Blasphemy Laws in Muslim-Majority Countries
Blasphemy Laws in Muslim-Majority Countries
Blasphemy Laws in Muslim-Majority Countries
5/6/2011
50
5
BLASPHEMY LAWS IN 55
MUSLIM-MAJORITY
10
COUNTRIES 60
By Asma T. Uddin
15
65
I
n a prison in Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Aasia President Asif Ali Zardari would succumb to
Bibi, the first woman in Pakistan to be international pressure and pardon Aasia, the
sentenced to death for blasphemy, Lahore High Court in Punjab province issued an
20
contemplates her fate. Who will provide order barring Zardari from exercising his
70
for her five children if she is killed? Will she constitutional authority to pardon.4
become a martyr for the growing movement Aasia’s encounter with strict blasphemy laws,
opposing blasphemy laws? Will the while unique in that she is the first woman
international community succeed in sentenced to death for this offense, is not
25
campaigning for her to be pardoned? If she is uncommon in Pakistan, where accusations of
75
pardoned, who will protect her from the angry blasphemy have been on the rise.5 While those
masses instigated by extremists? who adhere to minority religions are more
In June 2009, Aasia offered water to fellow susceptible to being accused, people of all faiths
farm workers. They refused to accept on the have been indicted, including members of the
30
grounds that she was a Christian and, therefore, majority faith, Islam. In an interview with
80
they believed the water must be contaminated. National Public Radio, Aasia’s husband, Ashiq
An exchange of words occurred, with each side Masih, stated, “[I]t’s not just Christians who are
defending their religion. Allegedly, Aasia insulted targeted. Muslims have also been charged with
the Prophet Muhammad by saying, “The Quran blasphemy. Christians are easy to implicate,
35
is fake and your prophet remained in bed for one though. If they talk about religion, they are
85
month before his death because he had worms in accused of blasphemy. If a Christian touches the
his ears and mouth. He married Khadija just for Holy Quran, he is accused of a crime. And here,
money and, after looting her, kicked her out of petty issues get twisted into accusations of
the house.”1 A few days later, a mob set upon blasphemy.”6
40
Aasia, and the police rescued her from certain Unfortunately, when it comes to religious
90
death. However, the police later charged her with violence in Pakistan, the Aasia Bibi case is only
committing blasphemy and held her in isolation the tip of the iceberg. In January, the governor of
for 17 months while she awaited trial.2 Punjab province, Salman Taseer, was assassinated
by one of his police guards for taking a public
45 On November 8, 2010, the Sheikhupura
stance against Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.7
District Court found Aasia guilty of blasphemy. 95
The court ruled that there were “no mitigating
circumstances,” sentencing her to death by Asma T. Uddin is Editor-in-Chief of Altmuslimah (www.altmuslimah.com) and
hanging.3 On November 29, amidst fears that an attorney at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1885757
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1885757
blasphemy laws in muslim-majority countries
Though not directly linked, his assassination The bulk of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are
100 came on the heels of a 24-hour strike organized contained within Sections 295–298 of the
by a group of Sunni Muslim clerics, who were Pakistani Penal Code, titled “Of Offenses Related 150
protesting proposed changes to the laws.8 And in to Religions.” Every infringement under these
March, Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan’s Minister for sections is punishable by imprisonment, either in
Minority Affairs, was gunned down leaving his place of or in addition to a fine.12 For example,
105 home in Islamabad.9 Bhatti was an outspoken Section 295 relates to the defilement of a place of
critic of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, and it is worship with the “intent to insult the religion of 155
suspected that extremist supporters of the any class” and punishes this crime with a fine
blasphemy laws were responsible for his and/or up to two years of imprisonment. Section
assassination; a pamphlet found at the site of his 295A relates to the “deliberate and malicious acts
110 death warned against reforms to the blasphemy intended to outrage religious feelings of any class
laws.10 by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” The 160
Nor is the problem limited to Pakistan—it is statute states that such infringements include
one that touches many countries. This article spoken and written words, as well as visible
describes and evaluates the current blasphemy representations. The punishment for such insults
115 laws in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Egypt. Case is a fine and/or imprisonment for up to 10
studies from these Muslim-majority countries years.13 165
demonstrate the dangerous consequences of Section 295C14 punishes derogatory remarks
blasphemy laws, in particular their susceptibility about the Prophet Muhammad with the death
to being used by government as a tool to silence penalty or life imprisonment, in addition to a
120 political opposition and other forms of dissent. fine. The offender can commit such defamation
The case studies are complemented with an through spoken or written words—by “visible 170
analysis of the proposed UN Defamation of representation or by any imputation, innuendo,
Religions Resolution. Specifically, this article will or insinuation” which “directly or indirectly”
argue that the UN Resolution is a violation of the defames the Prophet.15
125 freedoms of expression and religion, and that Like Section 295C, the language of many
instead of protecting religious majorities from of the blasphemy sections is vague and overly 175
insult, it will be hijacked, like current blasphemy broad. The statute punishes not only spoken
laws, to abuse religious minorities and silence words, written words, and “visible
dissenters. representations,” but also sounds, gestures, the
130 placement of objects, and indirect defamation,
Pakistan such as innuendos and insinuations. Section 180
The attack on Aasia Bibi was not the first 298C, which forbids members of the
prominent manifestation of Pakistani blasphemy Ahmadiyya from calling themselves Muslims or
laws. In 2010, there were several other headline- propagating their beliefs, is the broadest
135 grabbing incidents. section: it bans the defamation of Muslims in
On May 28, Islamist militants armed with “any manner whatsoever.” The direct or 185
guns, grenades, and suicide bombs attacked two indirect propagation of the Ahmadiyya faith, as
Ahmadiyya mosques in central Pakistan, leaving well as the adoption of any mainstream
94 dead and over 100 wounded. The Ahmadiyya Muslim practices by Ahmadiyya adherents, is
140 community has been subject to discrimination in considered blasphemy of Islam.16
Pakistan for decades, owing in part to the Personal and business rivals, as well as 190
country’s blasphemy laws, which forbid Ahmadis authorities, use the blasphemy laws to target and
from calling themselves Muslim, proselytizing punish religious minorities. But blasphemy cases
their faith, “or in any manner whatsoever outrag in Pakistan have not been restricted to the
145 [ing] the religious feelings of Muslims.” Section Ahmadis, Christians, or other religious minorities
298C of the Penal Code punishes such offenses within Pakistan; they have been brought against 195
with a fine and up to three years’ imprisonment.11 Sunni Muslims as well.
2 | summer 2011
Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1885757
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1885757
asma t. uddin
On a more national scale, the Pakistani High Muslims, who may then cause destruction or
Court in Lahore has employed the blasphemy otherwise act violently,21 the Pakistani
laws to propagate broad censorship on speech. In government’s decision to appease rather than
200 May 2010, the Court in Lahore placed a confront the violent transgressors only
temporary ban on Facebook, Wikipedia, and strengthened the position of would-be violent 250
YouTube in response to “growing sacrilegious actors.
content,”17 most notably the Facebook group
“Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!”. The Indonesia
205 Facebook group was organized as a response to a While Pakistan is better known for news
debacle involving the cartoon series “South Park.” regarding blasphemy laws, other countries have 255
After “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey similarly restrictive and harsh laws. Indonesia’s
Parker depicted the Prophet Muhammad wearing Blasphemy Act makes it unlawful to
a bear suit in one episode, members of “intentionally, in public, communicate, counsel,
210 RevolutionMuslim.com stated, “[What Stone or solicit public support for an interpretation of
and Parker] are doing is stupid and they will a religion … that is similar to the interpretations 260
probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh [the or activities of an Indonesian religion, but
Dutch filmmaker murdered in 2004 for making a deviates from the tenets of that religion.”22 One
movie criticizing Islam] for airing this show. This of the purposes of the Act is to help the
215 is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what government protect Indonesia’s six recognized
will likely happen to them.”18 In response to this religions—Islam, Protestant Christianity, 265
“warning,” Stone and Parker placed the Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and
Muhammad character under a “censored” Confucianism—by punishing those who
graphic in the following week’s “South Park” encourage conversion away from one of these
220 episode. The Facebook group was created in religions or preach “deviant” interpretations of
response to Stone and Parker’s decision. the recognized religions.23 The six official 270
The Lahore High Court ruling to censor religions each have government-funded religious
speech was issued out of reasonable fear that the bodies that decide what is an acceptable belief
depictions of the Prophet could ignite violence in for that religion and what is not.
225 Pakistan, similar to what occurred during the The Act establishes civil and criminal
2005 Danish cartoon controversy, when the penalties for violators who deviate from the 275
Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published government-sanctioned interpretations of each
offensive depictions of the Prophet. The political religion, including up to five years’
disaster that followed this publication, coupled imprisonment. In the past, it has been used to
230 with the republication of the cartoons in several impose criminal penalties on groups like the
European states, inspired riots and acts of Ahmadiyya, a religion that most Muslims believe 280
violence across the world and resulted in the deviates from mainstream Islamic teachings. In
deaths of over 100 people.19 In Pakistan, at least 2008, the Indonesian Minister of Religious
two people were killed when more than 70,000 Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Minister of
235 Pakistanis gathered to protests the cartoons.20 Interior issued the Joint Decree on the
In spite of its reasonable apprehension, the Ahmadiyya, which orders Ahmadiyya adherents 285
Pakistani Court’s ruling exhibited a flaw common “to discontinue the promulgation of
to all governmental action that seeks to curb interpretations and activities that are deviant from
potential public disorder through speech-limiting the principal teachings of Islam.”24 Essentially
240 means such as blasphemy laws. That is, the Ahmadis are forbidden from practicing their
government chose to limit the rights of the non- interpretation of Islam while designating 290
violent speakers instead of enforcing existing laws themselves as Muslim.
against battery, assault, arson, and other violent A similar incident occurred in 2009 when
crimes. Although blasphemy—real or supposed, police arrested the leader of the Sion City of Allah
245 intentional or unintentional—may anger some Christian sect and six of his followers for straying
295 from “correct Christian teachings.”25 Because the religion in order to promote or advocate extremist
Sect is based on only one book of the Bible (the ideologies by word of mouth, in writing or in any 345
Book of Jeremiah), the government banned it as other manner with a view to stirring up sedition,
an unacceptable branch of Christianity and disparaging or belittling any divinely-revealed
forbade its followers from attending church until religion or its adherents, or prejudicing national
300 2011. unity or social harmony.”29 To violate 98(f), one
These cases underscore the problematic must use allegedly disparaging material to 350
nature of the Blasphemy Act. Although private broadcast or disseminate ideas insulting to
citizens and religious groups should be able to religion.30
decide among themselves what does or does not The Article is vaguely worded and has been
305 constitute the essence of a religion, Indonesia’s regularly abused by government officials.31 Over
Blasphemy Act puts the coercive power of the the last two years, at least 30 people have been 355
state into the hands of certain religious groups brought to trial under charges based on Article 98(f)
and government officials, who then decide what a for “exploiting religion for extremist ideas,” though
particular group may believe and what it should none of these defendants used or advocated the use
310 be allowed to propagate.26 By forcing individuals of violence.32 The trials focused on the ideas these
to conform to a perceived and predetermined individuals held rather than any violent action they 360
orthodoxy, the Blasphemy Act permits the state had taken or encouraged.
to trademark religion. For example, Article 98(f) has been used to
In some cases, the state will go beyond the punish Muslims who convert to another
315 wishes of a particular religious group and deem a religion.33 In 2005, a former Muslim religious
sect blasphemous even when the allegedly leader who converted to Christianity was arrested 365
blasphemed group disagrees. For instance, in the and imprisoned for violating 98(f).34 Proselytism
Sion City case, the government charged the sect is also assumed illegal under this provision, as
with blaspheming the Timor Evangelical Church, demonstrated by the 2007 prosecution of two
320 despite the Church’s statements to the contrary. Egyptian human rights activists, Adel Fawzy
Instead of ceding autonomy to the Church and Faltas and Peter Ezzat, who were members of the 370
allowing it to determine for itself whether the sect’s Canada-based Middle East Christian Association
beliefs were blasphemous, the state asserted, “We (MECA). The two men were accused of
hope the church will not interfere in the case.”27 “propagating anti-Islamic material” after
325 Religion that is so tightly regulated and authorities found a book in their possession that
defined by the state is necessarily politicized by detailed the persecution of Egyptian’s Coptic 375
the state’s involvement. Moreover, the state- Christians.35
approved version of religion often tempers the Muslims, however, are most often the
expression of social justice components of faith, victims of Egypt’s blasphemy laws. Article 98(f)
330 especially in the case of authoritarian regimes, has been used in conjunction with Egypt’s
which use religion to protect and legitimate their Emergency Law to prosecute and imprison 380
own power. Religious matters become people, such as Shi’a and other “deviant”
intertwined with questions of national security Muslims, for “unorthodox” Islamic beliefs. This
and public order, rather than remaining freely- includes Sunni Muslims who challenge the
335 made decisions by individuals within a state-sponsored version of Islam through new
community. scriptural interpretations, or Sunni Muslims 385
who criticize established Sunni institutions.
Egypt Perhaps the most well known case in this regard
In Egypt, the majority of people tried for is that of Abdel Karim Suleiman, a 22 year-old
340 alleged offenses against a religion are charged blogger and former student at Al-Azhar
under Article 98(f) of the Egyptian penal code.28 University, who goes by the online moniker 390
Article 98(f) imposes a fine or imprisonment of Karim Amer. On his blog, Amer, a Sunni
six months to five years for acts that “exploit Muslim, criticized Al-Azhar University and the
4 | summer 2011
attacks on Coptic Christians in Alexandria in laws make them susceptible to abuse, including
October 2005.36 In February 2007, Amer was the suppression of many non-violent forms of
395 convicted and sentenced to four years in prison expression—especially non-violent political
by a court in Alexandria: three years for expression. 445
blaspheming Islam and inciting sectarian strife,
and one year for criticizing Hosni Mubarak. An International Blasphemy Law:
Though he was recently released from prison, The UN Defamation of Religions
400 Amer’s case vividly illustrates the key danger of Resolution
Egypt’s blasphemy laws: the conflation of The foregoing case studies demonstrate the 450
blasphemy and political dissent for the purposes breadth of the problem at the national level. But
of suppressing political criticism. the problem is not limited to national debates.
Article 98(f) has also been used to convict and Domestic blasphemy laws have an international
405 imprison Baha’is as supposed “atheists,” charging counterpart: the UN Defamation of Religions
them with belittling divinely-revealed religions.37 Resolution.40 The Resolution has been proposed 455
A 2006 government Advisory Report seems to at the United Nations annually since 1999, first
encourage such cases, asserting that Baha’is are at the Human Rights Commission under the
“apostates,” a threat to public order, and rubric of racism, and, since 2005, at the General
410 recommending that “methods must be defined Assembly. The Organization of the Islamic
that would insure that Baha’is are identified, Conference (OIC)—an association of 57 460
confronted, and singled out so that they could be Muslim-majority countries—supports a binding
watched carefully, isolated, and monitored in international covenant that makes defamation of
order to protect the rest of the population as well religion a legal offense.41 Originally called a
415 as Islam from their danger, influence, and “Defamation of Islam” resolution, the Resolution
teaching.”38 It is unclear why intense security responded to what the OIC considered a 465
measures are necessary for a tiny minority systematic campaign to denigrate Islam, which
religious group that advocates pacifism and the OIC feared would spur violence against
promotes world peace. Muslims to a degree similar to pre-World War II
420 In addition to 98(f), other articles regulate anti-Semitic violence in Europe.42
more specific types of blasphemy. Article 160 Pro-Resolution sentiment was reinvigorated 470
penalizes the destruction, vandalism, or by the fear of an anti-Muslim backlash in the
desecration of religious buildings, sites, symbols, wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
cemeteries, and graves, as well as the hindering of Supporters gave more intensified calls for a
425 religious ceremonies. Article 161 makes it a binding covenant after Theo van Gogh’s murder
criminal offense to print and publish deliberately as a result of his production of the film 475
distorted texts of religious materials for State- “Submission”; after the Danish cartoon
approved religions, or to mock and ridicule controversy; and after Geert Wilders’ film
religious ceremonies in public. Article 176 forbids “Fitna,” which interposed Qur’anic verses with
430 public incitement to hold a religious community images of terrorist attacks.43 The OIC continues
in hatred or contempt; this article was among to argue that such statements abuse the right to 480
several laws under which Amer was charged when freedom of expression and constitute an act of
he blogged about the 2005 attacks on Coptic racial or religious discrimination.
Christians in Alexandria, because he had There are several reasons why states and
435 criticized the Muslim rioters in his writings.39 societies should not support the Resolution. First,
Finally, Article 178 provides up to two years’ the OIC’s description of defamation of religions 485
imprisonment for violations of “public morality.” as a racial offense creates a false parallel between
Among other things, this Article covers “immoral an immutable characteristic such as race and the
songs, shouting, or speeches” as well as more fluid, mutable characteristic of religion.
440 “advertisements or messages” reflecting Whereas race is a biological fact, religion is
debauchery. The breadth and vagueness of these ultimately a philosophy or ideology and is, 490
therefore, open to critique and shaped by dissent expressed and which cannot. This is contrary to 540
and vigorous debate. the purpose of the international human rights
Second, anti-religion speech can be difficult system, because it empowers the state to decide
to define, and restricting it can unduly hinder questions of religious orthodoxy. Armed with
495 controversial truth claims.44 Criminalizing religious defamation laws, hate speech laws, and
“defamation of religions” chills religious speech, blasphemy laws, the state determines which 545
not just among members of varying faiths but also interpretation of a given religion is “correct” and
among adherents of the same faith. Spiritual and worth preserving and, thus, interferes with the
intellectual exploration of one’s faith can help autonomy of individuals and religious
500 keep a faith vibrant and relevant to changing organizations to decide theological matters for
circumstances. “Defamation of religions” themselves. 550
restrictions hinder such exploration and Given the broadness of these regulations,
discourage religious reform. ceding such control to the state not only makes
A third problem with the Resolution is that it the Resolution prone to political manipulation,
505 fails to acknowledge how traditional defamation but also opens it up to far-reaching abuse and
laws already protect people from false statements incursion into religious freedom and related 555
that injure their reputation and livelihood, and rights like free speech, free assembly, free
how truth claims serve as a defense against such association, and others. It is important to bear in
allegations. On the other hand, “defamation of mind that the root source of all the freedoms that
510 religions” is, as described by its proponents, a have been obtained in liberal democracies is the
falsehood against an idea, rather than a fact. This freedom of conscience and religion. Without this 560
poses a fundamental rule-of-law problem, as a foundation, none of the other fundamental
belief cannot be empirically tested.45 Not only liberties can survive. Not surprisingly, it is the
can the truth no longer serve as a defense, but, world’s liberal democracies that oppose the
515 since the injury is directed at an idea rather than Resolution, while the world’s autocratic states
an individual, the Resolution is contrary to the support it. 565
core human right of freedom to worship Finally, as demonstrated by domestic
according to the dictates of one’s conscience. blasphemy laws in countries like Pakistan and
A fourth weakness of the OIC’s approach is Egypt, such laws appease rather than control
520 its failure to recognize that existing human rights violent extremists, giving them license to
instruments, such as the International Covenant continue bullying religious minorities or 570
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), dissenters while the police look the other way. It
acknowledge limits on free speech and religious creates a culture of impunity, where increasingly
expression and already guard against the dangers egregious crimes are committed with little or no
525 to public order that the Resolution seeks to consequences for the perpetrators. Contrary to
prevent. Article 18 of the ICCPR states: the supposed purpose of the laws, incidents of 575
“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs violence are encouraged rather than limited—all
may be subject only to such limitations as are with the support of the state. Instead of
prescribed by law and are necessary to protect penalizing the speaker in order to prevent
530 public safety, order, health, or morals or the violence, the law should compel potentially
fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”46 violent actors to regulate their own behavior, 580
Thus, legitimate state concerns about public especially in the face of insults.
order and incitement to violence have been This principle has been articulated in
adequately addressed in existing international law American jurisprudence as the “hostile audience”
535 and do not need broad religious defamation laws doctrine. The US Supreme Court stated in Boos
to protect those interests. v. Barry that “[a]s a general matter, we have 585
Fifth—and perhaps most fundamentally indicated that in public debate our own citizens
problematic—the Resolution empowers the state must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous,
to decide which religious viewpoints can be speech in order to provide adequate breathing
6 | summer 2011
space to the freedoms protected by the First actors rather than enforce criminal laws against
590 Amendment.”47 The Court’s concern was not the perpetrators of violent actions.
that a hostile audience might render the speaker’s 640
speech ineffective; rather, the Court was Religious Sensitivity
concerned about a hostile audience preventing the There is also a prevalent belief that, while
speaker from speaking at all.48 Weighed against freedom of expression generally is a good thing, it
595 the cost of imposing speech on unwilling listeners, should not be extended to matters of religion, as
the cost of preventing speech is much greater.49 religion is sacred and cannot be questioned, much 645
less ridiculed. While questions of religion should
Efforts to Repeal Blasphemy Laws undoubtedly be handled with sensitivity, the
and Defeat the UN Resolution jump from social regulation to legal sanctions on
600 It is difficult to convince relevant stakeholders speech is completely unwarranted.
that blasphemy laws are a bad idea. While Of course, while legal sanctions on non- 650
members of the minority have experienced violent speech are reprehensible because they give
blasphemy laws as a form of persecution, many in the state undue control over its citizens’
Muslim-majority contexts feel that blasphemy expression, we should recognize the sociological
605 laws are required to safeguard their belief system problems related to how speech is used and
against attack. Because the majority believes that manipulated. We have to move past the question 655
these laws exist to “protect” the beliefs of the of legalities and consider the role of speech in our
majority, repealing them would instigate a major collective social responsibility; we need to
backlash from those with significant influence, formulate social—not legal—solutions to speech
610 including both extremist group leaders and that aims to divide. For example, in the United
government officials. States, we see such a social solution when 660
celebrities lose endorsements after making racist
Fear of Public Disorder remarks. Social regulation is effective and
Extremists’ support for blasphemy laws has legitimate; imposing legal restrictions simply
615 also created a connection between blasphemy takes the burden off individuals to moderate
laws and national security. Threats of terrorism themselves. 665
(for example, if Aasia Bibi is pardoned or if any
blasphemy laws are repealed) have created a fear Conclusion
of reprisals and popularized the idea that the laws, Blasphemy laws do not protect the majority
620 though perhaps not an optimal solution, exist for from insult or offense so much as they aid
the greater good. autocratic governments in silencing political 670
Extremists often take matters into their own dissent and fundamentalist groups in intimidating
hands and kill an accused blasphemer regardless co-religionists. Despite a desire to live in a
of official rulings or investigations,50 bolstering theological comfort zone, a free market of ideas is
625 popular fears and suppressing support for legal indispensable to social, intellectual, and spiritual
reform. The Taseer assassination further growth. Governments, politicians, and civil 675
demonstrates how violence is directed towards society leaders in Muslim-majority countries
those who advocate against the blasphemy laws.51 should recognize that the wrongful application of
Again, this fear stems from the fundamental flaw blasphemy laws and international support for the
630 that perpetuates the existence of blasphemy laws Defamation of Religions Resolution work counter
—that is, the idea that the solution to public to the rule of law and, in the long run, encourage 680
disorder is to limit the speech of non-violent violent action from extremist groups. v
1. Reza Sayah and Nasir Habib, “Christian Woman Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy in Pakistan,” CNN Belief Blog, November 11, 2010, http://religion.
blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/11/christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-in-pakistan (accessed January 1, 2011).
635
2. Ibid.
3. Human Rights Watch, “Pakistan: Allow Pardon for Blasphemy Victim,” news release, December 2, 2010, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/12/02/ 685
pakistan-allow-pardon-blasphemy-victim (accessed January 1, 2011).
4. Junaid Qaiser, “LHC Overstepped in Barring Zardari From Pardoning Blasphemy-accused Christian: HRW,” Let Us Build Pakistan blog post, December 3,
2010, http://criticalppp.com/archives/31656 (accessed January 1, 2011).
5. Julie McCarthy, “Christian’s Death Verdict Spurs Holy Row in Pakistan,” National Public Radio, December 14, 2010, http://www.npr.org/2010/12/14/
132031645/christian-s-death-verdict-spurs-holy-row-in-pakistan (accessed January 1, 2011). In 2009, 110 people were accused of blasphemy.
690 6. Ibid.
7. Karin Brulliard, “Salman Taseer Assassination Points to Pakistani Extremists’ Mounting Power,” The Washington Post, January 5, 2011, http://www. 740
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/04/AR2011010400955.html?sid=ST2011010401338 (accessed January 5, 2011).
8. “Pakistan on Strike Against Bill to Amend Blasphemy Law,” BBC News, December 31, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12097687
(accessed January 1, 2011).
9. Jane Perlez, “Extremists Are Suspected in Killing of Pakistani Minister,” The New York Times, March 2, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/
695 world/asia/03pakistan.html (accessed March 4, 2011).
10. Ibid. 745
11. Asma T. Uddin, “Internet Censorship and Machiavellian Restrictions on Religion,” The Huffington Post, July 10, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
asma-uddin/internet-censorship-and-m_b_641999.html (accessed January 1, 2011).
12. UNHCR Refworld, Pakistan Penal Code, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ (accessed January 1, 2011).
13. Ibid.
700 14. The British were the first to introduce blasphemy laws in Pakistan in 1862; the laws were intended “to protect religious communities in the aftermath of
Hindu–Muslim clashes.” Benedict Rogers, “Comment: Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan,” Religion Compass blog post, January 5, 2011, http://religion- 750
compass.com/2011/01/05/blasphemy-laws-in-pakistan-2/ (accessed February 21, 2011). In 1982, Pakistan’s dictator General Zia ul-Haq amended the
blasphemy laws as “part of his broader efforts to Islamize Pakistan.” Saroop Ijaz, “The Real Blasphemy,” Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2011, http://
articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/opinion/la-oe-ijaz-blasphemy-20110105 (accessed February 21, 2011).
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
705
17. Asma T. Uddin, “Pakistan’s Facebook Ban Protects the Violent,” The Washington Post, May 21, 2010, http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/
panelists/asma_uddin/2010/05/pakistans_facebook_ban_protects_the_wrong_party.html (accessed January 1, 2011). 755
18. Jason Mick, “Facebook Banned from Pakistan for Mohammed Images,” Daily Tech blog post, May 20, 2010, http://www.dailytech.com/Facebook
+Banned+From+Pakistan+for+Mohammed+Images/article18440.htm (accessed January 1, 2011).
19. Uddin, “Pakistan’s Facebook Ban Protects the Violent.”
20. “70,000 gather for violent Pakistan cartoons protest,” The Times, February 15, 2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article731005.
710 ece (accessed January 1, 2011).
21. Ibid. 760
22. The Prevention of Misuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy Act No. 1/PNPS/1965, article 1.
23. Elucidation of the Blasphemy Act, § I(3), article 1.
24. See 2008 Joint Decree on the Ahmadiyya, promulgated by the Indonesian Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Minister of the
Interior.
715
25. Yemris Fointuna, “Seven Declared Suspects of Blasphemy,” The Jakarta Post, June 4, 2009, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/04/seven-
declared-suspects-blasphemy.html (accessed February 21, 2011). 765
26. Asma Uddin, “Indonesian Blasphemy Act Restricts Free Religious Expression,” The Huffington Post, April 27, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
asma-uddin/the-indonesian-constituti_b_554463.html. Significant portions of this editorial have been used in this article.
27. Fointuna, “Seven Declared Suspects of Blasphemy.”
28. Amnesty International, Egypt: Muzzling Civil Society.
720
29. United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, “Yasser Mohamed Salah et al. v. Egypt.”
770
30. Jonathan Spollen, “MECA Director Rejects Claims of Insulting Prophet Mohamed,” Daily News Egypt, August 11, 2007, http://www.dailystaregypt.com/
article.aspx?ArticleID=8731 (accessed February 22, 2011).
31. Amnesty International, Egypt: Muzzling Civil Society.
32. Ibid.
725 33. This implicates other international human rights, such as the right to choose one’s religion and the right to convert. See Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Article 18, and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, Article 18.
775
34. “Egypt: Government Extends Jail Time for Christian Rights Workers,” Compass Direct News, August 22, 2007, http://www.compassdirect.org (accessed
Q1 January 1, 2011).
35. “Police Arrest Two Christian Activists from Canada-based Coptic Group over Anti-Islamic Postings,” Associated Press, August 9, 2007.
36. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Religious Freedom in Egypt.”
730 37. Boyle and Sheen, Freedom of Religion and Belief, 28.
38. US Department of State, 2006 Human Rights Report—Egypt. 780
39. “Egypt: Drop Charges Against Blogger,” Reuters, January 26, 2007, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777257/posts (accessed February 22,
2011). See also Amnesty International, “Condemn the Four Year Sentence of Egyptian Blogger Karim Amer,” background statement, http://www.
amnestyusa.org/all-countries/egypt/background-condemn-the-four-year-sentence-of-egyptian-blogger-karim-amer/page.do?id=1041113 (accessed
January 1, 2011).
735
8 | summer 2011
785 40. The Resolution was reintroduced in November 2010, with the phrase “defamation of religions” replaced with “vilification of religions.” Adelle M. Banks,
“Blasphemy Resolution Passes U.N. Committee,” The Huffington Post, November 25, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/25/blasphemy-
resolution-pass_n_788305.html (accessed February 21, 2011). 835
41. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “Combating Defamation of Religions,” 2.
42. Ibid., 5.
43. Ibid., 2.
790 44. Ibid., 5.
45. Ibid., 6. 840
46. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18.
47. Boos v. Berry, 484 U.S. 312, 322 (1988).
48. Sadurski, Freedom of Speech and Its Limits, 88.
49. Ibid.
795
50. Naeem Shakir, “Guestview: The Infliction of the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan,” FaithWorld blog post, Reuters, December 13, 2010, http://blogs.reuters.
com/faithworld/2010/12/13/guestview-the-infliction-of-the-blasphemy-law-in-pakistan/ (accessed January 1, 2011). 845
51. Brulliard, “Salman Taseer Assassination.”
References
800 Amnesty International. Egypt: Muzzling Civil Society. Report. September 18, 2000. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE12/021/2000/en/dom-
Q2 MDE120212000en.html (accessed January 1, 2011).
850
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Combating Defamation of Religions.” Issues Brief. June 2, 2008; updated October 29, 2009.
Boyle, Kevin and Juliet Sheen, eds. Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report. London: Routledge, 1997.
The Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia. “A Warning and Order to the followers,
members, and/or leading members of the Indonesian Ahmadiyya Jama’at (JAI) and to the General Public.” Joint Decree, 2008. http://www.
805 thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/docs/skb.html (accessed January 1, 2011).
855
Sadurski, Wojciech. Freedom of Speech and Its Limits. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
United Nations. International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, Article 18. 1966. Entry into force, 1976. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
(accessed February 22, 2011).
United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18. 1948. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml (accessed February 22, 2011).
810
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. “Yasser Mohamed Salah et al. v. Egypt.” E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.1 at 68 (2002). Human Rights Library,
University of Minnesota, http://humanrights.law.monash.edu.au/wgad/7-2002.html (accessed January 1, 2011). 860
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. “Religious Freedom in Egypt: Recent Developments.” Briefing remarks by Nina Shea. May 23,
2007. www.hudson.org/files/publications/EgyptSheaTestimony5_23_07.pdf (accessed January 1, 2011).
US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 2006 Human Rights Report – Egypt. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/
815 78851.htm (accessed January 1, 2011).
865
820
870
825
875
830
880