Source/Credit: Daily Times | Pakistan
By Hina Hafeezullah Ishaq | October 14, 2011
After General Ziaul Haq took power, he primarily wanted an Islamic state with the imposition of shariah law. This was allegedly the demand of 95 percent of the nation as evident from the results of a controversial referendum held in December 1984
Blasphemy has not been defined, per se, anywhere in the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860. However, according to The Law Lexicon it “is the malicious reviling of God or religion. It consists in reviling God or in wantonly or maliciously attacking religion and religious tenets, for the purpose of exposing the doctrines to contempt and ridicule.”
Offences that are understood to be covered by this term are incorporated in and form Chapter XV of the PPC 1860 (sections 295-298-C) titled ‘Of Offences Relating to Religion’.
Initially, the offences pertaining to “defiling places of worship” and “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, etc” was introduced by the British to protect the minorities, presumably the Muslims, in the Indian Penal Code 1860. Since Pakistan at the time of its creation adopted the said law wholesale, the offences were the same in the PPC 1860. However, the punishment for the latter offence was enhanced by parliament in November 1991 to 10 years of imprisonment from two years; in India it is now three years.
In England all forms of blasphemies against God, Jesus Christ and the Scriptures were punishable with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine. The death penalty was abolished in 1676. People were flogged, branded and their tongues were pierced by red hot pokers. The blasphemy law was reviewed in 2002 and it was found that if there is to be a law in this respect, it has to apply to all religions and not just Christianity. It was also considered by some to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, being against the principles of freedom of speech. As a result the offence of blasphemy and blasphemous libel was abolished in England and Wales, after consultation with the Church of England and the other churches, with the enactment of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. However, Ireland still has not repealed its law on blasphemy.
At this juncture it might not be out of place to point out that the fundamental right of freedom guaranteed to us by our constitution is not an absolute and free one; it is subject to many conditions, including the supremacy and glory of our religion, Islam. Thus we cannot equate ourselves with the west, living in a different culture and parameters.
After General Ziaul Haq took power, he primarily wanted an Islamic state with the imposition of shariah law. This was allegedly the demand of 95 percent of the nation as evident from the results of a controversial referendum held in December 1984. Jinnah in his first address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947 said: “You may belong to any religion, caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the state. In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims — not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual — but in a political sense as citizens of one state.”
However, the Objectives Resolution was made part of the constitution in 1985 by virtue of Article 2-A. It states that equal protection shall be given to the minorities as well as the fact that teachings and requirements of Islam will govern the spheres of the lives of the Muslims.
We are the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, yet we have consistently failed to fulfil the obligations of such a state. Our citizens die of hunger, poverty, lack of medical facilities, deprived of the basic necessities of life, without equality or equal opportunities for all, a nation where the marginalised are further marginalised, where our people are being radicalised, where the ‘have-nots’ are moving galaxies apart from the ‘have-thems’; yet we have the audacity to call ourselves an Islamic state. Surely this could be interpreted to be a form of blasphemy, being a mockery of the tenets of Islam and of all that has been ordained by God?
General Ziaul Haq amended the PPC several times and inserted, in 1982, section 295-B: defiling, etc, Copy of Holy Quran, punishable with life imprisonment; in 1984, sections 298-A: use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of holy personages (three years imprisonment/fine), sections 298-B and 298-C: specifically for the Ahmedis, and in 1986 section 295-C: use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), which was originally punishable with death or life imprisonment, and is popularly understood to be the blasphemy law and reads as follows: “295-C: use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet (PBUH): whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
(To be continued)
The writer is an advocate of the high court
Read original post here: Beyond reasonable doubt — I —Hina Hafeezullah Ishaq
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.