by Tipu Salman Makhdoom
1- INTRODUCTION
Recognition of freedom to profess faith according to one’s unfettered belief is a recent phenomenon. Innumerable wars and uncountable murders have been committed on the question of who believes in which God or god and in which manner. This had been a very sad state of affairs. In modern times, with the dominance of reason over the dogmatic and irrational thinking of humanity, it was slowly realized by the people at the helm of the affairs that it is a very private matter of a human as to what he wants to, and what he in fact believes are the metaphysical realities of the life and the universe, and as long as he is not hurting others, it is his fundamental right to have whatever belief he wants to have.
This right, which has been famously recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 was resisted by many. Most notable among them the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia, which abstained from voting in United Nations General Assembly in 1948 for the reason that this right includes the right to change one’s belief or religion.
Although the newly established state of Pakistan did vote in favour of this Declaration, by 1980s, it has amended its Constitution and the criminal laws to such an extent that a complete and comprehensive denial of this right for the Ahmadi community of Pakistan has become actually an undeniable fact.
In this piece we will first of all have a brief over view of the role that politics play in religion, then we will comprehend the background of why Ahmadis ended as the sole target of Islamic fundamentalist scholars of Pakistan and in the end we will make a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the right of freedom of religion as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and its handling in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
2- POLITICS OF RELIGION
“At a press conference on 12 October 2001, US President George W. Bush stated: ‘How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for America? I’ll tell you how I respond: I am amazed. I just can’t believe it because I know how good we are.’[1] This mentality is not limited to imperialist super power of the world but is common among every power block; be it a super power, a political party or a religious faction.
Thus in the medieval ages church, which was the primary leader of the moralists of that time, found itself the beacon of solitary light in the oceans of moral darkness that had engulfed the world. But their focus then was, as it still is, on purity of soul than happiness of the living bodies. Thus as much there was moral decay in the world, more aggressive became the purists. But their priority was sex rather than social justice. What bothered them most was not the poor dying of lack of bread but people who were indulging in unauthorized sex. All the decadence that they could see in the world was sexual, not social.[2]
However, this situation changed drastically with the advent of the modern age. Everything that was the base of the classical age was changed. Traditions, morals and religious views, everything changed and changed drastically. And this whole world was changed due to new discoveries of science based on the logical view of the world. This view of the world was the primary reason for the happening of the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Industrial revolution. And so, it was the direct and primary cause of the decay of the institutionalized dogmatic religion.[3]
Church of the moralists, which was losing its ground from the advent of the age of modernism, started gaining ground once again with the advent of the twentieth century; Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a mentality of the usurpers. It is a rigid and a dogmatic view of the world devoid of reality and reason. Fundamentalist mind tries its best to close down the open-ended question that is the base of the religion, “what do I love when I love my God?” with the rigid dogmatic answer thus taking the religion from the realms of spirituality, grace and love to the sphere of force, power, discipline and resultantly of authority.[4]
In the Unites States Supreme Court case of 1993 titled Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Vs. Hialeah, practitioners of the Santeria religion filed the case for getting the ordinances declared unconstitutional which had outlawed their ritual of sacrificing animals in the city. Although the lower courts held that the ordinances prohibiting this ritual in the city were constitutional, Supreme Court held that these ordinances were unconstitutional because those laws were neither neutral nor generally applicable. Moreover, such laws could only be passed if it could have been shown that there was some general interest in passing of this law which could not have been achieved by any other less intrusive means.[5]
3- AHMADIS: LEGALITY OF SPIRITUALITY
Since the Sikhs and Hindus had left Pakistan and went to India after partition in 1947, orthodox Muslims of Pakistan were deprived of an infidel target to profess politico-religious campaigns, thus religious sectarianism turned inwards on itself.
Ahmadis emerged on the Indian religious scene in the leadership of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian (1835—1908). In the beginning it was ignored as an irritation but as Mirza’s followers started increasing, many fundamental factions of the Indian Muslims started campaigning against them as heresy, prominent among them were the Muslim religious leaders of the religious school of Deoband.[6] Main accusation against Ahmadis was that they violated a fundamental pillar of the Islamic faith by claiming their spiritual leader, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, as a prophet of Islam.[7]
At the time of birth of Pakistan on 14th of August, 1947 there were no specific laws targeting Ahmadis. However, campaigns against the Ahmadis gained strength soon after creation of Pakistan, which turned violent shortly. The main argument of the fundamentalist Muslims was that beliefs of the Ahmadis cannot be treated as a different interpretation of Islam but it amounted to an altogether different and distinct religion. However, since they claim themselves as a Muslim, this creates a violation of Muslim beliefs. Consequently, they be declared non-Muslims and a religious minority and granted same rights as those granted to Christians and Hindus, for instance. Moreover, Ahmadis be specifically banned from claiming themselves as Muslims or propagating their beliefs as Islam. A focused and very effective campaign was initiated against the Ahmadis as a joint venture by many religious groups in league with several selfish and ambitious politicians, prominent among them the Oxford educated chief minister of Punjab, Mumtaz Daultana.[8]
Most prominent people in the forefront of the anti-Ahmadi movement were those who just a few years ago had either supported Congress manifesto of united secular Inida or had publicly and openly opposed the creation of Pakistan.[9] Well known among them was Maulana Abul Ala Maududi (1903—1979) the founder Chief of the hardliner religio-politcal party Jamaat-e-Islami, who had fiercely opposed creation of Pakistan. Maulana took up the front position against the Ahmadis in the new born Pakistan. In 1953 there occurred a series of closely connected bloody riots covering almost whole of the province of Punjab. Maulana Maudui was at the fore front of these riots which were meant to pressurize the government of Pakistan in submission to the demand of the fundamentalist religious parties to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims and a religious minority in the state of Pakistan. However, the central government refused to submit before the religious fanatics. Consequently, martial law and curfew was imposed and soldiers opened fire on the rowdy mobs. The riots ended within a couple of days and many miscreants were arrested. Prime convict among the arrested was Maulana Maududi who was sentenced to death, which, however was later commuted to some years in prison.
In order to figure out the reason and possible solutions of the riots, a public inquiry commission was established in the Presidentship of Justice Munir with Justice M.R. Kiyani as its other member. Both of these members were undoubtedly well-educated and progressive persons of very open yet balanced mind-set. The inquiry took almost a year and was based on a huge record consisting of 1600 pages of written statements, 2600 pages of evidence, 339 formally proved documents, numerous letters, some of which exceeded 100 pages, and a host of books, pamphlets, journals, and newspapers.[10] The conclusion of their close to 400 page report was rather an eye-opener, which said:
“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of everyone else. [page 218]”.[11]
Although before the 1937 elections in the British India Jinnah had flatly refused the religious fundamentalists demand of banishing the Ahmadis from Muslim community, the inquiry commission found that in fact it was the passage of the famous Objectives Resolution by the constituent assembly which had led the Ulema and the people of Pakistan to believe that state of Pakistan was willing to warm heatedly accept all and any demand of the people on the basis of their religious affiliations. Almost all of the Ulemas which were questioned by this commission declared that passing of Objectives Resolution had left no doubt in their minds that creation of Pakistan had the sole purpose of serving Islam which in turn had made it imperative upon them to get the Ahmadis declared non-Muslims.[12]
Despite this short term positive result, in the long run these riots had a far reaching negative effect on the state of Pakistan and the trend that legislation developed afterwards. Mumtaz Daultana was not a religious minded person, as the Chief Minister of Punjab he was just using the Ahmadi riots in order to gain popularity and engineer his way into the office of Prime Minister of Pakistan. In order to counter his this very clever move, Khawaja Nazimuddin outsmarted him and went a step further. He provided a lot of room to the Ulemas and religious people in order to play this effective card. Although he did not agree in declaring the Ahmadis non-Muslims, in order to win them over and downplay his other political rivals who were playing the Islamic card at that point of time, he gave Clerics a greater say in the affairs of the State. Thus a board of five Ulemas was established in order to advise the head of the state as to which law was in accordance with Islam and which was against the injunctions of Islamic law.[13]
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Iran was the most dominant Muslim player in the region. In Pakistan, Iran had quite an influence because of allegiance of Pakistani Shia community, Iran’s role in RCD (Regional Cooperation for Development) which was established in 1964 between Iran, Pakistan and Turkey and cultural commonality of southern Balochis with their Iranian counterparts. Saudis, who then lately had acquired a heap of petro-dollars, now wanted to counter the Iran’s influence in Pakistan and establish its own. It was in this background that religious fundamentalists struck another blow to the state when Pakistan People’s Party’s government had became unpopular for crushing the uprising in Baluchistan.
In order to craft an excuse for entering into the religio-political scene of Pakistan, Saudi ruler Shah Faisal started to project Wahabi ideology of Islam against the Shia ideology. But in order to fund religious elements without overtly offending Iran, it also played the Ahmadi card. Saudia started demands for declaring Ahmadis non-Muslims and began denying them Haj visas. This turn of events provided the fundamentalists a new life and the anti-Ahmadi campaign gained a vigour.[14] Saudis were so happy with their proxy-war with Iran over the religious scene in Pakistan, that during the Islamic Summit of 1974, Kind Faisal conveyed to the then Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that Saudi aid to Pakistan could be contingent upon Pakistan declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims.
Resultant to this petro-dollar Saudi support, Jammat-e-Islami of Maulana Maududi along with other religious parties instigated a fresh wave of violent protests against Ahmadis. Clashes of May 1974 between the students of Nishtar Medical College and Ahmadis at the railway station in Rabwah, Ahmadis’ spiritual and organizational center became the excuse for the widespread disturbances. Ahmadis all over Punjab and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, especially Punjab, were killed, their properties burned and their mosques and graves desecrated.[15]
This time, however, with the religious fundamentalism playing in the hands of international players and backed by petro-dollars won over. In 1970 elections Ahmadis had supported Z.A. Bhutto and it was one of the main reasons how Bhutto defeated Allama Iqbal’s son Javed Iqbal from the Lahore constituency with a huge margin of 40,000 votes. In the Bhutto government, therefore, Ahmadis were rewarded adequately. Aziz Ahmad, the minister of State for defense and foreign affairs in the Bhutto’s cabinet, was a known Ahmadi. It is a matter of record that by 1972, Ahmadis were in very strong position in the state of Pakistan. At that time, Ahmadis were commanding both the air force and the army. In addition to that a dozen Ahmadis were holding important and sensitive positions in army which included the position of corps commander. However, by 1974, all this had changed forever. Religious parties and opposition members of Punjab Assembly were unequivocal that if Bhutto did not take stern action against Ahmadis, he will not remain in power. Mian Tufail, Ameer of the Jamaat-i-Islami and Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, president of the Pakistan Democratic Party spoke the same language.[16] With the support of petro-dollars from Saudia Arabia, the religious fundamentalists had put so much pressure upon Bhutto government that he succumbed and so, national assembly unanimously passed an amendment to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, on September 7, 1974, categorically pronouncing the Ahmadis as non-Muslims. The fact that Bhutto did this under pressure and not out of some religious zeal can be ascertained from the fact that his Ahmadi minister Aziz Ahmad retained his ministership even after passage of this amendment. However, the case of Nobel prize-winning physicist Mohammad Abdus Salam was different. Dr. Abdus Salam was also a known Ahmadi and was serving as a science adviser to the People’s Party’s government. He was overseeing the development of the nuclear weapons program since 1972. On the passage of this anti-Ahmadi amendment, Dr. Salam, unlike Aziz Ahamd, resigned from his position as a protest.[17]
Even when Ahmadis were declared as non-Muslims by Constitutional amendment of 1974, communal agitation could not be curtailed. Pakistan’s government was questioned in this regard from Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance. Pakistan government justified its such action on the ground that it was necessary to protect majority religious sentiments and also to safeguard the Ahmadis.[18] Religious rights of the Ahmadis will also become difficult to justify as protected considering that they believe themselves Muslims agreeing to most of the tenets of Islam yet classified as non-Muslims on their passports, they are barred from entry into Mecca and Medina and thus cannot perform Hajj pilgrimage, a must religious duty on every affording Muslim.[19]
It is still another story that it was General Muhammad Zia ul Haq which made preaching of religion by Ahmadis a punishable crime.[20] According to data collected by unofficial sources and quoted widely, between 1986 and 2006 a total of 695 people were accused of blasphemy in Pakistan. Of these, 362 were Muslims, 239 were Ahmadis, 86 were Christians and 10 were Hindus.[21]
It is also a matter of record that many members of the Ahmadi community have been sued for naming themselves as Mohammed and inscribing Quranic phrases in their private letters and wedding cards. In 1991 Ahmadis were preparing to celebrate their centenary celebrations. A case was filed in the Court to ban them from such celebrations, arguing that allowing Ahmadis such celebrations would amount to giving them freedom to preach their faith, which is a crime punishable with death. Lahore High Court upheld the ban. Ahmadis were never accepted in the society. In 1995 in the provincial capital city of Peshawar, two Ahmadis who were allegedly preaching their faith and were trying to convert a Muslim were stoned by a crowd, killing one of them.[22]
Article 20 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides and protects freedom of every citizen of Pakistan as his/her fundamental right. It provides that every citizen will have the right to profess, practice an propagate his religion, but such right will be subject to three conditions, viz., law, public order and morality. Not only that this Articles is limited by serious and vague limitations, but only citizens are protected, which means that even foreign missionaries do not enjoy this protection and can face restrictions. It is also a matter of prevailing interpretation of this Article of the Constitution that it does not protect even a citizen’s freedom to change his religion. Islamic law forbids Muslims from changing his faith as it is considered apostasy for them.[23] In 1991 federal cabinet decided to remove all the Ahmadis from important official posts. Consequently, government demanded details of all officials and after scrutinizing and pin pointing Ahmadis they were removed. Between 1984 and 1992, 30 Civil Servants were sacked from government employment for being Ahmadis.[24]
On 14th of August, 1947 Pakistan was created as a Muslim state but not as an Islamic State. Founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in his opening speech to the opening session of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan emphasized the importance of the freedom of religion in following words:
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”[25]
Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims by faith and worship as per Muslim rites. However, by law of Pakistan, Ahmadis are prohibited from referring themselves as Muslims or from referring their places of worships as mosques. Moreover, Ahmadis are barred from using the Muslim call to prayer, quoting the Quran, participate in the pilgrimage to Mecca or the rituals associated with the holy month of Ramzan and from distributing any Amhadi literature.[26] Pakistan’s government supports United Nation Human Rights Council Resolutions on “defamation of religions”, which is meant for protection of religions from insult.[27]
4- CONSTITUTION, PENAL CODE AND UDHR
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was voted upon in the United Nations General Assembly on 10th of December 1948 and Pakistan voted in favour of its adoption. Although the present Constitution of the country, the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was adopted after a quarter of a century of adopting Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are a number of contradictions between the Declaration and the Constitution. In addition to that, there are a large number of contradictions between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many Statutes and Ordinances of Pakistan. Analysis of all the provisions of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and those of hundreds of statutes is beyond the scope of this paper. However, we can make an analysis of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 with regard to freedom of religion.
The Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provide, expand or protect a person’s right to religious freedom are several. For instance, a leading Article[28] of the Declaration says that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. As is clear from this very comprehensive provision of the Declaration, here it is a whole bundle of rights which have been provided to every human being of the world by virtue of his being human only. These rights include right of every person to have absolute freedom of thought, his absolute freedom of conscience and his complete freedom to have whichever and whatever religion he chooses to take. The provision further clarifies that this freedom of choosing and maintaining any religion, whatsoever, includes a person’s right to change his religion. Not only this, but he also has the absolute right to make, change or keep his belief with or without religion and if about religion, any belief about religion, whether it is shared by other followers of that religion or not. In addition to that this Article provides that this freedom includes manifestation of his religion or belief by teaching it, practicing it, worshipping it and observing it all of which, he has complete right to do either in public or private and also whether alone or along with other of such like followers.
Other freedoms complimentary to the religious freedom are contained in provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights such as an Article[29] which says that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. This article is squarely based on the principle of common law which has been wittingly described by an English judge as ‘your right to swing your walking stick ends where the nose of your neighbor starts.‘ The very first Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Then comes in this regard another important Article[30] of the Declaration, which also, is complimentary to the religious freedoms. It says that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, 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. Then comes another provision[31] which declares that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. After that the relevant Article[32] talks about equality before law and discrimination and says that all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. Next Article of the Declaration supporting the right and freedom to religion is the Article[33] which declares that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.[34]
On the same ground, an Article[35] of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 says that every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion and every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions. However, all these rights are subject to serious and vague, open ended limitations i.e., that all these rights and freedoms are available only and only subject to law, public order and morality. Moreover, Article 4 of the Constitution says that to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan, in particular, that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law; that no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law, and that no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.
These Constitutional guarantees in the form of inalienable and fundamental rights mean that there is complete freedom and protection available to everyone to profess whatever religion he wants and in any manner that he finds right subject to the condition that it does not hurt others. However, when we look at the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 regarding the Ahmadi community, we see that all these rights, freedoms and protections provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violated and denied to them and for doing this the provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 are interpreted in such a way that for the purposes of the Ahmadis, the rights and freedoms does not exist in their true spirit but are available in a botched up way, which amounts to total denial of their religious freedoms and right to belief.
Section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 says that whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religions 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. Another section[36] of the Penal Code says that 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 or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both. Further the Code says[37] that whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to an 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. Next section[38] of the Code provides that 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 sepulture, 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 person 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. Section 298 of the Code provides that whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feeling of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight 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. Another important section[39] of the Penal Code declares in this regard that any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group who call themselves Ahmadis, who by words either spoken or written, or by visible representation refers to or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as ‘Ameerul-Mumineed’, ‘Khalifa-tul-Muminee’, ‘Khailifa-tul-Muslimeen’, ‘Sahaabi’ or ‘Razi Allah Anho’; or refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as ‘Ummul-Mumineed’; or refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon hin) as Ahle-bail; or refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship as ‘Masjid’ shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Subsection 2 of this section 298-B further declares that where any of the Ahmadis, who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, 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. In a criminal case, Lahore High Court held that creation of a Sharaee mosque is not to be proved for constituting an offence under S.298-B(1)(d), P.P.C. It is enough if by the words spoken or written or mere visible representation it" is conveyed to others that the Quadianis' place of worship is Masjid. Moevoer, if a person belonging to Quadiani or Lahori Group constructs a building, though squarish in shape or like a Christian Church, or a Hindu temple and names or calls same as "Masjid", he would be guilty under S.298-B(1)(d), P.P.C. It was also held that even naming a place showing visible representation of Masjid as Baitul ahmadi a, would also, prima facie, fall within the mischief of S.298-B(1)(d), P.P.C.[40] The last section of this chapter No XV of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, titled “Of Offences Relating to Religion”, section 298-C, provides that if any Ahmadi 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 terms which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. In a leading case, a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that for an Ahmadi to wear a badge having "Kalma Tayyaba" inscribed on it does not per se amount to outraging the feelings of Muslims nor does it amount to his posing as a Muslim. It was admitted and is common knowledge that those who are Muslim do not in order to prove their religion of Islam wear badges of the "Kalma Tayyaba". This is done by those who are Constitutionally classified as non‑Muslims. Therefore, there should be no element of posing or representation by non‑Muslims by wearing the "Kalma Tayyaba" as Muslims in the existing situation. As regards the allegation that on being questioned and interrogated Ahmadis gave the reply that they were Muslims while in fact they were Quadiani or Ahmadis, that too will not be an offence under the law. Posing involves voluntary representation. In giving reply to a question one does not respond voluntarily but under threat or duress. One may hide his religion in public to protect himself physically preferring the lesser evil of criminal prosecution or one may avoid and give an evasive reply. This conduct will not be reprehensible, particularly so when the person asking the question has no authority in law to ask these questions or to exact a correct reply, nor the statement is being made on oath. The exhibition or use of "Kalma Tayyaba" correctly reproduced, properly and respectfully exhibited cannot be made a ground per se for action against those who use "Kalma Tayyaba" in such a manner. If for ascertaining its peculiar meaning and effect one has to reach the inner recesses of the mind of the man wearing or using it and to his belief for making it an offence then the exercise with regard to belief and the meaning of it for that person and the purpose of using and exhibiting the "Kalma Tayyaba" would be beyond the scope of the law and in any case it will infringe directly the religious freedom guaranteed and enjoyed by the citizens under the Constitution, where mere belief unattended by objectionable conduct cannot be objected to.[41]
It is clear from above that the basic freedom ensured by Universal Declaration of Human Rights to every human being of adopting whatever religious faith is not applicable in Pakistan in the Spirit of the Declaration.[42] Although these freedoms are essentially provided in the Constitutional document of Pakistan,[43] these are subjected to undefined and vague limitations of law, public order and morality. While Article 260 sub-article (3) provides that a Muslim is who believes that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet and no prophet or reformer, etc came after him and defines non-Muslim as a person who is not a Muslim and includes among others a person of Ahmadi community. Several sections of the Penal law[44] criminalizes all the acts of specifically Ahmadis if their religious rites will resemble those of Muslims, no matter whether they do it mala fidely or in good faith truly believing it to be their religious duty.
5- CONCLUSION
We have seen that religion is a very handy tool to gain political power, especially in less developed societies where general mode of thinking is emotional and rational thinking is considered evil. In this context, we studied as to how after the partition of India, when most of the Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan and settled in the newly freed india, religious leaders of Pakistan lost a target developing hatred about whom they would gain popularity. So in order to create a new target for themselves, they exaggerated the question of Ahmadis. This resulted in the riots of 1953 and later of 1974. Although the state of Pakistan resisted the pressure of these religious orthodox groups, but with the involvement of Petro-dollars from Saudi Arabia, which wanted to hire religious mercenaries for his religious sect and start a proxy war against Iran and Shia Islam on the soil of Pakistan, these indigenous fundamentalist groups got strength and in a moment of weakness, state of Pakistan succumb to their pressure. Thus, the trend became the norm and in addition to amendments in the Constitution of the country, many amendments were made in the penal code which had the accumulated effect of wiping out the freedom of religion in case of Ahmadis, which is a clear cut violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations in the year 1948 with vote of most of the nations of the world, including Pakistan.
[1] Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity, Verso, 2003, ix.
[2] John D. Caputo, On Religion, Routledge, 2001, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2001, 103.
[3] Louis Greenspan and Stefan Andersson (ed), Russell on Religion: Selctions from the writings of Betrand Russell, Routledge, 1999, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002, 153.
[4] John D. Caputo, On Religion, Routledge, 2001, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2001, 108.
[5] Jonathan A. Wright, Shapers of the Great Debate on the Freedom of Religion: A Biographical Dictionary, Greenwood Press, 2005, 251.
[6] Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity, Verso, 2003, 177.
[7] Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, 58.
[8] Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity, Verso, 2003, 177.
[9] Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, 59.
[10] Hamid Khan, Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2009, 72.
[11] Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity, Verso, 2003, 170-179.
[12] Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, 59.
[13] Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, 88.
[14] Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, 203.
[15] Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, 205.
[16] Hamid Khan, Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2009, 291.
[17] Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, 205-206.
[18] Kevin Boyle & Juliet Sheen (Ed), Freedom of Religion and Belief; A World Report, Routledge, 1997, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003, 227.
[19] Kevin Boyle & Juliet Sheen (Ed), Freedom of Religion and Belief; A World Report, Routledge, 1997, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003, 230.
[20] Ayesha Jalal, The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, 242.
[21] Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights, Freedom House, 2010, 69. Available on https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Policing_Belief_Full.pdf, accessed on 20.03.2015.
[22] Kevin Boyle & Juliet Sheen (Ed), Freedom of Religion and Belief; A World Report, Routledge, 1997, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003, 230.
[23] Kevin Boyle & Juliet Sheen (Ed), Freedom of Religion and Belief; A World Report, Routledge, 1997, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003, 228.
[24] Kevin Boyle & Juliet Sheen (Ed), Freedom of Religion and Belief; A World Report, Routledge, 1997, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003, 230.
[25] Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights, Freedom House, 2010, 80. Available on https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Policing_Belief_Full.pdf, accessed on 20.03.2015.
[26] Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights, Freedom House, 2010, 81. Available on https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Policing_Belief_Full.pdf, accessed on 20.03.2015
[27] Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights, Freedom House, 2010, 72. Available on https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Policing_Belief_Full.pdf, accessed on 20.03.2015.
[28] Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[29] Article 29, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[30] Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[31] Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[32] Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[33] Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[34] Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[35] Article 20 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
[36] Section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
[37] Section 296, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
[38] Section 297, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
[39] Section 298-B, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
[40] Atta Ullah Vs. State, PLD 2000 Lah 364.
[41] Zaheer ud Din Vs. State, 1993 SCMR 1718.
[42] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[43] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
[44] Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
No comments:
Post a Comment