AVOIDABLE CLASH OF
CIVILISATION AND OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
By Barrister Amjad
Malik
Hazrat
Muhammad (peace be upon him) rightly is an embodiment of guidance to mankind
and his sunnah (his acts and deeds) enlighten us to act upon the teaching emanating
from Quran and Hadith thus all Muslims
hold him the dearest. His profound teachings and actions promote tolerance
and medina under his rule was a
sanctuary for all races colours and religions and mosques were a centre for
guidance, help and enlightenment.
Pakistan
is in the grip of latest stir caused by the Blasphemy allegation on a Christian
girl Asia Bibi under trial and the death of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer who
was shot down by his own guard. The police man was later tried and sentenced to
death which was carried out in March 2016. His funeral was massive and created uproar
in the country and several organizations have expressed dismay on carrying
out the death sentence. It has further ignited a debate as to the way the law is
used and any apprehensions. It is an ever growing debate of theologians and
civil libertarians who are at each other’s throats making their point.
Pakistan Penal
Code (PPC) of 1860 dates from the British colonial period: Sections 295
to 298 of the PPC dealing with religious offences dates back to that
period and were intended to prevent and curb religious violence. The
offences listed are: defiling a place of worship (s.295), acts insulting
religion or religious beliefs (s.295 A), disturbing a religious assembly
(s.296), trespassing on burial grounds (s.297), and utterances wounding
religious feelings (s.298). These sections have a lot in common including
the intention of the offender to hurt the religious susceptibilities of
others which is considered integral to the offence; they also share a
universal application, whereby hurting the religious feelings or any
group is made an offence. In particular S. 295-C of the Pakistan Penal
Code says, “ whoever by words either spoken or written or by
visible representations or in any manner whatsoever, or by
any imputation, innuendo or institution, directly or indirectly defiles
the sacred name of the holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished
with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”.
Islamic Shariat Bench later declared that imprisonment can not be granted
in Blasphemy proven cases and only death sentence is the right sentence
for the convicted.
However
these offences have little value to the West who take freedom of expression as
a superior force to all other political and religious compulsions. Their
Blasphemy law though covers Christianity but does not cover Islam.
Article 10 of European Convention of Human Rights 1950 which is a bit
similar to Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 says as
following: “1. Every one has the right to freedom of
expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinion and to
receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent
States from requiring the Licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.”
During
the Salman Rushdie affair in 80’s after writing a book ‘Satanic Verses’
Britain never prosecuted Salma Rushdie under Blasphemy Laws of Britain
for defiling the Prophet of Islam as British laws only covers
Christianity. Under Ex Parte Choudhary, a private prosecution was not allowed either
by British Courts due to lack of legal provisions. Britain since has introduced
the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which intends to curb preaching
religious violence, however it still does not address the core and causes
of igniting religious hatred albeit blasphemy .
However in
the west denial of holocaust as to whether or not Jews were oppressed by
Hitler’s Nazi regime is a criminal offence in most part of Europe.
Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries:
In
Austria (article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947)
punishable from 6 months to 20 years, In Belgium (Belgian Holocaust
denial law) punishable from Fine to 1 year, the _Czech Republic under
section 261 punishable from 6 months to 3 years. In France (_Loi
Gayssot ) punishable from Fine or 1 month to 2 years. In Germany §130 (3) of
the penal code) also the Auschwitzlüge law section 185 punishable from
Fine or 1 month to 5 years. In Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia it is an
offence, In the Netherlands under articles 137c and 137e punishable from
Fine or 2 years to 10 years. In Switzerland article 261bis of the Penal
Code) punishable from 6 months to 3-5 years. In addition, under Law 5710-1950 it
is also illegal in Israel and punishable from 1 year to 5 years. Italy enacted
a law against racial and sexual discrimination on January 25, 2007
punishable from 3 years to 4 years.
Now
we see no Islamic countries in this list which outlaw holocaust denial as if one
wishes to enact the law in those countries you are called to scratch their
back too and amend your home blasphemy laws to include the respect for
Islam and its Prophet. Now looking at this tendency the way the
West is showing insensitivity to the Muslim World’s feelings, It will be
quite illogical if Islamic countries will ever try to understand western logic.
Radical
and extreme sentiments though exist which may be exploited by forces like ISIS which
call for serious consideration by OIC and West to sit together and find a
solution to this hugely charged issue as common man of each society calls
for peace and harmony between ancient civilizations.
The
divide is visible on views in Britain too. Over 1 million Pakistanis
reside in Britain and contribute heavily in national economy including their
own homes back home. Whilst urging communities to remain calm and use
their right to protest in a maximum peaceful manner, I feel the time has
come for two ancient civilization to sit together and try to form a group
of countries to have a joint ‘Memorandum
of Understanding’ to identify and not to allow harbouring each other’s
common criminals who defile each other’s religious faith.
Prophet
Muhammad(PBUH) did something similar 1400 years ago and made a pact with
his opponents known as ‘Hudabiya Pact’ and here too the Eastern
and Western world must have a dialogue to secure interfaith harmony in
order to bring two extremes to the middle to avoid future conflict.
There
is no point that blasphemy law in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi is punishable
to death and writers of such books walked free in British run India for
writing ‘Colourful Prophet’ around 100 years ago, and now for writing
‘Satanic Verses’ and publishing ‘Danish Cartoons’ ridiculing the Prophet.
Similarly denying holocaust, that Nazis did or did not oppress the Jews,
is a criminal offence in the West but in the Islamic world if not
penalized then it does not carry international validity and criminals of
one society will keep seeking refuge in other’s protection indefinitely
and may cause a mayhem one day.
If
a joint attempt to ‘give and take’ policy is not adopted, I am afraid a
chain of uncalled events may emerge from within these incidents which may
be regrettable but will be disastrous to the efforts of bringing the
unity in this global village and will bring nearer to a clash. When law
does not address public anxiety and no forum on which a complaint can be
lodged is available hen those who mutilate public feelings on the name of
freedom will deepen the gulf further and clash of civilization begins as
was quoted by the US president wrongly or rightly at the time of 9/11
referring to crusades.
We must
all discourage any attempt to use or stir violence on religious basis,
however realizing the nature of situation OIC and Western World including
European Union, US, Russia, China, and India must consider setting up a forum
to adjudicate such matters and give serious thought to the calls of
Muslim countries & West for interfaith harmony.
Islamic
countries jointly must come up with a unanimous unstinted resolution as
to where no negotiation is possible and where there is a compromise
possible on the name of freedom of thought and expression and or to
include protection to Western belief. Little late and there was no dearth
of individuals like Ghazi Ilam Din then in India, or Amir Cheema in
Germany and Qadri (despite having the law in Pakistan ) in this day and age who
were and are willing to take law into their own hands on the name of love
for their religion and their Prophet when no law or legal forum is
available to address their concerns instead countries show blatant
disregard to their sentiments.
The
decision is simple, its one man’s freedom against 1.5 billion
Muslims sensitivities. Muslim world unanimously banned the film ‘Passion
of Christ’ which fantasized Jesus Christ in a fiction, same reciprocal
concession must be offered from the West which does not cost them a penny
if they had shown compassion on Muslim plight at the time Sam Bacilli’s
fictional film on prophet or Danish cartoons. Why both societies do not act
together to fill the lacuna in law so that any frenzy writer may not stir
religious sentiments and defile each other’s sacred belief as current law
does not address those common grouses of each community in East and West.
This way we can save the clash of civilization and nip the evil in the bud
in order to save the humanity as one man’s unnatural death is the death
of the whole of humanity.
On
18 June 2007, I wrote to Lord Goldsmith then Attorney General of Great Britain
that Salman Rushdie’s knighthood will cause to divide the communities and will
widen the gulf between the Muslims and western world. I wrote, “this honour is
given at a time when Muslims are working hard to bridge both communities after
the events of September 11th and 7th July and are subject
to victimisation via various heavy handed laws and honouring those who cause to
divide further will alienate the main
stream community and will not go well with the Muslim community and demanded
withdrawal of that status forthwith as the writer’s contribution is not only
conflicting but has caused to hut billions of human souls around the world.”
23 May 2013 as the Chair of the Association of Pakistani
Lawyers (APL) sought Chief justice of Pakistan’s intervention drawing his attention towards ever increasing blasphemous
material circulating in the internet domain whether it is Face book, YouTube
and or other modem of internet communications having far reaching implications
on the minds, the lives and liberties of the main stream Muslim population and
matter may become a law an order situation if public is manipulated about the contents
due to emotions involved.
APL request the office of the Chief
Justice for necessary direction(s) to PTA, Govt, and the institution(s) to
block those individual objectionable page(s) promoting blasphemy on the name of
freedom of expression, and take meaningful steps for an international covenant
to protect the name of the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) and we prayed that to order an enquiry as to what steps
have been taken at Govt level and at the levels of PTA (technical level) and/or
foreign office level to block, deter and defeat efforts to defile the name of
the beloved Prophet and what efforts are taken if any to promote a culture of
tolerance where name of the above remains protected internationally. We asked
the following directions in the interim on this human rights action:- “(1) Kindly Direct PTA for an action to block all
blasphemous pages at social media networks (Face book, twitter, YouTube) in the
jurisdiction of Pakistan;(2) Kindly direct the Federal Govt of Pakistan to seek
international cooperation through OIC/USA/UNO to block the said blasphemous
film and seek to deter and defeat efforts to defile the name of the beloved
Prophet (PBUH) (3) Kindly direct the Federal Govt of Pakistan to seek an
international cooperation to enact an international covenant to block, deter
and defeat efforts to defile the name of the beloved Prophet and other prophets
and to promote a culture of tolerance where name of the above remains protected
internationally.(4) Kindly direct the Govt of Pakistan and PTA to scrutinise
the above page and order it’s blocking if that page is deemed slanderous.”
On our application
an action to remove contents defiling
Prophet
Muhammad PBUH (ref HRC No. 20789/2013) on 10
June 2013 Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Took suo motu notice regarding blasphemous content
circulating on the internet and has sought a report from
chairman Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) within a
week, and later with guarantees it caused to close down
thousands of pages on web carrying malicious contents and
opened with YouTube on special arrangements in Pakistan in
2016.
UK blocks
thousands of sites which carry indecent images and
or
pornography material. Internet watch organisation facilitate
such
action. Now that’s the job of our leaders to struggle to
pave way
for a law where there is no law and make its
application
secure and transparent where law is available
and avenue
is provided.
Where
we go from here, Pakistan which has the law is observing the conflict of view
in its application. A policeman slained a governor of Punjab on the premises
that he allegedly committed blasphemy. He was sentenced to death for murder on
February 29, 2016. Religious clerics insist him not guilty of any offence as he
was following shariah, the supreme court held different view on his trial and
appeals. Hundreds flocked to attend his funeral in Rawalpindi. Pakistan sees
off many unholy alliances and If Raymond Davis after killing can go scot free
using ‘diyyat’ under international pressure, then it begs the question that why
clerics could not gather storm at President palace when his mercy for clemency
was under consideration as he could have been pardoned or his sentence could
have been reduced to ‘life imprisonment’ or ‘diyat’ was available too as an
avenue, is a food for thought for ulemas.
In
the same tone in January 2016, a Daska boy cut off his own hand following a public accusation of blasphemy in a
religious ceremony when he raised hand misconstruing the words of an imam.
Though imam is charged but village boy is amputated for life.
We need to define and draw lines to accept that
loving the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a peaceful thing and that when law is
available then to struggle where it is not and use our strength for tolerantly
doing some good deeds to make our society peaceful, constructive and a welfare
one.
Public
must utilise 'Tolerant' way to express their opinions especially on religious
matters when Pakistan is head on fighting against radicalisation, extremism and
any form of violence through Zarab e Azab on military front and national Action
Plan an effort to change the mindset and rebuild and reboot infrastructure
which deter violence. That is the way
forward than taking extreme stand to glorify those who take law in their own
hands than to resort to legal recourse available to address their grouses,
public concerns and legitimate complaints and claims at a lawful forum. When state
has provided a avenue then it is a state responsibility to ensure
implementation and handle any law and order situation as a public
responsibility. Otherwise if public is going to discharge summary justice then
no law judge or jury will be able to stop public wrath and we will
reverse what we achieved so far post ghazi Ilm Din struggle for a
law. In Pakistan, We have moved far from that stage of India when there was no
law to a stage our protest where we have now a law to curb deter detect and
punish those who violates blasphemy law of the land though there is a room of
improvement how the cases are duly register protecting due process and fairness
under such ordinance so that no innocent is caught in personal rivalry or
revenge to ensure fairness.
Religious
critics are in a President Bush style calling names and asking , ‘either you
are with us or against’ when it comes to blasphemy, is not the way forward. The
Sunnah we observe, The Prophet Muhammad ) peace be upon him dealt with
affection to those who threw dirt on him and with his character and conduct
left a lasting impression on his critics. Islam believes in humanity that’s why
one man’s unnecessary death was considered as a death of whole mankind.
Dialogue
between clash of civilisations is a must to protect our belief faith and
tolerance in society in situations like Salman Rushdie’s ‘satanic verses’ , Tasleema
Nasreen's book , Sam Bacilli's film on Prophet , Danish cartoons, or Terry Jones
attempts to burn Quran and or holocaust denial and OIC and UNO, and major
populations and religion carriers such as China and India can play vital
role at international forum and UNO front in seeking that harmony amongst
community of nations. A call to a new pact is a saner one, which is a way
forward, a new pact that we will not allow written and or verbal debauchery
with any religion of God and intl community will not let each other’s criminals
use safe heavens of east or west or provide sanctuaries of each other to those
who malign faith of each other. That is a challenge those protestors must be
taking as a challenge to enact than ripping their own clothes. Lets bridge the
gap, as the gap is fast being used by forces like ‘ISIS’ and lets have the
necessary dialogue like ‘Hudabbiya’ and discharge our moral obligation and
public duty to avoid clash of civilisation which is fast becoming unavoidable
and tolerance is being lost in translation.
Barrister Amjad Malik
is a chair of the Association of Pakistani Lawyers (UK)
March 3, 19, 2016
|