“In a predominantly Muslim country, why do we need a law to
ensure the protection and honour of our Prophet (PBUH)”
– Iqbal Haider, Lawyer, former Senator and
former Secretary-General of the HRCP

Q: What are your views on the recent debate that Aasiya Bibi’s conviction has stirred up regarding the Blasphemy Law?

A: The most barbaric and inhumane practices are being propagated in the name of religion in Pakistan, completely unheard of in other parts of the Muslim world.

I recall an incident from March 27, 1994, when a Hafiz-e-Quran belonging to the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) was dragged on the streets of Gujranwala and stoned to death by a mob which had been instigated to kill him by the pesh imam of a local mosque. Basically, that pesh imam resented the other man’s popularity and he announced from his loudspeaker that he had committed blasphemy. So the accused was murdered on the basis of a false allegation.

I was the law minister at the time. My leader, Benazir Bhutto (who was the prime minister then), was furious. We convened a meeting in parliament of all religious parties in April 1994 — including Azam Tariq, the JUP, JI and religious scholars, and the interior minister was also invited. All the parties present agreed that such barbaric acts would not be tolerated and that it was totally against the Shariah. So I proposed we change the law. This was also agreed to.

At the same time, I conducted a survey of all the cases registered under 295-C and under the chapter in the PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) titled: ‘Offences relating to religion.’ The survey was conducted in all four provinces on the status and nature of the cases. It was found that they were filed not only against the minorities but also against Muslims. And 95% of the cases were based on personal enmity, sectarian prejudices, religious dislike, and sometimes even because of marriage and property disputes!

Q: So what was the outcome of the concurrence between the parties in real terms?

A: I presented the data of all the cases to the political parties in April-May 1994. At that time I had only five senators in a house of 89, and 91 members out of 217 in the National Assembly supporting me. I had to develop a strategy to attain consensus with the rest on the issue. And I achieved that.

But while I was travelling with the prime minister in Ireland, somebody published a very mischievous headline in Khabrain which read: “Iqbal Haider says law of blasphemy must be repealed.”

This baseless news created such a rumpus in the country that I was declared ‘Wajib-ul-Qatal.’ It was announced that so many thousands of dollars would be awarded to the person who secured my head. This was more so in Lahore and the Punjab — religious fanaticism is prevalent there a lot more than in Sindh.

Q: What about the parties with whom you had reached a consensus?

A: They kept mum. If this hadn’t happened, the law would have been amended. I don’t know if Maulana Fazlur Rahman will admit this now, but we had succeeded in convincing him to move the bill for the correction of section 295-C.

Q: Now Sherry Rehman has tabled a private bill in which she has proposed amendments to the law. On the other hand we have statements by Law Minister Babar Awan declaring “we are not going to touch this bill.” Is he voicing the PPP’s stance or do you believe this is his personal position?

A: Babar Awan is a person whose logic or knowledge I cannot possibly agree with — he is not even worth commenting upon.

The present rulers are not the PPP in any case. They just have a lust for power and money. Their agenda has nothing to do with politics and they do not have the moral or political courage to take corrective measures.

It was my prime minister, the real PPP’s Benazir Bhutto, who was fully committed to the cause: to prevent the abuse of this law.

The most important issue here is that nobody should be allowed to make a false allegation. And so we had proposed that in line with the Shariah, where a jhoota ilzam (false accusation) merits the same punishment as the crime itself, here too, the same punishment should be awarded to the false complainant that is prescribed for the person who commits the crime.

We had also suggested that blasphemy be made a non-cognisable offense — i.e. the police should not have the right to arrest anybody without valid enough grounds to convince the judicial magistrate that there is merit in the case.

Thirdly, we suggested administrative measures must to be taken [to ensure transparency and judicious application of the law].

Conduct a survey of the number of blasphemy cases registered during Benazir Bhutto’s government and those during all other governments. You will find a radical decline during her tenure. Why? Because it is the temperament of the rulers that matters. Rulers should convey the message down to the grassroots SHO that he will not be allowed to indulge in such heinous, inhumane, barbaric practices such as a misuse of the law, and that he will be held accountable [in the event this happens]. This message was conveyed by Benazir Bhutto on two or three occasions.

Q: A few months ago, Facebook was blocked on account of ‘blasphemous’ content. Subsequently, thousands of websites were blocked. Now, it wasn’t the rulers who initiated action but in fact the Lahore High Court, which took cognisance of a petition that was filed and thus ordered the ban…

A: This is a tendency in the Punjab. I actually have copies of judgments from the LHC authorising ‘honour’ killing and prohibiting consensual marriages between adults.

All of this is nonsense. The problem is that our judiciary is still infected by the values promoted by General Zia-ul-Haq. The fact is that there are many judges — not all — who think like this and it is this thinking that has to be corrected.

There are 57 Muslim countries in the world. How many of them have the blasphemy law or the chapter on religion? Not more than three or four. Why don’t the other countries feel the need? Have you ever heard the issue of blasphemy being raised in UAE, Malaysia, in Bangladesh? Name me a single Muslim country where this is a burning issue. Why only in Pakistan?

We are the only country in which 97% of the population is of a single faith — i.e. Muslim. So it is a great tragedy and irony that so many Muslims actually need a law to ensure the protection and honour of the Prophet (PBUH). I love and respect the Prophet (PBUH) for his conduct and character, for his message and his behaviour with non-Muslims and Muslims, his generosity and forgiveness and for his enlightened conduct. It’s not because of the Blasphemy Law that I respect him.

In fact, the very suggestion to have a law to protect the honour and respect of the Prophet (PBUH) is by itself, in my opinion, a blasphemous thought. It means that in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Prophet (PBUH) is respected not because he was the greatest human being, or because of his message, character or preachings, but because of a law.

There are Quranic verses that state the Prophet’s (PBUH) duty was only to convey a message. Whether the people accepted it or not was their decision. The Quran also says not to abuse others’ gods “lest they abuse yours.” So tolerance is the essence of Islam and coercion its negation.

How illogical and insane are those people who burn the property of Muslims, or hold demonstrations and strikes as a protest against the cartoons published in Denmark or on Facebook. One can condemn the cartoonist, but there is a method of condemnation. Nobody has the right to damage the life or property of any citizen of Pakistan because this way they are only serving the interests of the enemies of Islam, Muslims and Pakistan.

Q: What needs to be done to counter this situation?

A: What is required is the determination of the government to defeat the extremist, militant, religious fanatics who are damaging the name of Islam, Pakistan and the Muslims of this country.

The largest number of Muslims to be killed in the name of Islam are from Pakistan, killed by people who claim to be Muslims. We have had four wars with India, but never lost as many soldiers as the number of high-ranking officers killed by the Taliban. The figure [of casualties of terrorist attacks] exceeds 70,000, but the government is hiding these figures.

It is the duty of the state and of the political parties to promote sanity, to promote logic and the real spirit of Islam and not this obscurantist, radical view. The ruling elite has the major responsibility in this. There are hundreds of enlightened ulema-e-din who will speak the truth and will not succumb to the pressure of obscurantist and anti-religion practices.

Q: What about the intelligentsia?

A: Their duty is equal, to speak out with the same force — or more force — but it is the duty of the ruling elite to set an example. At the moment, the ruling elite lacks courage, morality and knowledge. The only thing they have in abundance is their ill-gotten wealth.

The governor Punjab and the federal government have actually put Aasiya’s life in jeopardy. If the sessions court convicted her, so what? Appeal. There is a High Court, there is the Supreme Court. Instead, Salmaan Taseer generated unwelcome publicity regarding this case, at the cost of a woman who the government does not have the courage to support now.

We faced a lot of criticism during both tenures of Benazir Bhutto. In the first government, the Salman Rushdie case came up. In the second government, Masih’s case came up; he was sentenced to death by a trial court. I was the law minister then, but I didn’t create waves, and Benazir Bhutto took full notice of the matter. Without any hype, the LHC, on its own, acquitted the boy. And when his life was threatened, we protected him; the government protected him. This is what Salmaan Taseer should have done.

I wish Benazir Bhutto had been allowed to complete her terms. This government does not have what it takes to initiate any corrective measures. I call upon the present rulers to prove that if they are the inheritors of Benazir Bhutto’s politics and priorities, they should complete her unfinished business. Otherwise I will regard them as the inheritors of the legacy of Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf.