Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan
Irfan
Engineer
A mob
vandalised and burnt 8 churches and several homes in Pakistan following
accusations of blasphemy on 16th August in Faisalabad district’s
Jaranwala tehsil in Punjab province. Two Christian men have been
charged by the local police under the blasphemy laws for desecrating the holy
Quran and abusing Prophet Mohammed. One Christian’s home was vandalised and
burnt down following accusation of blasphemy against Islam by him, besides
other homes in a Christian colony. Churches vandalised include the Catholic
Church, the Salvation Army Church and the Pentecostal Church, United
Presbyterain Church, Allied Foundation Church, and Shehroonwala Church.
The Politics Behind Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan
The
Moderator Bishop of the Church of Pakistan alleged that the Bible was
desecrated and Christians were tortured during the attack. Pakistan’s care
taker Prime Minister Anwaar ul-Haq Kakar condemned the vandalism and warned of
stern action against those who violate law and target the Christian minority.
The National
Commission for Human Rights, a government body in Pakistan described the
violence as “sad and shameful”.
The heinous
act on the part of Muslim religious extremist vandalising the churches and
homes of poor, marginalised, helpless and innocent Christians must be condemned
in strongest words by all right thinking and law-abiding persons.
Not just Christians, but many Muslims also have been accused of blasphemy and lynched to death.
Governor of
Punjab - Salman Taseer was killed by his body guard after he called for release
of Asiya Bibi, a Christian farm worker who was acquitted of the charges
of blasphemy by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and spared from the noose. There
was a global campaign for release of Asiya Bibi, who refused to drink water
offered by two Muslim women. Days later she was accused of blasphemy. Mashail
Khan, a student, was lynched to death for being an atheist. 74 people have been
killed by mobs since the year 1990. From 1967 to 2014, over 1,300 people have
been accused of blasphemy, with Muslims constituting most of those accused.
Vide 1980
amendment to the Pakistani Penal Code, section 298-A was introduced,
which made it a punishable offence to defile “by words, either spoken or
written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or
insinuation, directly or indirectly”, the sacred name of any wife of the Holy
Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), or his companions or the rightly guided Caliphs.
The 1984
amendment targeted the Ahmadi community and criminalised the acts of them
referring to any other person except Prophet Muhammad and his companions as Ameer-ul-Mumineen
or Khilafat-ul-Mumineen or any other person other than a wife
of Prophet Muhammad as Ummul-Mumineen,
and any person other than family members of Prophet Muhammad as Ahle-bait.
In other
words, no other person can be revered and accorded same degree of sacredness
and status as Prophet Muhammad and his family members by the Ahmadi community.
This provision directly obstructed the freedom of the Ahmadi community
to believe that the founder of their community Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908)
is the Mahdi (Guided One) and the Messiah expected by Muslims to come at the
end of times and bring about the final triumph of Islam.
How many people were charged with Pakistan’s blasphemy laws?
The
blasphemy law was made even more stringent in 1986 by introducing Section 295-C
which makes defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) punishable by death. Death is a minimum and the only punishment and
the trial should be conducted only by a Muslim Judge. The definition of
defiling was not provided for such a severe punishment and the act of defiling
was made very inclusive, “by words, either spoken or written, or by visible
representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or
indirectly”. More the law was made stringent, more accusations were followed.
At least
1,855 people have been charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws between
1987 and February 2021. Though there have been no judicial executions under the
blasphemy provisions of the Pakistani Penal Code, stringent provisions
encourage the religious extremists to carry out extra-judicial executions
through street vigilante acts and lynchings, with the vigilantes acting as the
judge, jury, and prosecutor. From 1947 to 2021, the vigilantes have killed 89
people, including the Governor of Punjab Province – Salman Taseer, the Minister
of Minorities – Shahbaz Bhatti, a High Court judge – Arif Iqbal Bhatti - in his
chambers.
Side effects of Pakistan blasphemy laws
The
blasphemy laws have enabled the rise of right-wing Islamist parties which
compete with each other to defend the stringent provisions and they grow in
strength with every frivolous accusation of blasphemy, particularly targeting
the Christians, Ahmadis and other minorities, that are often levelled out of
personal vendetta.
To revive
fear of God, affection to the Islamic Prophet Mohammed and service to people
with particular emphasis on government officials and cabinet members was one of
the 15 points in the manifesto of the Muttahida Majili-e-Amal party. The
Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), a far-right organisation, calls for
blasphemers to be beheaded. The rise of TLP has seen an increase in filing of
blasphemy cases.
Religion in
South Asia has served as a far stronger mobilizational tool in the long run
rather than any other cultural unifying factor like ethnicity, language, civic
nationalism, or race.
Consequences
of Muhammad Ali Jinnah's politics during the anti-colonial struggle
During
anti-colonial struggle, the idea of freedom and the need to unify people of
diverse religions, linguistic groups, and castes, the idea of inclusive civic
nationalism and the promise of rights to the marginalised sections of the
society had a greater appeal drawing all peoples into the freedom movement.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah succeeded in instilling fear among the Muslim minority of
getting overwhelmed by the Hindu majority and that Muslims would be forced to
live a subjugated life. Jinnah succeeded in using religion as a unifier.
Language
proved to be a unifying factor for the Bengali speaking in the then East
Pakistan as they were discriminated. Tamil language served as a rallying force
in Sri Lanka against the Sinhala hegemony in the North Eastern region of the
country. Language unified the Tamil people to resist the hegemony of Hindi
speaking North in India. With these exceptions, the idea of religion based
ethno-nationalism has proved to be a more potent tool. Religion based
ethno-nationalism is on the rise in India, and indeed in South Asia. Religion
is deeply rooted in the psyche of South Asians and religious establishments are
a powerful influence in politics.
Religion is
salient in everyday life bringing people together; for some followers, it
explains the purpose of life and other existential queries; it is a source of
social norms of behaviour, responsibilities, duties and entitlements; it is one
of the sources of laws; festivals bring people together for enjoyment and
celebrations; parables, epics, narration of stories and shared memories convey
the social behavioural norms and ideals of life; it standardizes
life cycle rituals from birth to death; it inspires some to render selfless
service to the needy; and finally it instils fear of God for deviant behaviour,
and expectation of rewards for good behaviour. Religion to some helps overcome
alienation by enlarging the notion of self as a social self and defines
relations between self and others – often hierarchical relations. The most
important reason for the salience of religion in everyday life is that an army of
religious preachers have a platform to preach, be in regular touch with a large
number of followers and interpret the text, converse with them in a language
they understand using metaphors that make sense to the people and convince them
that their way of life, culture and beliefs are natural and best. The army of
religious preachers standardise the way of life, furnishing some stability and
certainty. Existential anxieties and fear of God is a weapon in the hands of
the preachers to standardise the behaviour of those belonging to the community.
The
community must also stand up for those who are in unfortunate circumstances
like natural disasters, manmade disasters or economic conditions, despite their
conformity with the believers. The army of gatekeepers of religion makes
followers of the religion comfortable with their status quo and their “here and
now” existence. The aura of sacredness is an essential part of religion to legitimise
beliefs. Attack on the sacred threatens the whole social existence and can inspire
some to sacrifice their life, liberty and property in order to restore the
sacred or deter further attacks on the sacred, and to ensure normal
continuity in life. The deeper the notion of sacred, the stronger the sacrifice one
can make and the more violent the community can become. Laws that seek to “protect”
the sacred give legitimacy and a stamp of the ultimate, final and universal
truth to the beliefs, beyond any critical examination. It raises the
expectation of believers that even non-believers and believers of other
religions must accept the sacred nature of their beliefs. Finally, it
legitimises violence on those who do not accept the “universal” idea of sacred.
The
blasphemy laws become a tool in the hands of the army of preachers and the
self-appointed gatekeepers of the religion to establish their hegemony socially
and culturally.
The
blasphemy laws seeking to protect a particular belief ends up privileging one
sect or denomination’s beliefs over the others.
Materialism,
acquisition of knowledge from multiple secular sources, and pursuit of selfish
interests loosens the community bonds and the will to sacrifice for the notion
of sacred reduces. In other words, materialism, selfish interests and knowledge
from multiple sources increases the levels of tolerance. Materialism in South Asian societies hasn’t developed as in the global north.
Does
protecting beliefs necessarily protect religion?
Protection
of beliefs does not necessarily protect religion. It may even cause disservice
to the religion sought to be protected. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and indeed all religions have evolved to serve the
people and meet the challenges of the time. There is a humongous diversity of
faith and practices within each religion, leading to many denominations, sects
and sub-sects. This diversity emerged as the societies developed
technologically, gained new knowledge and new ideas emerged. Some religious
establishments adopted and accommodated to the changes, while others resisted.
For example, when the telescope of Galileo proved that the earth is moving
around the sun rather than the other way around, the beliefs and dogmas preached
by the church had to be reconsidered. If the beliefs and dogmas were protected,
there would be no further development of knowledge. It would have been
impossible to stop research and development of knowledge in order to protect
beliefs and dogmas. Doors of other religions would open up that did not impede
research and knowledge, leading to the migration of the believers.
When
developments in medical science made organ transplantation possible, religious
beliefs were confronted with a now problem – were such procedures in consonance
with religious beliefs. If religious beliefs opposed abortions, women needing
abortions would migrate out or force a reconsideration of such beliefs. At
times religion is protected when beliefs that are not in consonance with the
times are revised and reconsidered.
Do
Blasphemy laws protect religion?
Religious
beliefs have to march along with the new developments in knowledge. Blasphemy
laws therefore may not be in the interest of religion. Law should not protect
beliefs or religion, it should rather protect the right of every person to
believe. The former privileges the religious establishment, while the later
protects an individual’s right to believe, and therefore strikes a balance
between protecting beliefs and the evolution of religious ideas, theology and
knowledge.
A committed
believer does not and must not get disturbed when religious beliefs are
attacked or what they hold sacred is violated. They would rely on God to take
care of such behaviour. When a Jewish woman threw dirt at Prophet Mohammed,
neither the Holy Prophet nor his companions or believers wanted her to be
punished. On the contrary, when one day she did not throw dirt at the Holy
Prophet, he inquired about her and found that she was sick. He prayed for her
good health. Similarly, Jesus prayed for forgiving those who crucified him
saying they did not know what they were doing. Gandhiji said that he would not
kill anyone to save a cow which was sacred for him. He said that he would
rather sacrifice his own life to save a cow. Respect for what is sacred to
one’s religion by the followers of other religions should come from within and
from the appreciation of what it means and signifies rather than out of fear of the law.
Response to
attack on what one holds sacred should be dialogue, and explaining the meaning
of what it stands for. Ideas should be fought with ideas and not violence –
either by the non-state actors or even the state. However, any instigation and
incitement of violence should be punished in accordance with the law.
Violence by non-state actors who act on their “hurt sentiments” when what they hold
sacred is being attacked, do not defend the religion. They defend their
hegemony over the weaker and marginalised sections. They enjoy their power and
control over the helpless people. They do not want to instil fear of God, but
want the already weaker people to fear them.
Irfan
Engineer
Director,
Centre
for Study of Society and Secularism
