Representational image of a protester in Pakistan | Getty
Text Size:

Pakistan has not executed anyone under this law in the 32 years it has been in force. But even an accusation is often enough to get you lynched by a mob. 

In Lahore’s Shahdara Town, a young Pakistani Christian named Patras Masih has been accused of blasphemy and booked under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. This happened after a mob which had been whipped into a false religious frenzy by the Barelvi religious party Tehreek-e-Labaik-Ya-Rasool-Allah (TLYRA, the main party behind the ongoing blasphemy protests) threatened to burn down the houses of the Christian community in the town.

Masih was accused of posting a sacrilegious photograph. The young man was taken into custody by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which normally looks after electronic crimes. In a video statement, his cousin Sajid Masih has accused the FIA of having forced him to have sex with Patras Masih.

It seems that in our mad dash to establish ourselves as the most intolerant people on the planet, there is nothing Pakistanis will not do.

Section 295-C criminalises the blasphemous statements against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and states: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

A subsequent judgment in the Federal Shariat Court in the 1990s made it clear that only a death sentence would be sufficient punishment. One of the egregious cases of misuse of this law is that of Aasia Bibi, who has now been in jail for over 8 years now. It was the Bibi case that led to the tragic assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer, who questioned the blasphemy law. The protests by a religious party last November ended with the demand that Bibi should be hanged forthwith. Interestingly, the government signed off on it, even though her appeal is pending with the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

To be fair, Pakistan has not actually executed anyone under this law in the 32 years it has been in force. But even an accusation is often enough to get you lynched by a mob. This is where the problem with blasphemy law actually lies. It does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to have been put in place to do.

Last year, young Mashal Khan was brutally lynched by his fellow students at the Khan Abdul Wali Khan University. Some of them have finally been sentenced, but others have gone free and have been welcomed by their communities as heroes. Mumtaz Qadri, Taseer’s assassin, was also garlanded by lawyers of the Islamabad and Pindi bars. The Supreme Court of Pakistan did uphold the death sentence for Qadri, who was subsequently executed. But there is now a shrine dedicated to him on the outskirts of the federal capital.

Apologists for the law say that it has been put in place to ensure that people are not killed by a mob, and that the state can fairly judge any person accused of blasphemy. On the contrary, experience tells us that while there were less than 10 cases of blasphemy before this law was passed by the parliament convened by the Islamist military dictator General Zia ul-Haq, it has risen to a few thousand since then.

The blasphemy law in the subcontinent originated in the inter-communal conflict in Punjab. Rajpal, a printer in Lahore, had published a book called ‘Rangila Rasul’, which had incensed the Muslim community across sectarian lines. Ultimately, this led to the murder of Rajpal by Ilam Din, who was subsequently championed by people like Allama Iqbal and M.D. Taseer (ironically Governor Salmaan Taseer’s father), who were no religious bigots themselves.

Those who argue that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws were introduced by the British miss a key point. The section 295-A, introduced pre-Independence, was a law that sought to maintain communal peace. And Pakistan, with an overwhelming 96 per cent Muslim majority, is under no threat of inter-communal violence. But General Zia’s 295-C blasphemy law is based on a misguided understanding of Islamic law and history, and is not part of the British colonial project.

Apa Nisar Fatima—a woman legislator in the parliament and the mother of the current interior minister Ahsan Iqbal—had started the campaign against lawyer Asma Jahangir, calling her a blasphemer. It was in this context that Fatima had presented this law – 295 C- in parliament in 1986. There were several issues with the law, including the fact that it had no direct reference to mens rea, a position clarified by later jurisprudence, and also that there is no real intellectual basis for its application on non-Muslims in the Hanafi Madhab, which is followed by the majority in Pakistan. However, it was driven through parliament, and we are now stuck with it.

Now, the debate is no longer about the legal and procedural considerations, or even about the issue of whether the law is compatible with Sharia law. It has moved on.

Barelvis, the low Church of Islam as it were, have been radicalised in a way that they were never before. Taseer’s murderer was a Barelvi himself. The rise of the Barelvis, and the fact that their political party obtained the third-highest number of votes in Nawaz Sharif’s own constituency, have now made the issues of blasphemy and finality of prophethood emotionally charged issues.

Imran Khan, who had spoken out bravely against Taseer’s assassination in 2011, is now touring the country telling people that the West is conspiring against Islam, and wants to make Muslims leave the religion. He claimed that these conspiracies have been on since time immemorial, starting with Dante’s Divine Comedy.

No political party is willing to touch the issue or revisit the blasphemy law. Politicians are scared, and not the least because of the principal contradiction in Pakistan’s political system – an overdeveloped deep state with an excessively strong civil-military bureaucracy, and weak political institutions. Any deviation from the mainstream narrative would enable the deep state to mobilise public opinion against them.

As a consequence, the most marginalized and weakest sections of our society continue to suffer at the hands of a law that is neither Islamic nor just.

Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer and a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School.

Get the PrintEssential to make sense of the day's key developments


6 Comments Share Your Views

6 COMMENTS

  1. Ꭲhere are, after all, some unfaavourable points to
    freelancing. One vital poіnt is that in the eѵent yyou woгk as a freelance parqlegal yοulⅼ
    not bbe eligiblе for the forms of benefits that
    you would haѵe in ѡorking for a legislation agency or a private attorney.
    If you гeally feeеl thbat such “perks” aѕ normal health
    insurance and diffrent such advantages are essential, frеelancing wont giѵe you these benefits.

  2. Duh, the “blasphemy” law was PURPOSELY for misuse by Eichmannesque Zia — who got in because Bhutto decided to emulate Ludendorff rather than Adenauer!

  3. You cultivate medievalism, you get many fold back in return. You are also suggesting that if such barbaric practises are directly recommended in Koran, it would be then justified. The greatest reform happened with Christianity in Europe is when people realised that Bible is not the words of God, but of men, maybe superior to them. And Europe was out of the dark ages. May be a similar intellectual reform is needed in Islam to rescue humanism from the clutches of books and few clever people. Jinnah used religion for political objective, and now, of all people lmran Khan.

    • Gandhi used religion for political purposes. Jinnah was the last person to do so. This comparison you draw between Imran Khan and Jinnah is downright insulting and demeaning. Read more about the man.

      • Reality is that Jinnah jumped on the “islam is in danger” (which is one of the worst taqia ever) bandwagon to gain power.

        And as far as Imran Khan, you support such a felon (produced illegal child and absconds from obligation, and later demands apology for an incident that did NOT happen as he claimed***), you show your idiocy!

        *** I know this because I’ve travelled from Canada to US multiple times; also IK was debunked royally before demanding the apology by several unfortunate enough to be behind him in line at Pearson!

    • Actually, you are incorrect that “Europeans got out of dark ages when they realised Bible wasn’t word of God” — reality about Reformation is that some WENT BACK to Bible rather than traditions imposed by Roman Catholics in Vatican (and ironically, one of the most prominent in it was a Catholic monk).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here