Pakistan will not repeal blasphemy law: minister

[Karachiite]

Blasphemy law will never ever be repealed cuz mullahs will never let it happen. The biggest hypocrites are Mullahs, they oppose music and dancing but at night they will watch half naked ladies dancing on TV from their stolen cable.

Gilani said Blasphemy Law will be repealed last year when many christians were burnt and killed in Gojra but it never happened. Until we get a true secular leader like the great Mustafa Kemal Ataturk nothing will change.

And removing Islamic from Pakistan's name like another user said is a dream but will never happen, remember when Musharraf took off Islamic from the passports? Mullahs were flamed. Secularism does not mean leaving religion it only separates religion from the state's affairs which Quaid e Azam wanted.

 

[Kompromat]

No, "Muslim" was the reason Pakistan was created. "Islamic" is simply a descriptive term for the type of government.

Dont be too confused - some will call it idiotic because there isn't any difference between both or is it ? if there is you should explain.

These blasphemy laws are a fine example of what is keeping Pakistan back from fully accepting freedom of speech and diversity.

Wrong: Its low rate of education and our social problems - i cant understand why you guys have made Islam a scapegoat for all blames & evil happening in Pakistan.

We are in for Freedom of speech but against freedom of hate speech against anyone - it will take time to evolve since we are a young nation.

Moreover - i am a protectionist and i want to protect our own culture , values and beliefs and not allow alien systems destroy our lifestyle.
Secularism isn't what it looks or what you think it might be. In my opinion the current system will work great with a little more effort and changes as the time goes by.

Pakistan is the 10th most corrupt nation on the planet. It does not deserve the term "Islamic."

Again corruption is a social issue which can be alleviated by Education & strict monitoring process.

Are you trying to say that Pakistan is corrupt because its Islamic?

Also Muslim Republic of Pakistan makes much more sense.

How would that be different to an Islamic republic

 

[Vassnti]

why don't we just all become atheists and free thinkers and fight all the the religions of the world

Or perhaps follow the Quran rather than the mob?

It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve. (18:30)

I wish i could remember the correct wording a better scholar than i could probably provide the verse.
But i remember a verse from the Quran along the line of not speaking harshly to the unbeliver so that they do not in anger speak words against the Prophet?

 

[jayron]

Dont be too confused - some will call it idiotic because there isn't any difference between both or is it ? if there is you should explain.

Wrong: Its low rate of education and our social problems - i cant understand why you guys have made Islam a scapegoat for all blames & evil happening in Pakistan.

We are in for Freedom of speech but against freedom of hate speech against anyone - it will take time to evolve since we are a young nation.

Moreover - i am a protectionist and i want to protect our own culture , values and beliefs and not allow alien systems destroy our lifestyle.
Secularism isn't what it looks or what you think it might be. In my opinion the current system will work great with a little more effort and changes as the time goes by.



Again corruption is a social issue which can be alleviated by Education & strict monitoring process.

Are you trying to say that Pakistan is corrupt because its Islamic?



How would that be different to an Islamic republic

The culture you have now and the extreme religious ideologies was not your culture but what the people in power created for you to follow. Pakistan wasn't so religious(read radicalized) when it was formed. It is politicians who have made it so for their gain. It is time Pakistanis realize that their culture has been compromised and go back to their former more liberal islamic culture.

 

[muse]

Thus far our politicians and bureaucrats seem to think that that have only the Mullahs and their misinformed minions to fear - In other words Pakistani politicians understand the willingness and ability to deliver pain to them - Pakistani voters can do this well, but it takes a sustained effort - it begins with sensitizing the public:


Blasphemy law must be repealed
Mashal Sahir

By definition, a law is a body of rules governing the affairs of a community and is meant to ensure social order and justice. However, in Pakistan, a law should be redefined as a body of rules governing the affairs of a community meant to intimidate the weak, facilitate vested interests, and benefit those in power. The Blasphemy Law is a perfect example of this redefinition. It defies the very purpose of the law, which is to provide justice to all.

Blasphemy is irreverence towards holy personages, religious artefacts, customs and beliefs. This law has been codified in the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), particularly Section 295. Although, according to Article 45 of the constitution, the president has the power to grant pardon and suspend any sentence passed by any court or other authority, those accused of blasphemy are invariably subjected to harassment, threats, and attacks by extremist elements. Between 1988 and 2005, 647 people have been charged with offences under the blasphemy laws. Fifty percent of the people charged were non-Muslim. Twenty of them were murdered soon after the charge was laid. Sadly, even those who are acquitted of blasphemy by a court usually go into hiding or leave Pakistan.

In Pakistan, the purported purpose of the blasphemy law is to punish anybody who offends society’s religious sentiments. However, the fact is that the provisions of this law are being misused to victimise and intimidate weak individuals or opponents. A Christian woman named Aasia Bibi was sentenced to death by a district and sessions court after a year long trial on accusations of blasphemy filed by Muslim villagers of Ittanwali. Aasia Bibi has repeatedly denied committing blasphemy and there is a growing perception that she has been accused of blasphemy to settle scores in a dispute over livestock with her neighbours. On January 28, 2009, the police in Punjab arrested five Ahmedis. The accusation against them was that they wrote ‘Prophet Mohammad’ (PBUH) on the wall of a toilet in a Sunni mosque. The senior superintendent of police investigated and reported to the ministry of interior that the accusation was baseless. These cases are a clear proof of how the blasphemy law is being misused to punish opponents or harass minorities.

Most frequently, the blasphemy law is misused for vested interests. Imran Latif, 22, was accused of burning pages of the Holy Quran in a case registered at the Sherakot Police Station and spent five months in jail. He was released on bail on November 3. Later, two armed men approached him at his house and asked him to accompany them, killing him just a few yards away from his house. Latif’s brother suspected that a man named Ijaz Ahmed, who had a dispute with his brother over the ownership of a shop, had had Latif killed. The way the blasphemy law operates in our country is an insult to humanity, where people are free to kill others in order to settle personal scores or simply to prove their superiority by using their ‘religious obligations’ to justify their actions. The blasphemy law is flawed in the sense that it allows people to misuse it in their interest.

There may also be actual instances of perceived blasphemy. If anybody comments negatively about their religion, Pakistanis tend to see it as a threat and therefore when they punish the blasphemer, they believe they are doing so to protect their religion. Islam is a religion of mercy and forgiveness. The Prophet’s (PBUH) entire life is a remarkable example of mercy. Even on the eve of the conquest of Makkah, he forgave all his enemies and refused to punish anybody who had sought his forgiveness. However, when Jyllands-Posten’s Mohammad (PBUH) cartoons were published in Denmark, we, his followers, chose to protest violently against this act, which ‘disrespected’ our Prophet (PBUH). Who do we think we are, defending a man of his great stature? Do we really believe that merely by drawing some amateur cartoons, somebody can disgrace a person who changed the course of history?

Furthermore, if we really care to read the Quran, it clearly proves that God Almighty has taken upon Himself the responsibility of protecting His religion. Surah Al-Feel of the Holy Quran is an account of how the Almighty saved his House (Kaa’ba) from an army of elephants under the command of Abrahah Al-Ashram. Why, then, are we constantly trying to act like the guardians or protectors of the faith?

Somehow Pakistanis have been made to believe that Pakistan was created solely for religious purposes and it is their foremost duty to safeguard the true faith from all ‘evils’. In reality, however, Pakistan was created for socio-economic reasons as is obvious from Mr Jinnah’s presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, where he said, “If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.” It becomes evident that Pakistan was initially meant to be a secular state and not an ‘Islamic’ republic when Jinnah says, “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” However, soon after independence, Jamaat-e-Islami made the achievement of an ‘Islamic’ constitution its central goal. Eventually, in 1956, Pakistan was declared an Islamic Republic. It was later in 1977, during Ziaul Haq’s martial law, that Pakistan was ‘Islamised’ with the promulgation of Hudood Ordinances and the establishment of the Federal Shariat Court (FSC), which rules on whether any particular law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The FSC is responsible for ruling the blasphemy law as not repugnant to Islam.

Clearly, Jinnah had envisioned a different Pakistan, but we lost track and turned this ‘supposed-to-be-secular-nation’ into an Islamic republic and the visionary revolutionist Jinnah into a maulvi. The only way for Pakistan to achieve stability is by reverting to Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan and moving towards a secular nation in the long run. A good step would be to repeal obscene laws such as the blasphemy law.

The writer is a staff member. She can be reached at mashalsr@hotmail.com

 

[muse]

The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah
—Yasser Latif Hamdani



In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.

To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.

The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”

The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.

Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.

We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.

There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at Pak Tea House | Pakistan – past, present and future and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

 

[niaz]

Firstly, I will believe any thing about JI. It was the party that labeled the Quaid as ‘kafir azam’.

Secondly about the Blasphemy law. I have been reading Raheela Qazi column about its justification. It is all related to a few incidences about the Sehabas. There is nothing in the Quran about Blasphemy. Only incidence that that I came across was a story that Prophet pardoned all Mecca residents including any one who enters in Abu Sufians house except one Meccan who had his slave girls dance and sing a poem which derided the holy Prophet( PBUH). The fact the story may have been added much later cannot be ruled out. However I am Muslim and a follower of the Prophet (PBUH). It pains me immensely if someone insults him. Would I go to the extent of killing that person? Dont think so. A prison sentence should be enough.


I found a nice article published the Dawn describing the history of the infamous Blasphemy law. It is noted below for the benefit of the honorable members.



The blasphemy law
I.A Rehman
November 25, 2010 (5 days ago)

By I.A. Rehman
THE worldwide outrage caused by the awarding of the death sentence to Aasia Bibi on a blasphemy charge was bound to happen sooner or later, in view of Pakistan’s inability to scrutinise a law that satisfies neither human rights advocates nor many authentic authorities on Islam. It is time this shortcoming was seriously addressed.

The matter has been complicated by two factors. First, the conservative opinion has not taken the reaction in the West, especially the Pope’s plea for mercy, in a proper spirit. Just as the people of Pakistan have a right to protest at violations of the Palestinian people’s human rights, western observers have a right to express concern at what they think amounts to human rights abuse in Pakistan.

Secondly, the idea of presidential intervention is counter-productive. Reprieve for a convict or two will not solve the problem. Future victims of the controversial legislation may have no defender at home or abroad. A critical appraisal of Section 295-C has become imperative, particularly because the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) provision does not even enjoy the
unanimous support of Islamic scholars.

This will become abundantly clear from the history of the addition of Section 295-C to the Penal Code. As the Penal Code did not have any specific provision for blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (PBUH), advocate Ismail Qureshi moved the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) in 1984 that to prescribe the death penalty for blasphemy. The petition did not go unchallenged. One objection raised by the counsel for the federation (under Gen Zia) was that the petition was not maintainable. Another issue was that since legislation fell under the jurisdiction of parliament, could the FSC issue a direction to the federation? The court reserved judgment.

Meanwhile, a bill was moved in the National Assembly seeking the insertion of Section 295-C in the PPC. It provided for the death penalty for blasphemy against the Prophet (PBUH).

According to Mr Ismail Qureshi, the law minister did not support the bill on the ground that the Quran did not prescribe a penalty for this offence. “Besides, an unexpected situation arose,” says Mr Ismail Qureshi, “when many Islamic-minded members of the Assembly did not wholly agree with the bill because they thought imprisonment for life was sufficient punishment for blasphemy.” Anyhow the bill was passed though the law ministry added life imprisonment as an alternative punishment. Discussion on the bill was cut short because its supporters insisted that the issue was not debatable.

Mr Qureshi again moved the FSC, this time for deletion of the alternative punishment from Section 295-C. He admits that “some ulema argued that blasphemy was a forgivable offence and some even said that the ruler could award a lesser punishment than death”.

The FSC ruled in October 1990 that the alternative punishment should be deleted as it was repugnant to Islam. The court further directed the federation to add a provision to the effect that any act of blasphemy upon other prophets should also be punishable with death. The government was told to amend Section 295-C by April 30, 1991. The federation filed an appeal against the FSC verdict but it was withdrawn.

Fears that Section 295-C could be abused were expressed from the very outset, by Mr Ismail Qureshi himself. He wrote: “In my opinion, this Section 295-C needs to be further amended because it is necessary to bring it in accord with Quran and Sunnah (emphasis added). In the present form it could create ambiguity and legal complications.” He then emphasised that proof of intent was necessary to secure conviction (a point also made by the FSC) and that the sentence of death should be based on ‘tazkiat-ul-shahood’ (unimpeachable evidence).

To give effect to a part of the FSC verdict (relating to the deletion of the alternative punishment) the Nawaz Sharif government moved the Criminal Law (Third Amendment) Bill 1991. In its report on the bill the Senate Standing Committee, headed by PML-N leader Senator Zafarul Haq, expressed reservations about the definition of the offence. It said:

“The Standing Committee on Law and Justice after detailed deliberations decided to recommend the proposed deletion of ‘or imprisonment of life’ from Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. The members, however, observed that there was a need for a more specific definition of the offence under Section 295 PPC which the members were of the considered opinion was in the present form very generalised. The committee suggests that the matter may be referred to the Council of Islamic Ideology for suggesting a more specific definition of the offence falling under Section 295 PPC As well as for its opinion as to whether during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) or during the period of Khulafa-i-Rashideen or afterwards in any of the Muslim countries, what was the punishment awarded to the offenders for committing offence falling under Section 295 PPC” (Gazette Extraordinary, Feb 22, 1992).

It was only during the early days of Benazir Bhutto’s second government that the amendment bill was finally adopted. Again the government was in a hurry to push the bill because the house was about to be prorogued.

The fears of abuse of Section 295-C started coming true soon afterwards. A surge in blasphemy accusations, mostly against Christians and Ahmadis in the beginning, invited the comment that this law had generated offences that previously were rare.

Three unsavoury facts were established: a) in many cases the law was invoked to deal with a business rival, to grab property or to settle a personal score; b) that filing FIRs against vulnerable persons had been adopted as a lucrative business by quite a few clerics; and c) that the conservative elements subjected courts to unbearable strains by laying siege to them. Subsequently it was found that trial courts were generally afraid of acquitting even an illiterate child accused of writing blasphemous notes or a man about whom a certificate of his mental disorder was on record.

Further, it was found that a blasphemy accused was safe neither in prison nor at a police station, nor even outside the Lahore High Court. Those acquitted by high courts could not live in Pakistan and a judge who had acquitted a child was killed after retirement.

Over the last few years the use of Section 295-C has become a weapon in the hands of sectarian warlords. While cases against non-Muslim citizens are still filed, in a good number of cases the accused are Muslims, including prayer leaders. It is not that governments have not been uncomfortable with 295-C. The governments of Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf all toyed with the idea of making some procedural changes but to no effect. Any further dilly-dallying will only compound the government’s difficulties.

While the argument for a repeal of the admittedly flawed text of the law is unexceptionable, this may take a long time. What is urgently needed is a serious effort to ensure that only those who deliberately commit an offence are punished and courts are protected against mob threats
The blasphemy law | Opinion columns, editorials, Dawn 50 years ago today, blogs, letters to the editor and other voices | DAWN.COM