4

November 22, 2010 – January 09, 2011

B L A S P H E M Y Pakistan !!! is a compilation of news, views, comments, reviews

opinions and articles etc. collected from Local Print Media. It covers the period from

November 22, 2010 to January 09, 2011. The data has been collected from leading local

newspapers which includes Daily Times, Dawn, Express Tribune, Friday Times, Geo

News, , The Nation, The News and Pak Tea House (Blog) .

For the convenience of readers this compilation has been arranged into parts and each

newspaper has been compiled according to its date of publication. Source of each entry,

so made, can be find at its end.

LUTFUL MANNAN KHAN DUR E SAMEEN KHAN

Section 295-C of Pakistan's penal code, the so-called blasphemy law, 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 Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

This law was passed in 1984, and six years later the stakes were raised when a federal Sharia Court ruled that "the penalty for contempt of the Holy prophet is death and nothing else." A

component was later added to target, by name, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, a minority Muslim group that believes

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the messiah of the latter days.

NOVEMBER, 2010

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Why do we hate secularism?

Can the clergy rule? Do the ulema combine in them the piety of Hazrat Umar and his statecraft, which was informed by his ability to do ijtihad freely?

By Khaled Ahmed

It was in 1992 that I got around to meeting Prof Karrar Husain in Karachi during a seminar. I had heard about him a great deal and knew his reputation of a great teacher. Speaking to us at the seminar he made what we thought was a shocking statement. He said the best environment for an Islamic society was secularism.

It is after several years that I have come to understand the meaning of this remark. Now I tend to realise that India emerged as the best scholarly exponent of Islam in the world under the secularism of the British Raj

and its edict of freedom of expression. I can extend this observation to politics too and claim that the post -1947 leaders have been dwarfs compared to leaders produced under the Raj.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was apostatised for his rationalist approach by his contemporary ulema but he couldn‘t be harmed under the British administration. Syed Amir Ali and Maulvi Chiragh strengthened his rationalist

movement without being pilloried. Shibli ‗reinterpreted‘ Shah Waliullah on the hudood laws with impunity and prompted Allama Iqbal to do the same in his Sixth Lecture. Allama Iqbal had expressed the same view in 1924 and attacked

by the ulema but had come to no harm. Maulana Abdul Maajid Daryabadi went through his phase of philosophical heresy safely. When Daryabadi tried to get the ‗impudent‘ poet Yas Yagana Changezi hanged by angry citizens, he was prevented by the British police.

The greatest ‗tafseers‘ of the Quran were written under the British. Maulana Maududi wrote his best work in that period but got into trouble when he wrote his ‗balanced‘ his tory of early Islam in his book, Khilafat aur

Malukiyat. Maulana Ahmaduddin wrote his Biyan al-Nas and was not punished for setting aside hadith on the question of the timing of namaz. Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi in his book on Shah Waliullah refused to accept the law replacing the mansookh (abrogated) Quranic verse (accepted by Shah Waliullah) that

enjoined vasiyat (last will). He wrote that he saw the wisdom of the Quran in allowing a Muslim to will his property because he (Maulana Sindhi) was worried about his non-Muslim mother‘s welfare after his death.

Today, Maulana Sindhi would have been punished for that. Under the British, the famous Ali Brothers were not punished for criticising the king of Afghanistan for killing Ahmedis. Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, once a prized supporter of the Quaid and the Pakistan Movement, is today a heretic whose works have to be banned in the

NWFP. Before the secularist era of the British, the Ahle Hadith in Delhi punished people they thought were heretics.

Bahadur Shah Zafar had to ret reat in the face of their anger after using the dust of Karbala to cure his

illness. The great poet Ghalib was accused of being an apostate for turning rafizi or shia. If one reads Abul Kalam‘s great account of the ulema under the Mughals in Tazkira, one realises how many good scholars

were killed for daring to express opinion not accepted by the orthodoxy. In fact, the small rulers used the accusation of heresy to get rid of scholars who would not bow to them. The mystics were always in trouble, facing royal inquisition, and were sometimes killed for heresy by the kings.

Intizar Husain has put together a collection of Prof Karrar Husain‘s lectures in Sawalat -o-Khayalat (Sang-e-Meel) which once again highlights the great teacher‘s worldview. The most significant theme in the book is

Pakistan‘s saqafat (culture). He believed that the sense of culture sprang from collective historical experience. The Muslims in India were not able to convert the Hindus, unlike Iran where you could have Muslim names like Rustam Ali. In India the two communities developed separately, often in opposition to

each other. Culturally, they represented two concentric circles that swung apart as much as they swung in. The Muslims failed to produce a ‗Hindi‘ Islam that would paper over the great sectarian divides and allow internal pluralism. Prof Karrar thought that Pakistan erred in thinking that it was a ‗refuge‘ for Indian Muslims.

It created the either/or kind of ideology that was harmful. He thought that Pakistan was wrong in using coercion on regions it thought would like to leave. If you coerce

a part to remain inside, it is bound to develop an internal dynamic of separatism. He thought that the idea of ‗unity‘ in Pakistan was also without morality. The unity worth aspiring to was diversity that sincerely thought it profitable to remain in a united framework. The different units of the state must feel distinct from one another

and yet think it in their interest to remain linked. The status of Urdu in Pakistan unfortunately became the instrument of coercive policy. From a language that was on the way to becoming South Asia‘s lingua franca was made a regional pariah through policies of coercion.

Talking of religion as a constituent part of culture, Prof Karrar pointed to the paradox of its enforcement in Pakistan. He said while on the one hand we insisted that Islam was compatible with the scientific demands

of modern times — in fact we insist that science was foreshadowed by the discourse of the Quran — we oppose passionately all efforts to bring Islamic laws in conformity with modern times. The moment someone tries to do ijtihad, we immediately give the call of ‗ Islam is in danger‘ and go several steps back in reaction.

Unable to reconcile our worldly concerns with our faith, we have adopted hypocrisy as a way of life: and no living culture is possible on the basis of hypocrisy. If a purely scientific worldview made one a Communist, and a purely non-scientific world view took one to sufism, a middle position, he thought, may be suitable.

The Muslim world‘s abiding antipathy towards secularism rests on the historical experience of the government of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Companions who followed him. Religion and statecraft are seen

by Muslims as intertwined in this ideal peri od. Revelation and politics are not separated although one is beyond reason and the other dependent on it. It is sinful to allow oneself to believe that Islam could be divorced from the task of running the government. Extrapolation from Islamic principles is not enough; the

guidelines set by the Exemplary Early Caliphate are to be followed literally. Since the laws embodied in the Quran and the example of the early Caliphs are eternal, they cannot be modified in the light of practice. Islam cannot be experimentally applied.

In a very thought-provoking book, Politics & Revelation, Palestinian scholar, Hanna Mikhail, notes that under the Umayyad and Abbasid governments, the caliph functioned in tandem with the ulema to enforce the

Shariah. In fact, two separate authorities did come into being. Under the Abbasids, the traditionalist ulema became greatly disturbed by rationalism imported from Greek learning. They thought that Revelation was being subjected to the rules of logic and circumstance, and that Islam might be altered in the process and

lose its pristine early glory. The Abbasid caliph at first persecuted the ulema but later came to an understanding with them. He enforced traditionalist Shariah to get himself legitimised by them. The ulema on the other hand developed the doctrine of abolishing popular revolt against the caliph if he enforced the

Shariah. This led to a kind of dyarchy which took the political activity of the caliph beyond the ken of religious

judgement. A kind of sinister secularism grew out of this ‗cooperation‘, somewhat on the pattern of tsarist collaboration between the king and the Orthodox Church in Russia. This is the pattern that has come down to our day. The ruler, military or civilian, derives his legitimacy from the enforcement of Shariah. The clergy

supports him as long as he keeps the Shariah in tact. The clergy itself is no longer willing to suit the Message to the times, ignoring the early methodology of suiting the Quran to the demands of changing

mores through naskh (abrogation) of the Quran. Many laws now in force under Shariah are the result of these abrogations and a process of supplementation on the basis of hadith; for instance, the law on the dead man‘s will and the law of rijm (stoning to death). The argument today is that the "doors of ijtihad

(reinterpretation) are closed". It was a secularism that suited the caliph and the ulema, but not the common man. The trend of

legitimisation of the caliph‘s politics through Shariah caused the Muslim society to decline in mora lity. In Pakistan, the more the rulers passed laws on Shariah, the more corrupt the society became. The ulema couldn‘t win elections because the common man accepted the concealed secularism of the Islamic state and

considered the ulema good for the adjudication of religious matters but not politics. As the ulema became empowered through jehad, they sensed the false secularism and decided to include politics too in the Shariah. This has led to another crisis in the Islamic world, most of it strangely connect ed with the jehad in

Afghanistan. The rulers were challenged. The new paradigm sought was that of Iran: let the medieval dyarchy be merged in the person of the religious leader.

Can the clergy rule? Do the ulema combine in them the piety of Hazrat Umar and his statecraft, which was informed by his ability to do ijtihad freely? The pattern today is that the ulema cannot reconcile themselves to human rights because of their fixed view of the dhimmi (non -Muslim citizens). Their economic doctrine is

likewise fixed in the idea of falah (welfare) which favours the discarded Soviet model. They look at the global system with great suspicion, rejecting such international financial organisations as the IMF, because, among other reasons, of their rejection of the modern banking system based on riba (interest).

Since democracy depends on the will of the common man (who thinks that the ulema should not take part in politics), they reject it in favour of revolution — overthrowing a malfunctioning Islamic dyarchical system and

replacing it with, what they believe, will be ideal. Unfortunately, because of the historical delimitation of functions, their new order will be seen as merely theocratic. A perverted secularism begun by the Abbasids will not deliver. And the Muslims are not yet ready to give the real secularism a chance. Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2010-weekly/nos-21-11-2010/dia.htm#1

Thursday, November 25, 2010

PPP rejects Fatwa against governor By our correspondent LAHORE: Reacting to the decree against the governor, Punjab PPP Secretary Information Dr Fakhruddin

Chaudhry said Islam is not property of any particular sect or people representing a specific school of thought, rather it belong to all who recite Kalma. He said the hue and cry over the issue of Aasia Bibi was only being raised by the elements who were known as ëFatwa Faroshí and those who even issued Fatwas

against the founder of Pakistan, Hazrat Quaid e Azam. He said these elements wanted to make Pakistan an Afghanistan-like state but they wouldn‘t succeed in their designs.

Justice not pardon

Basil Nabi Malik

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of uproar about the death sentence handed down to Aasia Bibi by the sessions court in Faisalabad. People have been up in arms, demanding that justice be done to the woman, and that she be saved from the infamous blasphemy laws. There can be no two opinions in this

regard, because this attitude is an expression of the general desire to have an innocent woman from a religious minority receive justice against trumped up and scandalously ridiculous charges.

However, the real element to be analysed is not whether such a thing should happen, but, rather, what modus operandi was adopted to make it happen.

Many people believe that the chief justice of Pakistan should take suo moto action to redress this travesty of justice. This is irrespective of the fact that there is already an appeal pending before the competent judicial

officers of the Lahore High Court, and the case is therefore in the process of being re-examined at that forum.

In addition, most of those who want the chief justice to take a suo moto action in the case justify their request by the saying that if he can take suo moto actions on other matters not strictly within its purview, then why not in this case?

Although it is a reasonable question, it ignores the reality that suo moto actions are not a remedy to the problems of our judicial system, but rather the symptom. If the chief justice were to take suo moto action on

a case already pending before an appellate judicial forum, it would do nothing but undermine the current legal system. At the same time, it would favour one person, namely Aasia Bibi, over the numerous other Aasias languishing in Pakistani jails.

Furthermore, suo moto actions are not a substitute for the normal legal process, but complement ary to it. Therefore, a suo moto action may only kick into action where an outright travesty of justice has occurred,

and there appears to be no other reasonable or fair mode of remedying it through the normal processes of the judicial system. In all other situations, it serves to undermine the legal system in place, not bolster it.

Alternatively, it has also been suggested that the president should pardon Aasia Bibi. However, this in itself is a superficial measure which will lead to an inadequate response to the core issue which gives rise to such instances. The fact of the matter is that a presidential pardon will not vindicate Aasia Bibi 's struggle or bring

to record the wrongfulness of her conviction. The aspect of whether her conviction is appropriate can only be addressed through the judicial process, as

has been outlined in the case of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State, PLD 2009, SC 814, and any presidential pardon at this stage may very well persuade Aasia Bibi of the futility of following through on any proceedings before an appellate forum.

Therefore, her being pardoned while her conviction stands in legal terms would be nothing short of a tragedy of great proportions. This is not to mention the fact that such an action would further weaken the credibility of

the judicial institutions and the processes through which a well reasoned final outcome is expected. Neither one of these methods of remedying a perceived wrong would be justified or adequate. The only just

and acceptable remedy in the issue of Aasia Bibi, and the countless cases of this nature, would be a two -pronged solution.

Firstly, it is imperative that the president and his party actually do something tangible about the blasphemy laws. The pardoning of one woman at the centre of a media blitz, while the many others who are not so fortunate as to receive publicity stay ignored, would be akin to sweeping the fundamental issue under the

rug. The president and his party should, instead, have the draconian measures repealed. This will make it

impossible, at least in such scenarios, for mischief to be done in the name of religion, as well as rendering a presidential pardon unnecessary in situations like this one from now on.

Secondly, in addition to the previous recommendation, the judicial system, and especially the lower judiciary, must be revamped and financially buttressed, in order for it to be guaranteed that competent judges adjudicate on complex matters efficiently and quickly. This will definitely be a long and difficult task, but one

which is already manifested in the National Judicial Policy of the chief justice.

In a nutshell, it appears that civil society and all the others concerned about the Aasia Bibi case are looking for a quick solution, and a remedy only to the situat ion at hand. They are ignoring that even if the measures involving the chief justice and the president are adopted, the real issues at stake will remain unaddressed.

The solution for the issue, and issues like this that are bound to crop up in the future, do not lie in the use of discretionary powers by the chief justice or the president, but rather in the strengthening and fortifying of the

system in place in order to render any such discretion unnecessary and irrelevant. Until the people of Pakistan realise this, the vicious cycle that victimises the Aasias of Pakistan will continue indefinitely.

The writer is a lawyer. Email: basil.nabi @gmail.com

Source: http://beta.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=17050&Cat=9&dt=11/25/2010

Friday, November 26, 2010

Babar Awan says no one can change blasphemy law By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: Law Minister Babar Awan has categorically said that no one should think of repealing the blasphemy law. ―In my presence as the Law Minister, no one should think of finishing this law,‖ he said while declaring himself to be a ―Shaheen‖ (eagle). He was talking to a senior member of the Jang Group on

Thursday. The minister came out with these unequivocal remarks in the wake of the latest media debate over the

blasphemy laws, which started once again by the recent award of a death sentence to a Christian woman on blasphemy charges.

The categorical stance by Minister Awan, arguably one of the closest aides of President Zardari and one with a role in many controversies, is in direct contradiction to that taken by Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer, who while being critical of the same law is all out to secure the release of Aasia Masih, sentenced to

death by a district and sessions court of Nankana Sahib in the Punjab. Taseer has already declared that the convict was innocent and according to observers his view is shared by many commentators who in a majority of cases may not even have gone through the details of the evidence and judgment.

While appreciating the comment that any effort to amend or repeal the blasphemy law would lead to chaos, the Babar Awan emphasised that in his presence as law minister no one would be allowed to change or repeal the law

. ―In order to remove ambiguity pl (please) also write 2moro (tomorrow) that I told U (The Jang Group) (that) in my presence as Law Minister no one should think of finishing this law,‖ this is what the law minister precisely

said in his written statement. On this, the law minister was asked if he should be quoted, he sai d, ―Sure.‖ Babar Awan added that he was servant of servants of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He said, ―I‘m khadim of khadmaan-e-Rasool.‖ He prayed that candle of ishq-e-Rasool (love for Prophet

(PBUH)) is lit in every heart. The law minister, instead, said that all religious nobles must be respected in order to save world from crisis like the publication of caricature.

It is not clear if the law minister has the blessings of President Asif Ali Zardari, who is under pressure to pardon the convict Aasia Masih but it shows serious cracks within the ruling elite about its policy on the blasphemy law.

Babar Awan claims to be a religious scholar; he gives lectures on Islam but at the time faces serious accusation of corruption in the Harris Steel Mill case of Bank of Punjab scandal. Additionally, he continues to

claim to be a PhD and uses the prefix of Dr with his name despite the fact that the Monticello University,

which awarded him the fake degree, has already been declared unauthorized both by the American and Pakistani authorities to have been entitled to issue such a degree at any stage.

Babar Awan is also generally believed as the man responsible for the government‘s confrontational mode with the judiciary. All controversies notwithstanding, on the issue of blasphemy laws he has opted to detach

himself from all those who are demanding the repeal of these laws.

Source: http://thenews.com.pk/26-11-2010/Top-Story/2293.htm

Minorities demand Aasia’s release, repeal of blasphemy law By our correspondent

Serves the minorities right

Ayaz Amir

Pakistanis are not spoken of as a minority in other lands – a US citizen of Pakistani origin is a US citizen, not

a member of any minority – but in Pakistan it is different. A Christian here, or a Sikh or Hindu, is a minority citizen as per the constitution and he is made to feel that way through every nuance of mood or feeling in

what, in our more exalted moments, we claim to be a fort ress of Islam. With such a fortress the Islamic world's perilous condition should come as no surprise. Although, come to

think of it, if the United States is the pre-eminent gendarme of the Muslim world, the protector of its kingdoms and emirates, and even republics such as ours, doesn't it deserve this title better than anyone else?

Wearing a death-noose around her neck, a woman symbolising Aasia Bibi stood amongst a number of protestors of the Christian community, who chanted slogans for her release, as well as for the repeal of the blasphemy law, at the Karachi Press Club on Thursday evening.

Michael Javaid, Chairman of the Pakistan Minority Front demanded that Aasia Bibi should be immediately released. Just recently, Aasia had been sentenced to death by the Nanakana Sahib court in the Punjab under

Section 195 B and C for uttering blasphemous remarks. Speaking on the occasion, Javaid said that no believer of the Christianity faith or any other could even think of

insulting the Muslim religion. He said that the Muslims and Christians were brothers, and that the Christians greatly respect the Muslims and their Holy Prophet.

―The original constitution of Pakistan did not discriminate between the Muslims and the religious minorities but the amendments made by the military dictator Zia-ul-Haq, has promoted extremism and intolerance in the society. The blasphemy law or the Black Laws should be repealed, as hundreds of innocent people from the minority

communities are being indicted in false cases.‖ He said that it was shameful that a woman was given a death sentence and called it a discriminatory decision.

Chairman of the National Peace Committee, Anwar Hussain Abidi, stated that there was a dire need of tolerance amongst the followers of different religions, and demanded that the increasing bigotry in the country should be

eliminated. Meanwhile, Elvis Steven, a Christian representative said that crimes such as rape and murder and false cases of

blasphemy was an everyday reality which the minority communities were faced, and urged the government to repeal the law, in the interest of humanity.

Another irony to savour: the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques has a back problem and he must go to the US for treatment. We possess faith, and lots of it. Others possess knowledge and the power of its application.

Yet our self-righteousness remains undiluted. Fortress of Islam or not, no one can deny our claim to being Islam's loudest loudspeaker. There may not be

anything remotely Islamic in our collective ways, Islam after all being another name for a just republic, but there's no one to beat us when it comes to lip-service. No temple, no sect, could have louder adherents. If hypocrisy ever stood in need of a higher centre of learning – a centre of excellence, so to speak – the place to

discover it would be here. Pity the innocence of our founding fathers. Did they have no idea of what they were playing with, the ghosts

they were resurrecting, of the holy mess in the name of ideology that we, the denizens of the Islamic Republic, would make of their legacy?

In his Aug 11, 1947, speech to the Constituent Assembly, Jinnah realised that Islamic rhetoric had gone too far. That is why he tried reversing the tide by setting out a secularist vision for the state he was founding. Read the speech again in its entirety – it should be worth anyone's while to do so – and all doubts on this

score will vanish. But his was a lone voice in the wilderness. And much as we may make of that speech, it had no decisive or

lasting impact. The idea it sought to frame was taken over, virtually hijacked, by forces earlier opposed to the creation of Pakistan. With Jinnah soon gone there was no one powerful enough to stop them as they went about putting the stamp of their own twisted ideas on the ethos of the new state.

This was Jinnah's tragedy, yet to be recognised openly as tragedy in the historiography of Pakistan. His hour of victory, the creation of Pakistan, was also the moment when his dream began to unravel. The state he had

meant to found – there being nothing Jamaat-e-Islami or revivalist about it – was not the state that was coming into being. The dream and the emerging reality had begun to diverge.

The new state was predominantly Muslim but in it were also a sizeable number of people of other faiths and persuasions. There was a large Hindu population in East Pakistan and, leaving other faiths aside, substantial Christian communities, well-settled and educated and relatively well-off, in our major cities.

After the horrors let loose by the ill-planned partition of Punjab had subsided and relative calm had set in, there was a chance on the part of the new state to create an open and liberal society, based on reason, even if loosely defined, rather than dogma. Apart from anything else, this would have given a measure of security to

the minorities that had decided to remain in Pakistan and make it their home. But such was the rising chorus of faith-driven rhetoric, and this became very clear during the debates in the

Constituent Assembly over the Objectives Resolution, that the minorities started feeling unsafe. The Hindu elite in East Pakistan felt they had no future in Pakistan and started leaving for Calcutta. Working class Hindus remained but we did not have to worry about them either when East Pakistan, much to our anger and

amazement, became Bangladesh. The Muslims of Bangladesh did not convert to Hinduism but they had proved that religion alone was not a panacea for every problem and that, in any case, it had not been enough to keep Pakistan together.

If that was the end of our Hindu problem, over the subsequent years we also managed, to a large extent, to solve our Christian problem. There are working class Christian communities in every city of Pakistan and may

they remain there until the end of time, adding richness to our collective existence. Speaking of Chakwal, my hometown, I know that it would be the poorer without its Christian inhabitants. Although, if I might add a silent prayer, I wish they were a bit more scrupulous when it comes to moonshine

liquor...I having it on reasonably good authority that the stuff they produce while fit for horses is not so for the average mortal. But this was an aside. Educated Christians have fled the shores of the Islamic Republic, their once cheerful and convivial districts denuded of their inhabitants.

This is one reason, although not the only one, why our better cities have become such dreary places. We have somehow seen to it that leisure and entertainment – whether fashion shows or mixed parties – remain,

for the most part, upper-class diversions, the concept of a good time confined to a narrow slice of the population. In the matter of fun Christians were more equal, more egalitarian. We are left with the aggressive

observance of ritual. No wonder the population in general presents such a grim aspect, or that over time this should have become a cradle of international jihad.

Shouldn't we be content with these signal victories, securing Pakistan for the faithful, the only challenge left arising from our own mediocrity? Any general would rest on these laurels. But we are not satisfied. Every six months or twelve months we must make an international spectacle by ourselves by an anti -

blasphemy charge against some helpless Christian individual, man or woman, mostly in middle Punjab. (What's it with middle Punjab that it should lend itself to this exercise?) Can't we leave the Christians who remain in Pakistan in some semblance of peace? Must we strive to gain Heaven, or our understanding of it, at

their expense? Or can't we leave ourselves in peace? More than cynicism, it is masochism which seems to be our national

pastime: deriving pleasure from pain. We make clowns of ourselves before the world and yet our self -righteousness abates not a bit. We say that we do all this for the greater glory of the faith. Our faith would be better off without these attempts at glory.

We Muslims believe, such being our faith, that in all the universe the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, stands next only to the sight of God. First comes the Lord and after Him his last messenger. This in the Islamic canon

is the standing of Muhammad. Not for nothing did Pir Mehr Ali Shah of Golra sing: kithay Mehr Ali, kithay teree sana – how lowly I stand and how high is thy name. And here in the Islamic Republic we feel not an iota of shame in reducing Muhammad, the last of the Apostles to the level of an act of real or purported blasphemy in

some Godforsaken hamlet of Nankana Sahib district of central Punjab. Injustice, poverty and hunger amount to blaspheming the last Messenger of God. The ways of the Islamic Republic are a slur on his memory. Idle words, real or faked, do not come even near to the dust he trod. Let the firebrands answer just one question:

would Muhammad, son of Amina, have approved of the imprisonment of Aasia? Would he even have countenanced it? We are prisoners of our smallness. Let us not bring sacred things down to our own level.

Source: http://thenews.com.pk/26-11-2010/opinion/17373.htm

NEWS POST

A lot is being said about on the blasphemy laws. If the laws were repealed, how would we prevent people from indulging in blasphemous acts?

Maher Baig Islamabad This is for people who are against repealing the blasphemy laws on grounds that doing so will encourage

people to commit blasphemous acts. Firstly, no sane person – no matter which religion he belongs to – would ever think of hurting other people's religious sentiments deliberately.

Secondly, even if someone did it, he should be referred to a psychiatrist for a mental checkup instead of being sent to the gallows. This is how civilised societies function all over the world. But then they are 'civilised' societies.

Maqbool Jan Peshawar

Sunday, November 28, 2010

NEWS PAOST

This refers to Mr Ayaz Amir‘s piece ―Serves the minorities right‖ (November 26). The hallmark of journalism in Pakistan these days is to run the people and the country down as much as possible at every opportunity.

The entire nation gets tarred and condemned for the errors of some military dictator or a handful of religious fanatics and corrupt politicians. It achieves little other than demoralising the people and making them lose

faith and hope in the future. We are passing through a very difficult period in our history, mostly because of the follies of a military

dictator whose usurpation of power from an elected government Mr Ayaz Amir had enthusiastically welcomed and applauded. The need is to give hope and direction to the people and the media can play a major role in this. We have passed through worst times and survived and we will do it again. It will be a little

easier i f only Mr Amir and others like him acted with a bit more responsibly. K Hussan Zia

Mississauga, Canada

***** I fully endorse Mr Ayaz Amir‘s view that injustice, poverty and hunger amount to blaspheming the last

Messenger of Allah. As for our attitude towards women, we never care to remember what the Prophet said in his last sermon. He told the faithful to fear Allah in their behaviour with women. This was the only piece of advice that he repeated three times on that occasion. The Prophet was the ruler of Arabia when he left this

world. His ‗wealth‘, so to say, was just a few dirhams at the time of his demise. In Pakistan the character of the rich and avaricious mullahs is totally opposite to that of the Pr ophet. What a

pity that we still trust and follow their interpretation of Islam. Munawar Ali Malik

Mianwali

Source: http://thenews.com.pk/28-11-2010/newspost/17734.htm

I congratulate Sherry Rahman on submitting a bill to the National Assembly Secretariat seeking amendments to the blasphemy laws. In the house of 342 MNAs, she seems to be the only member to have the guts to stand up against institutionalised methods of oppression.

Mobin Ahmed Lahore

***** Wouldn‘t it be better for Sherry Rahman to first build a consensus within her party about the need for introducing amendments to the blasphemy laws, instead of submitting her proposals as a private-member

bill? The bill is highly unlikely to become an act without the support of the ruling party. The PPP leadership has retained people like Sherry Rahman to sustain its ―liberal‖ image in the western

world. Their presence on the fringes of the PPP is meaningless because of federal min isters like ‗Dr‘ Babar Awan who has categorically rejected any change in the blasphemy laws.

Therefore, the bill will create goodwill for the PPP in western countries while lack of support in the legislature, particularly from the ruling party, will make sure that it maintains the status quo on the issue.

Iffat Alam Karachi *****

The way ulema across the sectarian divide have joined hands and warned the president against ―pardoning‖ Aasia Bibi is extremely sad. Ulema belonging to the Deobandi and Bar elvi sects hardly see eye to eye on

any issue these days. But when it comes to the blasphemy laws and minorities, they are on the same page. What a misfortune!

Ismael Shakil Hyderabad

***** Demanding presidential pardon for Aasia Bibi is not a solution to the institutional problems of Pakistani

minorities. Even if Aasia Bibi is pardoned and safely flown to a western country, what about other victims of the blasphemy laws? Will every person accused of blasphemy be pardoned individually by the president? We need to change the laws so that the minorities can live with dignity in Pakistan.

Avi Rathore Sukkur

Though I hardly ever agree with what Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer says, his proactive role in the case of Aasia Bibi is commendable. Only an unapologetic and strong drive for a change in the blasphemy laws

can improve the lives of minority members like Aasia Bibi. Fatima Z Islamabad

***** The man who registered the FIR against Aasia Bibi accusing her of blasphemy was not present on the scene himself. All the evidence he had against her came from some women who allegedly had an old score to

settle. The higher judiciary should hear the case and if the charges are found to be false and concocted, the people making the allegations should be punished severely.

A Joseph Lahore

***** Thank you, Babar Awan, for saying plainly that no change in the blasphemy laws is on the cards. Any hope

that the PPP may act like a secular party has been dashed. We can all rest assured that till the time Babar Awan sits in the law ministry, the minorities will continue living in the Zia-issued Pakistan.

JP Karachi

Source: http://thenews.com .pk/28-11-2010/newspost/17733.htm

Blasphemous distortion of Islamic law S Iftikhar Murshed

The death sentence handed down on Aasia Bibi over allegations of blasphemy has brought shame to Pakistan and been roundly condemned worldwide. It has also distorted the teachings of Islam. Punjab

governor Salmaan Taseer, despite his murky track record in politics, did the right thing for once by visiting the hapless woman and holding out the promise of a presidential pardon. This prompted obscurantist clerics to stage demonstrations in several cities of the province. On Nov 24 the Alami Jamaat -e-Ahl-e-Sunnat

issued a fatwa (decree) which declared him an apostate. Blasphemy laws have existed in British India since 1860. In 1927, Article 295 was added to the Penal Code

under which ―deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religious belief‖ became a culpable offence. The law was non -discriminatory and conviction under its provisions depended exclusively on conclusive evidence, as a consequence of which there were only ten

blasphemy cases in the 58 years between 1927 and 1985. Since that year the number of blasphemy cases has soared to more than 4,000.

In 1982, Gen Ziaul Haq introduced Section 295-B in the Penal Code of Pakistan, under which ―defiling the Holy Quran‖ became punishable by life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295 -C was added, mandating capital punishment for ―use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet‖. Even the law minister at the time

did not support the bill when it was introduced in the National Assembly ―on the ground that the Quran did not prescribe a penalty for this offence‖.

The enactment of Ziaul Haq‘s blasphemy laws unleashed a reign of terror in which the impoverished Christian community suffered the most. The violence will continue till these draconian laws are repealed.

This is unlikely, however, because the present law minister, Babar Awan, was quoted by the print media on Nov 26 as saying that ―no one can change the blasphemy laws.‖ Thus, so-called liberal politicians have been just as responsible as semi-educated clerics for the distortion of the laws of Islam in pursuit of their

respective political agendas. This distortion becomes apparent from the following analysis of Islamic jurisprudence.

If one accepts the dictum that the Quran is Islam, then the obvious implication is that whate ver the scripture does not ordain or prohibit cannot be incorporated into the relatively limited corpus of its ordinances. However, this has not dissuaded several prominent Muslim jurists, scholars and commentators from

overlaying Quranic teachings with their own interpretations of its laws. Of the Quran‘s 6,247 verses, only 70 deal with civil laws and 30 with penal laws; 70 discuss personal laws, 100 pertain to ritual practices and 20 with jurisprudence, including testimony.

The reason for only a limited number of laws is not to impose too great a burden on believers. This is clearly stated in the Quranic passage: ―O you who have attained to faith! Do not ask about matters which, if they

were to be made manifest to you (in terms of law), might cause you hardship; for, if you should ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they might (indeed) be made manifest to you (as laws). God has absolved (you from any obligation) in this respect: for God is much-forgiving, forbearing. People before your

time have indeed asked such questions – and in result thereof have come to deny the truth. ‖ The obvious implication is that believers should not try to deduce additional laws from the injunctions clearly spelt out in the Quran and by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as that ―might cause you hardship‖. However,

this is precisely what has happened through the centuries, as a consequence of which burdens have been imposed on the believers far beyond the actual stipulations of the Quran or the authentic pronouncements of the Prophet.

It is from this verse that some of the greatest Muslim scholars have concluded that, to quote one text, ―Islamic Law, in its entirety, consists of no more than the clear-cut injunctions forthcoming from the self-

evident (zahir) wording of the Quran and the Prophet‘s commandments, and that, consequently, it is not permissible to extend the scope of such self-evident ordinances by means of subjective methods of deduction. This, of course, does not prevent the Muslim community from evolving, whenever necessary, any

amount of additional, temporal legislation in accordance with the spirit of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet: but it must be clearly understood that such additional legislation cannot be regarded as forming part of Islamic Law (the Shariah), as such.‖ Thus, contrary to perceptions, modernity and Islam are not mutually

exclusive, as the Quran does not place any impediments in the way of Muslim societies to adopt laws in accordance with the requirements of their times.

Based on the Quranic passage cited above, Ibn Hazm (994-1064), a theologian of Arab-Persian descent born in Cordova, observed: ―It circumscribes all the principles of religious law (ahkam ad-din) from the first to the last – namely: what the Prophet has left unspoken – neither ordering nor prohibiting it – is allowed

(mubah), that it is, neither forbidden nor obligatory; whatever he ordered is obligatory (fard), and whatever he forbade is unlawful (haram); and whatever he ordered us to do is binding on us to the extent of our ability alone.‖ Ibn Hazm, a staunch opponent of the Asharites, subscribed to the Zahiri (exoteric) school of law and

believed that the only level of meaning in the Quran was the explicit, and, therefore, all attempts to find hidden connotations were inadmissible.

It was on the basis of Ibn Hazm‘s principles of jurisprudence that the reformer Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935) further explains: ―Many of our jurists (fuqaha) have, by their subjective deductions, unduly widened the range of man‘s religious obligations (takalif), thus giving rise to the very difficulties and

complications which the clear wording (of the Quran) had put an end to; and this led to the abandonment, by many individual Muslims, as well as by their government, of Islamic Law in its entirety.‖

The blasphemy laws of Pakistan which impose harsh penalties in the name of religion, including capital punishment, were never authorised either by the Quran or by the authentic Traditions of the Prophet. They

are certainly not sacrosanct and can be rescinded or drastically modified despite Law Minister Babar Awan‘s categoric assertion about their immutability.

The writer is the publisher of Criterion quarterly. Email: iftimurshed@ gmail.com

Source: http://thenews.com.pk/28-11-2010/opinion/17743.htm

Victim No 38 By Aoun Sahi

The death sentence awarded to Aasia Bibi has brought the ugly issue of blasphemy laws back to light again

The Nov 8, 2010, verdict of the Additional Sessions Judge Nankana Sahib district in Punjab a gainst Aasia Bibi has once again stirred a debate about the misuse and lacunas of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

Like many other cases, in Aasia Bibi's case, the complainant was a local Qari Mohammad Salam who was not present at the place of occurrence of the alleged crime. He was informed about the incident on June 19, 2009, by two female Muslim co-workers of Aasiya Bibi that five days earlier, on June 14, Aasia had uttered blasphemous remarks about the Prophet and the Quran.

The two sisters, Mafia and Asma, admitted in evidence that a quarrel took place over water that Aasia brought for drinking. Both the sisters declared it as "unclean" and refused to drink it. This initiated a heated debate among the women over the issue of religion.

"On June 19 my wife was forcibly brought out from our house by an angry Muslim mob who shouted that she

had committed blasphemy. They forced her to plead guilty and to seek pardon," Aasia's husband Ashiq Masih tells TNS. Aasia is 45 and a mother of five children.

On the same day, the police registered a case against Aasia Bibi under section 295-C of blasphemy laws on the complainant 's evidence -- that she confessed her guilt before the religiously charged mob and arrested her.

A year and a half later, the Additional Session Judge of Nankana district accepted this as evidence and convicted her, though she took "oath on the Bible in front of court and said that she had never passed such derogatory and shameful remarks against the Holy Prophet and Holy Quran." She had further stated, "I have great respect and honour for the Holy Prophet as well as Holy Quran."

It is a strange case in many ways. "The judge not only considered the extra judicial confession as evidence to convict Aasia Bibi but also did not allow the defence lawyer to argue for his client. Her defence lawyer was present in front of the court only once during the case, and on Nov 8 before awarding her death penalty, the

judge ordered everybody except Aasia Bibi and Qari Salam to leave the court including the lawyers," says Peter Jacob, executive director of National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP), an organisation that records blasphemy cases in Pakistan.

According to him, in an overwhelming majority of blasphemy cases in Pakistan, law is not strictly followed

both by the police and the lower courts. "According to Section 156-A, no police officer below the rank of SP can investigate a blasphemy case. But even this rule is not observed by the authorities. Even in Aasia's case a sub-inspector investigated the case initially."

The data collected by NCJP shows that since 1986 (the year when 295-C was made part of PPC by General Zia) 1058 people (456 Ahmadis, 449 Muslims, 132 Christians and 21 Hindus) have been charged under the

blasphemy laws. Thirty-four people (16 Christian, 15 Muslims, 2 Ahmadis and a Hindu) charged with blasphemy have been killed out of court. Eight among them were either killed by policemen or their fellow inmates in jail or 'committed' suicide in police custody.

Aasia Bibi is the 38th woman who has been charged under the blasphemy laws in the country. "In all the

known cases, charges of blasphemy appear to have been arbitrary, based on malicious accusations levelled by individuals against minority groups or to settle personal vendettas," says Mehboob Ahmed Khan, legal advisor Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

A common feature of accusations of blasphemy is the manner in which they are uncritically accepted by

prosecuting authorities, who themselves may face intimidation, threats and accusations should they fail to accept them. "The trial procedures in cases involving charges of blasphemy, including registration of FIR and investigation, do not meet international standards for justice," he says.

Pakistan's Blasphemy Laws are derived from the British Colonial Penal Code of 1860. Originally, this code

contained only a few clauses protecting the sensibilities of religious people. In 1982 and 1986, amendments were introduced to the blasphemy laws by General Zia that imposed strong punishments including capital punishment.

Naeem Shakir, senior lawyer of Supreme Court who has presented more than a dozen alleged blasphemers

in the courts, believes that the definition of blasphemy under section 295C is relatively open-ended, and the arrest of a person reported to have committed blasphemy requires no warrant. "No preliminary investigation is required before the filing of the First Information Report (FIR) by a local police officer. Once the testimony

of a reliable person has been registered, the FIR is filed and the person arrested. The law also makes it binding that only a Muslim judge can hear such cases."

The trial in blasphemy cases is never conducted under established principles of criminal law. "The courts are always under pressure of the Muslim clergy who along with religious zealots throng the court room and

display banners and placards demanding death to the accused. The verdicts are given in an environment that is hardly conducive for any judicious dispensation. Although the convicts have been mostly acquitted by the superior courts but the record shows that after their release they are obliged to leave the country for fear of being killed," says Shakir.

Shakir suggests that government needs to take some steps to stop the misuse of blasphemy laws in the country. "A procedural change in the registration of FIR can be adopted and if the case is proved to be false the person who makes the accusation should be given strict punishment."

Our governments are aware that the blasphemy laws are misused but they lack the political will to amend

these laws. In 1994, the Pakistan Law Commission presided over by the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, expressed concern about the abuse of authority by the police when dealing with blasphemy cases and the misuse of the law for ulterior purposes by various political and sectarian organisations, and decided to send

a draft of the blasphemy laws amendment bill to the Council of Islamic Ideology for further scrutiny. Maulana Kausar Niazi, then Chairman of the Council for Islamic Ideology, said to the press that "the law needs modification to ensure that it is not abused by unscrupulous elements for their selfish ends". He further

mentioned that the procedure for police registration of a case, the judicial level at which it should be considered and the suitable criteria for admission of witnesses have all to be looked at thoroughly. But it never happened.

In 1993, the PPP-led government also tried tabling a bill in the parliament which would make the false

imputation of blasphemy an offence punishable with imprisonment for up to 10 years. The bill also required the police to obtain a warrant from a magistrate before arresting people on complaints of blasphemy.

The government, however, failed to get the support from its allied political parties in the parliament and the bill was never presented.

The most recent effort in this regard was tried by former president Pervez Musharraf. He announced on April

21, 2000, at the Convention on Human Rights and Human Dignity in Islamabad, that he would amend the blasphemy laws in order to end its abuses and to promote equality. The proposed reform would have amended the procedures related to the filing of the FIR and specifically provided for preliminary investigation

and scrutiny by the Deputy Commissioner prior to filing an FIR. However, on May 16, 2000, following pressure from Islamic fundamentalists and threats of a three -day nationwide strike, Musharraf backtracked on his assurance.

The situation meanwhile has worsened during recent years as the maximum number of blasphemy cases were registered in 2008 and 2009 (108 and 112 respectively).

Federal Minister for Minority Affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, is confident that the government will bring some procedural changes in the registration of FIR of blasphemy cases. "I will go to all stakeholders and request them to help the government bring some changes in the blasphemy laws to save the lives of innocent people. I hope we will be able to do so."

Reasons of reticence By Ammar Rashid

Why can't we repeal the blasphemy laws? Much has been said about the need to repeal Pakistan's dreaded blasphemy laws in the wake of the

repeated tragedies that have visited Pakistan's minorities (as well as Muslims) in their name. There is little one can add to the already abundant evidence and rationale (both theosophical and secular) that demonstrates the need to do away with this draconian and oppressive section of the country's Penal Code.

I believe, however, that now is an appropriate time to make an assessment of how this rather gargantuan

undertaking may be achieved. What, it may be asked, are the major political barriers preventing a repeal of this clause from Pakistan's law books? Further, is it possible for these barriers to be overcome any time in the near future?

On paper, the removal of the offending section (295-C) from the Pakistan Penal Code requires a simple

majority in the National Assembly, which is a theoretically possible task for the nominally centre -left coalition of the PPP-MQM-ANP to undertake, albeit with some independent support. But even an amateur observer of Pakistani politics would acknowledge that such an occurrence would be wishful thinking at best. The recent,

discouraging remarks of the Federal Minister for Minorities regarding possibilities for repeal are proof enough of the sorry lack of interest in any such initiative.

What prevents any of our relatively secular parties from taking such a step? It seems quite evident that the maintenance of their respective voter bases is not contingent on pandering to religious sensitivities -- in fact, much of their politics, especially as of late, has been based on opposition to religious xenophobia.

The broad reasons behind this reticence aren't too difficult to ascertain; the coalition, beset as it i s with the disproportionately immense crises of economy, security, natural disasters, resource scarcity and ethnic strife (to name a few) and under attack from all quarters for its (real and imagined) shortcomings of governance,

does not wish to entangle itself in a debate in which it could potentially be branded as antithetical to the supposed Islamic ideals of Pakistani statehood. In Pakistan's context, it is an understandable, though admittedly unfortunate concern.

It is necessary at this stage, however, to identify specifically the nature and capacity of the likely opponents

to such a move, both within and outside the legislative paradigm. Within the parliament, the most obvious

threat comes from the dubious coalition partner, the disproportionately impo rtant JUI-F, a party that has perfected the art of threatening to quit government in order to gain intermittent political concessions. It is

likely that the mere mention of the blasphemy laws will prompt a flurry of protests from the only Islamist party in the parliament -- history suggests, however, that the credibility of its threats is tenuous, now especially so, given its numerical weakness in the National Assembly.

The major parties in the opposition, the PML-N and PML-Q (or MML for that matter), are the wild cards in

this parliamentary equation, upon whom much will hinge. Though both have a history of socially conservative politics and have often pandered to the worst instincts of the religious right, they are distinct from the Islamist parties in that their social constituencies are not exclusively constructed upon the temporal articulation of

religious sentiment. The North Punjab trader community, for instance, which constitutes the backbone of the PML-N voter base, will not search for other political patrons simply because of the party's support for a repeal initiative, notwithstanding the community's nominal discomfort with any such attempt. Notwithstanding

the existence of certain xenophobic lobbying groups amongst the Leagues ' urban support base (s uch as the Khatm-e-Nabuwat Movement), there may still be much room to sway the opinions of the higher echelons of the Muslim Leagues -- even if it is only for tacit consent for repeal.

It is likely that the most organisationally potent opposition to any re peal attempt will come from outside

parliament -- in the form of the street cadres of the religious right (including the unelected Islamist parties, the Madrassah networks and their militant counterparts) in urban and peri -urban areas. It is that image, perhaps, that most unsettles any mainstream party thinking of supporting a review of the blasphemy laws --

the image of thousands of bearded men marching in the streets, rhetorically chastising the offending parties for 'betraying the Prophet to serve Western interests', while symbolically de-linking them from the modicum of religious legitimacy that they feel they must possess to politically survive. It is perhaps fear of the

culmination of this image that is the single biggest factor preventing the mainstream parties from removing a law that they have little material interest in maintaining.

This particular fear is all too real and needs to be tactically understood by all those interested in any improvement in the treatment of Pakistan's minorities. For citizens, progressive associations and civil

society, the imperative to organise and demonstrate their presence on the streets to oppose this mob is absolutely crucial. Without oppositional street presence, the xenophobes will win without a fight.

But even greater responsibility lies on the media, especially its electronic variant, hugely influential in the contemporary age. In some senses, the mainstream parties' fear of the rampaging mobs is predicated on

their belief that the media will electronically magnify the marauders into what appears to be an expression of overwhelming public resentment. The PPP, in particular, has reason to fear that any such agitation will be projected in continuation of the dominant media narrative of popular dissatisfaction with the government amongst the 'masses'.

The electronic media in Pakistan has an historic opportunity before it, therefore, to help generate the consensus required to remove the perpetual sword of Damocles from above the heads of Pakistan's minorities. If it so wishes, it can achieve this task as skillfully as it has done so on many other politically

contentious issues in the past, at little cost to its interests or viewership. Whether it chooses to do so or succumbs to reactionary impulses remains to be seen.

The road towards the removal of Pakistan's blasphemy laws is fraught with much difficulty and requires a considerable exertion of political will, rhetorical skill and organizational acumen, on part of Pakistan's major

political parties, progressive groups, civil society and vitally, the media. But it is, as argued, achievable if the stakeholders can look past short-term reactionary perceptions and display some long-overdue empathy towards our battered minorities of their own accord, instead of being shamefully chastised into it under

understandable international duress. The writer is a development professional based in Islamabad. He can be reached on ammar.rashid@gmail.com

Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2010-weekly/nos-28-11-2010/enc.htm#1

Monday, November 29, 2010

NEWS POST The Aasia case

Kudos to Ayaz Amir for coming up with another masterpiece, ―Serves the minority rights‖ (November 26). If a girl is raped in Punjab and her case is reported in the media, the Khadim -e-Aala of Punjab, Mr Shahbaz Sharif

is in her courtyard the next day. If misery visits a poor family, the chief minister tries his best to bail that family out. No doubt these are good deeds. But is the Khadim-e-Aala really unaware of what happened to Aasia Bibi?

What prevented him from being moved by her plight if it is the ―mentality‖ of the PML-N? The PPP, on the other hand, is considered a liberal party. Its leaders and workers do not tire of lashing out at Gen Ziaul Haq. Recently, Prime Minister Gilani boldly confessed that Bhutto‘s nationalisation policy was a wrong step. Who would dare confess that declaring the Ahmadis non-Muslims was also a wrong step? About other political

groups like the Jamat-e-Islami, the Jamiat-e-Ulma Islam and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, the less said the better. But where is the secular Mutahida Qaumi Movement? Nabeel Anwar Dhakku

Chakwal ***** Aasia Bibi has been condemned to death for blasphemy, alleged against her by two women. The two women

first refused to accept drinking water from the Christian Asia Bibi on the ground that she was a non-Muslim. I bet my last paisa that had there been a white-skinned Christian woman in Aasia‘s place, the labour women would have not only accepted water from her, but also washed her feet and begged her for alms.

Abdullah Hussein Lahore *****

Going by the prevalent political environment, it seems unlikely that Sherry Rahman‘s bill will get any support in parliament. Still, her brave attempt will make a large number of people think about the injustices that have been done to the minorities in the name of the blasphemy laws.

Wouldn‘t it be better for the cause if her bill had called for a repeal of the laws? Human rights‘ groups have been doing just that. How long will we keep persecuting our minorities? Furqan Ahmed

Quetta ***** Aasia Bibi‘s is a test case for the present government. It should prove that the era of p ersecution of the

minorities is over now. No amount of pressure from rightwing parties should stop the president from rejecting her death sentence. Hafsa Imran

Karachi ***** Sherry Rahman has proved once again that she is an independent-minded, principled politician. May her

efforts bear fruit and we see an improvement in the blasphemy laws that have frequently been misused in the past. Irfan Husain

Karachi ***** All those who are suggesting that the government reconsider – better still repeal – the blasphemy laws should

come out of their la-la land. What do they think? This government which appointed Maulana Sherani as the head of the Council of Islamic Ideology will heed their requests? Khaula Kazmi

Rawalpindi ***** Instead of making impractical and impossible demands such as rethinking the blasphemy laws, we should

brace ourselves for witnessing more cases like the Aasia Bibi one now that the reverend Maulana Sherani heads the CII.

S Karim Nawabshah *****

My worry is that soon the western countries may start sentencing the Muslim clerics to death for their sermons condemning other religions. Aurangzeb

Swat

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Sherry submits bill for amendment to blasphemy laws

Islamabad: Pakistan People‘s Party (PPP) MNA Sherry Rehman has ca lled for urgent amendments to the Blasphemy Laws, lending her support to Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death under this ‗contentious‘ law, says a press release.

While the stay order from the Lahore High Court is a welcome development, there are still lacunae in the present laws which enable minorities and vulnerable citizens to be targeted without fear of reprimand for false

accusations. Sherry submitted a private members bill in the National Assembly Secretariat calling for an end to the death penalty for blasphemy, and will chair a Roundtable Conference today (Tuesday) regarding amendments to

these laws. Strong opposition to these proposals is already being voiced by ‗extremist‘ factions. Sherry Rehman is President of the Jinnah Institute, which will hold the Roundtable Conference today to engage academics,

lawyers and other members of civil society in an open discussion on the amendments to the Blasphemy Laws. The conference will highlight the recent case of Aasia Bibi and the blatant abuse of the legislation in bringing false claims against members of minority communities.

The discussants will include Asma Jahangir (President Supreme Court Bar Association), Hina Jilani (General Secretary, HRCP), Anis Haroon (Chair NCSW), Shahbaz Bhatti (Minister for Minorities Affairs), Ali Dayan

Hasan (Human Rights Activist and Board of Advisors, Jinnah Institute), Dr. Khalid Masood (Former Chairman, Council of Islamic Ideology), Prof Ghaamdi (religious scholar) and Ashiq Masih (husband of Aasia Bibi).

The Blasphemy Laws as set out in the Pakistan Penal Code (sections 295 and 298) find their roots in Colonial Law and have in their present form become a source of victimisation and persecution of the minorities in the country.

The amendments to the Blasphemy Laws is intended to ensure that all citizens of Pakistan have an equal right to constitutional protection and that miscarriages of justice in the name of blasphemy are avoided at all costs.

Source: http://thenews.com.pk/30-11-2010/National/18059.htm

Blasphemy law - Sword of Damocles... By Lubna Jerar Naqvi Since 1988 to 2005 more than 645 people have been charged of blasphemy, half of whom were non-

Muslims. You! takes a look at the case of a Christian woman Aasia bibi who was recently accused of blasphemy...

Aasia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian, has made national and international headlines after she was sentenced to death under the infamous Blasphemy Law. Although there is specualtion regarding her sentence that she is

on the verge of a presidential pardon, the fact will remain that she is not the first or the last to suffer at the hands of those using the lethal weapon of blasphemy

Blasphemy is an extremely volatile topic and has been used all over the world in the past as a potent weapon by the strong against the weak. According to some estimates, since 1988 to 2005 more than 645 people have been charged of blasphemy, half of whom were non-Muslims.

Over the years there have been calls from various quarters to repeal this law but until that happens many will remain vulnerable of being implicated for blasphemy. Unfortunately someone accused of blasphemy faces far

more possibilities of being prosecuted, even though the evidence is mostly hearsay, this is a serious and dangerous offence which can ignite immense feelings and severe action is taken without anyone even waiting for the verification of the incident or proper evidence. The severity of action taken against someone accused

of blasphemy is evident in the way the people react without waiting for the process of law to take its course

The blasphemy law was reintroduced during the country's worst era, the martial law of General Zia. It was first rampant in this region comprising Pakistan and India during the British colonial times. It is time that the

consensus is taken to repeal the Blasphemy Law. The amendment of the law is necessary so it cannot be used by anyone to placate their animosity.

First and foremost, all Muslims are united on the fact that anyone who dares to make derogat ory remarks

against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) should be severely punished. Muslims, the followers of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), are rightly and highly sensitive to such matters, and we react violently as was witnessed during the

blasphemous cartoon episode. Having said that, it also needs to be made clear that the matter of blasphemy is an extremely sensitive one and due care should be taken when handling blasphemy cases and alleged blasphemers. Most of the times the accusations are based on hearsay and limited or no facts, it's the word of

the accuser and the accused. And people are wary to take a stand on matters of religion, since Pakistan has developed a sense of intolerance and it hardly takes any time for a matter to turn into a snowball and get out of hand

Basically, minorities living in Pakistan are already a harassed section of the society, even though as citizens of Pakistan the constitution allows them at least twenty kinds of fundamental rights regardless of their caste, colour and creed. We see minorities living in Pakistan who have taken on Muslim names, mainly due to the

reason that they face severe discrimination from the majority otherwise. For the minority population living in remote areas, life seems to be even more difficult since anyone can accuse anyone of blasphemy and face severe punishment. The extent of intolerance has reached to such limits in Pakistan that only last year a

Muslim businessman was accused and killed for blasphemy.

So, it is no wonder that what started off as a squabble between female farm workers working on a farm in Sheikhapura in 2008 ended as a rampaging mob, forcing Aasia to take to refuge with the police. But the

matter didn't end there, a case was filed under Pakistan Penal Code's sections 295 (B) and (C) against Aasi a for blasphemy and she was sentenced to death by an additional district and sessions court in Sheikhpu ra

But if we look at this case closely with a cool head, we might be able to believe that there are more chances

that Aasia bibi wouldn't have uttered blasphemous comments. Aasia bibi is 45 years old, mother of five kids, has two daughters, and she has probably lived in Pakistan her whole life. This makes it very evident that not

only did she know the people she worked with, they also knew her quite well. And the fact that in June 2008 she was bringing drinking water for her fellow farmhands reveals that they were all comfortable with each other and that this was not the first time she was doing this. But what happened after that argument which

leads to her death sentence for blasphemy - what happened, what went wrong?

A Christian woman living in a majority Muslim area makes blasphemous comments in broad daylight in front of at least a dozen witnesses! She endangers her own life, as well as the life of her family, especially her own

children...

According to a news report, Aasia bibi told Punjab's Governor Salman Taseer that she had not committed blasphemy and that she had been wrongly accused of this. And furthermore Aasia bibi stated that she had

also been dragged in the streets and gang-raped. If her accusation is true, it is the majority of Pakistan, the Muslims, who should hang their heads in shame as they not only violated legal proceedings but also resorted

to acts that are nothing less than severe crimes themselves

The question is that will the perpetrators of this crime ever be booked for their criminal act of rape, or will this be another Mukhtara Mai episode which reveals that our population punishes a female by rape or worse gang

rape. If Aasia bibi was raped as a punishment, action must be taken against those people were involved in such a brutal act.

Even before Aasia's predicament was solved, the foreign media reported that at least five Christians were

murdered in cold blood in Godhpur village in Narowal district Mehmoodabad near Multan. 22 year old Latif Masih was shot dead near his home on November 18 by two men armed with pistols. Latif Masih had been

accused of burning pages of the Holy Quran in June this year and he had been imprisoned for fi ve months. According to the media report, the police sources stated that Latif Masih was released on November 3, after the complainant Ijaz Ahmed told the court that he was not sure if Latif Masih was guilty. The media report

further said that this murder was most likely linked to this. The victim's brother claimed that Ijaz Ahmed had filed this case because he wanted possession of his dead brother's shop.

In the other incident, four members of a Christian family were shot dead and two were severely injured in

Mehmoodabad near Multan. According to a media report, police sources claimed that militants allegedly linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba were responsible for these murders. According to the news report, the family had recently moved to this area and had started receiving threats because of their faith.

If Islam allowed such acts, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) would never have said at the time of taking over Makkah,

that those who took refuge with Abu Sufiyan would not be harmed, even though he was well aware of the animosity Abu Sufiyan had shown; nor would the Holy Prophet (PBUH) have gone to inquire after the health of the garbage throwing woman, when once she didn't come out to throw garbage on Him. He (SAW) could

have very easily have had both Abu Sufiyan and this Jewish woman severely punished but he didn't, setting an example for the rest of us. Following our Prophet (PBUH) we must learn to show tolerance towards our fellow non-Muslim Pakistanis, and take concrete steps to repeal the Blasphemy Law as soon as poss ible.

Islam encourages tolerance, and the Holy Quran preaches tolerance. Muslims should spread the religion and

not enforce it on others. According to Surah Al-Kaafiroon (The Disbelievers), the Holy Quran (Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Quran, Published by Dar-us-Salam Publications) says, in Ayah 2 to 6:

2. "I worship not that which you worship,

3. "Nor will you worship that which I worship. 4. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.

5. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

6. "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism)."

The last Ayat of this Surah reveals that Holy Quran says "To you be your religion, and to me my religion," which should give us guidance to offer the message of Islam and accept the fact if someone doesn't want to

embrace it, and not hurt, murder or as is the case nowadays blow up those who do not adhere to your teachings. This important Surah also reveals that Islam is not a religion of brutality or violent acts, as people have begun to see it now.

Source: http://e.thenews.com.pk/newsmag/mag/detail_article.asp?id=1026&magId=1

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

JUP threatens Sherry Rehman; to observe protest on 3rd

By Our Correspondent

Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan has announced to stage protest demonstrations across the country on December 3 against the bid to repeal blasphemy law and in this connection a forum - Tahfuz-e-Namoos-e-

Risalt - headed by Sahibzada Abul Khair has been formed to monitor the situation with special reference to protecting the blasphemy law.

The announcement was made at an all parties conference (APC) held on Tuesday under the auspices of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan with Sahibzada Abul Khair in the chair. Others who attended the meeting included Syed Munawar Hasan, Ameer Jamat-e-Islami; Abdul Ghafoor Hyderi, General Secretary JUI(F);

Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, President Tanzeem-ul-Madaris Ahle Sunnat; Pir Mian Abdul Khaliq of Bhar Chowndi and PML leaders.

The APC resolved that any change in the blasphemy law would not be accepted and PPP MNA Sherry Rehman was particularly warned that if she tried to amend the laws the people of the country would besiege her.

The APC demanded of the government to avoid repealing blasphemy law and the punishment given under section 295-C should not be amended.

The meeting also demanded that PPP should explain its position on the private bills that were formulated by Ms Rehman and condemned Asma Jehangir and other NGOs for their campaign to amend the Islamic law ―on the behest of the West‖.

It also demanded for suspending all the powers of the President with regard to pardoning the punishment given under blasphemy law and condemned Governor Punjab Salman Taseer for extending ―unnecessary‖

support to Asiya Bibi, saying, if she had any reservations she should appeal in court.

Source: www.thenews.com.pk/01-12-2010/karachi/18159.htm

SIC rejects move to amend blashphemy law

By Our Correspondent

SUNNI Ittehad Council (SIC) has rejected the parliamentary committee constituted by Prime Minister Gilani

for proposing amendments to blasphemy laws and warned of tough resistance to any effort for amending Islamic legislation.

SIC has formed a high level delegation to hold meetings with Senatrs and MNAs and MPAs to convince

them to reject the government move to amend the Blasphemy Laws, said Sunni Ittehad Council Chairman

Sahabzada Fazal Karim and heads of other Sunni Ittehad Council component parties while addressing a press conference at the Lahore Press Club on Tuesday.

DECEMBER,2010

Fazal Karim said Sunni Ittehad Council had rejected the parliamentary committee for proposing amendments to Blasphemy Laws since no amendment could be made in that law under Article 227 of the Constitution providing protection to all Islamic laws in the country.

He said Sunni Ittehad Council delegation would also write letters to all members of the parliament to plead its case and to advise them to refrain from becoming part of any attempt to amend the Blasphemy Laws.

Fazal Karim praised the members and workers of SIC, a platform of religious arties of Barelvi school of thought, for their courage and valor in resisting the police highhandedness, arrests, baton charge and

teargassing to join in the SIC‘s Save Pakistan Long March and announced that Sunni Ittehad Council had decided to observe a condemnation day on Friday, December 3, all over the country in which Ulema and prayer leaders would condemn the government‘s repressive policies and adopt resolutions lashing out at the

government to suppress the ‗Lovers of Holy Prophet (SAW)‘ and the school of thought which backed Quaid -e-Azam in Pakistan Movement.

Fazal Karim, who is head of his own faction of JUP and an MNA on Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz ticket condemned the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government of Punjab for blocking the SIC long march. He

condemned general policies of the PPP-led coalition government in Islamabad for failing to deliver its electoral promises, adding that rulers were pursuing only personal interests while leaving the country at the mercy of drone attacks and terrorism which brought the country on the verge of destruction.

He said Sunni Ittehad Council praised LHC decision to bind the government against par doning blasphemy convict Aasia Masih or to extradite her to US.

He also condemned rulers‘ corruption which, accoding to him gulped down over 5 billion rupees from national kitty every year and left the country under a staggering $ 55 billion foreign debt and stressed that if rulers‘ corruption could be controlled then the entire foreign debt could be paid off in one year.

Source: www.thenews.com.pk/01-12-2010/lahore/18162.htm

Sunday, December 05, 2010

The shape of things to come By Omar Ali

Hard-line Islamic supremacism of the type being protected by blasphemy and apostasy laws is not likely to dominate in any country that aspires to also become modern. In the long run it's going to be forced to compromise, one way or the other

The decision of a lower court to award death penalty to a poor Christian woman accused of blasphemy has ignited a wide debate over Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

Liberals have asked that the Zia-era blasphemy law should be repealed or amended because it has become an instrument of oppression and injustice in the hands of mobs and gangsters (over 4000 prosecutions in 25

years with several gruesome extra-judicial executions). The religious right has mobilised its supporters to oppose any such amendment and regards these attempts as a conspiracy against Islam. Ruling party MNA Sherry Rehman has introduced a "private member bill" to amend the law and the governor of Punjab has

intervened (somewhat clumsily) in the judicial process and indicated that a presidential pardon is on the cards. The international media is arrayed against the law alongside Pakistan's liberals and progressives, while the "deep state", the Islamist front organisations and their mentors in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia are no

doubt aligned on the other side.

What will be the likely outcome of this struggle? It is always hazardous to make predictions, but let us make some anyway and try to state why these are the likely

outcomes: 1. The law will not be repealed. Some minor amendments may be made (and even these

will excite significant Islamist resistance) but their effectiveness will be limited. Blasphemy accusations will continue, as will the spineless convictions issuing from the lower courts. In fact, new blasphemy accusations will almost certainly be made with the

express intention of testing any new amendment or procedural change. 2. Aasia bibi may get a reprieve from the high court but there is a good chance that she will remain in legal

limbo and will eventually be smuggled out of the country after a presidential pardon (President Zardari being a rare president who actually has the courage to publicly pardon a blasphemy accused if he gets it into his head to do so) or, unfortunately, she may be killed by a free -lance executioner of the law. It is also very likely

that her immediate family will have to leave the country with her. The local Christian community will, in any case, have to show their humble submission in order to be allowed to get on with their lives. Too much public support for Aasia bibi from her neighbors and friends has the potential to incite another tragedy (though it is

likely that the local Christian community is conscious of this and will leave public pressure to better placed representatives like Minister Shahbaz Bhatti).

3. In the short term, blasphemy will continue to be a potent weapon in the hands of the deep state, the Islamists and local gangsters. In the longer term, violent reorientation of the deep state in Pakistan may open the gates for a more liberal social order, but there is also the possibility that the deep state will soon re -

establish its dominance, causing a return to the jihadi status-quo ante. But if that does happen, it will not mean the end of hopes for a more liberal social order. Rather, it will mean that change will be delayed and may have to pass through future stages of collapse and anarchy. In the truly long run, change is inevitable,

but the inevitable may happen by catastrophe rather than gradual (and more desirable) routes. These predictions may appear pessimistic and discouraging, but I would submit that they are not meant to be discouraging; they are meant to be realistic. The law will not be repealed because the law is not just an

invention imposed by General Zia on an unwilling populace. Rather, this law is the crude and updated expression of a pre-existing social and religious order.

Blasphemy and apostasy laws were meant to protect the orthodox Islamic theological consensus of the 12th century AD and they have done so with remarkable effectiveness. Unlike their Christian counterparts (and prosecutions for heresy and blasphemy were seen throughout the middle ages in Europe), these laws retain

their societal sanction and have been enforced by freelancers and volunteers where the state has hesitated. Thus, in Lahore in 1929, a carpenter's apprentice named Ghazi Ilm Deen Shaheed executed the Hindu publisher of a book Muslims considered blasphemous. And Ghazi Ilm Deen Shaheed was not a lone wolf.

Such action was being openly demanded by Muslim leaders like Maulana Zafar Ali Khan and Ilm Deen's best friend wanted to do the act and only stepped aside because they drew lots and Ilm Deen won thrice in a row.

He was then defended in court by none other than Quaid -e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was asked to take up the case by our

illustrious modernist, Allama Mohammed Iqbal. His funeral drew thousands and was attended with pride by Allama Iqbal, who supposedly said that "this carpenter has left us, educated people, far behind". His

grave is now a popular shrine (http://www.gearthhacks.com/dlfile31010/Tomb-of-Ghazi-Ilm-Din-Shaheed,-Lahore..htm) and a movie has been made about his exploit

(http://www.musicjuice.com/Ghazi_Ilm_Din_Shaheed_CD-0), complete with a dance sequence featuring the blasphemer enjoying himself before he meets his fate (http://www.chakpak.com/video/kehni-aan-kehni-aan-(ghazi-ilam-din-shaheed)/764067)

When Salman Rushdie's book was declared blasphemous and rallies demanding his head were held all over the Muslim world, General Zia was not the agent of those protests. Such executions have even been attempted in Europe, most recently by textile engineering student Aamir Cheema in Germany. And Aamir

Cheema too has achieved sainthood after he took his own li fe in a German prison, with his grave having become a popular shrine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r27_ElZoDRY ).

In short, while it is indeed true that misuse of the law has become common after General Zia's time (an intended consequence, as one aim of such laws is to harass and browbeat all potential opposition), the law

has deeper roots, and liberals who believe that it is possible to make a distinction between true blasphemy and misuse of the law, may find that this line is not easy to draw.

The second and perhaps more potent reason the law will not be repealed is because the law was consciously meant to promote the Islamist project that the deep state (or a powerful section of the deep state) continues to desire in Pakistan. The blasphemy law is a ready-made weapon against all secular

opposition to the military-mullah alliance (though some sections of the military now seem to have abandoned that alliance, hence the qualification "section of the deep state"). Secular parties are suspected of be ing soft on India and are considered a danger to the Kashmir jihad and other projects dear to the heart of the deep

state. At the same time, Islamist parties provide ideological support and manpower for those beloved causes.

In this way, the officers of the deep state, even when they are not personally religious, recognise the need for an alliance with religious parties and against secular political forces (Musharraf was a good example). They have been forced into an uneasy (temporary?) compromise with secular parties by circumstances

beyond their control (aka America) but with American withdrawal a real possibility, the deep state does not wish to alienate its mullah constituency too much. They will be needed again once the Yankees are gone. Hence, no repeal at this time.

But in the long term, change is bound to come. Pakistan does not exist on an island apart from the world. And the world is moving on from blasphemy laws and apostasy laws into the domain of capitalist individualism, if not yet into the realm of democracy or socialism. It is this capitalism that pays the bills for the

deep state and its patrons in China and Saudi Arabia. This capitalism, as Marx pointed out, is a universal acid, "it batters down all Chinese walls...it forces the barbarians" intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels

them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves . In one word, it creates a world after its own image".

Islamic hardliners may be useful to great world powers at particular times and places, but they will not be allowed to become an alternative power, nor do they have the intellectual resources to be able to do so. Of course, blasphemy accusations and their use to suppress speech are not limited to Muslim countries e.g.

Sikhs have resorted to violence to protest blasphemy and Hindu mobs enforce the sanctity of Shivaji 's memory in Mumbai. But Islamist violence has merged with secular political grievances to create a particularly potent combination and their conflict with the modern bourgeois world has an edge that other

fanatics can only envy. But while this conflict may see many local ups and downs, in the long term the advantage lies with the

modern world. The world is what it is and the hard-line Islamists simply cannot provide what the population of Muslim countries desperately wants; more "wealth" in this world, not just in the next.

Capitalism with a Muslim face is certainly possible, even likely; Capitalism with a human face, maybe. But hard-line Islamic supremacism of the type being protected by blasphemy and apostasy laws is not likely to dominate in any country that aspires to also become modern.

In the long run (decades, not centuries) it's going to be forced to compromise, one way or the other (with one way being less painful than the other).

The writer is an academic physician in the United States.

Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2010-weekly/nos-05-12-2010/enc.htm#1

Let truth be known By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Separation of church and state is not just the right thing to do but it is the only thing that will help build a progressive and democratic state

Other participants in this debate have already informed the reader of the history of the idea of separation of church and state which is rooted in the power struggle between temporal rulers and the church in largely homogenous nation states of Europe and America. The history of Europe, especially the period that is

referred to as reformation and renaissance, is also significant as being the history of Protestant and Catholic sectarian conflict.

It is, therefore, not a surprising paradox that secularism in its purest form eme rged from confessionalism that was often at the root of the European nation state. England was the bastion of protestantism, even though protestantism itself was rooted in a rebellion against papacy.

Similarly, Spain and other continental powers were self-consciously Catholic. England‘s adoption of the Protestant creed, followed by a fanatical purge of the Catholics, was itself the state‘s attempt to establish the primacy of the state over religion. The binary thus is

not a false one nor can this binary be reconciled. Secularism is the state‘s struggle to liberate itself from the burdens of established church and dogma. Multiculturalism comes only later and is at best a desirable by-product.

So what is the relevance of this term or idea in a conservative Is lamic society such as ours which is organised under a constitution that defines itself as Islamic and blends religious ends with secular ends?

There is to start with, of course, the burden of Pakistan‘s founding myth i.e. Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, which gives our priestly class a veto on any progress towards secular equality in Pakistan. This is stemmed in confusion regarding the events that led to the partition of the subcontinent. What is clear,

however, to a historian is that Pakistan‘s founder, Jinnah, expected the new nation to follow Europe‘s example when he said that "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 the state".

Quite appropriately the nation‘s father quoted the example of Great Britain where Protestants had long persecuted Catholics but had ultimately come to see themselves as one nation, Protestant and Catholic. Ten years before this famous speech, on 20 September 1937, he had spoken in the Indian legislative assembly

of a "distant ideal to mould the whole of India into mere citizens when the Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Musalmans Musalmans politically" but had argued for a solution to "the problem of minorities first" instead.

The point here is that Pakistan‘s creation was the result of the inability of the representative parties of India

to agree on a constitution. The myth of Pakistan being founded in the n ame of Islam, thus, is a sham and the more we insist on it the more we will prove it a white lie.

The recent debate on blasphemy law has once again brought out our internal contradictions to the forefront of the debate. I do not need to remind the reader that the rot started when our leaders, beginning with the

framers of the Objectives Resolution, chose to demarcate a definite role for Islam, in letter and spirit, in our constitutional documents. Having thus opened the door, the slide down the slippery slope was a matter of time.

With the separation of Bangladesh in 1971 and the worldwide conservative Islamic

revival of the 1970s and 1980s, Pakistan chose to underline its Islamic identity and in doing so became a state intolerant of diversity. Just as mult iculturalism is the

consequence of secularism, shrinking of dissent and tolerance is the consequence of theocracy. The most devastating impact of a deliberate detour from normality that our leaders took from 1949 and the

consummation of the marriage of religion and state in 1973 has been a breakdown of civil discourse in our society. In our quixotic quest of fusing the temporal with the eternal, we have denigrated the faith and destroyed our government.

The human march towards progress is irreversible and trying to march against it means sure destruction.

The attempt and the abject failure of Muslim societies in reconciling the binaries will mean that Islam, unfortunately, will have to face a greater reversal in the Muslim East than Christianity has faced in the Christian West. It is unfortunate because Islam‘s legal and civilisational traditions provided for an internal

mechanism of ijtehad which was abandoned over time. Religion would still have a place in society but chains are meant to be broken not worn like ornaments. The Church in the West realised it gradually but at the time it did not have any other advanced civilisation breathing down its neck.

In the information age a country such as Pakistan cannot sustain itself on religious dogma and if it tries to, it

becomes an unreliable factor in global politics. The international community is mortally afraid of a nuclear armed nation which has its top nuclear scientists people who believe in miracles and whose enrichment experts have been known to write papers on how to harness the power of the Djin to produce electricity for

Pakistan‘s power needs. And the world is also not too impressed with a commitment to religion that leads to death sentence for a poor hapless woman whose only crime was to be born in a Christian household in Pakistan.

Contrary to the propaganda drummed against secularism in Pakistan, the-self styled "anti-secular" forces

can actually be quite anti-people. Just one example: In the landmark Qazalbash-Wakf case, drawing on arguments based on a limited and opportunistic interpretation of Islam, through Pakistan‘s premier religious scholar Justice Taqi Usmani, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared land reforms un-Islamic.

Separation of church and state is not just the right thing to do but it is the only thing that will help us build a

progressive and democratic state for 170 million people, a great majority of whom are Muslims. The failure to voluntarily correct our course will condemn all of them to uncertainty and poverty. The choice is ours as well as the responsibility. Let us not confuse our people further by speaking in abstractions and nuances of Islamic interpretation when we need to simply tell them the truth.

Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2010-weekly/nos-05-12-2010/dia.htm#2

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Story within the story

By Waqar Gillani

If only someone from the media cared to follow up Shazia Masih’s case…

Shazia Masih‘s case is a classic example of media apathy. The media turned it into a high -profile ‗murder‘ case in January this year when it put the news of 12 or 13 year old Shazia dying in mysterious circumstances on the national television screens. In what was decidedly a one -sided coverage of the

incident, public sympathies were evoked and the accused were castigated in the harshest terms possible. The accused family was booked under a murder charge. And then the case was forgotten. A couple of weeks back, the Additional Sessions Court acquitted Naeem

advocate and his family of the charge on a single point -- that the girl, according to medical reports, was suffering from Septicemia. This was, at best, a second-page news and none found it necessary to follow it up. What was the family‘s reaction? Was the

case conducted satisfactorily? What about the forensic report? How is the mother and would she be interested in an appeal?

If anybody from the media had cared to follow this case up, he would be in for a rude surprise. The story of poverty is unending, with new twists and turns, and one the media would regret having missed. The presidential intervention in the case that came in the shape of five lac rupees caused a rift in the family. The

husband and wife had a huge fight over it and the wife, Shazia‘s mother, no longer lives with her husband. No prizes for guessing that the husband and his sons from his previous wife kept the money. "We came to know through television channels that advocate Naeem and his family have been acquitted,"

says Bashir Masih, father of Shazia, who died because of alleged torture by her mas ter‘s family in one of the posh localities -- Defence Housing Authority (DHA) -- of Lahore this January. Shazia‘s parents lived in a one room house in a slum situated on the brink of a drain in Lahore‘s Samanabad

area. Belonging to a minority religious group, Shazia was hired by advocate Naeem Chaudhry‘s family through a middleman six months before she died. She was getting Rs5,000 to 6,000 per month and stayed at her employers day and night.

According to Naeem, Shazia was already sick and they were having her treated by a doctor. A few days before she was admitted to hospital she also fell from two steps of stairs in the house, he says. However, Shazia‘s family alleged that the child was tortured which led to her death and the family was informed when

she died at Jinnah Hospital. President Asif Zardari announced Rs500,000 compensation to the victim family after the media picked up the issue. Sitting on a broken wooden sofa in a dark shabby room, Shazia‘s father Bashir says that his wife has left

home after a dispute over the Rs500,000 compensation amount. "We have been entertaining people here during the tragedy and the amount is my right. That is why it was deposited in my account against the demands of Nasreen, mother of Shazia, who wanted to grab the

amount," Bashir, who married Nasreen after the death of his first wife, tells TNS. Both the husband and wife had been filing police complaints against each other in order to get the money and pursuing Shazia‘s murder case in court through separate counsels. "We have already spent the money

by paying to counsels and now there is no money at all. That is why we are not filing appeal against Naeem‘s acquittal," Bashir says, adding, "Nasreen is the main complainant in this case and she probably has also not taken up the issue properly."

"There is no medical evidence that the death of Shazia was due to violence or homicidal hence the accused persons are hereby acquitted from the charge," the judgment reads. "Though I am free but I am still depressed because of what the media did to me and my family," Naeem tells

TNS. "There was no torture on the girl. She was sick and we had been giving her medical treatment and her family was aware of it." But there are a lot of question marks in the case. The accused have been acquit ted on the basis of a

medical report. "The cause of death as stated by the doctor was Septicemia which was outcome of a chronic inflammatory disease of lung. There was no apparent fatal injury seen on the body which can cause cracks," the medical report by the board constituted by the government reads.

The report, surprisingly, is contradictory to the postmortem report. "Both lungs were healthy but were having few petechial hemorrhages (bleedings)," the postmortem report says. The postmortem report had also mentioned 18 injuries, mostly with some blunt and sharp-edged weapons.

According to the post-mortem report, Shazia‘s body was received in poor hygienic condition with all finger nails having fungal infections. Most of the injuries described in the postmortem report have been described reddish blue contused swelling; reddish brown abraded areas; and linear abrasions with reddish scabs and

some abrasion with dark brown scab. All the incised wounds were skin deep only, the post -mortem report says. Rashid Aziz, National Manager Legal Advisory Unit of SPARC (Society for the Protection of the Rights of the

Child), a national NGO, says they are also examining the case of Shazia. Aziz stresses the need to declare domestic child labour as the worst form of child labour, urging the government to bring in legislation to stop this phenomenon. "Currently, there is no law on domestic child labour in Pakistan as compared to India

which has added domestic child labour in its Children Employment Act as the worst form of chil d labour a few years back," he says. Shazia may be dead but if we don‘t fill in the gaps in her story, many more Shazias will die like her.

Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2010-weekly/nos-12-12-2010/dia.htm#4

Concluding the secularism debate

We formally announce the closing of the weekly debate on secularism. Meanwhile, this remains an issue close to our hearts and we will be publishing more articles on the subject in due course.

This, as we kept stating, was a follow-up to our Special Report "Case for a secular Pakistan". Yet most of the feedback we received overstressed the need for Pakistan to be an Islamic state. We deliberately gave this

view limited space because there was no point arguing for something which is firmly in place and faced no real threat from the opposing ideology. Secularism, indeed, is not the dominant discourse; we always knew that the secularists represented the minority point of view and this precisely is the reason why we provided this space.

The editorial rationale being that Pakistan, an Islamic state for all practical purposes, has not been able to create a just, plural and tolerant society in these 63 years. What we have instead is a sectarian society where the laws have not served the cause of justice for all Pakistanis. Hence the need to reopen the debate.

We wanted to address this fear of secularism and get nuanced opinion on the subject. To put it crudely, we

wanted to question this common belief that secularism meant ladeeniat or no religion. Therefore much of what we printed on these pages was commissioned stuff.

We did manage to get a lot of analysis on what secularism actually means or how it essentially was a part of every religion but we have not been able to sufficiently address why is secularism associated with ladeeniat

in people‘s minds. Our sense is that this has to do with the Islamic world‘s experiments with the idea in the twentieth century which, in the cases of Ataturk‘s Turkey, Shah‘s Iran and Nasser‘s Egypt, were not the best examples of secularism. The persecution of religious forces and the extremism of these so -called secularists, more than anything else, may be responsible for the Muslims‘ fear of secularism.

Just to get a drift of the kind of feedback we received from the opponents of secularism in Pakistan, Syed Burhan writes in his piece "…The Muslims must not emulate Akbar and Dara Shikoh‘s attitude towards non -Muslims in their approach to the Western c ivilization… They must bolster their identity and thus carry the

Pakistan Movement a step further by forging an alliance of Muslim countries on the pattern of Nato and EU…The liberal fringes of the Pakistani society would have to realise sooner or later that secularism simply cannot be imposed on a people whose worldview allows no bifurcation of the spirit and the matter, the

sacred and the mundane; who understand Islam as a complete code of life ("Mukamal Zabtay -hayat") with a say in every field of human activity… Pakistan cannot afford further betrayal of its raison‘detere. The confusion created about Pakistan‘s identity at the behest of the West has led the country to the brink of

destruction… The realisation of Pakistan Movement as a Pan-Islamic Movement would not only give us the ever elusive strategic depth vis-a-vis India and render separatism in Pakistan ‗sinful‘ and therefore unthinkable but would also uplift the nation‘s morale and cure many of its social problems…"

As said earlier, we did not want to give the dominant discourse any further space than it already has.

And there was the other view. Muhammad Azam Khan sent his feedback on Mahir Ali‘s piece. It reads "…It is the State i.e. the Army that has been abetting, cajoling and wooing the religious right uninterrupted from

1958 onwards; political parties only got on the bandwagon….In fact, it would not be wrong to assume that Pakistan will become more and more Islamist and religious oriented society… in the rank and file of Pakistan Army; the lot that is now gradually taking over senior ranks are the product of ‗reverse indoctrination‘ that

started during Afghan war… Bangladesh‘s Apex court has recently given a landmark verdict by separating state and mosque…this is not to mention the large scale shi fting of business from our Holy land to that secular country. It is perhaps poetic justice; once we stole their jute to run our industries here; today our enterprises are moving there!" We rest our case -- Ed

Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2010-weekly/nos-12-12-2010/dia.htm#4

Some called-for changes By Asad Jamal

A detailed analysis of Sherry Rehman’s bill seeking amendments to blasphemy laws

Sherry Rehman, Member of National Assembly, has through a bill proposed amendments to certain sections

of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) along with a suggestion to introduce two new sections. These provisions prescribe punishments for Offences Relating to Religion. Her bill also includes changes to Code of Criminal

Procedure (CrPC) regarding arrest, cognizance and trial of offences under these provisions.

Proposed changes to punishments

Section 295-A was introduced in 1927 apparently after the Ghazi Ilm Din episode to provide punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended

to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The maximum punishment under section 295 -A was two years‘ imprisonment of either description t ill 1991 when it was increased to 10 years. The bill proposes it to revert it to a maximum of two years.

Similarly, punishment for the offence of defiling of the Holy Qur‘an under section 295-B introduced in 1982 by General Zia, is proposed to be reduced to imprisonment up to 5 years instead of li fe imprisonment.

Another blasphemy law, section 295-C, introduced in 1986 provided punishment of death or life

imprisonment and fine for use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). However, a Federal Shariat Court judgment in 1990 (cited as PLD 1991 FSC 10) rendered alternative sentence of imprisonment for li fe under 295-C inapplicable and death sentence compulsory, after the Court found

alternative punishment of life imprisonment under 295-C against the injunctions of Islam. Sherry Rehman‘s bill proposes imprisonment of either description for 10 years, or with fine, or both as punishment under section 295-C.

Harsh punishments introduced since General Zia‘s reign have been criticised by legal experts on grounds

that they seem to have increased the number of complaints and compounded the problem. A division bench of Lahore High Court expressing dissatisfaction over the use of the blasphemy laws had to implicitly acknowledge that the harsher punishments instead of remedying the mischief seemingly had led to greater incidence (P L D 2002 Lahore 587).

Moreover, compulsory death sentence has been said to be contrary to the right to life, guaranteed in the Constitution of Pakistan as well international human rights instruments, as it leaves no discretion with judicial authorities to deliver lesser punishments in doubt ful cases or in mitigating circumstances.

Proposed changes in the wording

The second change that the bill proposes is introduction of the el ement of intention to sections 295-C, 298-B,

298-C by adding words maliciously, deliberately and intentionally. It may be recalled that 298 -A, 298-B, and 298-C were introduced through Anti-Islamic Activities of the Qadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance in 1984. Thus, section 295 -C will read as follows:

"Whoever maliciously, deliberately and intentionally, 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 imprisonment of either description for 10 years, or with fine, or with both". The existing provision had rendered the offence under

these sections a strict liability in which showing criminal intent seemed to have been ignored. As a result, it

was easier for the courts to pronounce death sentences. The addition of words maliciously, deliberately and intentionally, takes care of this particular lapse in the existing laws.

The words used in sections 295-C and 298-A have connotations too wide and vague, making the law liable

to abuse. It would therefore be appropriate that words occurring after ‗or by visible representation,‘ in section 295-C PPC i.e. "or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly" be dispensed with to make the scope of the provision clearer, though only by a margin. It will further reduce chances of abuse.

Existing 298-C is worded in such wide terms that it leaves practically no room for the Ahmedis to exercise

religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution as well as obligatory upon the state under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The inclusion of maliciously, deliberately and intentionally, will bring in some improvement.

Proposed new offences and their punishment

The proposed bill int roduces two new offences: (a) identical punishment to the complainant for false

accusations under sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C PPC (same punishment as in these sections); Incorporation of section 203-A is intended to take care of abuse of insult laws by providing for identical punishments; however, it would be appropriate to use word same in the proposed new section 203-A instead

of word similar; (b) imprisonment of either description up to seven years, or with fine, or with both for advocacy of religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination or violence. The proposed new section 298-E should be numbered as 298-D.

Some existing provisions in the PPC such as sections 153-A, 153-B, 505 and 506 do take care of some

aspects of hate speech such as disturbance to inter-communal harmony, criminal intimidation, such as threats made to Aasiya Masih‘s life, but not specifically the aspect of d iscrimination. It is common to see pamphlets and audio/video tapes/programmes being distributed and banners put up demanding from the

government and inciting people to demand for the exclusion of members of certain religious communities from important positions (mostly Ahmedis). It seems the element of incitement to discrimination is intended to remedy this kind of mischief in particular.

Procedural changes

We have seen that a change introduced to CrPC (section 156-A) which made it mandatory for the

investigation as regards cases under section 295-C to be carried out by a police officer not below the rank of SP has had little impact on such cases as made clear by the Aasiya Masih‘s case.

The proposed bill therefore also recommends that only Court of Sessions may only take cognisance of offences falling within sections 295-A, 295-B and 295-C of the PPC to be int roduced by new section 190(3)

to be incorporated in CrPC. It also recommends that such cases may only be tried by a high court. Further, the police will not be allowed to arrest persons accused under these provisions (amendments to Schedule II under CrPC).

Already, Section 196 (Prosecution of offences against the State) of CrPC bars courts from taking cognisance

of offences against the state unless complaint was made by order of, or under authority from, the concerned Government. It may safely be assumed that it was done so as a requirement of public policy. After section 295-A was introduced to the PPC, an amendment to section 196 CrPC was made, which ba rred courts from

take cognisance of offences under 295-A as well. It was only logical to have included section 295-B, 295-C and 298 and its sub-sections under scope of section 196 of CrPC by introducing amendment. This omission has caused confusion during proceedings for blasphemy cases because offences under these sections are

in the same nature as 295-A. In addition to granting Court of Sessions to take cognizance of such offences, an amendment to section 196 CrPC is also required in the proposed bill.

Not many people know that these amendments are important because the blasphemy laws, in their present shape, have created serious problems for the judiciary, especially the subordinate courts. In almost each

case, the courts come under such heavy pressure from the mobs outside the courtrooms that they are afraid of applying their judicial minds to the case before them.

Therefore, it is suggested in the bill that the trial court for some offences should be the high courts. Trial in high courts, it is assumed, besides minimising the impact of mob pressures, can also put the police investigation on the right track.

Another procedural amendment proposes to add sections 295-A, 295-B and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code to the section 30 of CrPC which empowers the Provincial Government to invest any Magistrate of the First Class with power to try as a Magistrate all offences not punishable with death. This will allow a certain

degree of flexibility to the government in appropriate cases where trial in the high court may not be feasible for practical reasons. asadjamal2006@gmail.com

Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2010-weekly/nos-12-12-2010/dia.htm#4

"I believe the repeal option is still the best one, but…" By Alefia T. Hussain

-- PPP MNA Sherry Rehman on pros and cons of the proposed amendments

The News on Sunday: Why amendments. Why haven‘t you proposed repeal of these laws? Do you think the time for repeal has not yet come and conditions are not yet conducive?

Sherry Rehman: My experience with repeal bills such as the hudood ordinances law that I moved in the last assembly is that there is no appetite for it in the NA and especially in the Senate. What happens then is that the bill never makes it to

Standing Committee. I personally believe that the repeal option is still the best one, but the hudood amendments still give serious relief to thousands of women who are no longer every year in lock-up because of a bad law.

The blasphemy laws have been rendered even more controversial by loading its removal with disrespect for

religion, which is absolutely not the case. In fact, we need wider literacy on these laws, as they misuse Islam‘s name as well as the Prophet, upon him be peace, who had no tolerance at all for injustice. The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) would have fought virulently against having his name associated with either

intolerance or injustice. History is replete with cases which testify to this position, and quoting one hadith against a body of dozens against does not make any tradition the foundation for law.

In Islam, as in any other system of jurisprudence, law is made on the rule, the norm, not on exceptions plucked out to deter parliament from making just laws. The current debate on these laws is unfortunately

framed in polarised terms by the religious right, which sees this whole issue as an encroachment on its political veto on religious discourse on Pakistan. When we seek to reform laws that misuse Islam, they tend to stand in the way because for them it represents a dangerous trend where the once silent majority in

Pakistan starts appropriating religion for progressive reform, which breaks their monopoly on religious discourse.

TNS: Critics think that your bill inserts the much needed words "Whoever maliciously, deliberately and intentionally" but ignores the equally dangerous phrases that whoever "by words….or by any imputation,

innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly…". This has the potential of being misused. Do you think there is a possibility of an improvement in the bill on this count?

SR: All laws are works in progress and can be amended by majority opinion at Committee stage, or by a simple amendment in the PPC and CrPC.

TNS: Would you like to explain the procedural improvements that your bill proposes to do? Has the

experience of similar improvements in hadd cases during the Musharraf government improved the situation on ground?

SR: My bill seeks to remove the death penalty as well as reduce sentences for blasphemy, as is the case in many other countries. This is not perfect, but statistics show that lower penalties act as strong deterrents to

misuse of laws for settling scores or property disputes, so we seek to remove the incentive for s uch crimes that have grown exponentially since General Ziaul Haq brought in the death penalty.

The second change is to do with bringing back the proof of intent and premeditation, which is always central to criminal law. This would ensure that all those accused of blasphemy will not just be tried on the basis of

trumped-up evidence and complicity or paid prosecution witnesses. The accuser will have to prove that the accused blasphemed with the intention of doing so.

The third change will require all such cases to be tried at the High Courts, even though Sessions Courts may take cognizance of offences. This has been done to prevent miscarriages of justice, particularly since these courts are under higher public scrutiny.

Lastly, two changes have been made to add clauses to the PPC which penalise anyone making false accusations under Sections 295 A, 295 B, and C, while advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination or violence has been made an offense punishable under the law.

TNS: A Criminal Law Amendment in 2004 made it mandatory for the investigation of charge under 295C to

be carried out by SP rank Police officer. That procedural change does not seem to have made a visible change as shown in Aasia Masih‘s case. You propose to adopt High Court as a forum of trial for some of the offences (including 295-C). Why do you think it will reduce abuse of the laws?

SR: The Higher Courts in Pakistan have a history of reversing harsh sentences under the hadd laws as well

as the blasphemy laws, which is why we have had no executions under any of these. I hope this tradition of more vigilance at the High Courts will help prevent miscarriages of justice. High Courts know that the next court of appeal is the Supreme Court, where justice delivery is under serious public scrutiny.

TNS: Don‘t you think a procedural amendment to the effect that only direct witnesses should be allowed to lodge an FIR should have been included in the bill?

SR: Direct witnesses too have been complicit in accusing the innocent. But by no means am I suggesting that this is a perfect law, or that further changes cannot yet be brought in it. All suggestions that serve justice are welcome.

TNS: Uncorroborated indirect and hearsay evidence has been relied upon in handing out deat h punishment

in some cases. What changes could be introduced to the law of evidence in cases registered under any of the blasphemy laws?

SR: It may not be easy to implement, but the law must punish false accusers. The absence of such a law provides for impunity to offenders.

TNS: Does the private member‘s bill have the tacit approval of the government or is it your individual initiative?

SR: All private members‘ bills can be taken up by the relevant standing committees, where the government is in majority. Given that Benazir Bhutto had always spoken of providing relief to the vulnerable, especially

the minorities of Pakistan, I assume it will have more than tacit approval. She had also spoken to me and Shahbaz Bhatti about reform in these laws, which is why I have done work on the subject for some time. I also very clearly hear the president directing the Minister for Minorities to look into amending these laws, and

he has committed to them. The PM also said a committee should immediately look into these laws , right after the Gojra incident.

-- Interview conducted via email by TNS

Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2010-weekly/nos-12-12-2010/dia.htm#4

The impure in the land of pure By Haroon Khalid

Members of cast away communities are still falling prey to a centuries old cultural bigotry of untouchables

The Syeds, the Sheikhs, Juts and many more of such ‗high‘ castes of Pakistan don‘t normally permit marriages outside of their caste. The rationale behind such an approach is that consummation of such a

union would result in an impure breed. Then, however, there are some people, in this land of pure, who believe that even the presence of an outsider in their vicinity would pollute their pureness.

Captain Alvin John, supervisor of the Joyland Orphanage in Model Town,

which is a project of The Salvation Army, narrated to me one such incident. Around 6-7 years ago, he narrates, a Christian worker entered a mosque, which was next to the site he was working at, to quench his

thirst. When a regular visiting Muslim saw that he was drinking from the taps used for ablution he castigated the man. Soon a mob gathered and the man was beaten to death, according to Captain Alvin. I cannot prove

that this is a true incident, neither can I name the people involved, but neither will I deny that such an act cannot take place in the land of pure.

In the Hindu mythology there are four principle castes, Brahmins (the priests), Khatriya (the warriors), Vaish (the farmers), and Shudra (the workers). The last lot was also known as the untouchables. For some their mere presence or even a touch by their shadow meant a defiling of purity.

The case of Aasia Bibi also revolves around a similar phenomenon. By drinking water from the same glass that the Muslims used and then standing her ground, is similar to a Shudra asking for equal human rights, which by default, only, belong to the first three castes.

Majority of the Christians in Pakistan, historically, belonged to the Shudra caste. Shunned by Hindus and

Muslims in the pre-partition era, they found refuge in Christianity, which reached them through philanthropist missionaries. The idea of equality found resonance with a person whose entire li fe was meant to be a punishment for acts that he/she committed in the previous life. However, even after conversion these people didn‘t find the equality they were promised by the harbingers of the new religion.

The untouchability associated with their previous caste followed them here too. Many Muslims, of this land of pure, would never share their plates and glasses with a Pakistani Christian even today. I specify Pakistani Christian because such an act of hospitality would not be extended to a ‗Gora‘ C hristian.

Imran Bhatti lives in Dharampura, and as can be inferred from his name belongs to the Bhatti caste, which is

of the higher echelons of caste hierarchal structure. They are a sub-caste of the Rajputs, believed to be the

original Aryans. Imran Bhatti tells me that if a Christian has tea in a cup he would never use that cup, even if it is rinsed seven times. He is not an uneducated fellow from Gojra or Nankana Sahib, but a resident of

Lahore, currently working as an Area Sales Manager at a local paint company, and a graduate from the Punjab University. His reason is simple, ‗we don‘t share the same religion‘.

Similarly, Chaudhary Ahmad, a trader from Hall Road also refuses to have food or water from the same plate or a glass which is being used by a Christian. His reason, however, is, allegedly, slightly more logical. It is

because of the dirty jobs that these people do, it has nothing to do with their religion, according to Chaudhary Ahmed. He also adds that he would not shun away if that Christian was a ‗Gora‘.

For the past 25 years, Sadika, a Christian woman, has been working at my home. I remember my grandmother would advise me not to have food cooked by her. However, my mother never made any such

suggestions, but she made sure that the plates and glasses used by her were always different than ours. Sadika also confirms that whereas this bias against the Christians was widespread, even in cities like Lahore, today, at least, in the larger cities, such distinction has become obscure. She tells me that before

having food or anything else from a dhaba they announce that they are Christians and are never turned away. When I ask her why she feels she needs to announce her religion beforehand, she retorts so that the sentiments of her Muslim brothers and sisters are not hurt.

To confirm what Sadika had told me I visited a small dhaba next to my house, called Pehlwan restaurant, run

by a Pehlwan looking man, Arshad. Arshad told me that if a Christian came to have food at his restaurant he would never return him/her away. However, if the Christian informs him beforehand then he would serve them in special plates and bowls reserved for these people.

There is no doubt that the people of Pakistan have moved away from the basic principles of untouchability,

as is found in Hinduism. In fact, here it has evolved into a separate phenomenon, which drives from the basic source, but manifests itself separately. The distinction between the untouchable and a touchable is no longer based on one‘s caste, defined by one‘s occupation, but by one‘s religion. Today, a lot of pure people

feel that they shouldn‘t even share their plates with Hindu Brahmins, Sikhs, etc. It is interesting to note that it were originally the Hindu Brahmins who adopted this attitude against the Muslims.

Hakim Ram, a Hindu untouchable, belonging to the caste of Meghwal, from Rahimyar Khan, tells me that in his city, the Muslims no longer distinguish between a Shudra untouchable and a Brahmin untouchable. For

the Brahmin, of course, both of these are untouchables. Sikhs, who were originally out of the pale of this concept, have now been included.

A student of PhD, in Punjabi language, at the Punjab University, Kalyan Singh was turned away from a restaurant in Model Town, which did not have plates for ‗them‘. He also brings to my notice that the restaurants in Nankana Sahib, where he originally belongs to, have separate glasses and plates for Sikhs.

I strongly feel that Aasia Bibi has also fallen prey to this centuries old cultural bigotry, which the pure peo ple of the land of pure have not been able to get rid of, despite changing their religion.

I would like to end this piece with a line that Khem Chand, aka Shams Gill (an 80-year-old Hindu Valmiki), said, "We and Muslims were untouchables for Hindus before the creation of Pakistan. We became untouchables for the Muslims, once the Hindus left".

harunkhalid@hotmail.com

Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2010-weekly/nos-12-12-2010/dia.htm#4

Monday, December 13, 2010

Tahaffuz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat

RAWALPINDI: Major religious parties of the country have announced to launch a campaign for upholding the

sanctity of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) against the proposed against the proposed amendment in the blasphemy act, Geo News reported on Sunday.

This was decided in a meeting of religious parties convened by the Markazi Jamaat Ahle Sunnat here. Syed Munawar Hassan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed of Jamaat-e-Islami, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI-F, Allama Sajid

Naqvi, Professor Sajid, Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, Sahibzada Abulkhair Muhammad Zubair, Pir Atiqur Rehman and other religious leaders participated in the meeting.

They announced for launching the campaign in a joint press conference after the meeting. A seven -member committee was also constituted to chalk out a strategy for holding meetings, processions, wheel -jam strikes and a sit-in outside parliament. The committee will meet on Dec 15 in Islamabad.

The participants stated that the only punishment for blasphemy was capital punishment, adding that no one had the right to amend this law. They further said that the private member bill by Sherry Rehman and measures of the Punjab governor reflected the American agenda.

Source: www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=2636&Cat=13

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Blasphemy laws Nauman Asghar The recent awarding of the death penalty to a Christian woman on charges of blasphemy has sparked a debate in the country on the need to review the blasphemy laws. In a number of Muslim countries, blasphemy is dealt under state law. Article 156 (a) of Indonesia‘s Criminal Code forbids ―anyone from

deliberately, in public, expressing feelings of hostility, hatred or contempt against religions with the purpose of preventing others from adhering to any religion‖ and forbids ―anyone from disgracing a religion.‖ The maximum penalty for violating Article 156 (a) is five years‘ imprisonment.

Our blasphemy laws dates back to the original 1860 Indian Penal Code in which Articles 295 and 298 were inserted, keeping in view the religious sensitivities of the inhabitants of the subcontinent. Blasphemy was not

an offence punishable with death. Besides, the sections shared universal application and did not refer exclusively to one faith. These provisions also required malicious intention integral to the offence concerned. In 1927 the law was amended to incorporate clause 295-A which reads: ―Whoever with deliberate intention

of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens… by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class… shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or both.‖ Later, after independence, the

term of punishment was increased up to ten years. Zia-ul-Haq added new provisions in the form of 195-B, 295-C, 298-A and blasphemy under Section 295-C became an offence punishable by death.

The wording of the blasphemy law in Article 295-C is vague and ambiguous. According to Section 295-C, any person who, ―by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the name of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is liable to be punished with the death

sentence or imprisonment.‖ Here the element of ―ill-will‖ or malicious intention has been disregarded.

In October 1990, the Federal Shariat Court ruled that the ―penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)… is death and nothing else.‖ The ruling also noted that ―no one after the Holy Prophet (PBUH)… exercised or was authorised the right to reprieve and pardon.‖ The FSC also directed the court to remove the

punishment of ―li fe imprisonment‖ for the offence of blasphemy under 295-C. The bill in this respect was passed by the Senate but could not be approved by the National Assembly. In 1993 a bill was introduced in parliament to extend the scope of 295-C by including the words ―the names of Prophet Muhammad‘s

(PBUH) companions and family members,‖ but no legislative enactment could be effected in this regard. It is not uncommon for the accusers to be motivated by religious bigotry, personal prejudices, selfish gain or

professional rivalry. Prosecution often relies on unsubstantiated oral testimony of the complainants. The offence has been made cognisable and non-bailable. Ill -treatment and torture in police custody are commonplace. The judicial proceedings are protracted and the judges presiding over the proceedings of the

case are given death threats and intimidated by local clerics. In October 1997, Justice Arif Iqbal Bhatti was murdered because he had acquitted two men accused of blasphemy.

In the present state, blasphemy laws in Pakistan can be and are easily misused. The provision of capital punishment for blasphemy without the strictest possible safeguards is inimical to the fundamental rights of minorities. A democratic evolution of the country requires a level play ing field for all groups inhabiting the

land, irrespective of differences of caste, colour, creed and religion. If the PPP government wants to prove its credentials of a liberal party, it must take the initiative to rectify this state of affairs.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=20414&Cat=9

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Changes in blasphemy law By our correspondent

ISLAMABAD: An All Parties Conference (APC), held under the aegis of the Aalmi Majlis -e-Tahaffuz Khatam-e-Nabuwwat, held here on Wednesday gave a call for a countrywide

shutterdown on December 31 against efforts to change the blasphemy law.

―The APC has categorically decided that any effort to repeal or weaken the blasphemy law will not be tolerated and Namoos -e-

Risalat will be protected at all costs,‖ JUI-F Amir Maulana Fazlur Rehman said while addressing a press conference after chairing the APC.

Besides others, the APC was attended by ex-Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmad, PML-Q chief

Senator Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Allama Sajid Naqvi and Abul Khair Zubair.Qazi Hussain Ahmad and Chaudhry Shujaat strongly condemned the moves to try to make the blasphemy laws controversial. ―All such attempts will be foiled with full force,‖ they said.

The speakers warned the government and its parliamentarians to refrain from making efforts to review or

repeal the blasphemy law or encouraging those involved in blasphemous acts. ―The government cannot dare to table any bill to amend the blasphemy law,‖ they said.

Asked as to how they would oppose any amendment in the blasphemy law in parliament, Fazlur Rehman emphatically said that nobody could dare speak on this issue on the floors of the two houses. He asked the government to clarify its position on the blasphemy law or get ready for humiliation.

Announcing the protest programme, he said countrywide demonstrations would be organised after Friday prayers on December 24 and shutterdown would be observed on December 31. A big public meeting would be addressed by central leadership of the APC on January 09.

The All Parties Conference also constituted a committee, headed by Sahibzada Abul Khair Zubair of Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, to organise the movement all over the country. However, Fazlur Rehman said the future plan of action would be chalked out after consulting heads of all the religious parties. The committee would activate and organise moves from local to central levels.

Fazlur Rehman said in a country of 170 million people, every citizen enjoys freedom but the Western civilization had no place here. He called upon the traders‘ community and shopkeepers to respond to the strike call with Islamic and national spirit. He declined to comment on the revival of the Muttahida Majlis -e-Amal (MMA).

INP adds: Maulana Fazlur Rehman said a big public meeting and protest demonstration would be held in Karachi on January 9, which will be attended by all the central leaders of the religious parties.

He said Dr Abul Khair Mohammad Zubair had been made chairman of Tehrik -e-Namoos-e-Risalat. The Tehrik will form sub-committees to organise the Tehrik at grassroot level. Fazl said they wanted to send a message to the world that the entire nation was united over the protection of ―Namoos -e-Risalat‖.

Source: www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=2696&Cat=13

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Religious groups join hands over blasphemy law

By Shamim Bano Karachi

In an unprecedented move, all religious parties belonging to different sects have joined hands against calls

for the repeal of the blasphemy law, supporting the countrywide shutter-down strike call of the Tehreek-e-Namoos-e-Risalat on December 31.

During a joint press conference at the Karachi Press Club on Tuesday, leaders of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Paksitan, Jamat Ahle Sunnat and Shia leaders announced their multi-phase campaign against the proposed repeal of the blasphemy law.

On December 24, protests will be staged outside different mosques of the city after Friday prayers. On December 31, a shutter-down strike will be observed while a public rally will be taken out on January 9.

Religious groups have approached different political parties, including those sitting in the corridors of power, to support their drive.

They have appealed to transporters, industrialists and shopkeepers to shut their businesses to make the strike call a success and to ―show the entire anti-Islamic world that any change in the law is not tolerable‖.

The leaders also demanded immediate sacking of the Punjab governor and withdrawal of the bill presented in parliament by former information minister Sherry Rehman.

Those who spoke during the press conference included Qari Mohammed Usman of the JUI-F, Shabbir Abu Talib of the JUP, Mufti Mohammed Usman Yar Khan of the JUI-S, Nasrullah Shaji of the JI and Qazi Ahmed Noorani.

Source: www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=21541&Cat=4

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

PM given four days to reject moves against blasphemy laws

By our correspondent

LAHORE : The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), an alliance of religious parties, has warned the rulers of

launching a countrywide anti-government movement, including a siege of parliament and an indefinite sit -in there if the prime minister did not make a clear announcement within four days to reject all the moves and proposals aimed at amending the blasphemy law.

―If the prime minister does not make a clear announcement, shunning the West -sponsored moves to amend

the blasphemy law within four days, we will launch 1977-like movement against the PPP government and stage a sit-in outside parliament for an indefinite period,‖ said SIC Chairman Sahibzada Fazal Karim while chairing an all Pakistan Tahaffuz Namoos Risalat convention at the Aiwan-e-Iqbal here on Monday.

A large number of Ulema, Mashaikh and scholars from all over the country attended the convention of the

SIC, a platform of religious parties affiliated with the Barelvi school of thought, asking the government to back out of the West-sponsored conspiracy against the blasphemy law.

Fazal Karim also announced that a Tahaffuz Namoos Risalat rally would be taken out in Karachi on December 31, 2010. He dispelled the criticism of blasphemy law as a legislation directed against minorities.

Source: www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=22623&Cat=2

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

The Murder of Salmaan Taseer

The governor of Punjab died as he had lived: controversially. In the hours after his death, police officials

continued to insist that the possible motives needed to be assessed. But most people had already reached

what was the only obvious conclusion – the remarks Salmaan Taseer had made a few weeks ago on the

blasphemy laws and on the need to amend them were enough for someone to kill him. While Taseer may

have angered or annoyed people, while his sometimes bombastic manner may have been irritable, there can

be no doubt that he was a courageous man, willing to speak out on issues that few choose to address due to

the growing fear forced on us by religious extremists.

It appears, at least at these initial stages, that the member of the Punjab Elite Force who shot him formed a

January,2011

part of a growing army of extremism. His act seemed to be a carefully planned one, with fire initially opened

on the governor‘s vehicle and the victim then shot in the chest as he, perhaps unwisely, stepped out. The

shooting is evidence that it is not necessary for extremists to be in the garb of the Taliban, with their beards

and turbans. They exist everywhere and come in all forms. And even those in the police may form a part of

their ranks. The incident means several things. On many issues we have for years, indeed decades, been

reluctant to speak our thoughts. Some taboos have only now begun to lift. The killing of the governor by a

member of his own security team could mean that even fewer will speak out on such issues. Those who

have already done so – Sherry Rehman comes to mind – run a risk of falling victim to bullets. The situation is

awful. Taseer‘s death highlights just how grim it is, and how difficult it will be to change our country for the

better. The challenges are already immense. They grow greater by the day. We have already lost our right to

express opinion freely. Extremism holds us in a vice. Will we ever be able to break free? That is the question

we must ask before more bodies fall on our roads, staining them with blood that will perhaps never be fully

washed away.

Source: http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=23878&Cat=8

Taseer – another victim of fanaticism

Governor Punjab Salman Taseer, a Chartered Accountant and a successful businessman, who had never

been accused of committing corruption or breaching the law, was brutally murdered in broad day light by no other than his own security guard in Islamabad, Capital city of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

One of the security guards of the Punjab Governor fired gunshot after gunshot on him while the other personnel of Elite Force that were present at the crime scene stood there watching as if deriving some kind of sadistic pleasure from the horrific crime. I would say these guards are as much part of the crime as the

main culprit because they remained silent spectators while the guard showered 26 bullets on an unarmed man.

The gruesome killing has come as an enormous shock for law-abiding and peace-loving people of the country. The horrific incident drew condemnation from all the political parties, civil society and people belonging to all walks of life. No doubt the crime was extremely shocking but what was even more shocking

was the cold reaction of religious parties who did not utter even a single word to criticize or disapprove the barbaric act.

The ‗religious scholars‘ and representatives of ‗religious‘ parties kept appearing on all the TV news channels but nobody expressed any shock or sorrow on this highly inhuman act of a fanatic. No ‗religious scholar‘ or ‗religious‘ leader said that the culprit of the heinous crime deserved any kind of punishment le t alone

demanding the severest punishment of all. A ‗religious‘ leader when asked on a TV channel whether he felt any sorrow or shock for the deceased, only

replied by saying that the incident was unfortunate and should not have happened. Reports were also received that some circles distributed ‗Mithai‘ (sweets) to celebrate the incident.

Did Salman Taseer, whose businesses in Pakistan also provide employment to a large number of people, committed an act that was even close to being called a blasphemy? Did his criticism of blasphemy law such

a grave crime to merit a brutal death at the hands of his own security guard with a gun provided to him by the government for protection of the Governor of the largest province of Pakistan? Even if Salman Taseer had committed blasphemy, was there not a law under which he could have been tried? Blood has once

again been spilt in the name of Islam - a religion of tolerance, harmony and peace.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/blog/blog_details.asp?id=1033

Saturday, January 08, 2011

The real threat to Islam Aijaz Zaka Syed

What a life! From what little one has read and heard about Salmaan Taseer, he lived life king size with an irrepressible, in-your-face contempt for many things that many ordinary Pakistanis hold close to heart. The

slain governor of Pakistan‘s Punjab was both a successful politician and a suc cessful businessman. Taseer certainly knew how to work his way up the slippery pole of power in the rough and tumble of Pakistani politics, having been close to both the powers that be – President Asif Zardari -- and powers that were --

General Pervez Musharraf. A slick operator and maverick to the core, Taseer had developed a taste for ―good things of li fe‖ and lived dangerously in every sense of the term. Did Salman Taseer deserve to be killed, as he has been? That too in the sweet name of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the blessed faith

that he brought? I know we have been here before but how much more infamy and disgrace Muslims will inflict on their faith in the name of protecting it? Every time we target someone in the name of Islam, we add a blot to the long history of tolerance, kindness and generosity of the great faith. And where‘s all this going to

end, i f we start settling our political or ideological differences? As Gandhi would warn, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind. We aren‘t living in the middle ages for God‘s sake! More important, we do ultimate injustice to the Last Messenger, the noblest and kindest of men, who granted amnesty to the worst

of his enemies including those who persecuted and tried to assassinate him when the whole of Arabia was at his feet, every time we invoke his blessed name to settle scores with each other. I am no religious scholar. But with the limited understanding I have of my faith, I have to ask these so-called defenders of faith: Would

the Prophet approve of this murder and mayhem in his name and in the name of religion that is totally based on reason, truth and justice? But whoever said this had anything to do with religion or faith? This is more like the politics of religion, something we in South Asia have evolved into a science. From Mahatma Gandhi‘s

assassination at the hands of a Hindu fanatic to the gunning down of premier Indira Gandhi by her own Sikh guards, religion has gone hand in hand with politics. As the BJP realised to its glee, after it was transformed from a twomember party in parliament into a ―natural party of governance‖ after the Ayodhya campaign, it

pays to mix politics with religion, or the other way round. Across the border in Pakistan, our cousins seem to have turned this to another level with deadly effect and consequences. Even as I am a great believer in Allama Iqbal‘s philosophy that ―juda ho deen siasat se toe rah jaati hai changezi‖(divorced from religion,

politics is nothing but barbarity), I dare say what‘s going on in Pakistan right now has got nothing to do with religion, nor with politics. Pakistan was supposed to have been the citadel of Islam, a model state based on the celebrated Islamic principles of equality and accountability before God and justice and secur ity for

everyone including its minorities, a utopia that would be a source of inspiration and pride for the believers around the world. Where does Jinnah‘s Pakistan find itself today then? As a country that is so much like my own and is home to some of my closest friends, there‘s always been a special place for the ‗land of the pure‘

in my heart (no matter what our Sanghi and Sena friends think!) But would the founding fathers of Pakistan be proud of the state their baby is in today? Is this what Quaid-e- Azam had in mind when he envisioned a model Muslim state? Millions gave up everything they had for the ―promised land.‖ There were hundreds of

thousands of others who could never make it past what Qurratulain Haider called Aag ka Darya (The River of Fire). Were all those immense sacrifices meant for the dangerous, lawless land that some are bent on making of Pakistan? It‘s not just the lunatic fringe represented by the Tahreek -e-Taliban and numerous other

outfits that are distorting the teachings of Islam and chipping away at the so-called ideal of Pakistan, almost every politician and party, including those in the ‗secular and liberal‘ Pakistan People‘s Party, is guilty of using or abusing religion for petty political ends. Same goes for the so-called Blasphemy law, a relic of the

late president General Ziaul Haq‘s Martial law era. Of course, no Muslim, including this one, will ever tolerate any slur against the Prophet, peace be upon him. And one has no reason to question General Zia‘s sincerity and intention in bringing in the law. However, the very fact that it has generated so much heat and dust in

and outside Pakistan with genuine concerns and complaints about its abuse to settle personal and political scores, calls for revisiting and reviewing the law. While any assault on the Prophet‘s person or the Holy Book he gifted us will always be intolerable for all believers, more reprehensible is potential victimisation of

innocents. This is not just about a controversial law or some fanatics taking law into their hands in Pakistan. I hate to say this but the larger issue at the heart of this whole debate is increasing intolerance in Muslim societies around the world. Whatever the real and imagined causes of this growing extremism – Western

conspiracies and interventionist policies, historical injustices or corruption and spinelessness of Muslim

leaders -- in our midst, it has acquired truly frightening proportions. From mindless, suicidal violence targeting innocent Muslims to shameless attacks on religious minorities, the cancer of extremism is eating

away into the vitals of Muslim societies everywhere and pristine image of Islam. And it‘s no longer possible to ignore these extremists as a tiny, lunatic fringe because they have practically hijacked our voices and causes, painting a community of 1.7 believers as a dangerous, intolerant lot. Governments, opinion leaders,

intellectuals and religious scholars and leaders in particular have to wake up to this scourge of extremism before it‘s too late. The Muslims have their issues and problems, just like any other people or community, and they are capable of taking care of them without help and intervention from the nuts celebrating death,

thank you very much! Extremist violence in the name of religion is no longer an issue of idle, drawing room debate. This is a clear and present danger to all of us. Too many innocents have died and too much innocent blood has been shed in our name. This is not us. Blowing up innocent, unsuspecting folks busy in

prayers is the ultimate savagery and crime against the faith, against all faiths. We must act and act now to stop this dance of death in the name of God. For He will not forgive us if we remain silent in the face of this outrage. Extremism has emerged as the biggest threat to Islam and Muslims everywhere. And the

alternative to collective inaction is collective doom. Email aijaz.syed@hotmail.com SOURCE: http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=24622&Cat=9&dt=1/8/201 1

Intolerance One is amazed at the decay of our social values. I was completely taken aback when in an elitist hospital

almost all the doctors actually endorsed the killing. Then came the news that some paragons of piety had so despicably refused to lead the slain man‘s funeral. All this means that we have been deeply dehumanised by these merchants of death and religious intolerance

Brig (r) Mehboob Qadir

Rawalpindi SOURCE: http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=24553&Cat=11