fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
guardian.co.uk home | guardian.co.uk
Unholy laws
Pakistan's rules on blasphemy are cruel, unfair and open to abuse. It's time for the new government to take a stand against them
Benedict Rogers
Ten years ago today, Bishop John Joseph, Catholic bishop of Faisalabad in Pakistan, shot himself dead on the steps of the Sahiwal district court in protest at the abuse of the country's blasphemy laws. Ten years on, little has changed in Pakistan.
Today also marks the 22nd anniversary of the introduction of the most deadly of Pakistan's blasphemy laws. Section 295-C of the Pakistan penal code, introduced by the then dictator General Zia ul-Haq, imposes the death penalty on anyone blaspheming the Prophet Muhammed.
Since 1986 several people have been sentenced to death, though subsequently acquitted. While no one has yet been executed by the state, at least 25 people have been arbitrarily killed by vigilante extremists. Even if acquitted, anyone accused of blasphemy is marked for life in the eyes of the Islamists. They cannot resume a normal life, and instead live in hiding or exile. Just last year, for example, a Pakistani Christian, Younis Masih, was sentenced to death for blasphemy. He has filed an appeal, but even in prison his life is in danger.
It is not only the accused whose lives are endangered. Lawyers and human rights activists who defend blasphemy cases or campaign for the law's repeal are at risk. In blasphemy cases, extremists, usually led by mullahs, crowd into the courtroom, shouting blood-curdling threats to the judge and defence counsel. A lawyer I know personally, who has defended many blasphemy cases, constantly receives anonymous threatening phone calls, and has been attacked more than once outside court.
The blasphemy laws impact everyone, regardless of religion - and the tragedy is that almost every case is completely fabricated. When the laws were first introduced, they were used primarily as a tool by extremists to target religious minorities - Christians, Hindus and others. These days, however, Muslims have got wise to the potential for using the blasphemy law against each other to settle personal scores.
The reason is simple. The blasphemy law requires no evidence other than an accusation made by one person against another.
There is no proof of intent, and an inadequate definition of blasphemy. When it comes to court the accuser does not even have to substantiate the charge. If the judge asks what the accused actually said, the accuser can refuse to elaborate, on the basis that by repeating the alleged statement they themselves would be blaspheming.
At least 892 people so far have been accused under the blasphemy laws. Those accused are jailed, often tortured and shackled in solitary confinement, and so even if acquitted, they emerge physically and psychologically scarred.
A false rumour of blasphemy is enough to spark mob violence before it even reaches the courts. Last month Jagdesh Kumar, a 22-year-old Hindu factory worker in Karachi, was beaten to death for allegedly making blasphemous remarks.
In 2005, a mob destroyed three churches, a convent, a school, a girls' hostel and a priest's home in Sangla Hill, accusing a Christian man of desecrating the Qur'an. "Within minutes, the Christian residential area was blazing. Christian residents fled to save their lives," a report claimed. Extremists used mosque loudspeakers to spread the rumour of blasphemy, and called on Muslims to rise up and eliminate Christians. They passed a resolution calling for the hanging of the accused person, three weeks after the initial violence.
Pakistan's new prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gillani has promised to make fighting terrorism his top priority. To do this, he needs to create an atmosphere of moderation and tolerance. Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), assassinated just after Christmas, has described the crisis in Pakistan in alarming terms.
In her book Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West, published after her death, she warned: "Pakistan today is the most dangerous place in the world. Pakistan faces the threat of both Talibanisation and Balkanisation, which are gaining in strength".
To slow the tide of extremism, Pakistan's government should return to its roots and be guided by the vision of its founder, Muhammed Ali Jinnah. In 1947, Jinnah said the famous words:
"You are free. You are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state ... We are starting with this fundamental principle, that we are all citizens and citizens of one state."
The first step to restoring Jinnah's vision is to repeal the blasphemy laws. Such a move requires courage. It will outrage the extremists, and upset some of Gillani's coalition partners from the Pakistan Muslim League, whose leader, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, was described by Bhutto as "a Zia protégé with Islamist tendencies". In power, according to Bhutto, Sharif praised the Taliban as a model for Pakistan to follow, and attempted to introduce an "Islamisation bill", which if passed would have incorporated sharia law into the constitution, and given the prime minister, not the courts, power to enforce religious edicts. It was, she argues, an attempt "to turn Pakistan into a theocratic state".
Gillani has a mandate for moderation, however, and should not give Sharif's views any credence. His PPP defeated the pro-Taliban pro al-Qaida coalition that ruled North West Frontier Province, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, which had been on the verge of Talibanising the area, shutting down music shops, introducing full sharia law and creating a Saudi-style religious police.
Their defeat, and the overall support for the PPP nationally, suggests that the majority of Pakistanis are moderate and progressive. That should give Gillani's government courage to be bold in pursuit of moderation. Such courage would ensure that Bishop John Joseph's death was not in vain.
Unholy laws
Pakistan's rules on blasphemy are cruel, unfair and open to abuse. It's time for the new government to take a stand against them
Benedict Rogers
Ten years ago today, Bishop John Joseph, Catholic bishop of Faisalabad in Pakistan, shot himself dead on the steps of the Sahiwal district court in protest at the abuse of the country's blasphemy laws. Ten years on, little has changed in Pakistan.
Today also marks the 22nd anniversary of the introduction of the most deadly of Pakistan's blasphemy laws. Section 295-C of the Pakistan penal code, introduced by the then dictator General Zia ul-Haq, imposes the death penalty on anyone blaspheming the Prophet Muhammed.
Since 1986 several people have been sentenced to death, though subsequently acquitted. While no one has yet been executed by the state, at least 25 people have been arbitrarily killed by vigilante extremists. Even if acquitted, anyone accused of blasphemy is marked for life in the eyes of the Islamists. They cannot resume a normal life, and instead live in hiding or exile. Just last year, for example, a Pakistani Christian, Younis Masih, was sentenced to death for blasphemy. He has filed an appeal, but even in prison his life is in danger.
It is not only the accused whose lives are endangered. Lawyers and human rights activists who defend blasphemy cases or campaign for the law's repeal are at risk. In blasphemy cases, extremists, usually led by mullahs, crowd into the courtroom, shouting blood-curdling threats to the judge and defence counsel. A lawyer I know personally, who has defended many blasphemy cases, constantly receives anonymous threatening phone calls, and has been attacked more than once outside court.
The blasphemy laws impact everyone, regardless of religion - and the tragedy is that almost every case is completely fabricated. When the laws were first introduced, they were used primarily as a tool by extremists to target religious minorities - Christians, Hindus and others. These days, however, Muslims have got wise to the potential for using the blasphemy law against each other to settle personal scores.
The reason is simple. The blasphemy law requires no evidence other than an accusation made by one person against another.
There is no proof of intent, and an inadequate definition of blasphemy. When it comes to court the accuser does not even have to substantiate the charge. If the judge asks what the accused actually said, the accuser can refuse to elaborate, on the basis that by repeating the alleged statement they themselves would be blaspheming.
At least 892 people so far have been accused under the blasphemy laws. Those accused are jailed, often tortured and shackled in solitary confinement, and so even if acquitted, they emerge physically and psychologically scarred.
A false rumour of blasphemy is enough to spark mob violence before it even reaches the courts. Last month Jagdesh Kumar, a 22-year-old Hindu factory worker in Karachi, was beaten to death for allegedly making blasphemous remarks.
In 2005, a mob destroyed three churches, a convent, a school, a girls' hostel and a priest's home in Sangla Hill, accusing a Christian man of desecrating the Qur'an. "Within minutes, the Christian residential area was blazing. Christian residents fled to save their lives," a report claimed. Extremists used mosque loudspeakers to spread the rumour of blasphemy, and called on Muslims to rise up and eliminate Christians. They passed a resolution calling for the hanging of the accused person, three weeks after the initial violence.
Pakistan's new prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gillani has promised to make fighting terrorism his top priority. To do this, he needs to create an atmosphere of moderation and tolerance. Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), assassinated just after Christmas, has described the crisis in Pakistan in alarming terms.
In her book Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West, published after her death, she warned: "Pakistan today is the most dangerous place in the world. Pakistan faces the threat of both Talibanisation and Balkanisation, which are gaining in strength".
To slow the tide of extremism, Pakistan's government should return to its roots and be guided by the vision of its founder, Muhammed Ali Jinnah. In 1947, Jinnah said the famous words:
"You are free. You are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state ... We are starting with this fundamental principle, that we are all citizens and citizens of one state."
The first step to restoring Jinnah's vision is to repeal the blasphemy laws. Such a move requires courage. It will outrage the extremists, and upset some of Gillani's coalition partners from the Pakistan Muslim League, whose leader, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, was described by Bhutto as "a Zia protégé with Islamist tendencies". In power, according to Bhutto, Sharif praised the Taliban as a model for Pakistan to follow, and attempted to introduce an "Islamisation bill", which if passed would have incorporated sharia law into the constitution, and given the prime minister, not the courts, power to enforce religious edicts. It was, she argues, an attempt "to turn Pakistan into a theocratic state".
Gillani has a mandate for moderation, however, and should not give Sharif's views any credence. His PPP defeated the pro-Taliban pro al-Qaida coalition that ruled North West Frontier Province, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, which had been on the verge of Talibanising the area, shutting down music shops, introducing full sharia law and creating a Saudi-style religious police.
Their defeat, and the overall support for the PPP nationally, suggests that the majority of Pakistanis are moderate and progressive. That should give Gillani's government courage to be bold in pursuit of moderation. Such courage would ensure that Bishop John Joseph's death was not in vain.
