Anatomy
of blasphemy laws
There was a time when religion kept a society together, and denial of
its truth or efficacy could work as a disintegrative agent. It had,
therefore, to be protected from the invasions of non-believers and
heretics. None could be allowed to ridicule the dominant majority’s
religion, its doctrine and dogma. Those who uttered or published such
insults would be punished. Thus began the blasphemy laws in England and
Europe.
Then came the time, albeit gradually, when the role of religion as a
preserver of the social fabric diminished. Consequently, blasphemy laws
have been repealed, or made dormant and inoperative, in a number of
societies during the last 50 years or so, if not since even earlier.
I should like to say a word about the operation of blasphemy laws in
England, a country with which we have had long and deep associations,
before examining their substance and workings in Pakistan. Until about
the close of the 16th century church authorities dealt with blasphemers
under the canon law. Subsequently, blasphemy became an offence under
the English common law. In 1676, Sir Mathew Hale, the lord chief
justice, maintained that “Christianity is parcel of the laws of
England,” and that, therefore reproaching it amounted to subversion of
the state and government.
English law made the following types of expression subject to
imprisonment, fine, and/or corporal punishment: denial of God’s being
and providence; “contumelious reproaches” of Jesus Christ; “profane
scoffing” of the holy scriptures, or exposing any part thereof to
contempt or ridicule; reviling the sacrament of the Last Supper;
rejection by a person professing to be Christian of the belief that
members of the Holy Trinity were God, or that the holy scriptures were
of divine origin.
In its actual operation the law was used from time to time to persecute
atheists, Unitarians, Quakers, and other non-conformists. But it
appears also that other persons punished for violating it were not all
that numerous. The last such person was John William Gott, sentenced to
nine months in prison in 1921 for having satirised the story of Jesus
entering Jerusalem and for comparing him with a “circus clown.”
It should be noted that the English blasphemy law did not protect
religions other than Christianity as represented by the Anglican
Church. No penalties ensued if, for instance, anyone made fun of the
Pope or, for that matter, belittled Martin Luther or John Calvin. Since
the publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, Muslims in Britain
have been asking for the law’s coverage to be extended to protect all
religions. Other minorities have made similar demands, but these are
not likely to get anywhere.
| Many
British liberals — including a good number of businessmen, members
of parliament, academics, men of letters, journalists, and creative
artists — believe that the blasphemy law is harsh, outmoded,
discriminatory, liable to be used as an instrument of bigotry, contrary
to the Human Rights Act of 1998 (especially clauses relating to freedom
of expression), and that it should therefore be repealed. On the other
hand, conservatives, represented by organs such as the “Christian
Voice,” oppose repeal. |
The compromise to which successive governments in Britain have tended
would keep the law on the Statute Book but not enforce it. A large
group of persons gathered outside the entrance to a church in Trafalgar
Square (London) in 2002 to hear one of James Kirkup’s poems, which
suggested that Jesus had been “gay.” The police, however, left the
sponsors of the event and the audience alone.
The blasphemy law in Pakistan does not protect religions other than
Islam. No penalties will be imposed on the man who alleges that the
attribution of divinity to Krishna is misconceived, or that the Hindu
scriptures are nothing more than fiction. Equally safe is the man who
declares that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim to being a prophet is false.
Otherwise the law is extensive in coverage and stringent in its terms.
It takes the form of additions to Sections 295 and 298 of the Pakistan
Penal Code. Section 295-B provides that anyone who defiles, damages, or
desecrates a copy of the Quran, or an extract from it, and anyone who
uses it in a derogatory manner or for “unlawful purposes” (whatever
that might mean), will go to prison for life. Section 295-C has it that
anyone who defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)
through any form of expression whatever, explicit or implicit, shall
merit death or life imprisonment and fine.
It appears that any assessment of the Prophet’s honour and dignity that
falls short of the level that others may have assigned him will
probably be interpreted as blasphemous. It follows also that no part or
aspect of his word or deed is to be open to scrutiny.
Section 298-A prescribes imprisonment up to three years to anyone who
“defiles the sacred name” of any of the Prophet’s wives, members of his
family (“Ahl-i-Bait”), companions (“Sahaba”), or any of the first four
“rightly guided” caliphs.
Additions to Section 298 (B and C) are addressed exclusively to members
of the Ahmadi community. They will go to jail if they do any of the
following things: call their faith Islam and themselves Muslim; preach
their faith; refer to anyone of their own community as
Ameer-ul-Momineen; designate such a man’s companions as “Sahaba” and
his wife as “Ummul Momineen”; invite Allah’s blessings upon one of
their chosen persons; call their place of worship a masjid or make the
traditional Muslim call for prayer. They are not to “outrage” the
religious sensitivities of Muslims. Subsequent developments forbid them
to post the Muslim declaration of faith (kalima) on their places. And,
unless I am mistaken, they may not even greet a Muslim in the latter’s
traditional language.
Parts of this law are vague and thus lend themselves to misapplication.
It is, for instance, hard to assign the word “defile” a specific enough
connotation. The dictionary says it means to corrupt the purity or
perfection of a person (or object), debase him/her, to denude him/her
of chastity, to make him/her unclean with something that is
contaminating, sully or dishonour him/her. In another situation we
might have dismissed this word as a bad choice, but here we are stuck
with it.
Plain abuse or denunciation could be called defiling. For instance,
anyone who calls Jesus “gay” or compares him with a “circus clown” (as
mentioned above) may justly be accused of “defiling” him. But if one
chooses to use the word loosely, many harmless observations could be
dubbed as defilements and therefore blasphemous. Consider a few
possibilities.
There are Muslims who believe that our Prophet was partly divine, while
others believe he was entirely human. In the former view the latter are
lowering his status and may be seen as defiling his sacred name. On
occasion the Quran is critical of some of the Prophet’s wives, but if a
Muslim asserted the same, he might be accused of defiling them.
We know as a fact that Umar bin Khattab and Ali ibn Abu Talib disagreed
with Abu Bakr (the first pious caliph) on certain issues and considered
his decisions to have been inappropriate. Would we be defiling the
“sacred name” of Abu Bakr if we were to agree with Umar and Ali?
One of the Prophet’s wives, Ayesha, and two of his companions, Talha
and Zubair, fought Ali ibn Abu Talib (“Jang-i-Jamal”) soon after he had
become the fourth pious caliph. Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan also fought him
(“Jang-i-Safin”). Needless to say, one of the sides in these battles
acted wrongfully. Would it be blasphemous to say so?
Some of the Prophet’s companions remained with him for several hours
every day. Others visited him only once in a while and that too
briefly. Surely they cannot all be placed as equals in terms of their
closeness to the Prophet. The law under reference gives us no clue as
to who are to reckoned as “Sahaba” whose names are sacred. For
instance, is Abu Sufyan, an inveterate foe of the Prophet, who
repeatedly led the Quraish of Makkah in battle against him, and who
accepted Islam only after Makkah had fallen, to be counted among his
“sahaba” and criticism of his conduct to be regarded as “blasphemous
libel”?
Constraints placed upon the Ahmadis in sub-sections B and C of section
298 are perplexing, to say the least. They are forbidden to follow
Muslim expressions, observances, usages, and practices in spite of the
fact that these are all parts of their faith. Or, to put it in another
way, the law says their faith must not be what it is.
The law says the Ahmadis must not call themselves Muslim and their
faith Islam. This puts them in an impossible position. They are not
merely pretending to be Muslim. They honestly and truly believe
themselves to be Muslim. The law requires them to lie about their
self-perception. It calls upon them to be duplicitous. This is
incredible.
The law is repugnant not only to the universally accepted charter of
human rights, to which Pakistan is a signatory, but also to its own
Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right and freedom to
profess and practice religions of their choosing. It sanctifies
horrendous intolerance and reduces Pakistan’s professions of moderation
and enlightenment to gross hypocrisy.
Islam is quite capable of “protecting” itself, if we will let it be.
Moves to “protect” it, and the resulting controversies, have only
worked to divide us as a people. The blasphemy law serves no useful
purpose. It is simply an expression of the majority’s anger at a small
minority that is deemed to be heretical.
In its actual operation it has visited unspeakable suffering upon
innocent persons. Men of ill will have used it to wage personal
vendettas, grab the weaker party’s property, or simply vent their
malice.
Yet, given the likely opposition of the Islamic parties, it may be
politically difficult to repeal this law. The British compromise might
merit consideration: the law may remain on the Statute Book, but let it
be ignored, and thus made inoperative.
The writer is professor emeritus of
political science at
the university of Massachusetts at Amherst, US.
Email: anwarsyed@cox.net
See also:
Where is Pakistan headed?
Pakistan's blasphemy laws
uswed to persecute non-muslims
On the introduction of a hasba bill in a
Pakistan province
|