The Law of Tawhin I Risalat A Social Political and Historical Perspective

The Law of Tawhin-i-Risalat: A Social, Political and Historical Perspective
The Wests allout domination, which has been on the rise for the last two centuries, has
resulted in many a misunderstanding about Islam. Theoretically, it is conceded that Islam has its
own worldview, which determines its followers attitude toward life, universe and their place in it.
At the same time, there is a general feeling among the Muslims that our Western friends and
their Westernized followers do not appreciate the Muslim position on many important issues. If
the worldview of a people has a role to play in shaping their ideas and opinions, then variance is
inescapable and has to be conceded: a society assigning primary importance to its moral fabric
and family life has to be different from the one giving preference to economic considerations
and individual interests. The nature of relationship between the spouses, for example, in a
Muslim society has been different from the one in the West.m are not ends in themselves but
are only a means to achieve certain objectives. The purpose, according to the Qurn, is to build
human personality in such a way that it becomes the agent of the Divine plan and help
restructure a moral, just world. 1 This necessitates that man should be conscious of his ultimate
accountability at some later stage for all his inner and outer deeds.
2
This accountability should be total and inevitable so that no individual entertains hope to escape
it. Without this inevitable accountability to which humans have to submit themselves, there can
be no real justice in a society.
A society based on Islamic principles must endeavor to pass the test of this accountability. For if
this consciousness is weakened, then the strong material desires and physical propensities of
men and women can break loose. By the same token, an Islamic state or for that matter a
Western state cannot be impartial to its moral ideals. In the recent past, we have witnessed the
Soviet Union playing an active ideological role in designing national programs and international
policies. This is equally true of modern Western states, which are in no way impartial to the
philosophical basis of their existence. For instance, the existence of political parties and adult
franchise, freemarket economy and liberal social framework is the cornerstone of the Western
system. The Wests commitment to these ideals is so uncompromising that at times it appears
to be bordering on political and intellectual strangulation of ThirdWorld nations.
1 / 27
It seems that the modern West and its clones in the East are not prepared to concede freedom
to the Muslims to bypass the occidental values. Even democratic dispensation is unacceptable
to the West if it does not promote Western social values, its economic models, and political
interests. The Muslims view the happenings in Algeria as the Wests refusal to concede its
people the right of self determination. The French proscription of some two dozen books
authored by renowned Muslim scholars is hardheaded prejudice. Curiously, the critics of the
ban on Rushdies book have failed to raise their voices against this civilized censor. The
French reaction to some innocent girls covering their heads is again a case of prejudice against
the Muslims.
Tolerance the Islamic approach

The Islamic state is under an obligation to protect its social fabric as jealously as the civilized
West does in respect of its own common values and ideals. A nation tolerant about its basic
postulates invites its own damnation. If tolerance can be withheld from Haiti and Panama in the
name of some higher considerations essential to a mighty neighbor, it only means that tolerance
has a limit, which must not be bypassed.
Muslim society is valuebonded insofar as it is committed to a religious message. It gives the

same position to the Qurnic principles as others award to ethnicity in ethnic societies, to color
in colorconscious societies, and to economic considerations in materialistic societies.
2 / 27
However, it does not mean that Islam disapproves of a plural society. The history of Islam
affords ample evidence for accommodating innumerable religious, cultural and other minority
groups in almost all Muslim states. The prestige enjoyed by the Jews under the Abbsids of
Baghdad and the Umayyads of Spain has been proverbial. It can safely be claimed that the
Muslim society is the only example of a successful religious and cultural pluralism in history.
Unpleasant as it may be, the stigmatization experienced by the Muslim minorities in the West is
incommensurate with the declared principles and ideals of these countries. It is unfortunate that
a country like France where traditions of liberty, equality and fraternity were trumpeted at a high
note is discriminating against the Muslims.
In this background, it appalls us to hear criticism on a law aimed at protecting the prime value of
the Islamic ideology, the basis of society and culture in Islam. The law of Tawhni Rislat
(insulting prophethood) is merely to ensure legal protection to the Prophets person. It is not a
law of blasphemy in the sense we find in different Western countries, nor is it comparable with
the laws governing heresy and blasphemy against religious people in medieval Europe, nor has
it anything to do with the kind of inquisition we come across in postMuslim Spain. The law, in
fact, aims at protecting the sanctity of the very source of guidance on which the entire legal,
constitutional, social, and cultural edifice of Islam rests. The sanctity of this guidance is primarily
guaranteed by the conscience and inner commitment of its believers. If this inner commitment is
challenged, it amounts to shaking the entire system. That is why, Muslim society has always
been extremely sensitive about anything affecting the Prophets person. Right from the days of
the sahbah (companions) up to our own times, the consistency of the Muslim reaction in
different parts of the world, in different situations, and at diverse stages of history should be
understood in the light of these submissions.
3 / 27
The law: an historical analysis

By now it must have been clear that the law of Tawhini Risalat, as enforced in Pakistan, is
neither religious bigotry nor fanaticism on the part of the Muslims of Pakistan. Nor is it an
imposition on the legal system of the country caused by any particular interest group. This is
perfectly in line with the traditions of Islam and matches the consistent Muslim perception about
this problem.3
Before we proceed with an elaboration of the legal and theological principles on which the law is
based, we should examine the provisions of the law itself. It may be pointed out here that the
Pakistan Penal Code enforced in 1860 includes an independent chapter (Chapter XV) dealing
with offenses relating to religion, meaning thereby that religious offenses were acknowledged as
criminal acts by the British author of the Penal code as far back as 1860.
The chapter originally consisted of four sections, namely, 295, 296, 297 and 298, dealing with
injuring or defiling places of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class, disturbing
religious assembly, trespassing the burial places, and uttering words with deliberate intent to
injure religious feelings. These sections have been on the statutes book for more than 134
years with hundreds of cases decided under them. The basic concepts embodied in these
sections have been discussed at length, analyzed threadbare and interpreted minutely by
different courts at different levels not only in British Indian courts but also in Privy Council. Thus,
there is no ambiguity in interpreting and applying such terms as injuring or defiling or insulting
religious beliefs.
After the enforcement of these sections in 1860, it was felt that the sections were inadequate to
cope with the situation resulting out of the growing religious sensitivities of various communities
in British India. New sections were added to this chapter at various stages not only during the
4 / 27
British days but also after independence in 1947. It will not be out of place to reproduce the
original sections of the chapter:
{niftybox background=#F2F2F2}
295. Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class: Whoever
destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of
persons with the intentions of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the
knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or
defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
296. Disturbing religious assembly: Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly
lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.
297. Trespassing on burial places, etc: Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of
any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of
any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted
thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sculpture, or any
place set apart for the performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the
dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse or causes disturbance to any persons
assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
5 / 27
298. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings: Whoever, with the
deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes
any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the right of that person or
places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
{/niftybox}
Long and high sounding as the preceding sections are, these are basically lawandorder
instruments developed by a colonial secular regime to ensure peace in the empire rather than
the protection of any religious message or ideology.
It shall also be noted that these sections contain all those basic elements that are now being
subjected to criticism on various pretexts after their insertion in the code as section 295C. It is
said that the terms insult and defile are ambiguous and pregnant with possibilities of
misinterpretations and wrong applications. It is also claimed that the limitations placed on a
persons right to insult or to defile a religious personality is violative of the human rights
guaranteed in the constitution. But the fact that such provisions with these ambiguous and
undefined terms have been on the statute book for the last 134 years without creating the
difficulties now being anticipated should be enough to conclude that the terms shall be
misinterpreted nor wrongly applied.
During the British period itself, the colonial government felt the need to widen the scope of this
chapter through an amendment in 1927, which is as follows:
6 / 27
295A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by
insulting its religion or religious beliefs: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken
or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or religious beliefs of that class, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.
{/niftybox}
The scope of the chapter was further enlarged after Pakistan came into being as an
independent state. This expansion was more in the nature of elaborating the original law than
anything else. We reproduce here the new sections in a chronological order.
In 1982, PPC (Amendment) Ordinance I of 1982 Section added 295B. It reads as follows:
295B. Defiling, etc., of The Holy Quran: Whoever willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a
copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any
unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.
{/niftybox}
In 1984, new sections were inserted to the existing chapter to provide a more effective deterrent
for the sanctity of the person of Prophet Muhammad (alayhi assalm) and the finality of his
prophethood. This was a major step in the direction of having a law in keeping with centuries old
7 / 27
traditions and norms of the Muslims who have always unanimously held that the crime of
insulting the Prophet amounts to a high treason in Islam and is liable to death punishment.
In order to give effect to the Fourth Constitutional Amendment of 1974 and to provide for the
consequential amendment (promised and resolved by the two houses of Parliament at the time
of the Amendment), the following three sections were enacted and enforced through an
ordinance known as the AntiIslamic Activities of the Qaudiani Group, Lahori Group and
Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, XX of 1984:
298A. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages: 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 any wife (Umm al-Mmineen), or
members of the family (Ahlebait), of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or any of the
righteous Caliphs (KhulafaeRashideen) or Companions (Sahaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace
be upon him) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
298B. Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or
places:
(1) Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves (Ahmadis) or
by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation,
8 / 27
(a) refers to, or addresses any person, other than a Caliph or Companion of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him), as AmeerulMumineen,
KhalifatulMumineen, Khalifat-ulMuslimeen, Sahaabi or Razi Allah Anhu;
(b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him ), as Ummul Mumineen;
(c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family Ahlebait of the
Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as Ahlebait or
(d) refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship as Masjid; shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
(2) Any person of the Quadiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or by
any other name) who refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as
Azan, or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
9 / 27
298C. Person of Quadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his
faith: Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or
by any other name) who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to,
his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by
words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever
outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
{/niftybox}
Finally in 1986, Majlis ashShura (parliament) unanimously enacted the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act III of 1986 whereby the protection earlier given to religion, religious beliefs,
places of worship, the Companions and the wives of the Holy Prophet of Islam was also
extended to the person of the Prophet whose reference gives sanctity and veneration to these
personalities. Accordingly, Section 295C was inserted in the PPC:
295C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: 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 Muhammad
(peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine.
{/niftybox}
This law, however, provided for two alternative punishments, namely, death punishment and
imprisonment for life. A group of senior lawyers and jurists challenged it in the Federal Shariah
Court. The court heard the petition for quite some time and invited a number of scholars and
jurists to assist it by submitting their views on the subject. On October 30, 1990, the court gave
a unanimous judgment declaring that the alternative punishment of imprisonment for life for the
crime of insulting the Prophet and defiling his sacred name is violative of the injunctions of Islam
10 / 27
and hence opposed to the shariah. The government preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court
not to challenge the judgment itself but to seek some clarification on some of the biter dicta in
the judgment.
In the mean time, a new government came to power, which withdrew the appeal from the
Supreme Court. Some people criticized this action of the government and expressed their
reservations on the death punishment, which they thought was harsh. These reservations were,
however, not received favorably by the masses. Not only leaders of public opinion but also
elected bodies and legislative assemblies voiced their sentiments. On June 2, 1992, the
National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution asking the government to provide death
penalty for insulting the Prophet. The Senate also followed suit and on July 8, 1992
unanimously passed the amendment bill to incorporate death sentence as the only punishment
for this crime. The fact that the legislative measure embodied the collective conscience of the
Pakistani people made this law as one of the most representative legal instruments in the
history of our nation.
Why such a severe punishment?

An insult of the messenger amounts to the insult of the message and its sending authority
more so, if the authority enjoys the ultimate religious sanctity and constitutes the final source of
legitimacy for the whole system. The early Muslims, particularly the sahbah, considered
insulting the Prophet as a sufficient ground to annul all treaties of citizenship concluded
between the Muslims and different religious communities. In his magnum opus, Kitb alUmm,
Imm Shfii has given some draft agreements that may be made with nonMuslims. In these
draft agreements, he suggests a provision under which all agreements, treaties, rights and
privileges guaranteed to a nonMuslim in an Islamic state should stand withdrawn when a
person insults the Prophet of Islam.
4
11 / 27
Shafii is not alone in his strict attitude. Every exponent of Islam right from the first caliph Abu
Bakr up to scholars of our own times share it. The only reason for this unanimity is the love and
respect that the Prophet enjoys among the Muslims. There are other religious communities, like
the Jews, who share with the Muslims a common belief in tahid (monotheism). No doubt,
differences exist in the perceptions of the two communities about the essence and attributes of
the Almighty Allah, but they meet each other on the basic doctrine of tauhid. Likewise,
similarities exist between the Jews and some Christian groups who have been believers in
monotheism. As religious communities, they represented divergent views only because of their
belief in different persons as their prophets and messengers. This clearly shows that the
position enjoyed by a prophets person in a community surpasses all other considerations often
associated with a secular or nonreligious society. Religious communities can never afford to be
unmindful about their responsibilities to protect the sanctity of their respective messengers.
Many Christian scholars and theologians also share this Muslim perception. One of the greatest
Christian theologians of the medieval ages Saint Augustine says, thus who knew the revealed
truth yet permitted disloyalty to it committed a greater crime than those who rejected it.5 Other
Christian theologians following Augustine also hold the same view. It is difficult to say whether
Augustine was influenced by the writings of the Muslim theologians on the subject, but there is
no denying the fact that this statement represents the logic developed by the Muslim jurists on
this subject. To them, the issue of forgiving is of far graver consequences than is being realized.
If one is convinced that the teachings of Muhammad (upon him be peace) have their source in
the divine revelations and embody the final truth, then insulting him will be logically inconsistent.
It is perhaps because of this logic of the Muslim jurists that their attitude appears as somewhat
uncompromising to others who do not assign to a religious message and its messenger the
same significance as the Muslims give to theirs. For the Christian West, this may be intolerance,
but to Muslims, tolerance in such a matter is nothing but hypocrisy, inviting others to commit it
as well, and sheds doubts on the truth.
Scriptural basis of the punishment

12 / 27
In support of the capital punishment for the offense of insulting or defiling the sacred name of
the Prophet, the Islamic jurists have relied on the following verses of the Qurn:
i) The Qurn deals with the Prophets ultimatum to the idolworshipers of Arabia to vacate
Makkah or accept Islam. Makkah fell to the Prophet in the 8th year after hijrah and was declared
as the spiritual capital of Islam, the venue of its most important universal congregational worship
the hajj. The idolworshipers were allowed to stay as citizens. After one year, the first few
verses of al-Tabah were revealed in which a four month notice was given to the nonbelievers
to vacate the city or accept Islam. The verse says:
But if they repent, establish regular prayers and pay poordue, they are your brothers in faith.
Thus, We explained signs in detail for those who understand. But if they violate their oaths after
their covenant and taunt you for your faith, then you fight the chief of the disbelievers because
their oaths are nothing to them.6
{/niftybox}
In this verse, the Qurn refers to two offenses that justify fighting a people who commit them:
first, violation of the covenant to repent, establish prayers and pay the zakah; and second,
taunting the Muslims for their faith. Muslim scholars agree that a person using derogatory and
libelous remarks against the Prophet or any of his essential teachings is punishable under this
general instruction.7
ii) In the same chapter, the machinations of the hypocrites in Madinah have been described
as molestation of the Prophet. Their mocking and idletalk against him were characterized as
disbelief liable to punishment. yah 69 declares them as losers and their deeds fruitless in this
13 / 27
world and in the life hereafter because of their mocking the Prophet. Muslim jurists rightly
conclude that rendering all good deeds and actions fruitless in this world becomes meaningless
if the act stays unpunished. A man who does not lose his life for this crime cannot lose the fruits
of his actions and deeds, which according to this verse, he must. AlAhzb: 57 lays down the
punishment:
Those who annoy and molest Allah and His messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and
in the hereafter, and He has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.8
{/niftybox}
According to the commentators of the Qurn, the divine curse in the life hereafter to those who
annoy Allah and His messengers is easily understandable. Hell waits for such people. But the
divine curse in this world becomes meaningless if there is no worldly punishment for the crime.9
iii) In surah al-Hashr, the exile and banishment of a group of the Jews of Madinah, namely,
Banu alNadr has been mentioned which had taken place in the fourth year after hijrah. By
signing the charter of Madinah, they had an agreement of citizenship with the Muslims. But they
violated the charter by their conspiracies. They were punished by the Prophet (upon him be
peace) and were eventually banished from the city. Commenting upon their evil deeds, the
Qurn says:
And if Allah had not decreed banishment for them, He would have certainly punished them in
this world and in the hereafter. They shall certainly have the punishment of the fire. This is
because they opposed and resisted Allah and His messenger. For sure, whoever is opposed to
Allah, is (for him) indeed, Allah is stern in reprisal.10
{/niftybox}
14 / 27
In this yah, the act of opposing the Prophet makes one liable to punishment by Allah. Besides,
it clarifies that this punishment was not executed in this world only because Allah had already
decreed banishment for them.
iv) Surah alMujdilah, describes their crime in these words:
Those who resist Allah and His messenger will be humbled to dust, as were those before them;
for we have already sent down clear signs, and the unbelievers will have a humiliating penalty.11
{/niftybox}
In this yah, even resistance to the Prophet has been declared an offense deserving humiliating
punishment.
There are several other verses of the Qurn, which the jurists view as the basis of the
punishment for insulting the Prophet. One may say here that alTabah: 6466 deals with a
situation where a group was ridiculing the Prophet in their gatherings, presumably in private.
There was no occasion whereby the feelings of any Muslim were outraged or incited. In
conclusion, one may say that in order to constitute the crime of insulting the Prophet or defiling
his sacred name, it is not essential that the offender should have committed it with the intent to
provoke, incite or outrage the Muslim feelings. Once the insult is established, the offender will
receive punishment irrespective of his motive.12
However, while determining whether an act constituted insult or not, the intention of the person
involved will be considered, especially where the words used are not express. Thus, intention is
crucial in determining insult to the Prophets name. While discussing this basic ingredient of the
crime, Ibn Taymiyah has relied on an incident in which three companions, Hassn ibn Thbit,
Mistah and Hamnah, were awarded punishment for qadhf (false accusation) against the
Prophets wife. None of them had insulted the Prophet and hence no capital punishment was
13 Ibn Taymiyah has also said
given.
15 / 27
that the incident took place before the revelation of the Qurnic yah (33:6) in which the
Prophets wives, were declared mothers of the believers meaning thereby that in future any
false accusation against them will be treated as insult to the Prophet.
14
Apart from these Qurnic yahs, there have been several incidents during the Prophets life
when the companions killed the persons found guilty of insulting him, and he upheld their action.
History has preserved four or five such incidents. Ibn Taymiyah discusses at length such cases
in his masterpiece on the subject, alSarim alMasll. The nutshell of all the incidents is that
certain individuals used to insult the Prophet. The Muslims tolerated for a while but when they
perceived mischief, they killed them. In all these cases, the Prophet (upon him be peace) did not
initiate any proceeding against the companions involved in their killing.
On the basis of these authorities, the unanimously held view of all Muslim jurists down the ages
had been that any person, Muslim or nonMuslim, who reviles the name, insults or ridicules the
Prophet qualifies himself for execution. The insult or contempt of the Prophet, it was held,
amounts to high treason against the Islamic state and the Muslim community.
According to many jurists of the Shafiiyah and Hanafiyah schools, a nonMuslim citizen who
insults the Prophet loses his rights as a citizen of the Islamic state as soon as the offense is
proved. All his rights and privileges will be withdrawn, and he qualifies himself for execution.
Some other jurists agree with this view in so far as it relates to a Muslim, but in respect of a
nonMuslim, their view is that the insult committed by him would not deprive him of his rights
and privileges as a citizen, though he shall receive capital punishment.15
Some important cases

As pointed out, at least four or five insult cases took place during the Prophets lifetime. The
common feature in all these cases was the eventual execution of the blasphemers at the hands
of the Muslims without reporting the case to the Prophet. Later, when informed, he upheld their
executions.16
16 / 27
In addition to these cases in Madinah, a few relate to the individuals belonging to the Makkan
tribes. These individuals, mostly poets, were engaged in defiling the Prophets name. While
embarking on his journey to capture Makkah, he had issued instructions that these individuals
should not be spared even if they were found clinging to the walls of the Kabah. However, most
of them received clemency when they presented themselves to him and declared their sincere
conversion to Islam.17
Following such examples of clemency shown by the Prophet, Muslim scholars have discussed
the possibility of forgiving the individuals guilty of this offense. Some hold that clemency is only
for the repentant. But the overwhelming majority of the jurists is of the view that the right to
pardon in this case belonged only to the Prophet himself and not to anyone else after him. It
was because of this view that in the entire Islamic history not a single blasphemer received
pardon.18
In the former Muslim India, there have been some important cases, which have left a lasting
impact on the history of Muslim society and politics in South Asia. A wellknown case is of the
Raja of Mattura whom the Mughal court found guilty of insulting the Prophet and thus executed.1
9
Emperor Akbar tried his best to save the Rajas life, but the judiciary stuck to its decision. It was
in reaction to this stern action of the Muslim ulam and jurists that the emperor came up with
the curious amalgam of religious and mystic beliefs and practices of South Asia named Akbars
Dini Ilhi.
20
During the British period, particularly in late 1920s and 30s, Hindus indulged in defaming the
Prophet as part of their countrywide campaigns of shuddhi and sanghtan (converting Muslims).
17 / 27
In all these cases, the Muslim volunteers killed the Prophets defilers. The British government
executed the killers under the Indian Penal Code.
It is significant to note that the Muslim masses treated all these killers as their national heroes.
Many writers penned their biographies; filmmakers came out with some very popular films on
them. Prominent Muslim leaders paid tribute to them. They were titled as ghazis (warriors) by
the masses. Among such heroes, Ghazi Ilmuddin, the illiterate carpenter who killed Raj Pal on
April 6, 1929, deserves special mention. His case has become proverbial in the history of
presentday Pakistan. None other than Quaid-i Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah filed a final appeal
on his behalf. When the court rejected his appeal and he was finally executed on October 31,
1929, the intellectual father of the Pakistan movement, Allama Iqbal was moved to tears and
remarked: We kept on talking vainly while the carpenters son has won the battle.
21
The Punjabi Muslims wished that Ilmuddin should be buried in Lahore instead of Mianwali,
where he was executed. A delegation of senior Muslim leaders, including Allama Iqbal, Sir
Muhammad Shafi, Ghulam Mohiuddin Qasuri, and Mian Abdul Aziz called on the governor for
his burial in Lahore. This simply shows the profound personal concern and deep respect these
luminaries had for Ilmuddin.
In a similar case, the Hindu lawyer Natthu Ram had caused anger among the Muslims by using
derogatory remarks against the Prophet. A tanga driver, Abdul Qayym, killed him in a
courtroom of Karachi in September 1934. Muslim masses hailed him as Ghazi Abdul Qayym.
The British government eventually sentenced him to death. Some people preferred an appeal
on his behalf in the High Court, which was turned down. Before the execution of the sentence, a
delegation of the Muslim leaders of Karachi and Lahore visited Allama Iqbal and requested him
to submit to the viceroy a clemency petition on behalf of Abdul Qayym. Deeply moved, Iqbal
kept silent and did not utter a word. When pressed, he asked: Has Abdul Qayyums resolve
wilted? When he was told Abdul Qayyum was determined to face martyrdom, he refused to
make clemency appeal to prevent a death that was bound to earn for the latter martyrdom.22
Iqbal expressed his sentiments on that occasion in a short poem entitled Lahore and Karachi
included in his
Darbi Kalm
. One of the lines of this poem says:
18 / 27
Never ask the followers of the Church
for the blood money of such martyrs.
The price of their blood
is superior to that of the Kabahs.23
(translation ours)
{/niftybox}
I have mentioned these incidents to show that the top Muslim leadership was not only in synch
with the masses on this important question but also carried legal and political struggle with
them. The Quaid is reported to have never entertained any fake or frivolous case. He defended
Ilmuddin in the High Court without charging any fee shows his personal solidarity with the
cause. The sentiments expressed by Iqbal are only indicative of the inner feelings of a true
believer.
There is another common feature we find in these cases. All the Muslim volunteers, after having
killed the defilers, voluntarily delivered themselves to the British police and made confessions.
Their supporters tried to convince them not to plead guilty to save their lives, but they refused.
19 / 27
Some lawyers wanted to take the plea that since the acts of killing had taken place in a state of
grave provocation, they could not hold themselves. But the ghazis did not accept even this
advice, as they wanted to have the sublime status of a shahd (martyr). Like other cases of
capital punishment during the Prophetic era, these were also decided on the voluntary
confession of the accused.
The critics of Section 295C should keep this history in mind while opposing its provisions. Let
everyone know that Muslims of all political opinions, religious dispensations, geographical
regions, and ethnic backgrounds are extremely sensitive on this issue and are not prepared to
compromise on it.
Blasphemy law in biblical religions: A comparison

The principles on which the law on insulting the Prophet (alayhi as-salam) is based have
nothing to do with the concept of blasphemy in Western countries and, therefore, needs no
comparison. Still it will be just to trace the history of the blasphemy concept in the West. This
analysis is necessary because most of the critics of this law in Pakistan try to understand it in
the light of the history of blasphemy in the West.
The excesses committed both by the Christian Church and State under the pretext of
blasphemy helped built a gradual reaction against it, which eventually led to its virtual repeal in
some countries and nominal existence in others. The Church had styled itself not only as Jesus
successor but also his substitute and thereby representing God. It considered any difference
with its views as blasphemy inviting severe punishment. The now famous phrase you do not do
what I desire24 is indicative of the Churchs attitude in this regard. Such an attitude closes all
doors of independent knowledge and meaningful inquiry. With the decreasing level of
scholarship in the clergy and their increasing political power, they branded every view not
20 / 27
consonant with their policies as blasphemy and heresy. The state became instrumental in
extending and consolidating the influence of the Church by its faithful implementation of the
latters directive. In 1553, Englands Queen Elizabeth got some people burnt alive because they
believed that Jesus Christ was not God, and that little children need not be baptized.
25
The word blasphemy is Greek in origin. Literally, it means speaking evil, slandering, or
defaming. Although in common parlance, it is used for an impious speech or remark against
religion or God. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics defines it as a sin and an ecclesiastical
offense peculiar to Jewish and Christian religions and to allied monotheistic cults. In the
Judeo-Christian tradition, however, it is viewed as a verbal offense against sacred values or
beliefs declared by the Church to be the values and beliefs of Christianity. It is of significance to
observe that a view based on an honest interpretation of the biblical text could also amount to
blasphemy and heresy if it did not conform to the official church. Such a departure was
26
considered treason against God.
However, the scriptural basis found in Old Testament as well as New Testament do not give
such sanctity to the opinion of the Church. The Bible clearly prohibits reviling God: You shall
not revile God
27
It gives death punishment for cursing the name of the Lord. He that blasphemeth the name of
the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and the congregation shall certainly stone him.
28
There are some other references as well, which justify severe punishment for speaking against
God, or reviling His name. In contrast, a nonMuslim reviling God in a Muslim state is not liable
to death sentence prescribed for insulting the Prophet. Muslim jurists have discussed the logic
of this differentiation between the two acts.
However, the blasphemy concept has never remained fixed in the Christian tradition. It has
ranged from the ancient Hebrew crime of cursing Gods ineffable name to irrelevant statements
outraging religious sensitivities. Blasphemy varies from society to society and from time to
place, but whatever is condemned as blasphemy is always regarded as an abuse of liberty and
reveals what a society will not tolerate. To illustrate the kinds of acts and utterances considered
blasphemous in the history of Christianity, we may refer to the following:
21 / 27
- Cursing, reproaching, challenging, mocking or denying Jesus.

Posing as Jesus.
Claiming to be equal to him.
Asserting powers or attributes that belonged to him.Ascribing evil or immoral inspiration to
any work of God or of the Holy Spirit that moved Jesus.
Denial or renunciation of faith.
Discord or dissent from the teachings of Jesus.29
It is important to note that most of these acts are considered as denial or renunciation of the
Christian faith.30 Interestingly, most of the preceding acts and utterances made in respect to the
Prophet Muhammad (alayhi as-salm) are not considered his insult and, if committed by a
nonMuslim do not constitute a crime. For example, if a nonMuslim denies Muhammads
prophethood, he is not liable to punishment under this law, as he is not guilty of insulting him.
Likewise, a nonMuslim dissenting from one of his teachings is not guilty of insulting him as
long as he does not use derogatory remarks. It means that the Christian application of the law
of blasphemy was much more extensive than the law of
shtimi rasl (insulting
the prophet) in Islam.
The JudeoChristian concept of blasphemy has influenced the development of law on this
subject in the West. In 1611, when the U.S. State of Virginia codified its first ever law, it
provided death penalty for blaspheming the trinity or the Christianity as such. Other American
states followed suit. Punishments included fine, branding, whipping, deportation and
imprisonment awarded for lesser crimes or to criminals of higher social rank.31 During the Age
of Enlightenment, though the number of cases under the blasphemy law decreased, the
punishments awarded included boring a hole through the tongue.
32
Most important, while giving judgments under this law, the judges in England and America were
guided largely by the same considerations that reigned supreme in the minds of the Muslim
jurists. For example, in 1676 a farmer, John Taylor, committed blasphemy by reviling both
Christianity and Jesus. Chief Justice Matthew Hab of the Kings Bench ruled that the secular
22 / 27
courts had jurisdiction of blasphemy and could punish blasphemers; and that Christianity is part
of the law of the land; and that the state has to prevent the dissolution of the government and
religion.33
The last ruling is particularly significant because this shows that the crime of reviling Jesus was
construed as an effort to dissolve the government and religion.
Some Western writers acknowledge the right to punish blasphemers for the followers of other
religions as well. Carl W. Ernst, a contributor to the Encyclopedia of Religions, admits that the
JudeoChristian religious tradition holds no monopoly on the concept of blasphemy. Every
society will punish the rejection or mockery of its gods. Because blasphemy is an intolerable
verbal violation of the sacred, it affronts the priestly class, the deepseated beliefs of the
worshipers and the basic religious values that a community shares.34 To him, blasphemy
constitutes a litmus test of the standards a society feel it must enforce to preserve its religious
peace, order, morality, and above all, salvation. Wherever organized religion exists, blasphemy
is a taboo. Judge Ernst holds that the death penalty is the last resort to control this heinous
crime.
Misgivings about the law

Before we discuss the misgivings expressed about this law by some sections of our society, let
us recall that according to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the state is
committed to uphold the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice,
23 / 27
not as these terms are understood in the West or in any other theoretical framework but as
enunciated in Islam (Article 2A). This qualifying statement embodied in the Objectives
resolution was adopted by our founding fathers because they did not want these terms to be
interpreted after the European secular tradition or any other culture but as understood in the
context of Islam and its history.
At the same time, we have no doubt that the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees full rights to
the nonMuslim minorities subject to the law, public policy and morality. Our Constitution places
certain limitations on the rights and privileges of the citizens. The law has its own requirements.
As to public policy and morality, this has to be understood and interpreted in the light of the
feelings and aspirations of the majority of people.
A small section of our society feels also uncomfortable about this law since they think it is
inconsistent with the fundamental human rights guaranteed under the Constitution. This is
hardly sustainable because of the limitations imposed by the Constitution itself. Even politically,
it is not advisable for the minorities in this country to raise eyebrows on this law. They know fully
well, or they should know, that the Muslims of Pakistan cannot acknowledge any right for
anybody, including minorities to claim, under any pretext, the liberty to blaspheme against Islam
or to insult their Prophet. The Muslims of Pakistan are really at a loss to understand the logic of
allowing freedom to insult the most sacred and the most beloved person in the human history.
Pakistans liberal intellectuals have failed to understand the inherent illiberality of their own
doctrines of freedom. The havoc created in the name of liberal ideas and scientific approach is
far more devastating to human freedom and decency than those made in the name of religion.
The atrocities committed by the upholders of liberal ideas in eighteenth and nineteenth century
Muslim India are known facts. Similarly, the record of leftist liberals in Central Asia in early
twentieth century and in Bosnia today needs no illustration. The liberals of Indian National
Congress (Nehru family included) possess a similar record. What is happening to Iraq, Iran,
24 / 27
Libya and Algeria at the hands of the liberal West needs no comments, either. It is strange that
the Muslims are told to compromise their primary values and the very foundations of their
identity to accommodate the whims of those who have never been liberal to us.
Some people object to the law on the plea that it is inconsistent with secular ideas. They forget
that Pakistan was never a secular country; it did not come into existence because of secularism.
Rather, it came into existence only when the Muslims as a nation, with Islam as their sole
identity rejected the secular concept of united Indian nationalism, advocated by Indian National
Congress. Pakistan, therefore, should not be expected to behave and adopt policies like other
secular states, leaving aside the question of how far other secular states are behaving in
matters where Muslims may happen to be at the receiving end.
Some people confuse the question of repudiating Muhammads prophethood with the insult of
his person. These two are altogether different things. While a nonMuslim is free to disclaim him
as Gods prophet or to negate his prophethood, no one is allowed to insult him or use
derogatory remarks against him.
Some highly placed people have come out with a rather queer argument against this law. They
say that in view of the drop in the law enforcement and problems with judiciary it would make
little sense to punish a person on the charge of insulting the Prophet. If this argument is
accepted, then all laws should be scrapped, not only in Pakistan but in every country because
the lawandorder situation has never been perfect in the modern world.
25 / 27
Unfortunately, our decision makers share some of these misgivings. Repeatedly they come out
with statements betraying their reservations about this law.
Lately, the government has constituted a committee consisting of four Muslims and four minority
members. None of the Muslim members is from the legal profession or the ulam. The
committee has called for adopting a different procedure in the cases involving offenses under
Section 295C. The proposed procedure calls for empowering the police to institute inquiry on
the merit of the allegation and then register or reject the first information report (FIR). This
proposal is fraught with grave implications. On the one hand, the delay in registering the FIR
and start of the proceeding will create a law and order situation, which may possibly result in the
murder of the accused as well as other suspects. This amounts to a denial of the right of legal
defense to the accused. Moreover, a delay in the registration of the FIR will also create doubts
and raise suspicions about the legality of the case. Further, in view of the strong reservations
about the performance of the police, any extension of their role to decide about the legality of a
complaint and then dispose it off will amount to virtual repeal of the law itself, an assault on the
preserve of the judiciary.
Some people have proposed that special provisions should be made in the law whereby the
complainant should be punished for false accusation if the case is not proved in a court of law.
This seems contrary to all norms of law and justice. In a country where the judicial system
seems to be in a process of rapid collapse, where plaintiffs and complainants have no protection
of the law, where witnesses are threatened within the courtrooms, where the litigants are killed
and opponents assassinated within the court premises, such an amendment will close all doors
for punishing the offenders under this law. Who will have the courage to come forward and
lodge a complaint knowing well that if dismissed, he would invite his own prosecution? More so,
when the sympathies of not only lawmakers and senior government officials but also of
lawenforcing agencies are inclined toward the defilers rather than the millions of Muslims
whose beloved Prophet would be insulted without any viable remedy open to them.
Besides, the proposed amendment of punishing the complainant seems to be unwarranted
26 / 27
because already there are provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code as well as in the Criminal
Procedure Code to punish a person giving false information with the intent to give injury to
another person. Chapters 10 and 11 of the Pakistan Penal Code deal with a variety of such
cases including false evidence and offenses against public justice. Instead of making
discriminatory provisions in favor of the offender insulting the Prophet (alayhi as-salm) the
provisions of Chapter 11 of the Pakistan Penal Code should be simplified and made more
effective.
27 / 27

The Law of Tawhin I Risalat A Social Political and Historical Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Law of Tawhin I Risalat A Social Political and Historical Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Law of Tawhin-i-Risalat: A Social, Political and Historical Perspective