Naeem Shakir

(Ed. note: The author is a lawyer practising before the High Court in Lahore, Pakistan. The article below was presented at a conference of jurists about shari'ah law organised by the Institute of the Study of Islam and Christianity in October 2003 in Wellington, New Zealand.)

What havoc has been and is being wrought by forces of retrogression, vested interest, fundamentalism, obscurantism and religious extremism in the name of Islam in the recent past has perhaps not been much known to those who are not victim of such oppression. The much-trumpeted "war on terror" in the Western world media is politically designed because, on one hand, they promoted and funded this religious lobby to launch "jihad" and fight against the Soviet Union and, on the other, they have hegemonic designs in the name of globalisation. The forces previously used as agent provocateurs and for proxy wars have now grown and developed their own vested interests to sustain themselves. The post-Cold War era has so far proved more treacherous for civil society in the regions that have been used as garrisons by the bulwarks of capitalism. The religious extremists, in order to impose their writ of authority, even resort to the use of lethal force at the places of worship of "others." Moreover, these forces have embarrassed the majority of their Muslim brethren, especially those who are engaged in the revivalist movement for not only a progressive, humane, tolerant and peace-loving Islam but those who are trying to redefine the role of the Muslim world in the comity of nations.

There is no denying that whenever and wherever religion has been used for purposes opposed to its inherent spirit of peace, brotherhood and justice it has not only lost its relevance in the process of social development but its image has also been tarnished in the minds and hearts of those who were subjected to it. History is replete with events in which the name of religion has been used to glorify the deeds of the tyrant rulers. There was a time when state decrees were accompanied by religious decrees (fatwas) to silence the subjects and justify obedience.

It would not be fair to comment on Islamic shari'ah without mentioning the two main current schools of thought in the Muslim world and to highlight the Qur'anic message in its historical perspective. Islam addresses the people of the world through the revealed Book of the Qur'an (Sura Naas 114:1-6). The Qur'an says that the God of Islam is the God of the universe and is not the God of Muslims only (Rub-ul-al'meen). Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, is the blessing for the universe (Rehmatul'almin). It forbids compulsion in religion (Chapter 2:256). It lays stress on personal accountability as it says no one will be a burden to another (Chapter 2:139). It extends an invitation to non-Muslims for dialogue (Chapter 3:64). It says that if God wanted that there be all "Momins" (Muslims) he could do so (Chapter 10:99). Therefore, the concept of diversity is found in the teachings of the Qur'an. It further says, "Your deen (faith) is for you, and my deen is for me" (Chapter 109:6). It says, "Do not abuse the idols of the idolaters" (Chapter 6:109). Muhammad the Prophet is the Messenger to convey the message and is not appointed as the keeper over others and is certainly not an arbiter (Chapter 6:108). The Qur'an says that, after conveying the message, "leave them alone and turn away from them" (Chapter 32:30). The Qur'an instructs the protection of all places of worship (Chapter 22:40).

The movement of revivalism among Muslims that has been gaining ground in the past has developed two distinct factions having two different approaches and interpretation of Islam. One stands for a medieval and fixated position on issues of fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence, whereas the faction representing progressive Islam maintains that the medieval approach is tantamount to robbing Islam of its eternal spirit and its continual relevance for all times. Syed Afzal Haider, a jurist and Islamic scholar of Pakistan who is also a senior member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, in his book Islamic Revolution writes, "The Qur'an has laid sufficient stress on the need to organise human society on a balanced pattern for the betterment of the human race. The desire to lead the people to the path of salvation, freedom from fear, sublimation, economic and political independence, human dignity, international peace, exemption from exploitation of every type and, above all, tolerance and equal opportunities to develop the latent potential of each individual and a people collectively is destined to get Divine Approval." Another known Islamic scholar from India, Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, writes, "The most stressed values of the Qur'an are justice ('adl), benevolence (ihsan), compassion (rahmah), wisdom and human dignity (hikmah). These values cannot be compromised in any law; and if any law violates these values, that would be unacceptable in Islam." He further writes, "What is to be borne in mind is that, though the Qur'anic principles and values are universal, their application is situation specific. Therefore, we have to apply them according to our own situation which calls upon change in interpretation in changed socio-economic conditions."

The two basic sources of Islamic law are the divine revelation of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which relates to what the Prophet said and did or did not express disapproval of things done in his presence during his lifetime. The Sunnah is generally expressed through "ahadith," i.e., traditions. Islamic jurisprudence is based on the Qur'an, Sunnah, ijma (consensus among the ulama, or Islamic scholars), qiyas (juristic analogical reasoning based on the Qur'an and Sunnah), ijtihad (consensus among the Islamic ummah, or community), customs and conventions. The shari'ah has two major legal traditions, Sunni and Shi'a. The Sunni legal tradition has different schools of thought -- Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali. There are now two broad distinctions in Islam, i.e., there are Sunni Muslims and Shi'a Muslims. The major difference between the two schools is in their political interpretation of the Qur'an.

The process of Islamisation at the state level began in 1979 when Imam Khomeni took over Iran and enforced the Shi'ite version of Islam. This revolution had a monumental effect on the Muslim world. The mass killing of opponents without a proper trial created a fear syndrome among Sunnis and other minorities. The Baha'is were expelled as a community with their exodus from Iran full of many woeful tales. The revolution led by Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni had an anti-American and anti-imperialist stance that motivated the U.S. government to take a keen interest in neighbouring Afghanistan as it sought to initiate plans to checkmate the influence of the revolution in the region. The period after the Khomeni revolution is one in which neighbouring Sunni countries felt threatened by the emerging Shi'ite religio-political force in the region. Sectarian strife supported by many interested parties emerged among different schools of thought. The reaction to the Shi'a revolution provided space to Sunni militant forces, spearheaded by the Deoband and Wahabi sects, to demand that Pakistan be declared a Sunni state. The countries in which shari'ah was imposed in this period were Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Indonesia, and, to some extent, Malaysia where minorities suffered discrimination, harassment and inhuman treatment.

While examining the effects of shari'ah on minorities, one presupposes that they are considering religious minorities who are citizens of or who are residing in a state that is predominantly Islamic and has enforced shari'ah law. A nation-state such as Pakistan, born out of the partition of India when the British withdrew from the subcontinent in 1947, will be a novel study in this regard.

Pakistan was conceived by its leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Father of the Nation known as the Quaid-i-Azam (The Great Leader), as an enlightened Muslim state and not as a theocratic state. However, the orthodox and fundamentalist forces from the beginning of the nation, in connivance with the government, tried to promote an agenda of obscurantism for their vested interests. This agenda materialised through administrative and legislative measures at the state level. The passing of the Objectives Resolution in 1949, which provided a religious base to the State, is the first example in this regard.

The second major event took place when, by launching a street agitation, Parliament was forced to declare Ahmadiyyas to be non-Muslims. No Parliament has ever sat in judgement on matters of faith, but the government made it happen in Pakistan.

According to Article 2 of its Constitution that was promulgated in 1973, "Islam shall be the state religion of Pakistan," and Article 227 declares, "All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions of Islam." The Supreme Court of Pakistan is constituted under Article 175 of the Constitution, but a parallel judicial system has been created under Article 203C "which shall consist of not more than eight Muslim judges." Under Article 203D, the Federal Shari'at Court has been empowered, "either on its own motion or on the petition of a citizen or the federal government or a provincial government, to examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, hereinafter referred to as the injunctions of Islam."

Apart from these constitutional provisions, there is a statute that was promulgated as the Enforcement of Shari'ah Act of 1991. This law in a way reiterated the supremacy of shari'ah law, declaring in Section 3 that "the shari'ah, that is to say, the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, shall be the supreme law of Pakistan." Under this act, education, the economy, the mass media and the judicial system shall be Islamised as provided in Sections 7, 8, 9 and 14 respectively. Section 4 of this act also overrides other laws as it states that, "while interpreting the statute law, if more than one interpretation is possible, the one consistent with Islamic principles and jurisprudence shall be adopted by the court." This provision of the law has caused serious effects, which will be discussed later.

Since it became an independent nation in 1947, Pakistan has lived under military rule for 75 percent of its national life; and because of the lack of undemocratic institutions, the socio-political situation has been very chaotic. The religious lobby has always politically blackmailed the political governments and has been working with the military rulers. The military ruler Gen. Zia ul-Haq, who took it upon himself to Islamise society, effected most of these constitutional amendments and brought changes in statute law. The Objectives Resolution, which had served as a preamble to the Constitutions of 1956,1962 and 1973, was made a substantive part of the Constitution by incorporation of Article 2-A and was placed as an annex to this article.

While serving as a preamble, the sixth paragraph of the Objectives Resolution read: "An adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practice their religion and develop their culture" (italics added). However, the word freely was deleted from the text when it was placed as an annexure to Article 2-A. It was a deliberate and mala fide act on the part of the military ruler to delete this important word, a deletion which later had serious repercussions in the socio-political system, for it introduced an element of religious extremism, and the sectarian legislation made thereafter promoted religious discrimination against minorities. In order to gain religious sanctions for his government, Gen. Zia collaborated with the religious fundamentalists. Thus, those who never attained a seat in the national and provincial assemblies, i.e., members of the fundamentalist religious parties, were brought into the corridors of power through administrative measures.

The military government encouraged the religious parties, like Jama'at-i Islami, to operate in the field of politics. They embarrassed each government and other political forces by continually playing the religious card while religious extremist organisations, like Sipah-e Sahaba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, sharpened the sectarian divide. These groups introduced violence by killing members of other groups in the name of religion. Their members openly marched in public displaying lethal weapons and overawed their opponents in particular and the public in general. There was implied patronage by the government for the armed militancy of these religious extremists. It was during this time that armed militant groups, like Dawat-ul-Irshad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Harakat ul-Ansar and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, emerged to carry out "jihad" in Afghanistan and later in Kashmir. Religious groups of this nature sprang up and spread a culture of violence and hate. Religious minorities naturally were frightened when even Muslims felt scared and insecure at the hands of these zealots masquerading in the name of religion and jihad.

In the process of Islamisation that Gen. Zia initiated, the sectarian legislation below, the Hudood Ordinances, was promulgated by Gen. Zia to introduce punishments of hadd (the singular form of hudood that refers to punishments related to adultery and fornication, theft, the consumption of alcohol and making false accusations) into the criminal law of the country to bring it into conformity with the injunctions of Islam as set out in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. These laws included the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979, the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979, the Prohibition Enforcement of Hadd Order IV of 1979, the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979 and the Execution of the Punishment of Whipping Ordinance of 1979. A few provisions of these ordinances are reproduced for further understanding.

The punishment of hadd in the Hudood Ordinances has been defined as punishment ordained by the Qur'an or Sunnah.

The Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979 relates to theft, robbery and cases of dacoity, or armed robbery. The kind of proof required for the offence is provided in Section 7 of the ordinance:

The punishment of theft liable to hadd is provided in Section 9:

In Section 25 of this ordinance, it describes the court arrangements in cases of theft liable to hadd:

The second of the Hudood Ordinances is the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979. In Section 4 of the ordinance, it defines zina: "a man and a woman are said to commit zina if they wilfully have sexual intercourse without being validly married to each other."

Section 5 of the ordinance stipulates the circumstances in which zina is liable to hadd:

Section 8 of the ordinance provides the required standard of evidence:

The presiding officer under Section 21 of the ordinance shall be a Muslim; but if the accused is a non-Muslim, the presiding officer may be a non-Muslim.

Another of the Hudood Ordinances is the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order of 1979 that prohibits the use of liquor. Non-Muslims may use liquor for religious ceremonies with liquor permits issued by the government. The punishment for offences for the use, manufacture, bottling, possession and transportation of liquor under this law includes life imprisonment or not less than two years of imprisonment along with whipping not exceeding 30 stripes and a possible fine. The evidence required for an offence liable to hadd under Section 9 of the ordinance is the testimony of "at least two Muslim adult male witnesses" about whom the court is satisfied lead their life according to the injunctions of Islam.

Lastly, the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance of 1979 defines and provides punishment for an offence of qazf, that is, false imputation of zina (adultery) about any person knowing that that imputation would harm and injure that person. A person convicted under this ordinance will be subjected to whipping numbering 80 stripes as punishment for the commission of this offence. A conviction shall require evidence of "at least two Muslim adult male witnesses." The presiding officer of the court in which a case is tried or an appeal is heard under this ordinance shall be a Muslim.

The testimony of non-Muslim citizens has been rendered secondary to that of a Muslim as it is adjudged and measured in terms of the principles laid down in the Qur'an and Sunnah under the new Evidence Act with an Islamic name -- Qanoon-e-Shahadat of 1984.

The application of Islamic shari'ah law on non-Muslim citizens is most unjust. The act of imposing a particular shari'ah law to which he or she does not belong is tantamount to a flagrant violation of human rights as laid down in international treaties. The argument advanced in favour of the application of Islamic laws to non-Muslim citizens of Pakistan is that public law is applicable to all citizens around the world. The argument is fallacious and not tenable as the declared base and foundation of this law is religiously sectarian. Moreover, the application of hudood laws over non-Muslims of the country reflects a theocratic mind.

There has been a serious assault against the personal laws of religious minorities. The concept of marriage and divorce of the citizens of other religions is not similar to Islam. Polygamy is conditionally allowed in Islam whereas Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Parsis strictly forbid having more that one wife. Some of the provisions of the Divorce Act applicable to minorities are in conflict with the ordinance.

It must be noted that Pakistan is predominantly an agrarian society and feudal values dominate the socio-cultural life of its people. Abduction and violence against women is a common feature with women of the marginalised sections of society being frequent victims. According to the 2002 report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), "One woman is raped every two hours, and one woman is gang-raped every eight hours in Pakistan." Most of the cases are unreported because of social taboos and the stigma that the despicable act carries against a woman. This is appalling and calls for immediate remedial steps.

Muslim landlords without much uproar abduct married Christian and Hindu women. To avoid the rigors of the law, the kidnapper converts the abducted woman to Islam and undergoes the procedure of Islamic marriage with her. The whole exercise is undertaken in such a mechanical manner that a sheer mockery is made of the law. Since shari'ah has become the supreme law and statute law has to be interpreted according to the injunctions of Islam, her earlier marriage under the Christian Marriage Act or the Hindu Marriage Law practically stands dissolved ipso facto. Why? Because she supposedly has embraced Islam and she, being a Muslim, is prohibited to marry a non-Muslim. As Islamic shari'ah has to prevail, the institution of Christian and Hindu marriage is rendered a fragile thing, and the personal laws of non-Muslim citizens become meaningless.

The religious parties, which were not only against the founder of the nation, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but were also against the formation of the state of Pakistan, gradually reconciled and launched a campaign to turn it into a theocratic state. The religious lobby of the Islamists was not prepared to accord equal status to non-Muslim citizens in this newly founded nation. They called non-Muslims "dhimmis," a derogatory word to lower their social status. Dhimmis are charged with a "jazya" (tax) for giving protection to the life and property of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. Non-Muslims were not treated as part of one Pakistan nation; for according to Islamists, there were two nations in the country -- one Muslim nation and another non-Muslim nation. The Jama'at-i Islami wrote a great deal of literature about the status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. This generated religious prejudice, which slowly marginalised non-Muslim citizens in the country's socio-political life. Maulana Abu'l A'la Maududi, a well-known Islamic scholar, asserted in his book Islami Riasat (Islamic State) that "non-Muslims shall not have a right of vote and right of representation in the legislature of an Islamic state."

It was in this background that a stunning blow causing serious damage to the socio-political status of non-Muslim citizens was administered through amendments to the electoral laws and the country's Constitution whereby an apartheid mode of separate electorates was imposed on the nation in general and non-Muslim citizens in particular. The electoral lists were separated into a list for Muslims and one for non-Muslims. Neither could vote for candidates from the other list as electoral constituencies were separated on sectarian lines among five religious groups, one for Muslims and the other for non-Muslim citizens belonging to four different religions that included Christians, Hindus, Ahmadiyyas and other religious communities. This apartheid mode of separate electorates threw the non-Muslim citizens of Pakistan outside the mainstream of national life. They were rendered second-class citizens; they were no more part of the business of the State. The right to vote was classified on religious lines, and citizens were deprived of fully enjoying the right of adult franchise. They thus stood politically marginalised on the basis of religion. Non-Muslim citizens were deprived of the right of vote and right of representation in the legislature during four general elections, a period spread over a quarter of a century, a period when religious fundamentalism in Pakistan flourished and religious extremists gained ground, a time when the forces of militant Islam challenged the state agencies and civil society was made hostage to them.

Gen. Pervez Musharraf, by overthrowing a civilian government, took charge as a military ruler on Sept. 9, 1999. Despite being an undemocratic government, it took a bold step and restored the mode of a joint electorate that brought the apartheid mode of separate electorates to an end. The general elections of 2002 were held under a joint electorate with reserved seats for religious minorities through proportional representation and a list system. Some religious parties, however, maintained their old position, asserting that a joint electorate offends the ideological ethos of Pakistan, an Islamic state.

The law on blasphemy also belongs to the era when the country was under the military rule of Gen. Zia. The offences relating to religion were specified in Sections 295, 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 296, 297, 298 and 298-A, 298-B and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). It is useful to reproduce the text of these sections in Chapter 15 of the PPC describing offences relating to religion, which were introduced later through amendments:

The text of the aforementioned law amply provides a fair understanding of how Muslims, who are the predominant majority, are sensitive and assertive about their faith and religious leaders and are totally unmindful of how grossly they are offending, violating and injuring the religious feelings of others. The State and its agencies have treacherously acted in a manner that has flagrantly violated not only international treaties and conventions but has also offended all standards of human rights legislation.

It may be stated that Section 295C was incorporated through Ordinance 1 of 1988 that had alternative punishments of death or life imprisonment for the offence of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet. A petition was moved by a Muslim lawyer who is a member of Jama'at-i Islami before the Federal Shari'at Court under Article 203D of the Constitution, saying that since Islam provided only one punishment to the blasphemer of the Holy Prophet and that is death, i.e., capital punishment, therefore, the provisions of Section 295C of the PPC providing punishment as "death or life imprisonment," being repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, may be struck down from the statute book.

There was an interesting debate on the issue as arguments were advanced for and against by the lawyers before the five judges. Finally the religious fundamentalists and those who wanted death as the mandatory punishment for a blasphemer won. The lawyers against the petition very eloquently argued though that the Holy Qur'an did not provide for hadd and that there were instances that the Prophet himself pardoned those who were rude and insulted him. The court, however, was swayed by the religious fervour of the Islamic extremists. The Federal Shari'at Court in its judgement of Oct. 30, 1990, held that "we are of the view that the alternate punishment of life imprisonment as provided in Section 295C, PPC, is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as given in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah and, therefore, the said words be deleted therefrom." In addition, the judgement stated that "a clause may further be added to this section so as to make the same acts or things when said about other prophets also an offence with the same punishment as suggested above." Moreover, the judgement added that "a copy of this order shall be sent to the president of Pakistan under Article 203D(3) of the Constitution to take steps to amend the law so as to bring the same in conformity with the injunctions of Islam. In case this is not done by April 30, 1991, the words "or imprisonment for life" in Section 295C shall cease to have effect on that date."

The government of Pakistan did not take any action. Therefore, the said words are no longer on the statute book since April 30, 1991, with the sole and mandatory punishment now being death to a person accused of blasphemy against the Prophet.

The record shows that after declaring death as the mandatory punishment for blasphemy against the Prophet this law was used for religious persecution and for settling personal feuds. The definition of blasphemy provided under Section 295C is so vague and ambiguous that it casts the net wide open to rope in anyone for malicious prosecution. This law has been ruthlessly abused against Christians and Ahmadiyyas who have been the main victims ever since the Shari'at Court amended this law. After the verdict of the Shari'at Court, a wild wave of religious extremism by fanatics was unleashed against the country's minorities who were targeted for religious persecution. A few cases below reveal the extent of torture and killing faced by religious minorities under this law. These are some of the high-profile cases in which the writer served as the defence counsel for the alleged Christian blasphemers under intense pressure as his life too was put in danger because of his decision to provide legal representation in these cases.

Naimat Ahmar was a 44-year-old Christian postgraduate and a progressive poet, writer and government schoolteacher. Farooq Ahmad, a Muslim zealot for 20 years, butchered him at 10:00 a.m. in broad daylight on Jan. 6, 1992, in the office of the district education officer of Faisalabad in Punjab Province while the victim was at his workplace. The assassin, who was a member of Sipah-e Sahaba (a religious group well known for its violent activities), had been directed by his religious leaders that the victim had committed blasphemy against the Prophet, that it was his duty to kill him to punish the blasphemer and that by doing so he would win a special place in heaven.

The deceased left behind a widow, two daughters and two sons. No case was registered against the accused blasphemer nor was he provided an opportunity to defend himself. No court tried him for the allegation of blasphemy. He was killed on the basis of a fatwa issued by Muslim clerics who had been influenced by a colleague of the deceased who had been offended because the deceased did not agree with his mutual service transfer proposal. Therefore, in order to teach him a lesson, he hatched a conspiracy to implicate the deceased in a false blasphemy case. The killer was sentenced to 14 years in prison by the trial court, which was upheld by the High Court.

Gul Masih, a Christian, was charged for alleged blasphemous remarks against the Prophet while engaged in a religious discussion. The religious debate was initiated when Gul Masih claimed that the Muslim plumber who had been paid for repairing a leaking community water tap was dishonest. Two Muslim neighbours felt offended at the comments and took them as a communal insult. However, Gul Masih did not say anything outrageous that could be termed blasphemous against the Prophet. The two Muslims thought of teaching him a lesson though and thus concocted a false blasphemy case that they registered on Dec. 13, 1991, and soon thereafter he was arrested.

Gul Masih was sentenced to death on Nov. 2, 1992, by the sessions court. Gul Masih had to languish in jail until the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, in its judgement of Oct. 27, 1994, declared that this was a "case of no evidence." Subsequently, he was acquitted and released from jail.

It should be noted, however, that it was difficult to release him from jail as a serious threat had been made against his life by Muslim extremists who were annoyed with his acquittal. Consequently, Gul Masih was taken out of the jail at night under the protection of a heavy police contingent to a safe place from where he was transferred to Islamabad airport and flown to Germany under an arrangement with church officials.

Tahir Iqbal, 33, was born into a Muslim family. After matriculation, he joined the Pakistan Air Force as an aeronautical mechanic. In 1982, he contracted meningitis, and the lower part of his body was paralysed. He was later confined to a wheelchair as he could neither stand nor walk.

During his protracted illness, he became more interested in religion and converted to Christianity. His family, however, boycotted him. The Pentecostal clergymen who had helped him convert often had his Christian testimony played on a loudspeaker in the church. These announcements though offended the religious feelings of Muslim fundamentalists. Consequently, the maulvi of the nearby mosque had a false case registered against Iqbal, alleging that an apostate had defiled the Holy Qur'an by marking various pages, taught children against the teachings of Islam and at the time of Azan (call to prayer) in the early morning became infuriated and began shouting and abusing Islam and the Holy Prophet.

On this report, he was arrested and sent to jail where he was deprived of his wheelchair. A petition was moved before the sessions judge for bail, saying that he was an invalid person whose lower body was paralysed and, thus, being physically handicapped, was entitled to bail. Meanwhile, Muslim extremists launched a movement against Iqbal, and fatwas from different Muslim clerics were issued stating that he was an apostate and that he should be executed in public.

Therefore, there was a wave of religious frenzy and an atmosphere not conducive to a fair trial. This is clear by reading part of the order of July 8, 1991, of the sessions judge in Lahore who refused him bail:

This is a novel court order that clearly sheds light on the issue. Justice is subjected to sectarian affiliations in countries in which shari'ah has been enforced. The atmosphere becomes suffocating for religious minorities in particular and civil society in general. The religious lobby consolidates and not only makes civil society hostage but also embarrasses state agencies, including the judiciary. Presently, there is no law yet enforced in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan whereby conversion from Islam is a cognisable offence, but the judge in his order himself appears to be religiously hurt, which is why he says, "with admission on the part of the petitioner's counsel, there is no need to probe further into the allegations." Injustice, intolerance, the violation of fundamental rights, equality before the law and due process of law become alien concepts once one chooses to adopt a particular religious creed in a nation where people of different faiths and ideologies reside. Therefore, the original Islamic concept of diversity and today's concept of a pluralistic society are not only defeated, but the Qur'anic injunction that there should be no compulsion in religion is ruthlessly violated.

Tahir Iqbal was tortured and humiliated in jail through a conspiracy of religious fundamentalists. On July 20, 1992, he was poisoned to death in jail with the connivance of jail officials. Iqbal was a prisoner of conscience who was subjected to religious persecution and was killed while in custody.

Maulana Fazal Haq, a local clergy member in charge of a mosque in the village of Rata Dhotran, had a blasphemy case under Sections 295A and 295C of the PPC brought against three Christians -- Salamat Masih, a minor of 13; Manzoor, 38; and Rehmat, 42. The allegation levelled against them was that, "on May 11, 1993, they, with a brickbat, were writing blasphemous remarks against the Prophet Muhammad on the walls of the mosque and that, on seeing them, they fled away." The complainant further alleged that "even earlier small chits of paper with blasphemous material against Islam and the Prophet were thrown inside the mosque courtyard."

These charges, however, were patently false as all three of the accused were illiterate and could not read or write. They were arrested though and condemned without an investigation of any kind. The motive behind their arrest, however, was intolerance in socio-religious life and, of course, to settle personal scores. Religious extremists brought banners in front of the court with such demands as "Execute the Blasphemers," "Wrath of God on Those Who Are Providing Help to Them," etc.

The sessions court granted bail to Salamat since he was a minor but refused bail to the other two, who later were released on bail by the High Court. After their release, however, they remained in hiding from which they only exposed themselves for court appearances.

It is important to note how the court proceedings were influenced by Islamic fundamentalists and their clergy on the day charges were framed against the accused, a crucial stage in a criminal trial. The pieces of paper containing the alleged blasphemous remarks were in a sealed packet as case property, which had been brought to the court on the day of the hearing. The accused and the writer as their counsel were not aware of the contents of the packet. The defence counsel therefore demanded that the packet be unsealed for framing the charge, and the packet was unsealed on the order of the court. The defence counsel requested the court for permission to peruse the documents. The papers were handed to the counsel. There were perhaps seven pieces of paper in the packet. He had hardly read the second paper and taken down some notes when murmuring became an uproar among two dozen Muslim clergy members who had come close to the rostrum and shouted at the judge, asking what he was doing. The defence counsel was told in a threatening manner to hand over the papers to the court as he himself was committing blasphemy by taking down notes of the alleged remarks. The sudden commotion disturbed the court proceedings. The judge was completely embarrassed and demanded the papers back from the counsel. Consequently, the charge was framed under these threats of the religious extremists without bringing the allegations of the case to the knowledge of the accused and their counsel, thus defeating the basic principles of law and judicial norms. The right to be accorded a fair trial is a fundamental human right. Its denial is also a violation of the right to be treated in accordance with the law and a principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard.

Because the accused were very vulnerable and their lives were in danger, the court granted a police escort to the accused from the office of their defence counsel to the court. On April 5, 1994, after the court hearing, the police left the accused and the counsel at his office in front of the High Court building. After some time, the three accused men left the office of their counsel with an escort arranged by the Legal Aid Cell Lahore. They had hardly gone about 1,000 yards when three religious extremists, who were later recognised as members of the militant group Sipah-e Sahaba, on two motorcycles attacked the victims, spraying them with a volley of bullets. Manzoor Masih died immediately while Rehmat and Salamat, along with their escort John Joseph, were grievously injured. This cold-blooded murder at the hands of Islamic extremists created fear among members of the Christian community and those who were helping the victims as lawyers and members of civil society.

The remaining two men were sentenced to death by a judgement dated Feb. 9, 1995, and sent to jail for execution. The two condemned men filed an appeal before the High Court against their conviction. However, the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, through their well-known judgement of Feb. 23,1995, acquitted both Salamat Masih and Rehmat Masih, holding that the prosecution had failed to make a case against them. These proceedings were watched by the world media and received coverage in the print and electronic media. The acquitted victims though could not live in their own motherland, a land that is traditionally known to be a place where people have lived in peace and harmony for ages. Consequently, the victims, facing an imminent threat to their lives, were sent overseas and now are in Germany.

Later the senior judge of the High Court who wrote the acquittal judgement had to pay a price for his judgement. A religious extremist entered his office and shot Justice Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti who died in his chair. Justice proved to be extremely expensive in this case.

Anwar Masih was another victim of the blasphemy law. He was sentenced to death by a sessions judge on April 27, 1998, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court in its judgement of July 24, 2001. His case is also important because a Catholic bishop, Dr. John Joseph, committed suicide in protest in front of the sessions court that convicted Anwar Masih. The death of the bishop further sensitised people to the oppression being caused under the blasphemy law. This was another event that shook religious minorities in general and Christians in particular.

Anwar Masih was charged for using blasphemous remarks against the Prophet Muhammad. The motive was to force Anwar Masih to withdraw a petition granting proprietary rights to his peasant family in a village of Sahiwal District. He was later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The main grounds for acquittal were that the evidence on the basis of which the death sentence was passed by the sessions court and upheld by the High Court were not sound based on the Islamic principles of tazkia al-shahood, i.e., the standard of testimony to be relied upon in cases wherein hadd is to be imposed.

Punishment of hadd leading to the death sentence as provided in shari'ah law has been subject to criticism, not only by civil society, but by progressive Muslim scholars as well. They hold that punishment of hadd can only be imposed if it is provided in the Holy Qur'an. Therefore, they do not subscribe to the school of thought that includes the Sunnah along with the Holy Qur'an for supporting the death sentence for such offences for which hadd punishment has not been provided in the Holy Qur'an. This stand is fortified as the Qur'an does not provide the punishment of death for the offences of apostasy and blasphemy. The punishment of rajam, that is, stoning to death for the offence of zina, is also not provided in the Holy Qur'an. The subject of hadd punishments is one of the crucial points being contested by the aforementioned schools of thought in the current debates among Muslim scholars.

From the perusal of Qur'anic injunctions relating to the offences of adultery, fornication and rape, it appears that emphasis is on personal repentance. The progressive school of thought pleads that the number of four witnesses required for proving adultery indicates that deterrent Islamic punishment has been provided for in a society that loses all moral scruples and where orgy becomes common. However, it is a known tradition that the Prophet reprimanded the captors who did not permit a culprit to run away (Sura Almaida 5A-39).

In rural areas in particular, social discrimination against Christians is appalling. The report for the year 2002-2003 issued by the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission in Pakistan shows that there are restaurants where Christians cannot have food. The report displays a photograph of a barber's shop with a notice outside the door that declares "No entry for non-Muslims."

Other minorities face no less discrimination and marginalisation. Naseer Ahmad, an Ahmadiyya by faith, was tried under Sections 295A and 295C of the PPC for defiling the name of the Prophet Muhammad and for trying to give the impression that he was a Muslim when he used some traditional Arabic words on his daughter's wedding card, words like aslamolekum (peace be on you), bismillah ur rehman (in the name of Almighty that is merciful and benevolent), insha'allah (God willing), etc. It was alleged that by using these words he had deliberately and maliciously outraged the religious feelings of the Muslim citizens of Pakistan, and consequently, he was arrested and jailed. The Supreme Court granted him bail after the sessions court and High Court had refused.

Rana Bhagwan Dass, a seasoned lawyer of Karachi, when elevated to the Sindh High Court, was confronted with an embarrassing situation through a constitutional petition. The petitioner, a religious fundamentalist, had said in his constitutional petition that since Pakistan was an Islamic state and the law had to be interpreted according to the injunctions of Islam, therefore, a non-Muslim judge should be removed from the bench. This petition embarrassed the State as well as its government that had to respond to the international community as well. Although Justice Dass has been further elevated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, nothing has been done to eradicate the baneful sentiment of religious prejudice that prevails across the country.

Like Tahir Iqbal, Muslim victims charged under the blasphemy law have also been killed either in jail or in police custody. Yousaf Ali, sentenced to death under the blasphemy law, was killed in the Lahore jail while Naseem Bibi, who was accused of blasphemy, was killed in police custody. She had been charged for desecrating the Qur'an along with her two sons. Her counsel reported that she had earlier rejected the advances of the complainant which caused the registration of a false case.

Empire-building among Christians has created many institutions of oppression at the state level. The Church and the State collaborated for centuries to maintain the status quo, the socio-economic domination of the ruling class. This nexus between church and state was shattered by the Industrial Revolution in Europe when relations in the mode of production changed from feudal to industrial relations.

Muslims, however, remained influenced under the concept and sentiment of Muslim empire-building for much later as Muslim scholars, like Jamal uddin Afghani, Syed Qutab, Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Maulana Abu'l A'la Maududi, projected the concept of Pan-Islamism in the last two centuries.

Jihad is a subject that has become very controversial in the Muslim world. In the current debates on the subject, two distinct views have been presented. The dominant one is that jihad is waging war for a just cause as a last resort to protect the Islamic community. The just cause of jihad, Safdar Siddiqui, a progressive Muslim scholar, maintains, is waging war against disease, poverty, illiteracy and for overthrowing the yoke of social, political and economic subjugation and not for killing humanity.

The Sept. 11 and post-Sept. 11 events in which al-Qaida, the Taliban and those responsible for such gory occurrences as the Bali bombing in Indonesia or massacres in Pakistan against Christians and Shi'ites all have misconceived notions of Islam. They want to conquer the whole world on the basis of their creed and jihad. This concept of jihad was promoted and generously funded by the Americans, British and other interested parties in Afghanistan. The CIA trained and armed at least 35,000 zealots who became the Taliban and al-Qaida. John Cooley in his Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism writes, for instance, that "Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government supported the American-funded jihad with full enthusiasm."

The misconceived notions and belligerent sentiments behind the jihadi attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre by Muslim zealots that killed more than 3,000 people requires serious study. How and why did such a misconceived creed develop? What are the forces behind it? It is not mere religious sentiment or ethnicity or Islamic identity. Deprivations sometimes add insult to injury. The approach is certainly misconceived and misguided. Such creeds flourish only in a soil that is medieval, underdeveloped and industrially backward. The democratic order flourishes in industrialised societies because it provides space to a secular society. Therefore, instead of making them consumer societies, these countries should be well industrialised, but the promoters of corporate globalisation might find this socio-economic paradigm opposed to their agenda. Industrialisation will change relations in production and will secularise these societies. This sentiment of socio-religious violence can promptly be erased once the industrial revolution is brought about. The obscurantism will end with the process of cleansing in an industrial society as it will change the outlook and attitudes of people towards life.

Respecting the ethnicity, culture, religious creeds, language, values and customs of a people is certainly good, but overplaying these qualities of a people and society for a model of conflict resolution, as has been done by Samuel P. Huntington in his much-talked-about book The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order, is not only incorrect but also appears to be so stated by design. Conversely, John Pilger rightly says that "the real terror is poverty, from which some 24,000 people die every day." In his book The New Rulers of the World, he has given much insight for emancipating the people of the world by giving details about the "exploitative role of corporate-led globalisation, which has globalised poverty."

After the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, two distinct views emerged: one that Muslims are terrorists and Islam promotes violence and another view, which is more sensible, that there is a small minority that subscribes to the theory of violence. The way to resolve the conflict is to address the large majority of Muslims around the world who promote a progressive, tolerant and humane version of Islam. Muslims comprise 1.3 billion people of the world population; they constitute a large part of humanity. Their issues need to be addressed and should not be ignored. They should be mobilised towards becoming a vehicle for change that leads the march of human development forward and not backward.

It is time to realise that humanity has suffered immensely in the last millennium because of self-righteous zealots who profess to be members of various religions and who try to impose their version of truth or who claim to be the custodian of the "Divine Truth." Let us in all humility and with honesty accept the fact that we are all fallible and that none of us has sole proprietorship of the "Divine Truth." Humanity across the world in the past year or so has voted for justice and world peace during, before and after the Iraq war. Mammoth gatherings in London, New York, Rome, Paris, Munich, Barcelona and Sydney and many other places have eloquently demonstrated that they stood, not only for peace, but also for socio-economic justice. These gatherings were free of divisions based on gender, colour, creeds, dogmas and religions. They surpassed all such boundaries. They, in fact, gathered around humanity for a righteous cause. It is now time to have a world vision that looks forward at what lies ahead for humanity in the new millennium. Global society has grown pluralistic, and diversity in humanity should be respected and protected as this is the beauty of nature.

In the context of applying shari'ah law and religious freedom, the Muslim ummah or Islamic leadership must realise that a moment has arrived in history where they have to redefine their role in human development. They will have to decide either to join humanity at large or stand isolated. They should bring forth the Islamic deen in its true spirit and should shun all dogmas and religious cults that distance them from the Qur'anic message. The 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, as adopted by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), does not fully appreciate that religious freedom is an inalienable right of a citizen. Imposing Islamic shari'ah on religious minorities is tantamount to a flagrant violation of the provisions of different international treaties and conventions. Intellectuals and Islamic scholars who promote the concepts of human rights, civil society and a pluralist society should be promoted and projected. The U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1949 that was framed by representatives who were believers, non-believers and secularists belonging to different religions, cultures and traditions came to a consensus as to how humanity should be respected, protected and promoted. They reached an irrefutable conclusion that there was unity in diversity and the principle of nature must be respected at all times.

There is no doubt there is some difference of approach about socio-political rights of citizens in the West, which is industrially and technologically advanced, and the Third World located mostly in Asia, Africa and Latin America, which is presently underdeveloped and in the process of developing. This difference of approach is amply demonstrated in the Asian Human Rights Charter that was prepared after a serious exercise organised by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in Hong Kong. Muslim intellectuals and scholars should speak out with unequivocal announcements in support of the UDHR and other international treaties and conventions that serve humanity without regard to caste, colour or creed. In this regard, all member states of the United Nations should sincerely accept and implement the provisions of Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that not only calls upon States to legislate laws that serve citizens "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status" but also to ensure and provide judicial mechanisms at the state level to redress grievances against violations of the fundamental and human rights of their citizens.

A meaningful dialogue of life should be initiated at all levels so that a healthy debate may ensue for building civil society. The free and open interaction of intellectuals and scholars who seek to promote peace and safeguard humanity should be promoted. Their literature for peace, socio-religious harmony and tolerance and brotherhood should be extensively projected and distributed.

The agenda to decrease the divide between the rich and the poor should be promoted. This divide pushes people towards obscurantism and fundamentalism. The liberative forces in society should be encouraged to bring about social change that will establish a just socio-economic order. Church leaders should issue pastoral letters calling upon Christian congregations to initiate dialogue for life with other communities. This exercise will accelerate the process of peace-building and bring people of different shades of opinion together to resolve conflicts. We, however, should be clear that the struggle in the academic and intellectual arena can only be fruitful if it materialises through the struggle of people for liberation as they seek to become a dominant political force that can free humanity from poverty, disease, backwardness and the economic and political subjugation of the exploitative forces.