Manic manoeuvres

Nadeem F. Paracha

So much is said and written about Islamophobia. It’s a tendency found in some non-Muslims, especially in the West, who question and discriminate against ‘Muslim attire’ (whatever that means) and beliefs. But those who speak the loudest against Islamophobia have little or nothing to say on another social illness that is haunting their own societies: extremism, and an obsessive-compulsive urge to drag religion into everything.
An unhealthy obsession with religion is used to not only inflict bodily harm on those considered infidels or bad Muslims, but also as an excuse to rob, lie, cheat and attempt to maintain a false moral ground and dominance over those considered flawed and inferior. It is also used to describe one’s own professional, social and political shortcomings as something that is due to the intrigues of those who are against Muslims.
This kind of mania constitutes a myopic fixation on preaching, and is found among the generic maulvis, those belonging to large outfits like the Tableeghi Jamat and Dawat-i-Islami, an ever-growing number of televangelists, and all the way to those who just can’t help but roll out numerous emails and text messages on the subject on a daily basis. Growing up in an era in which the whole post-18th century myth about Islam being in danger has reached a new, unprecedented peak, many Pakistanis’ fixation with religion has at times seen this obsession turn into a rather disruptive condition. It sees even the most educated men and women suddenly become allergic to some obvious truths about what we as a nation and polity have ended up doing in the name of faith and morality. We will wail, moan and whine about Islamophobia in the West, but keep mum about the discrimination and hatred that takes place among Muslims against other religions and even amongst themselves, one sect against the other.
Our mania has generated a childlike stubbornness in which all avenues of reason and rationality are purposefully blocked. By doing this we are convinced that we are supposedly defending our faith, even if this means becoming apologists and defenders of the most destructive and inhuman expressions of extremism, an extremism of our own making.
This mania also includes wearing one’s religion on one’s sleeves, as if, otherwise, God won’t be able to judge our religiosity. Take the recent example of the way many Pakistanis reacted to the niqab ban in France. Some women who use burqa or hijab say they feel liberated. In our media we hear their voices loud and clear, but never of the other side who suggests that a woman who observes hijab/ burqa/ niqab may as well be submitting to the historical tribal, male-driven tradition of claiming control over women.
Various Muslim women authors and thinkers believe that the observance of veil remains a dictate of Muslim men. They say that the practice is an outcome of laws and social mores constructed over the last many centuries by judges, ulema and lawmakers who were all men. Scholars like Javed Ghamdi, Ziauddin Sardar and Muhammad Arkhun, believe that Muslim women enjoyed greater autonomy in public and private life during the time of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) — an autonomy that later Muslim rulers and ulema took away.
Muslim women who do not use the veil are right to demand that if some of their sisters in France are so agitated by the veil ban, then they should be equally agitated by the forced veiling practised in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s only fair, if this really is a matter of the freedom of expression.
While we busy ourselves in discussing the niqab issue in France (where only the niqab or the covering of the face is banned, hijab is not), bemoaning the discrimination faced by Muslim women there who observe the niqab, we conveniently forget that in many Muslim countries women who believe that modesty is a state of mind and can be demonstrated without veiling are coming under increasing pressure.
My only hope is that we now allow ourselves the necessity to hold open debates about issues that till now we have cowardly avoided and in the process let them grow into political and social ogres of intolerance and myopia. It should also be noted that whenever we do let such debates take place in public, counter-arguments to the traditionalist ones too are given a platform and are accepted — not as thoughts coming from ‘misguided minds’ or wayward souls, but from those who are equally concerned about their country and society.

Misuse of Blasphemy Law & Dirty Role of Jang Group/GEO TV.

Administering Justice and awarding punishment is the responsibility of the Ruler/State [even in the harshest Islamic State] not of the Masses or Mullahs. A detail view is as under for kind perusal. I guarantee you that those who have done the above deed would also have been the most ignorant about Islam, Quran and Shariah.

Thursday, January 06, 2011, Safar 01, 1432 A.H

http://jang.com.pk/jang/jan2011-daily/06-01-2011/u58312.htm

Now read what The News International "Extremist Mullah Ansar Abbasi" file in The News and Watch what the GEO TV Relay and Telecast all over the world and do note the "Un-Islamic Clothes of Sana Buccha" and it is further mentioned here that Islam doesn't allow woman to show their face to the whole world. ISLAMABAD: While a select group continues to demand the abolition of blasphemy law, the Lahore High Court only recently, while confirming the death penalty of yet another blasphemy convict, has upheld the death sentence for a blasphemer in the light of Quran and Sunnah. Decided by a division bench of the LHC headed by Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, the next Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, and comprising Justice Sh. Ahmad Farooq, the LHC ruled, “There is no denial to the proposition that the Holy Quran enjoins the Muslims to hold the last beloved Prophet of Allah (PBUH) dearer than themselves and their kith and kin and this is also strengthened by the Ahadiths that is why the law of the land has suggested the death penalty in such like cases.”

Lekin - 5th January 2011 Part 1

The judgment, handed down on October 29 this year, also said, “To constitute offence under Section 295-C, P.P.C. number witnesses are not required and it is not necessary that such abusive language should be made loudly in public or in a meeting or at some specific place, but statement of single witness that somebody had made utterance for the contempt of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) even inside the house is sufficient to award death penalty to such contemner.”

Lekin - 5th January 2011 Part - 2

The case pertained to the criminal appeal of one Raja Wajihul Hassan, a convert Qadiani, against his conviction by an additional districts and session judge, Lahore, who punished him with death sentence for writing letters to religious scholar and Advocate Muhammad Ismail Qureshi with fictitious names containing blasphemous remarks against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and his companions (RA). The trial court, besides seeing the investigation conducted by the police, had taken the handwriting specimen of the accused and sent the letters received by Ismail Qureshi to the handwriting expert. The expert verified that the specimen of writing of accused and letters received by Ismail Qureshi had similar characters. The accused didn’t deny making threatening and contemptuous calls to Ismail Qureshi.

Lekin - 5th January 2011 Part 3

According to the judgment, the accused appellant had taken a specific stand of his false implication in the instant case on his refusal to admit that the letters in question were in fact written by Asma Jahangir but the appellant failed to produce any evidence in support of his aforesaid plea. The judgment said that the burden of proof to prove the story narrated by the appellant in the statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C was heavily laid upon him and non-production of evidence by the appellant in support of his defence plea would rather strengthen the prosecution evidence as the appellant himself admitted the manner of his meeting with both the prosecution witnesses who narrated the story of extrajudicial confession.

Capital Talk 5th January 2011

“The statement of both the aforesaid witnesses of extrajudicial confession made by the appellant are supported by the statement of the complainant, statement of expert who verified the handwriting of the letters to be that of the accused-appellant whereas the defence plea taken by the accused-appellant is not supported by any other corroborative piece of evidence, as such, the same cannot be given preference over the inspiring,” the judgment said. The judgment also reflects that the contemner Wajih initially worked in the office of senior advocate Asma Jahangir and later joined a steel industry company.

Capital talk - 5th january 2011

In his statement, the convict had claimed that he and his father were working in the office of Asma Jehangir’s husband but after sometime he left the said office and joined a steel industry. He claimed that he was forced to admit that the letters were written by Asma Jehangir. Upon refusal, he said, he was taken to Allama Iqbal Town police station where Ismail Qureshi was present. He accused Qureshi of having a grudge against Asma Jehangir and said that the motive was to lodge an FIR against Asma Jehangir and her sister Hina Jillani.

Capital Talk 5th January 2011

The court, however, observed that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused through reliable, cogent and inspiring confidence evidence, which is available on record in the shape of letters written by the convict and the handwriting expert has declared the said writing to be that of the appellant (convict); that all the prosecution witnesses have fully established guilt of the appellant through their statements and the appellant has not been able to point out any enmity, ill will or grudge against the witnesses, as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. REFERENCE: LHC ruling upholds validity of blasphemy law Tuesday, November 30, 2010 By Ansar Abbasi http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=2384&Cat=13&dt=11/30/2010

Capital Talk 5th January 2011

ISLAMABAD: Law Minister Babar Awan has categorically said that no one should think of repealing the blasphemy law. “In my presence as the Law Minister, no one should think of finishing this law,” he said while declaring himself to be a “Shaheen” (eagle). He was talking to a senior member of the Jang Group on Thursday. The minister came out with these unequivocal remarks in the wake of the latest media debate over the blasphemy laws, which started once again by the recent award of a death sentence to a Christian woman on blasphemy charges. The categorical stance by Minister Awan, arguably one of the closest aides of President Zardari and one with a role in many controversies, is in direct contradiction to that taken by Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer, who while being critical of the same law is all out to secure the release of Aasia Masih, sentenced to death by a district and sessions court of Nankana Sahib in the Punjab. Taseer has already declared that the convict was innocent and according to observers his view is shared by many commentators who in a majority of cases may not even have gone through the details of the evidence and judgment.

Capital Talk 5th January 2011

While appreciating the comment that any effort to amend or repeal the blasphemy law would lead to chaos, the Babar Awan emphasised that in his presence as law minister no one would be allowed to change or repeal the law. “In order to remove ambiguity pl (please) also write 2moro (tomorrow) that I told U (The Jang Group) (that) in my presence as Law Minister no one should think of finishing this law,” this is what the law minister precisely said in his written statement. On this, the law minister was asked if he should be quoted, he said, “Sure.” Babar Awan added that he was servant of servants of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

He said, “I’m khadim of khadmaan-e-Rasool.” He prayed that candle of ishq-e-Rasool (love for Prophet (PBUH)) is lit in every heart. The law minister, instead, said that all religious nobles must be respected in order to save world from crisis like the publication of caricature. It is not clear if the law minister has the blessings of President Asif Ali Zardari, who is under pressure to pardon the convict Aasia Masih but it shows serious cracks within the ruling elite about its policy on the blasphemy law. Babar Awan claims to be a religious scholar; he gives lectures on Islam but at the time faces serious accusation of corruption in the Harris Steel Mill case of Bank of Punjab scandal. Additionally, he continues to claim to be a PhD and uses the prefix of Dr with his name despite the fact that the Monticello University, which awarded him the fake degree, has already been declared unauthorized both by the American and Pakistani authorities to have been entitled to issue such a degree at any stage. Babar Awan is also generally believed as the man responsible for the government’s confrontational mode with the judiciary. All controversies notwithstanding, on the issue of blasphemy laws he has opted to detach himself from all those who are demanding the repeal of these laws. REFERENCE: Babar Awan says no one can change blasphemy law Friday, November 26, 2010 By Ansar Abbasi http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=2293&Cat=13&dt=11/26/2010

This Blasphemy Law doesn't even spare the Maulvis!

BAHAWALPUR, June 15: A mosque Imam was killed while a religious leader sustained critical injuries in violence caused reportedly by sectarian tension between two Sunni sects in Choonawala Mandi near Hasilpur, about 90km from here, on Thursday. According to reports reaching here, the trouble started when Hafiz Qamar Javed, prayer leader at local Masjid Ahl-e-Hadith, burnt some trash near his mosque. The fire attracted neighbours, including people from the rival sect, who propagated that Javed was burning pages from Quran. Within no time a huge mob turned up at the scene and attacked Javed. When Ahl-e-Hadith’s local leader Master Muhammad Sadiq came to his rescue, he was also beaten up severely. The assailants left the scene when the two fell unconscious. Police rushed to the scene after getting information. In a hurry, a police vehicle hit and injured Muhammad Nadeem (13). The mob then damaged the van and thrashed ASI Muhammad Nawaz, who also sustained injuries. Later, the Hasilpur DSP and tehsil nazim reached Choonawala and managed to disperse the mob. The injured were rushed to the Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, where Hafiz Qamar Javed succumbed to injuries while Master Muhammad Sadiq was in precarious condition. Following an appeal, Choonawala traders’ president, shopkeepers pulled down their shutters to protest the ‘blasphemous act’. Meanwhile, it was learnt that a case under the Blasphemy Act had been registered against deceased Hafiz Qamar Javed and injured Muhammad Sadiq while no case was registered against the assailants. DPO Arif Nawaz was not available for comments. REFERENCE: Imam lynched by mob for ‘blasphemy’ By Majeed Gill June 16, 2006 Friday Jumadi-ul-Awwal 19, 1427 http://archives.dawn.com/2006/06/16/nat10.htm

1- NEED TO CHECK MISUSE OF BLASPHEMY LAW BY QAZI FAEZ ISA

"As it was the unanimous demand of the Ulema, Mashaikh and the people, therefore, I have decided to do away with the procedural change in registration of FIR under the blasphemy law" (General Musharraf, Dawn 17.5.2000).

How was public opinion determined? No one asked me! Is the reference to ulema and mashaikh to the self-proclaimed ones or men and women of Islamic learning? And did populism prevail over Islam? Why was no attempt made to enter into a debate, or at least a learned Islamic discourse? What was the role of the two ministers (religious affairs and law) who are primarily concerned with this issue? One does not recollect any valuable contribution from these two sources.

The sad fact is that deterioration has set in every aspect of national life. The most acute realization of this is felt whenever there is any interaction with the government. There is no substitute for learning and debate, and we are managing to do without either and consequently suffer. The government seems to have decided for all of us that in Pakistan 2000 our exposure to Islam is to be funnelled through the myopic, self-styled 'guides', whose principal contribution has been spreading hatred and attacking the foundations of the state. No attention is being paid to the true learned men and women of Islam, because unlike the camp which propagates violence in achieving their goals, these true Muslims do not make even a feeble attempt to be heard.

Pampering this group does not serve the cause of Islam, is contrary to shariat and departs from the methodology adopted by Jinnah and those who devotedly worked for attaining this homeland.

There is no substitute for knowledge, dialogue and niyat (intention). Let us learn a lesson from history. My father, Qazi Muhammad Isa, who was principally responsible for bringing Balochistan into the fold of Pakistan, was a member of the Balochistan Law Reform Commission. The other members included Balochistan's governor, Amir-ul-Mulk Mengal, and Mr Fazle Ghani Khan.These gentlemen informed me how my father had handled a potentially explosive situation.

The Balochistan Law Reform Commission made visits to a number of different places to gather public opinion. On a visit to a traditional-conservative Pathan area they were accosted by the elders and ulema who demanded the enforcement of shariat and objected to the work of the Commission, which was perceived by them to be anti-shariat. It transpired that the local Pathans had taken strong exception to recording the names of their womenfolk on the recently introduced national identity cards. This according to them was un-Islamic and therefore unacceptable. My father inquired whether the delegation would be kind enough to enlighten him about the names of Islam's first convert and wife of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Prophet's daughter married to Hazrat Ali.Hazrat Khadija and Hazrat Fatima was the prompt answer. Upon hearing this, my father inquired whether the names of these distinguished ladies could be taken if Islam was against this practice. The delegation fell silent and abandoned their objection to the name insertion in the identity cards.

They then said "zhumz shariat ghoaru" ('we want shariat') and not "Angrezi qanoon" (English law). My father responded that the Commission could report this desire and wanted the delegation to help them. He suggested that this could be done if the delegation was prepared to abandon certain prevailing but un-Islamic practices. He advised that they should waive accumulated usury which was due to them (Pathans being notorious and usurious moneylenders), stop the cultivation and trade in intoxicants (opium and hashish) and recognize the shares of mothers, widows and daughters in inheritance. (Men divide the ladies' shares among themselves and the revenue records of these and many rural areas of the country, reveal the virtual absence of a female population). The delegation immediately backtracked saying that this was not possible because these were their established tribal practices and had been validated by jirga.

On being asked whether they wanted the endorsement of jirga practices contrary to shariat, the delegation beat a hasty retreat never to be seen or heard of again.

Knowledge and reason were subsequently to prevail upon superstition and exploitation. The light of enlightenment vanquished the darkness of ignorance. Men of peace achieved this, men who adhered to Quaid's ideals and men who did not command armies.

In contrast, an all-powerful government, having been granted by the Supreme Court the power to amend the Constitution, failed to effect, what from a legal perspective was an insignificant amendment in the law. The amendment which the government wanted to bring about was that any report of an offence of blasphemy should in the future be made to the district magistrate and not at the police station.

A practice of settling personal vendettas by lodging false reports of offence of blasphemy (Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code) against a person or persons intended to be harmed has developed. The fact that in Pakistan lodging of such FIRs has become matter of frequent occurrence confirms the misuse of this provision of the law. Needless to stress that in a predominantly Muslim country any derogatory or disrespectful remark about the Prophet (PBUH) is unthinkable. Only one bereft of any reason or sense could risk inviting society's wrath and possibly worse by indulging in any such sacrilegious utterances.

To check false allegations of blasphemy from being made and Islam wrongly exploited for vendetta or for settling personal scores, which is anathema to a (true) Muslim, it was essential that the power of the police to entertain an FIR be curtailed. In advocating such a change General Musharraf was not acting against the interest of Islam. Undoubtedly, he was well intentioned but perhaps did not have the requisite support from his team to counteract the agitators. Occupying ministerial positions but bereft of vision and knowledge they could only advise an expedient retreat.

The action could only encourage the tendency to use religion to harass and persecute one's enemies and rivals.

The insistence on retaining the jurisdiction of the police in preference to that of the district magistrate, who is a more senior member of the administration, is incomprehensible. Unless those agitating against the proposed amendment were doing so because they considered police stations more malleable and amenable to pressure and inducement and, therefore, were ideally suited to their questionable purpose and interests. Is our government so out of touch that it does not realize that the poor, the rich, the Muslim, the Christian, the literate, the illiterate, citizens of Pakistan, if they are united in a view, it is that Pakistani police stations are dens of inequity, and not citadels which best preserve Islamic values.

The maximum punishment for blasphemy in Pakistan is death, or imprisonment for life, and also fine. There is no discretion for imposing a lesser sentence. The process which may result in the passing of this sentence commences upon the lodging of an FIR in a police station, often on payment of a bribe, and in many cases without a shred of evidence, except the word of a self-described alim. There is no punishment prescribed for lodging a false report.

Eminent ulema have over the centuries written copiously on the subject. They have deliberated on whether blasphemy (insulting the Holy Prophet, sabb al-Rasool) without an element of apostasy (repudiation of Islam, sabb Allah, riddah) is an offence in Islam. They have considered the significance of the Prophet (PBUH) not acting against those who renounced Islam and vilified and defamed him. Included among these were Abd Allah b. Abi Sarh, Ikramah b. Abi Jahl, Safwan b. Umayyah, and Hinda, the wife of Abu Sufyan. A writer on the subject states that, "some Jews also addressed the Prophet with the words, 'death be upon you, (al-sam alaykum), but, in none of the reports did the Prophet order any punishment." They have thus determined that the offence is not hadd (ordained by God) but tazir. Imam Abu Hanifah maintained that a dhimmi (non-Muslim) is not liable to the death punishment for the offence of blasphemy.

Islam is a religion which stands for peace and insists on justice. God almighty advised the Holy Prophet and early believers to develop their inner resources through patience and resilience. "Quite a number of the people of the Book wish they could turn you back to infidelity after ye have believed - from (their) selfish envy, after the Truth hath become manifest unto them, but forgive and overlook" (surah Al-Baqarah, verse 109). A commentator on this verse says: "It teaches that the success of Islam had naturally made the un-believers insecure and envious, and that under such circumstances a punitive approach would not produce the desired result". "And ye shall certainly hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the Book before you and from those who worship partners besides Allah. But if ye persevere patiently, and guard against evil - then that indeed is a matter of great resolution (the best course with which to determine your affairs)" (surah Al-Imran, verse 186).

It is noteworthy that the law in its present form does not consider the question of repentance. Is this Islamic? "The Hanafis and the majority of the Shafis consider blasphemy to be in the same category as apostasy and have ruled that repentance is admissible in both cases. Thus, the blasphemer, like the apostate, is to be asked for repentance on three consecutive days, which will be counted from the time of conviction" (Freedom of Expression in Islam by Dr Mohammad Hashim Kamali).

http://ecumene.org/INRFVVP/blasphemy.htm

2- The Impact of The Blasphemy Law by Mohammad Shehzad Issue No.4, September 2002 Copyright © The DAWN Group of Newspapers

The blasphemy laws were legislated and subsequently made more strict to ensure protection to the minorities. But some recent incidents have shown that even the Muslims were victimized under the present blasphemy law on the complaint of other fellow Muslims.

The most recent example is provided by gory murder of Yusuf Kizab in the Kot Lakhpat Jail by an activist of the banned Sipahe-i-Sahaba. Yusuf had been sentenced to death sentence under the blasphemy laws.

The worst example was the suicide of Father John Joseph some four years ago. On the eve of May 6, 1998 Dr Joseph, the Bishop of Faisalabad, committed suicide in front of the Sessions Court, Sahiwal to protest against the death sentence of a Christian Ayub Masih, pronounced by the court under the blasphemy law.

The minority communities were never satisfied with the blasphemy law. They have been opposing it since its promulgation. Their protest against it became louder when a mandatory death punishment was incorporated in the Section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code in 1991.

The blasphemy law was enacted by the British to protect the religious sentiments of the Muslim minorities in the subcontinent against the Hindu majority. After the creation of Pakistan as the Muslims were no more a minority, the law should have been abolished. But it was made more stringent: Section 295-A was enacted in 1927 (Pakistan Penal Code). In 1980, Section 298-A was inserted. In 1982, Section 295-B was introduced. In 1986, Section 295-C was legislated. In 1991, life imprisonment was replaced with the mandatory death penalty in the Section 295-C.

When the blasphemy laws were not harsh and the Muslims were tolerant towards the non-Muslim minorities, the latter remained mindful of the religious feelings of the former. As they grew intolerant towards the minorities and the capital punishment was incorporated in the law, the cases of blasphemy started occurring more frequently. From 1948-1979, 11 cases of blasphemy were registered. Only three were reported from 1979-1986. Forty-four cases were filed from 1987-1999. In 2000, 52 cases were registered - 43 against the Muslims and nine against the Non-Muslims.

This shows, the law is being ‘abused’ more blatantly by the Muslims against the Muslims to settle their scores. ‘Blasphemy’ has been made an offence against the state. Anybody can go to a police station and register a case under Section 295-C against any person. The police would immediately register a case and arrest the accused without checking the veracity of the facts. A mohrrar (constable) is academically not competent to judge whether or not the circumstances constitute an act of blasphemy.

The greater irony is, the death sentence under S. 295-C to a non-Muslim. This can be challenged in the Supreme Court. Ibne Tamia in his book Asare Mal Maslool has referred to a note of Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa who says that a non-Muslim cannot be sentenced to death for blasphemy because such a penalty falls in the category of hadd (a sort of maximum punishment).

When a Muslim blasphemes against the Holy Prophet, he becomes a murtid (a person who repudiates Islam after embracing it) whose punishment is death. A non-Muslim cannot be a murtid because he is already a kafir (non-Muslim). Therefore, the ‘hadd’ punishments are not applicable to the non-Muslims. They could be punished only under tazir (non-hadd punishments).

The semi-literate mullas argue in the support of the death sentence saying that there is an ijma (consensus) on this issue by the founders of the four Fiqhs. If this plea is correct, then why Imam Abu Hanifa (the great Muslim scholar and the founder of the Hanafi school of thought) holds a contrary opinion?

After Jinnah's death, the ruling elite embraced the Machiavellian politics of the colonial rulers and divided the nation on religious, sectarian and linguistic bases. The blasphemy law is an integral part of this baleful politics that has made Pakistan a deeply divided society. History is full of incidents that remind us of the great love, amity, unity, and affinity between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. A Pakistani author Ahmad Salim relates one such incident in his book, Pakistan aur Aqaliyatein.

He writes that Ahmadabad was in the grip of Hindu-Muslim riots in 1969. During those days, a small locality, Mimobai that consisted of around 145 houses - 35 belonged to the Muslims and the rest were of the Hindus - had been reduced to ashes. A Sikh namely Kalyan Singh, one of the eye witnesses to this gory event, told the aid workers that an armed mob of furious Hindus came to the non-Muslim elders and asked them to identify the houses of the Muslims so that their (non-Muslims) property is not harmed. But they refused to do that.

The mob threatened to set all the houses on fire. Even this could not intimidate them and the frenzied Hindus torched all the houses. Kalyan Singh said: “The Muslims and the non-Muslims had been living together for centuries in Mimobai. They shared each other's happiness and grief. How could we face Bhagwan if we had saved our houses while letting the mob torch the houses of our Muslim brothers, sisters, mothers, uncles!!”

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/092002/shehzad.htm

3- Blasphemy and persecution by Ishtiaq Ahmed Saturday, April 26, 2008

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=108906

The barbaric murder of Jagdeesh Kumar, accused of blasphemy by some of his workmates at a garment factory in Karachi, brings out in sharp focus once again the exposed and vulnerable situation of non-Muslims in a Pakistan still wedded to the legacy of General Zia-ul-Haq.

When the police finally intervened, the body of the 22-year-old victim had been mutilated and disfigured beyond recognition: among other things the eyes had been gouged out. The reports published indicate that he was a quiet man, from a poverty-stricken Hindu family belonging to some obscure village in the Sindh desert. People with such a depressed and vulnerable background come to factories to eek out a miserable living, not to engage in religious controversies. In the days and weeks ahead, we will learn that some petty personal quarrel or irrational hatred of a Hindu was the real reason for his murder.

What happened in Karachi was reminiscent of the lynching of African-Americans by white racists in the southern states of the US as late as the early 20th century. Until those laws were changed, black men and women were killed for the flimsiest of reasons. I remember one story when a white shopkeeper took out his gun and shot dead an old black man, who for years had been delivering merchandise to him, when an altercation took place between that man and a white man who had come to the shop for the first time. The white shopkeeper sided with a complete stranger, because the race laws had conditioned him to react in that way.

Anyone who follows the news from Pakistan and reads the reports published regularly by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan would find that violence and brutality against non-Muslims increased exponentially after the blasphemy law was imposed in 1982 and reformulated in 1986. The connection between law and social behaviour is a well-established fact and, quite simply, bad, intolerant and violence-inducing laws produce malevolent behaviour among members of society. Let me quote both the relevant texts on blasphemy in Pakistan:

In 1982, Section 295-B was inserted in the Pakistan Penal Code. It reads: "Defiling, etc., of The Holy Quran: Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom, or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life."

In 1986, Section 295-C was added. It stated: "Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

Those who are familiar with legal expressions and jargon will have no difficulty in understanding that the wordings of the two laws furnish an easy excuse for accusing a person of blasphemy. What can be a matter of at most a spirited discussion on religion and religious icons among educated people can easily be interpreted by illiterates as blasphemy if they discuss religion.

More important, perhaps, is to figure out what purpose these laws are supposed to help realise. If the purpose is to make people, presumably non-Muslims, respect Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), then such an intention is premised on a singularly flawed psychological theory and approach.

Fear induces submission and despondency, not respect. In situations when fear and threats surround the lives of people, they resort to dissimulation and become hypocrites: thinking and believing one thing but saying and doing something else. On the other hand, respect and admiration for someone or some belief is gained voluntarily. It has to come from the heart and cannot be extracted under duress.

There are many non-Muslims who have written laudatory texts on Islam and the life of the Holy Prophet. Recently Karen Armstrong has written his biography which is highly sympathetic. She must have done this by studying his life and finding him praiseworthy. Fear would never have induced such writing.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the blasphemy laws is to terrorise non-Muslims to either convert to Islam or force them out of the country, then the question is: is such an objective compatible with the Constitution of Pakistan which guarantees that minorities shall live in peace and security in Pakistan?

One can argue that even if the intention of adopting the blasphemy laws was to establish respect for Islam and the Prophet and not to terrorise non-Muslims, the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence abundantly shows that the unintended consequences of the law have been just the opposite. Time and again some Christian or Hindu accused of blasphemy has either been mercilessly killed by a fanatic or a bunch of such people – without ever being punished for breaking the law and committing murder – or subjected to a draconian legal process in which the lower courts almost invariably found him guilty; but the higher courts either acquitted him or commuted his punishment to a lighter sentence.

Now, when a civilian, democratic government is in power, it is time to begin a discussion on the Hudood and blasphemy laws. We must realise that as long as people have different religions and beliefs they are bound to discuss and debate them. In such circumstances the role of the government should be to provide people with a sound education so that they can develop the sensibilities to respect each others' identity and convictions while engaging in debate and controversy. It was very encouraging to read columns in the Pakistani English-language press against this latest manifestation of mob frenzy. It is important that our colleagues in the Urdu media also come out strongly against such brazen acts of inhumanity. Some petitions condemning Jagdeesh Kumar's murder have also been put up on the Internet for signatures. All this is indicative of another type of Pakistan.The writer is a professor of political science and a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg

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).

In Indonesia, Many Eyes Follow Money for Hajj

Kemal Jufri for The New York Times

Employees at a travel agency in Jakarta that specializes in Hajj pilgrimage packages. About 1.2 million Indonesians are on a waiting list to travel to Mecca.

By NORIMITSU ONISHI

Published: August 5, 2010

JAKARTA, Indonesia — As the nation with the world’s largest number of Muslims, Indonesia every year sends the most pilgrims to Mecca by far. About one out of 10 believers who performed the hajj last year were Indonesian.
Some 1.2 million of the faithful are now on a government waiting list to go to Mecca, filling this country’s annual quota through the next six years. But if the rapidly lengthening list is a testament to Indonesia’s growing devotion, it has also become a source of one of its perennial problems: corruption.
Government officials and politicians misuse the money deposited by those on the waiting list — now totaling nearly $2.4 billion — according to government investigators and anti-corruption groups. With friendly travel agents and business allies, officials exploit the myriad requirements of the state-run hajj to fatten their own pockets, watchdog groups say. Corruption, they say, has contributed to consistent complaints about cramped accommodations for pilgrims in Saudi Arabia and catering services that stop delivering food midway through the trip.
The national Parliament and officials at the Ministry of Religious Affairs recently settled on the price of this year’s hajj after unusually protracted negotiations and accusations, widely reported in the news media here, that some lawmakers and bureaucrats had agreed to share $2.8 million in bribes from the ministry. The annual negotiations are used by veteran bureaucrats and lawmakers to hammer out personal deals, according to anti-corruption groups and the news media, which have labeled them the “hajj mafia.”
“We can’t prove the existence of the hajj mafia yet,” said Muhammad Baghowi, a lawmaker who was elected last year and sits on a parliamentary commission that oversees religious affairs. “But given all the indications, you can really sense it.”
Parliamentary leaders and ministry officials have denied the bribery accusations. Abdul Ghafur Djawahir, a high-ranking official at the ministry’s hajj division, said anti-corruption groups had misinterpreted the ministry’s procedures and handling of the deposit money. He said they had also wrongly evaluated the costs of flights to Saudi Arabia and unfairly compared Indonesia’s hajj management with that of Malaysia, where pilgrims are reported to pay less and get better service.
“That’s what, in the end, forms the public’s opinion that there is huge corruption here,” Mr. Djawahir said, adding that there was “no hajj mafia” and that the ministry was “completely clean.”
Ministry officials and lawmakers pointed out that the price for this year’s hajj, which is scheduled for mid-November, had been lowered by $80 to $3,342, compared with last year. But anti-corruption groups argue that without graft and mismanagement the cost would be several hundred dollars lower.
Despite the convictions in 2006 of ministry officials, including a former minister, for misusing hajj funds and bribing state auditors to validate the ministry’s accounts, anti-corruption advocates say that little has changed.
According to Indonesian Corruption Watch, in the deal-making between the ministry and Parliament, lawmakers win hefty allowances on hajj trips for themselves and their relatives, and travel agencies and other businesses with political ties are handed contracts for catering or transportation. In return, lawmakers do not question the ministry’s handling of the $2.4 billion in deposits, especially the accrued interest.
“What the money is used for, we never know,” said Ade Irawan, a researcher at Indonesian Corruption Watch, the country’s leading private anti-corruption organization. “That’s the people’s money, public money, the pilgrims’ money.”
The Indonesian Pilgrims Rabithah, a private organization that has long pressed for reform of the hajj management, said the ministry and lawmakers negotiated away from public forums to keep their deals hidden.
“There is never any public accountability,” said Ade Marfuddin, the organization’s chairman, adding, “No one knows who gets what except them.”
In a recent report, the Corruption Eradication Commission, the government’s main anti-corruption agency, identified 48 practices in hajj management that could lead to corruption. Mochammad Jasin, a deputy chairman of the commission, said the commission would wait to see whether the ministry carried out suggested reforms before considering a full-fledged investigation into possible wrongdoing.
According to quotas established by Saudi authorities, 211,000 Indonesians will be allowed to go to Mecca this year. About 17,000 of them will go on private tours costing several times the state-run package of $3,342 — a sum that often entails a lifetime of savings and the sale of property or livestock.
Unable to afford the state-run hajj, Arif Supardi, 53, entered Saudi Arabia on a business visa shortly before the hajj a couple of years ago. (The Saudi government estimated that 30 percent of the 2.5 million pilgrims last year went to Mecca without valid permits.) He said he managed to complete his pilgrimage for $2,000 by becoming what he and others called “hajj backpackers.”
“There were many from Indonesia, mostly because of the cost,” he said.
Prospective pilgrims must now deposit $2,500 to register for the hajj, effectively lending the ministry that amount until their turn to go on the hajj comes up six years later. According to the religion ministry, between 15,000 and 20,000 people register every month. Interest in performing the hajj, a pilgrimage that is an obligation for any physically and financially able Muslim adult, has risen in the past decade as Indonesians have grown wealthier and increasingly given Islam an important place in their lives.
But Ian Imron, 38, who owned a travel agency offering private hajj tours from 1988 to 2006, said the growing interest also led to an overemphasis on the business side of the hajj. Travel agencies with political ties and large capital have mushroomed. When he ran into financial difficulties in 2006, Mr. Imron took it as a sign to quit the business.
“Maybe at the beginning, it was really about religion,” Mr. Imron said. “But then it became more about business.”
In a wealthy neighborhood in southern Jakarta, Al Amin Universal travel agency boasts that it has taken prominent politicians on the hajj on private tours. Employees at the agency said its owners — the family of Melani Suharli, the deputy speaker of the People’s Consultative Assembly, a legislative branch — were unavailable to talk.
Despite the widely reported poor service on the state-run trips, most pilgrims do not complain as ministry officials warn them that airing grievances will mar their religious experience, anti-corruption groups said.
Achmad Fachin, 50, who sold his family car to go to Mecca with his wife, said he did not complain during their hajj but has grown angry about the corruption.
“But, in the end, let them be,” he said. “They’ll have to take responsibility for whatever they do. We were performing our religious duty and paid the fees with sincerity.”

Muktita Suhartono contributed reporting.