Laaltain

All is fair in Blasphemy: A Law with Flaw

2 جون، 2014

More than mur­der, rape, trea­son, treach­ery and any oth­er crime, blas­phe­my, even unproven, has seri­ous reper­cus­sions for the accused in Pak­istan.

The Pak­istan Penal Code (PPC) orig­i­nal­ly enact­ed in the year 1860, con­tained blas­phe­my pro­vi­sions in it when it was pro­mul­gat­ed. In fact, most of the Com­mon­wealth coun­tries whose laws are either pro­mul­gat­ed by their colo­nial mas­ters or who inspired their leg­is­la­tion from Britain have blas­phe­my laws in their legal sys­tem hav­ing max­i­mum pun­ish­ment of three years, though not applied so often as does in Pak­istan.

The pro­vi­sions on blas­phe­my that were orig­i­nal­ly cod­i­fied in the PPC gave a gen­er­al­ized account of the crime. It nei­ther sin­gled out any reli­gion nor did it give out a spe­cial sta­tus to any par­tic­u­lar reli­gion. The orig­i­nal pro­vi­sions (sec­tion 295 and 295‑A, insert­ed in PPC in 1927) had pre­scribed two years of impris­on­ment or fine or both.

But with Gen­er­al Zia’s takeover of the state, his over­whelm­ing obses­sion to remain in the pow­er by gain­ing the polit­i­cal sup­port of right-wing forces made him Islamize the blas­phe­my laws. He twist­ed the char­ac­ter of the law from gen­er­al­ized to a spe­cif­ic one, ulti­mate­ly leav­ing its ear­li­er pro­vi­sions i.e. Sec­tion 295 and 295‑A almost redun­dant.

Blas­phe­my is such a sen­si­tive issue in Pak­istan that it can­not be pub­licly debat­ed on any point of dif­fer­ence of opin­ion. The assas­si­na­tions of Ex-Gov­er­nor Salman Taseer and Fed­er­al Min­is­ter Shah­baz Bhat­ti, along with oth­ers, are per­ma­nent reminders of the risks involved even if one speaks about reform­ing the law for good.

The inclu­sion of sec­tion 295‑B and 295‑C in PPC pun­ish­able with impris­on­ment for life and death penal­ty respec­tive­ly, comes with­out spec­i­fy­ing the deriv­ing source of the said pro­vi­sions.

For a layper­son the pro­vi­sions insert­ed in PPC dur­ing the Zia era regard­ing blas­phe­my have the sta­tus of a divine law, but the argu­ment los­es the ground because the Qu’ran does not specif­i­cal­ly dic­tate the pun­ish­ment for blas­phe­my.

Though the Qur’an nowhere specif­i­cal­ly men­tions the pun­ish­ment of blas­phe­my or who will award such pun­ish­ment, but pun­ish­ing an alleged blas­phe­mer by means of pub­lic jus­tice in Pak­istan is not only large­ly accept­ed, it is also jus­ti­fied by the major­i­ty of reli­gious cler­ics of all the sects and by peo­ple belong­ing to all spheres of life.

The inclu­sion of sec­tion 295‑B and 295‑C in PPC pun­ish­able with impris­on­ment for life and death penal­ty respec­tive­ly, comes with­out spec­i­fy­ing the deriv­ing source of the said pro­vi­sions. For Islam­ic law, the Qur’an and Hadith are the pri­ma­ry sources to derive from. The Qur’an as well as Hadith does not explic­it­ly describe the pun­ish­ment for blas­phe­my.

Islam as was preached by Prophet Muham­mad (PBUH), his com­pan­ions, reli­gious schol­ars and their dis­ci­ples taught peace, tol­er­ance, har­mo­ny, coex­is­tence and respect of oth­ers’ views. But now the so-called torch­bear­ers of Islam have made it a reli­gion of their own con­ve­nience. They change the inter­pre­ta­tions as and when they feel the need.

The exam­ple of a lady throw­ing garbage in the way of Prophet Muham­mad (PBUH) and many oth­er instances tell that how much more tol­er­ant, patient and for­giv­ing the last Mes­sen­ger of Allah was.

The events relat­ed to this inci­dent men­tion a neigh­bor of the Prophet (PBUH) who tried her best to irri­tate Him by throw­ing garbage in His way every day. One day, when Prophet Muham­mad (PBUH) walked out of His house, there was no garbage. This made the Prophet (PBUH) inquire about the old woman and He came to know that she was sick. The Prophet (PBUH) went to vis­it her and offered any assis­tance she might need. The old woman was extreme­ly hum­bled and at the same time ashamed of her actions in light of the con­cern and patience that the Prophet (PBUH) showed her.

The unfor­tu­nate prac­tice of pub­lic jus­tice in blas­phe­my cas­es strips off the alleged blas­phe­mer the right to prove his inno­cence. It is often used to set­tle the prop­er­ty, debt and per­son­al dis­putes. Some­times it is even an effec­tive tool in the busi­ness and pro­fes­sion­al rival­ry.

Even an alle­ga­tion of blas­phe­my in Pak­istan is an indi­rect death war­rant and the accused always car­ries the risk of get­ting killed any time with­out going through the due course of law.

Even an alle­ga­tion of blas­phe­my in Pak­istan is an indi­rect death war­rant and the accused always car­ries the risk of get­ting killed any time with­out going through the due course of law. Usu­al­ly in such cas­es, mob jus­tice is orches­trat­ed by ignit­ing the pub­lic sen­ti­ment against a par­tic­u­lar indi­vid­ual, group, sect, or reli­gion which ends up with the killing of the alleged blas­phe­mer, the torch­ing of the prop­er­ties and holy places of the oth­er sect or reli­gion. The courts may also award death penal­ty or life impris­on­ment — though very rare. If the accused is lucky to have enough mon­e­tary sources, then a life­long and self imposed exile far away from Pak­istan is the best option.

As per penal laws in Pak­istan, blas­phe­my is not the only crime which pre­scribes the death penal­ty. Mur­der is also one of the crimes that is pun­ished either with death or life sen­tence. But owing to the strong reli­gious sen­ti­ment involved in issues of blas­phe­my which can be fur­ther exploit­ed by numer­ous inter­ests, it has a way stronger ten­den­cy to lead to the pub­lic or mob jus­tice.

In past attempts were made to amend the law, but all went in vain giv­en the sen­si­tiv­i­ty of the issue. Before the law could be amend­ed or repealed, it is imper­a­tive to change the pub­lic mind­set in a way that every accused — includ­ing an alleged blas­phe­mer — is inno­cent until proven guilty. The grow­ing trend of false­ly impli­cat­ing oth­ers in blas­phe­my for set­tling per­son­al scores is still await­ing leg­isla­tive redress. Just like a base­less alle­ga­tion of rape is an offense, a false alle­ga­tion of blas­phe­my needs to be fol­lowed by an equal pun­ish­ment of the crime so alleged. Unless the men­tal­i­ty of the mass­es is reshaped, the alleged blas­phe­mer will be con­demned to death by pub­lic even if its pun­ish­ment is reduced to two years only.

4 Responses

  1. When Mum­taz Qadri mur­dered Salman Taseer, I was in Class 10th. I con­sult­ed my Islami­at teacher over the issue and she gave me a cou­ple of ref­er­ences to a woman and anoth­er of a man, ordered to be pun­ished by Prophet PBUH, after Fatah Makkah. My oth­er friend on Face­book cor­rect­ed me that those two peo­ple had oth­er alle­ga­tions also before being pun­ished. I recon­sult­ed my teacher and she told me that those two peo­ple were not pun­ished accord­ing to the respec­tive pun­ish­ments inscribed in Quran, for those crimes.
    Also, when Ameer Hamza RA came to tell Prophet Moham­mad PBUH that he had avenged Abu Jahal for him, Prophet PBUH said that it would have been ‘bet­ter if Hamza RA comes into the fold of Islam’. So, there’s a ben­e­fit of doubt for the verac­i­ty of blas­phe­my law because Prophet PBUH nev­er cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly favored or denied it (Allah knows bet­ter).

    Now, com­ing to the mis­use of this law. Indeed, alleg­ing blas­phe­my only to sati­ate per­son­al rival­ries is con­demnable but that shows the pas­sive­ness of the sys­tem and not the flaw in blas­phe­my law itself. Like, my Islami­at teacher would say that pros­ti­tutes also cov­er their face with a ‘naqab’. But that does­n’t make the Islam­ic teach­ings of ‘pur­dah’ despi­ca­ble.
    Look around, there are a num­ber of laws which aren’t imple­ment­ed in Pak­istan. The rea­son is not the flaws in those laws but inef­fec­tive pros­e­cu­tion.

    Dr. Rashid Rehman’s mur­der in broad day­light has caused this recent uproar. It has been emo­tion­al­ly brought up because it’s asso­ci­at­ed with reli­gious extrem­ism. I beg to dif­fer. I mean take for instance, Ch. Zul­fiqar was killed because he was on to some­thing big in Benazir mur­der case, Kam­ran Faisal due to his pro­ba­tion in Rental pow­er case and Maq­bool Baqir of his adept inves­ti­ga­tion in Wali Babar’s case. There was no reli­gious extrem­ism in those cas­es, yet the bureau­crats and judge got killed. The rea­son is sim­ply this stark and tiny real­i­ty; secu­ri­ty lapse. The lawyers like Dr. Rashid Rehman, the accused of blas­phe­my or the ones hear­ing blas­phe­my cas­es aren’t on hit list because this law is flawed and incites extrem­ism in the soci­ety. It’s sim­ply because the killers enjoy zero account­abil­i­ty due to flaws in crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem.

    About those who voice for amend­ments in this law, Salman Taseer had bla­tant­ly called this a black law. He did­n’t pro­pose any amend­ments and just sought fame through blab­ber­ing against this law. Javed Hash­mi of PTI had last year pro­posed this law to be amend­ed even just a bit. To the best of my knowl­edge, Hash­mi sahab is alive and well. And he has­n’t faced abus­es from the extrem­ists’ lot as yet, either.

  2. First of all let me clar­i­fy that in what con­text I call it a law with flaw; that is the law is often quot­ed in the wraps of Islam. The reli­gious forces call it a divine law and jus­ti­fy its deriva­tion from Qur’an and Hadith. While I tried to find out the ref­er­ence but failed to find one; rea­son is there nei­ther there is any Hadith nor any verse in Qur’an where­by a blas­phe­mer’s killing can be jus­ti­fied. My con­tention as to the flaw is con­fined to its being called a divine law. The mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of asso­ci­at­ing a law with Islam, which does not have any ref­er­ence in Qur’an, is a flaw. I agree that the law may or may not have flaw but it is the psy­che of the mass­es and flawed crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem that lead to the intol­er­ance. But the one can be eas­i­ly incit­ed to kill, in the name of Islam, any­one who is an alleged blas­phe­mer, is an ele­ment that makes the law a flawed piece of leg­is­la­tion.

    As far as the killing of Rashid Rehman is con­cerned, he was threat­ened by fel­low lawyers in open court. He was warned that either stop pur­su­ing the case of an alleged blas­phe­mer or get ready for the dire con­se­quences. Appar­ent­ly there was no motive behind his killing, except his firm stand for rep­re­sent­ing an alleged blas­phe­mer.

    For the records, let me say after Salman Taseer Sher­ry Rehman was/is the most vocal crit­ic of blas­phe­my law. She even moved bills in the Nation­al Assem­bly in the year 2009-10 call­ing for the repeal of the law. May she remain safe and pro­tect­ed. Not nec­es­sar­i­ly every­one would meet the fate of what Salman Taseer met.

  3. As a democ­ra­cy, there MUST be right ques­tion each and every­thing includ­ing God (Allah) or else it is not democ­ra­cy but just a sham.
    I may not have any regards for Allah but still I have a right to live. Or else that soci­ety is a sham.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Responses

  1. When Mum­taz Qadri mur­dered Salman Taseer, I was in Class 10th. I con­sult­ed my Islami­at teacher over the issue and she gave me a cou­ple of ref­er­ences to a woman and anoth­er of a man, ordered to be pun­ished by Prophet PBUH, after Fatah Makkah. My oth­er friend on Face­book cor­rect­ed me that those two peo­ple had oth­er alle­ga­tions also before being pun­ished. I recon­sult­ed my teacher and she told me that those two peo­ple were not pun­ished accord­ing to the respec­tive pun­ish­ments inscribed in Quran, for those crimes.
    Also, when Ameer Hamza RA came to tell Prophet Moham­mad PBUH that he had avenged Abu Jahal for him, Prophet PBUH said that it would have been ‘bet­ter if Hamza RA comes into the fold of Islam’. So, there’s a ben­e­fit of doubt for the verac­i­ty of blas­phe­my law because Prophet PBUH nev­er cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly favored or denied it (Allah knows bet­ter).

    Now, com­ing to the mis­use of this law. Indeed, alleg­ing blas­phe­my only to sati­ate per­son­al rival­ries is con­demnable but that shows the pas­sive­ness of the sys­tem and not the flaw in blas­phe­my law itself. Like, my Islami­at teacher would say that pros­ti­tutes also cov­er their face with a ‘naqab’. But that does­n’t make the Islam­ic teach­ings of ‘pur­dah’ despi­ca­ble.
    Look around, there are a num­ber of laws which aren’t imple­ment­ed in Pak­istan. The rea­son is not the flaws in those laws but inef­fec­tive pros­e­cu­tion.

    Dr. Rashid Rehman’s mur­der in broad day­light has caused this recent uproar. It has been emo­tion­al­ly brought up because it’s asso­ci­at­ed with reli­gious extrem­ism. I beg to dif­fer. I mean take for instance, Ch. Zul­fiqar was killed because he was on to some­thing big in Benazir mur­der case, Kam­ran Faisal due to his pro­ba­tion in Rental pow­er case and Maq­bool Baqir of his adept inves­ti­ga­tion in Wali Babar’s case. There was no reli­gious extrem­ism in those cas­es, yet the bureau­crats and judge got killed. The rea­son is sim­ply this stark and tiny real­i­ty; secu­ri­ty lapse. The lawyers like Dr. Rashid Rehman, the accused of blas­phe­my or the ones hear­ing blas­phe­my cas­es aren’t on hit list because this law is flawed and incites extrem­ism in the soci­ety. It’s sim­ply because the killers enjoy zero account­abil­i­ty due to flaws in crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem.

    About those who voice for amend­ments in this law, Salman Taseer had bla­tant­ly called this a black law. He did­n’t pro­pose any amend­ments and just sought fame through blab­ber­ing against this law. Javed Hash­mi of PTI had last year pro­posed this law to be amend­ed even just a bit. To the best of my knowl­edge, Hash­mi sahab is alive and well. And he has­n’t faced abus­es from the extrem­ists’ lot as yet, either.

  2. First of all let me clar­i­fy that in what con­text I call it a law with flaw; that is the law is often quot­ed in the wraps of Islam. The reli­gious forces call it a divine law and jus­ti­fy its deriva­tion from Qur’an and Hadith. While I tried to find out the ref­er­ence but failed to find one; rea­son is there nei­ther there is any Hadith nor any verse in Qur’an where­by a blas­phe­mer’s killing can be jus­ti­fied. My con­tention as to the flaw is con­fined to its being called a divine law. The mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of asso­ci­at­ing a law with Islam, which does not have any ref­er­ence in Qur’an, is a flaw. I agree that the law may or may not have flaw but it is the psy­che of the mass­es and flawed crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem that lead to the intol­er­ance. But the one can be eas­i­ly incit­ed to kill, in the name of Islam, any­one who is an alleged blas­phe­mer, is an ele­ment that makes the law a flawed piece of leg­is­la­tion.

    As far as the killing of Rashid Rehman is con­cerned, he was threat­ened by fel­low lawyers in open court. He was warned that either stop pur­su­ing the case of an alleged blas­phe­mer or get ready for the dire con­se­quences. Appar­ent­ly there was no motive behind his killing, except his firm stand for rep­re­sent­ing an alleged blas­phe­mer.

    For the records, let me say after Salman Taseer Sher­ry Rehman was/is the most vocal crit­ic of blas­phe­my law. She even moved bills in the Nation­al Assem­bly in the year 2009-10 call­ing for the repeal of the law. May she remain safe and pro­tect­ed. Not nec­es­sar­i­ly every­one would meet the fate of what Salman Taseer met.

  3. As a democ­ra­cy, there MUST be right ques­tion each and every­thing includ­ing God (Allah) or else it is not democ­ra­cy but just a sham.
    I may not have any regards for Allah but still I have a right to live. Or else that soci­ety is a sham.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *