gull Masih to come out of jail as religious fundamentalists had warned of dire consequences. He had to be kept under tight security. Later, in order to save his life, arrangements were made for his exit quietly. He is now in Germany on asylum.

Winning Heaven by Killing Blasphemer

Naimat Ahmar 43, a Christian teacher and a poet and writer of Faisalabad, was butchered by Farooq Ahmad, a young member of a militant religious group (ASSP) on the premises of office of the District Education Officer, Faisalabad, at 10 a.m. while on duty. The religious zealot killed him because the deceased had reportedly used highly insulting remarks against Islam and Prophet Mohammed. No case of blasphemy was registered against the deceased. He was not tried by any court. The young religious extremist, as briefed by his organisation, took the law in his own hands and killed the poet, writer and teacher, leaving behind a widow and four children. The killer was charged with murder. He made a confession. He was garlanded in jail by religious clerics. The statement of the killer was published in the press that by killing a blasphemer he had won heaven.

The trial court sentenced him to fourteen years� imprisonment. His appeal to set aside the sentence is pending in the High Court, and I am representing the complainant who is the younger brother of the deceased.

A minor, Salamat Masih, 12 years old, along with Manzoor Masih, 37, and Rehamat Masih, 42, of Gujranwala, were charged with writing derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammed on the wall of the mosque of the village where they lived. All the three were in fact illiterate and did not know to write. The case of the minor became a high-profile case in the world media.

We got the case transferred to Lahore through the High Court because each time we went to the Sessions Court in Gujranwala, religious extremists would gather in front of the courtroom with banners urging immediate execution of the alleged blasphemers. They used to pose threats to the lawyers coming from Lahore and none of the local lawyers dared to defend the accused. The case was later heard by the Sessions Judge of Lahore. The court, on our request, provided police guards to escort the accused and their lawyer from his office to court and back to his office. On June 5, 1994 the three accused were brought back by the police guards to my office, and after staying for about half an hour they left for their place of hibernation. They had hardly crossed about 500 yards away from my office when they were attacked by armed religious militants with guns. Manzoor Masih died on the spot while the other two accused and their escort, John Joseph, sustained grievous injures. The murder of Manzoor Masih increased the sense of insecurity among Christians. There was countrywide agitation by the Christians demanding repeal of the blasphemy law and security to their lives in the country.

The Sessions Court of Lahore, convicted the remaining two accused and passed death sentence against them. The death sentence against the minor attracted the attention of human rights activists the world over. The High Court, however, while adjudicating their appeal against conviction, acquitted them declaring that it was a case of no evidence. They had to flee the country to save their lives. They are also living in Germany on asylum. One of the senior judges of the Division Bench, which acquitted the two Christians, was murdered by a religious extremist on that very account.

Bantu Masih, 80, and Mukhtar Masih, 50, were arrested on the allegation of committing blasphemy. Both died under police custody. Bantu Masih was stabbed by a fundamentalist in the presence of policemen. He later succumbed to his injuries whereas Mukhtar Masih was tortured to death at the police station. There are many other cases of like nature against Christians, Muslims and Ahmadis. The plight of Ahmadis is much worse. The record shows that such cases were framed maliciously for settling personal scores or for religious persecution. The Christians are demanding repeal of the amended provisions of the law on blasphemy, but the Muslim fundamentalists are threatening that in case the law is repealed or changed they would overthrow the government. They are also using threatening language for the non-Muslim citizens among whom sense of insecurity is growing fast.

I hope that the examples of these cases would help better understanding of the situation we are faced with. We are in difficult times. We need support from around the world from all those who respect human rights, as their strong voice does have an impact on the forces who are responsible for this situation. We, however, know that basically it is through the political struggle launched by secular and progressive forces that we can make our society tolerant and civilised.

Thank you very much for providing me an opportunity for sharing the pains of my people.
( Naeem Shakir have been involved as a defence lawyer in high profile cases about blasphemy. Human Rights SOLIDARITY will carry his analysis of the blasphemy law in two issues. The first part of the article deals with the origin and consequence of the law from the legal point of view.) 

Pakistan's Blasphemy Law: Words Fail Me

By Akbar S. Ahmed

It is not every day that I get a letter from the Death Cell, Central Jail, Rawalpindi in Pakistan. As any Pakistani would be, I was aware that Central Jail was where the country's most popular democratic leader, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was executed more than two decades ago.
The letter was dated April 15 and addressed to me and to a Pakistani colleague here in Washington. Written in a clear and neat hand, the sender's name made me sit up: Mohammad Younas Sheikh, who teaches at the homeopathic medical college in Islamabad. He is one of perhaps dozens of educators accused by their students of a crime that doesn't exist in many countries: blasphemy. Sheikh has been convicted and awaits execution, which is mandatory under the blasphemy law. Many other Pakistanis, particularly minorities, also have been charged. These cases offer an alarming glimpse into the machinery of state under Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Washington's partner in the "war on terror."
Sheikh's problems began in October 2000 when he made some innocuous remarks about the origins of Islam. Muslims believe that the Koran came to the prophet Muhammad as a revelation when he was 40. In response to a student's question, Sheikh said that before he was 40, Muhammad was neither a prophet nor a Muslim, as there was no Islam. For those Muslims who believe his prophethood was divinely preordained, this was blasphemous. The students took the matter to some local mullahs, who in their role as religious leaders registered a case with the police. Matters then moved rapidly and, as in such cases, with a certain inexorability.
But Sheikh was not ridiculing or rejecting the prophet. On the contrary, like many Muslims grappling with issues of modernity, he raised questions of interpretation. Although partly educated in Ireland, Sheikh was born and raised in Pakistan and is a devout Muslim who has said that one of the books that most inspires him is the Koran. He is the founder of the Enlightenment, a society of like-minded Pakistanis who discuss Islam in a modern context. His father is recognized as having memorized the Koran.
In his letter, Sheikh called the blasphemy law "wide open to abuse, through and by the miscreant mullahs for political, repressive and vindictive purposes. . . ." The law's abuse is part of "a rising wave of aggressive ignorance, incivility and intolerance as well as the medieval theocratic darkness," he wrote. I must say I agree.
His trial was held in closed session, inside the Central Jail. "Even my solicitors were harassed with a fatwa of apostasy and they were threatened with the lives of their children," he wrote. He asked us to bring the case to the notice of Musharraf so that the president could "repeal this notorious and fascist blasphemy law."
By writing this, I do indeed hope to focus attention on the law. In the meantime, I am aware that by raising the issue I become a bit player in the drama.
Several Pakistani friends have warned me to say nothing about this out of concern for my safety. Anyone who questions the blasphemy law's power may be seen as challenging Islam -- and therefore suspect under the very law he or she questions. But as a Sunni Muslim from a mainstream, orthodox family, I feel compelled to speak, in part because of the emphasis that Islam places on peace and compassion. And as a former governmental administrator in my native country, I know how intimidating majority views can be for religious minorities. About 95 percent of Pakistan's 145 million people are Muslims.
In the 1970s and '80s, when I was a district officer in charge of law and order in two Pakistani provinces, a reform of the nation's legal and administrative system was long overdue. Those who turned to the law for recourse found themselves involved in exhausting and expensive cases that could last decades. Individuals had few rights, and the system favored the rich and powerful. There was a disastrous mismatch between aspects of the remnants of British colonial law and the contemporary needs of society.
Then, as now, there are four distinct sets of laws that sometimes overlap: British colonial law, which by and large was the basis in 1947 for Pakistan's penal code and criminal procedure code; Islamic sharia law; tribal law, which applies to certain areas of the country; and state law, which is codified by each state's local ruler. The application of the law has never been fully resolved.
Amid this confusion, Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, as president, added new laws to the penal code, including 295-B in 1982, which made desecrating the Koran or making a derogatory remark about it punishable by life imprisonment -- though, in yet a further nod toward confusion, judges sometimes reduce the term. Two years ago, for instance, Naseem Ghani and Mohammed Shafiq were sentenced to seven years for allegedly burning a Koran.
In 1984 came the 295-C clause, usually referred to as the blasphemy law. It rather sweepingly stipulates that "derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet . . . either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly . . . shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." Six years later, the stakes were raised when the Federal Sharia Court, where cases having to do with Islamic issues tend to be heard, ruled, "The penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet . . . is death and nothing else."
In the application of the blasphemy law, intolerance has fed on intolerance. So far, none of the convicted has been executed, in part because scheduling an execution can take years. But lynch mobs have killed several of the accused.
Over the years I began to see the blasphemy law used more and more for cases of political vendetta, land disputes or political rivalry. The law became a way to challenge someone's identity, a powerful tool to intimidate anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim.
The targets of this law have largely been minorities, such as members of the Ahmadi sect (who consider themselves Muslims) and Christians, though the latest anecdotal evidence suggests that the pendulum is now swinging toward Muslims. In the past decade or so, perhaps 2,000 Ahmadis have been charged under the blasphemy law, according to that community. The Ahmadis were declared non-Muslims by Prime Minister Bhutto in 1974. Ten years later, they were denied the right to practice their faith.
The Pakistani government says it does not have exact figures for the number of people charged under the blasphemy law. But the State Department report, "International Religious Freedom 2001," offers some clues. Over the past three or four years, 55 to 60 Christians a year have been charged. That figure probably hasn't changed much since the law was enacted. And as evidence of that possible shift in who is targeted, the report says that three-quarters of those on trial for blasphemy in 2001 were Muslims.
Bail is usually denied for those charged with blasphemy. Trials are expensive and can last for years. Worse: They can take years to begin.For example, Riaz Ahmad, his son and two nephews, all Ahmadis, have been imprisoned since their arrest in November 1993. They were detained on the vague allegation that they had "said something derogatory." Local people in Piplan, Mianwali District, say that rivalry over Ahmad's position as village headman is the real motivation for the complaint against him. Their trial has yet to begin.
Anwar Masih, a Christian from Samundri in Punjab, has been in detention since February 1993 when a Muslim shopkeeper alleged that Masih insulted the prophet during an argument over money.
Roman Catholic Bishop John Joseph, a Pakistani human rights campaigner, had been leading a campaign against the blasphemy law and said he felt he was getting nowhere when he took his own life on May 6, 1998. He had failed to find a lawyer willing to take the case of convicted blasphemer Ayub Massih, a Christian.Massih's family had applied to a government program that gives housing plots to landless people. The local landlords, who brought the allegations against him, resented this because landless Christians work in their fields in exchange for a place to live. By getting a plot of land Massih would have escaped his bondage.
"Most of these cases," concludes Amnesty International in its latest report on Pakistan, "are motivated not by the blasphemous actions of the accused, but by hostility toward members of minority communities, compounded by personal enmity, professional jealousy or economic rivalry."
The bishop's suicide put international pressure on Pakistan's rulers. Benazir Bhutto, who was then prime minister, approved two amendments to the penal code designed to reduce the abuses of Section 295. The number of arrests has dropped, but the law remains intact. When Musharraf seized power in October 1999, he talked about wanting to move Pakistan toward progress and tolerance. He suggested mild changes to the blasphemy law in April 2000, but withdrew them under pressure from religious elements the following month. That is where the matter rests.
Musharraf recently ratified his presidency for five more years with his "landslide victory" in a widely questioned referendum. Both commander in chief of the army and president, he is the most powerful man in Pakistan. He can cause meaningful change. Islam expects the ruler to show high moral authority, but no ruler has dared to reexamine the blasphemy law in the light of Islamic law itself. Musharraf should consider the Koranic verse that says, "There is no compulsion in religion."
If he is to move his country toward the tolerant and modern Muslim nation envisioned by Pakistan's founder, Musharraf must begin by taking this important first step: reopening the case of Sheikh and other alleged blasphemers who await death and showing the justice, compassion and mercy that Islam requires.
Akbar Ahmed is the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies and professor of international relations at American University and the author, most recently, of "Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World" (I.B. Tauris).

Shariah at the Kumback Café

December 6, 2010

By ROGER COHEN

PERRY, OKLAHOMA — They call Oklahoma the buckle of the Bible Belt. It’s the state where all 77 counties voted Republican when Barack Obama was elected and where 70.8 percent of the electorate last month approved a “Save Our State Amendment” banning Islamic, or Shariah, law.
So I decided to check the pulse of a resurgent conservative America at the Kumback Café. The Kumback, established 1926, is a cozy, memorabilia-filled joint that sits opposite the courthouse in downtown Perry, population 5,230.
Things work like this at the Kumback: The guys, average age about 80, arrive around 8 a.m. and get talking on “the whole gamut of life”; the girls, average age too indelicate to print, gather later at a horse-shoe shaped table toward the back. Ken Sherman, 86 and spry, explained: “We’ve got to come here every day to find out what’s going on. And by the time we leave we forget.”
I asked Paul Morrow, a whippersnapper at 71, how things were going. “There’s just too much Muslim influence, all this Shariah law,” he said. “We’re conservative here, old and cantankerous.”
You might not expect Shariah, a broad term encompassing Islamic religious precepts, to be a priority topic at the Kumback given that there’s not a Muslim in Perry and perhaps 30,000, or less than one percent of the population, in all Oklahoma. And you’d be wrong.
Shariah is the new hot-button wedge issue, as radicalizing as abortion or gay marriage, seized on by Republicans to mobilize conservative Americans against the supposed “stealth jihad” of Muslims in the United States and against a Democratic president portrayed as oblivious to — or complicit with — the threat. Not since 9/11 has Islamophobia been at such a pitch in the United States.
The neoconservative Center for Security Policy in Washington recently described Shariah as “the pre-eminent totalitarian threat of our time.” Many Republicans, with Newt Gingrich leading, have signed up. Their strategy is clear: Conflate Obama with creeping Shariah and achieve the political double-whammy of feeding rampant rumors that he’s a closet Muslim and fanning the fears that propel a conservative lurch.
It’s not pretty, in fact it’s pretty odious, but to judge by the Republican surge last month, it’s effective in an anxiety-filled America.
Galvanized by State Question 755, barring “courts from considering or using Shariah Law,” Republicans swept to the Oklahoma governorship and veto-proof majorities in the Legislature for the first time.
Question 755 was “a pre-emptive strike,” in the words of its most active proponent, Republican State Representative Rex Duncan, whose portrait hangs in the Kumback. The question arises, given the quiet on the prairies, against whom? A prominent Oklahoma pastor, Paul Blair, told me it was aimed at those “whose plan is not to coexist but bring the whole world under Islam.”
A preliminary federal injunction, granted after a prominent local Muslim, Muneer Awad, challenged the constitutionality of the amendment in the nation where “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has blocked its certification for now. The very curious case of Shariah and Oklahoma may be headed to the Supreme Court.
Marilee Macias, the bubbly owner of the Kumback, swung by. “Duncan’s ahead of the game,” she said. “He’s a military guy, been around the world. I don’t know what these Muslims are preparing but I know that stoning women, we don’t want that here.”
Bud Johnson, 84, who worked in Washington and is gently mocked at the Kumback for his East Coast liberalism, shook his head. “It’s going to cost the state a lot of money to try to defend a stupid law,” he said. “There should be a reason for a law, not just hatred and emotions. But my view went down here like the Titanic. The fear element has got us.”
To understand U.S. politics today, try “It’s the fear element, stupid.”
I asked Frank Lawson, 83, about Obama. “I think the young man’s a Muslim,” he said. Case closed. He continued: “I got on the computer, punched in Koran, and there it is in black and white: They are out to rule the world and if you don’t convert, they kill you.” Cherry-picked inflammatory phrases, attributed to the Koran but more often lifted from interpretations of it, course through Oklahoman churches and spread via Internet chatter.
Sherman asked me what “that huge Muslim movement that took over Europe,” was called. I couldn’t help. “Begins with ‘O”’ he said. “The Ottoman Empire?” I ventured. Yep. Case closed again.
Things were quiet on Perry’s main square. So quiet the “Muslim threat” was hard to imagine. It was even harder to imagine that, right here, Timothy McVeigh, the homegrown terrorist who killed 168 people in a 1995 Oklahoma attack, was held after being stopped by a state trooper outside Perry for having no license plate.
Nobody initially suspected McVeigh. Suspicion fell on men “of Middle Eastern appearance,” including Imad Enchassi, now the imam of a large Oklahoma mosque, who told me, “Things are much worse now, I’m looking over my shoulder for the first time.”