What's new

Nightmare of Blasphemy in Pakistan - The story of Younus Shaikh

Halaku Khan

BANNED
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
699
Reaction score
0
Blasphemy - My Journey through Hell-* Statement by Dr M. Younus Shaikh:

jail.jpg


Muslims are the first victims of Islamism. In a novel and unethical way, Pakistani Mullahs have started abusing the dreadful Islamic Blasphemy laws to terrorise liberal and moderate Muslims.

I am a Pakistani doctor, a physiologist, a patriotic and law-abiding citizen, a Muslim by birth. I trained as a surgeon and worked for some years in the United Kingdom. I gave up my job in the UK in order to return to Pakistan to serve the people of my own country. I obtained a position as a lecturer in Physiology at the Capital Homeopathic Hospital, Islamabad.

One of my reasons for returning to Pakistan was to campaign for Human Rights and civil liberties in Pakistan: to work for the Pakistan-India peace movement, to struggle for liberalism, secularism and humanism, and to counter the forces of religious extremism and fundamentalism.



My Case

On 1st October 2000 I attended a meeting of the South Asian Union in Islamabad on the topic of Pakistani-India Relations and Nuclear War. In a statement from the floor of the meeting I expressed the view that Pakistan and India should agree that in the interest of the people of Kashmir, that the present line of demarcation should become the peace line: the international border between the two countries. I also expressed the view that if Pakistan continued to support “freedom fighters”- terrorists - in our neighboring country, then our neighbor might respond in a similar way, culminating in a new calamity like the one we experienced in the 1971 Civil War and the loss of East Pakistan.

Following my statement, Mr. Shaukat Qadir, a Brigadier from military intelligence, the ISI, (now an employee of SDPI Islamabad and a Columnist with the Daily Times, Lahore-Pakistan) threatened me and said that he would “crush the heads of those who think and talk like that”.



Two days later, I was called into the office of the principal of the college and was summarily dismissed from my job without notice. No reason was given. On 4th October, I received a message asking me to present myself in the principal’s office. I did so, and was immediately handed over to the police. I was arrested on a charge of blasphemy. The complaint had been filed under section 295/ C of the Pakistan Penal Code by a Muslim cleric of the Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-i-Nabuwat (Committee for the Finality of the Prophethood) with the added suspicion that I might belong to the “heretical” Ahmedi community.

The charges against me centred on some utterances I was alleged to have made in the course of a lecture at the college on 2nd October 2000, that neither the Prophet of Islam nor his parents could have been Muslims before Islam was revealed to the Prophet. I was also alleged to have said that the Prophet was unlikely to have shaved under his armpits since the custom was probably unknown to his tribe at the time. These remarks were interpreted by my accusers, the Mullahs, as an insult to the Prophet. I did not actually make the alleged remarks. The mullahs themselves never heard me make any such remarks, nor did they investigate whether any such incident had ever occurred. In fact, I gave no lecture at the time alleged. During the course of the trial the chief witness against me was totally discredited. He admitted that he was not actually present in the college on the day the alleged remarks were made.

My trial

If you are accused of blasphemy in Pakistan, you will usually be denied bail and held in custody until trial. If found guilty, you will face a mandatory death sentence. My trial was held in a series of sessions throughout the summer of 2001. Although neither a body of crime was established nor did the evidence prove any occurrence of blasphemy, I was pronounced guilty on 18th August 2001, fined 100,000 rupees, and sentenced to death - nearly nine months after my arrest.

The specific charge on which I was found guilty was “Insulting the Prophet”. To many European observers it might seem illogical that death sentence could be awarded without proving the incidence or establishing the body of crime, however, that is the way blasphemy cases are adjudicated upon in the very Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

For the next two years, I was held in solitary confinement in a very small death cell in the Central Jail, Rawalpindi, a dark and dirty death cell with unbearable, stinking and distasteful food. There was no facility for walking or exercise, and I was without books, newspapers, medication or treatment for my worsening diabetes. I remained constantly under threat of murder by Islamic fundamentalist inmates in jail for murder and gang rape, and by some religiously-minded prison warders. I appealed. My appeal was heard over several sessions lasting 15 long months before the two judges managed to disagree over their verdict, one Islamic/minded judge rejected the appeal without giving any legal grounds for doing so, while the other legal-minded judge stated that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the witnesses were neither trustworthy nor reliable. The referee High Court judge took another year and sent the case for retrial.

The retrial was held in November 2003 at the Court of the Session in Islamabad. Because of threats and harassment no lawyer was ready to plead my case, and I was forced to defend myself for survival, which I did after secretly smuggling law books into my death cell. At the retrial the courtroom was full of mullahs and the Pakistani Taliban. The two mullah advocates and the Public Prosecutor tried to exploit the religious feelings of the court but I confined my defense to legal arguments. I was inspired by the defense speech of Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons. Fortunately the outcome in my case was different. The judge accepted my legal arguments and found charges against me baseless. My accusers, the two Mullahs and the Islamist students had lied under oath.

I was acquitted on 21st November 2003.

My Ordeal

I feel I have been a victim of Islamic Mullah terrorism through he abuse of the state apparatus and the civil law. My first trial was a show trial almost reminiscent of the trials and tortures of the infamous Spanish inquisition, and the trials and burning of European women as witches. After my acquittal and release, I wanted to stay in my country with my family and friends but instead I found myself under a fatwa by the same mullahs that I should be killed. I had to say goodbye to my loved ones and flee to Europe for my safety.

I am very thankful to the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the various humanist organisations and individual humanists, Mukto-Mona and all of the other human rights organisations who campaigned on my behalf: Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights USA, the Jubilee Campaign USA, and the many honorable senators and congressmen from the United States, and UK members of parliament. I also want to thank the Swiss and US embassies in Islamabad and the Swiss government for their ceaseless support for justice and equity in my case. I am very grateful to the Swiss government for granting me refugee status in Switzerland.

What is blasphemy?

What then constitutes blasphemy? Unfortunately the Pakistani Penal Code provides little guidance. The law is vague and the term is undefined. In view of the mandatory death penalty for the offence this would seem to be an important oversight. The law is a relic of 1860 British colonial criminal law, but was modified in 1926 again under the British, then in 1986 by General Zia to make it more strictly in accordance with the Sharia, and finally in 1992 when the death penalty was made mandatory – this under the democratically-elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

Whereas the original law had been even-handed and applied equally to all religions, under the revised law the death penalty applies only to blasphemy against Islam. More than a hundred victims are currently in jail awaiting trial, 15 of whom face the death penalty under section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code. Mercifully, none have so far been executed.

In another famous case, a Christian, Ayub Masih was condemned to death for blasphemy on the unsupported evidence of a neighbour, Muhammad Akram who was involved with him in a land dispute and who was awarded property belonging to the accused after the case was decided. The verdict and sentence were upheld by the Lahore High Court on July 25, 2001. However, after seven long years of unnecessary incarceration in the death cell, he was found innocent and acquitted by the Supreme Court.

Despite their successes in obtaining convictions, the fundamentalists have not been willing to leave judgement and execution to the courts. Several people have been murdered by Islamic zealots after having been acquitted by the courts. Others accused of blasphemy have been murdered in jail while awaiting trial and even a High Court judge was murdered after finding one prisoner not guilty.

Pakistan’s shame

The blasphemy law has brought shame on Pakistan. The law itself is unjust and inequitable, the offence it treats is poorly defined and open to abuse, and its operation has been widely misused and abused. Since the introduction of Sharia law in Pakistan in 1986, the blasphemy law has been used on hundreds of occasions by fundamentalists to silence moderate opponents, to intimidate non-Muslims and to settle personal scores.

While praising President General Pervez Musharraf for his liberal and secular steps, and for his courageous fight against Islamic Jihadi terrorism, I appeal to him to curb this menace of Islamic Mullah terrorism: the abuse of Pakistani Islamic blasphemy laws. I call upon the Commission on Human Rights to press the government of Pakistan:

1) to urgently review the cases of all those currently charged or convicted of blasphemy and awaiting execution, including an urgent judicial review of all cases currently sub-judice;

2) to immediately review the application of the blasphemy law and to introduce safeguards against its abuse;

3) to replace the blasphemy law by laws which respect the human rights of individuals in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Pakistan is a signatory.

4) and finally to compensate the victims of these unjust and iniquitous laws and to punish the false accusers and untruthful witnesses.

Thank you.
 
It is obvious that the blasphemy law was misused in this case. If this law didn't exist, another would have been misused.

Just because a law is misused by the executive, doesn't mean the law itself is at fault.

However, I suspect there is more to this issue than just commenting on the Kashmiri Freedom struggle. There are tonnes of seminars held all over Pakistan, and in the west where some Pakistanis/kashmiris voice such views. I've been to a few jklf meetings where they keep castigating Pakistan. None of those politicians and speakers have been harrassed.

There must have been another reason (unfathomable to me) for what happened to him, and he is certainly not telling everything.

P.s. The site with this article seems like an ideological mouthpiece of some secularist organisation. Does seem that the articles here are biased.
 
Last edited:
Just because a law is misused by the executive, doesn't mean the law itself is at fault.
Pakistan is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the preamble of which states: "the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief ... has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people".

If you will be killed for expressing opinions critical of Islam or its prophet, then you don't have freedom of speech.

If you will be killed for changing your religion from Islam to any other religion, then you don't have freedom of belief.
 
tell me hulaku, how many people in Pakistan accused of blasphemy or changing their religion have been senteced, and executed?

Give me a numer?

If you can't, than this is obviously a non issue.

And the article you posted was about expressing views on Kashmir, and how the law has been misused. Just because it is misused, doesn't mean the law should be changed.
 
tell me hulaku, how many people in Pakistan accused of blasphemy or changing their religion have been senteced, and executed?

Give me a numer?

If you can't, than this is obviously a non issue.

It can't be said that it is a non-issue. IMHO the existence of the law and its frequent use/abuse acts as a deterrent to those who might want to exercise freedom of expression or belief.

I can't give you a number but a Google search for "blasphemy pakistan" gives 328,000 results.
 

Good one! Yet only the first result seems to be anything related to Hinduism, and that too is nothing to do with any anti-blasphemy law.

Meanwhile, from Wikipedia,

The Pakistani Catholic bishops' Justice and Peace Commission complained in July 2005 that since 1988, some 650 people had been falsely accused and arrested under the blasphemy law. Moreover, over the same period, some 20 people accused of the same offense had been killed. As of July 2005, 80 Christians were in prison after being accused of blasphemy.

Pakistan's blasphemy laws allow the word of just one witness to incriminate a "heretic".
 
Looks like to me he has made up all that. There are so many flaws in his statement. If Dr. Hoodbhoy can roam free, this person seems to have done nothing as compared to Dr. Hoodbhoy. BTW, we know most of these 'human right activists' are on the payroll of the secret services of our enemies.

This is a useless thread. Things being discussed or 'accused' are all too subjective, lack hard evidence and real substance. At any rate, such thing happen in each and every country to some extent. Pakistan is not a perfect society like many others are not. In Europe and in US, I have seen people tattooed the picture of Jusus on their pubic area. If you are expecting this kind of human rights, you better live and work in some other country.
 
Last edited:
like you pointed out in teh quotation, 650 have been "wrongly" accused. We all agree, the execution of the law is sometimes a disgrace, and that goes for all sorts of criminal and civil law.

Pakistani courts, due to the lack of infrastructure, funds, is swamped with millions of pending cases, sometimes making it hard to attain justice.

It should also be pointed out, that more muslims are charged under the blasphemy laws than christians.

Not one person has been executed on any such charge by the state, and most cases are thrown out with lack of evidence.

There is evidence of some christians writing obscene slogans on walls, distributing literature that hurts the sensitivities of the Muslims. They often court displeasure by the local mullahs, hop unto the next flight to Amsterdam and file for asylum. The incidents are used as a pretext to gaining political refugee status.

Disputes between business/land rivals who happen to be of different religions, are later given the image of a christian/muslim clash. If some christian is murdered, or robbed, they cite the victim's christianness, as if the perpetrators really cared about the victim's religious persuasion.
 
like you pointed out in teh quotation, 650 have been "wrongly" accused. We all agree, the execution of the law is sometimes a disgrace, and that goes for all sorts of criminal and civil law.

Pakistani courts, due to the lack of infrastructure, funds, is swamped with millions of pending cases, sometimes making it hard to attain justice.

It should also be pointed out, that more muslims are charged under the blasphemy laws than christians.

Not one person has been executed on any such charge by the state, and most cases are thrown out with lack of evidence.

There is evidence of some christians writing obscene slogans on walls, distributing literature that hurts the sensitivities of the Muslims. They often court displeasure by the local mullahs, hop unto the next flight to Amsterdam and file for asylum. The incidents are used as a pretext to gaining political refugee status.

Disputes between business/land rivals who happen to be of different religions, are later given the image of a christian/muslim clash. If some christian is murdered, or robbed, they cite the victim's christianness, as if the perpetrators really cared about the victim's religious persuasion.

Despite so much abuse, you still think that its acceptable to have laws that violate fundamental human rights?

Further, if somebody actually did convert from Islam to some other religion, or if somebody actually did criticize Islam, then it's good to have him killed? (It may be that nobody has so far actually dared to put their head on the chopping block, but that's a different matter)
 
There is no law against criticising Islam, which happens all over Pakistan, and by both muslims and non muslims alike.

People do convert, without being killed. The Christian missionaries have always been frustrated with the lack of converts among muslims in South Asia, which is why they resort to such scare tactics. Before the blasphemy laws were promulgated, how many conversions occured?
 
There is no law against criticising Islam, which happens all over Pakistan, and by both muslims and non muslims alike.

People do convert, without being killed. The Christian missionaries have always been frustrated with the lack of converts among muslims in South Asia, which is why they resort to such scare tactics. Before the blasphemy laws were promulgated, how many conversions occured?


No punishment for criticising Islam? Check this:
In 1986, the Criminal Law (Amendment Act, III) was passed by the hand-picked pious members of champion of Islam General Zia-ul-Haq's Majlis-e-Shoora headed by Mohammed Khan Junejo and it added Section 295(C) ... It reads: "Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace by upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to fine."

Around 1991, a person by the name of Ismail Qureshi, inspired by piety and holiness, petitioned the Shariat Court. In the name of the tolerant religion of Islam it was prayed that Section 295(C) prescribe only the death penalty with no option of life imprisonment. The Shariat Court, in its infinite wisdom, allowed the petition, and the decision was later upheld by the Shariat Appellate Court of the Supreme Court.

(Source: DAWN - Cowasjee Corner; 09 September, 2001)
 
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

Mods please take a note of this thread. There is no purpose of starting this thread other than to deface Pakistan. Why certain members dont start threads about their own countries where things are much more uglier?
 
Defiling the prophet's name is not the same as criticising Islam.

You seem very passionate about the blasphemy laws of pakistan, however a similar attitude towards using a dictionary would stand you in better stead.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom