Speaking in the National Assembly on Monday 11th August, religious affairs minister Maulana Abdus Sattar Niazi called Ms Benazir Bhutto an infidel who should be executed for criticising a man-made law — Gustakh e Rasool. The following day, a swarm of ‘ulema’ duly screamed their ‘fatwas’ against Ms Bhutto.
If Ms Bhutto had been some poor, forsaken woman from nowhere, she would have been doomed to a horrible fate. But she is a former prime minister and leader of the largest political party in the country. So there was an uproar in parliament and Maulana Niazi was forced to eat his words.
In 1984 Gen Zia ul Haq amended the Pakistan Penal Code Section 295-C to hold that: “Use of derogotary remarks etc in respect of the Holy Prophet — Whosoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to fine”.
In 1990 the Federal Shariat Court (Mohammad Ismail Qureshi V Pakistan) decreed that the punishment for the offence of Gustakh e Rasool should be death. It deleted the clause “or punishment for life” and instructed the government to enforce the death penalty by April 1991.
Ms Bhutto is only one among many who believe that the law is vague and could be used to victimise innocent people. By all means, punish the proven infidel who dares to wilfully dishonour the name of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). But what, for God’s sake, is an ‘innuendo’ or ‘insinuation’ whose ‘representation’ ‘indirectly’ ‘defiles’ the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? Which Muslim in his right senses would dare to insult the Prophet (pbuh)? And if he isn’t in his right senses, he needs to be sent to a psychiatrist ward rather than to the gallows.
A number of people have already been hauled up for alleged Gustakh e Rasool. Most of them belong to the non-Muslim minorities, in particular the Christians, and one has already been mysteriously killed in prison while awaiting trial. Pakistan’s most respected social worker and rural sociologist, Mr Akhtar Hameed Khan, is also charged with the same offence. He wrote a nursery rhyme which, the mullahs allege, has an objectionable ‘indirect’ ‘innuendo’. Ms Bhutto’s misgivings are therefore entirely proper. The law is vague in relation to such a severe penalty as death. It should be reviewed.
Citizens have a right to criticise existing laws and agitate for amendments in them without fearing a fatwa consigning them to hell. Appeals can be lodged before the Supreme Court even against decisions of the high and mighty FSC. Such rights apart, parliamentarians have a special duty to critically appraise legislation by the government. Thus Ms Bhutto was perfectly within her rights and duties. Maulana Niazi was not. His holier-than-thou approach is a figment of his false consciousness or misplaced concreteness or a bit of both.
Or is it? It has been speculated that Maulana Niazi’s motives for attacking Ms Bhutto were mundane enough. Was he put up to it by the prime minister’s dirty-tricks department to divert public attention from the humiliating cancellation of the IJI’s Minar i Pakistan rally on August 14 because of fears that the crowds wouldn’t come? The so-called ‘anti-Islam’ card is one that PM Nawaz Sharif loves to play against the PPP whenever he is in trouble. That it has backfired this time is due mainly to the PPP’s robust counter-attack against these hypocritical ‘thekedaars’ of Islam.
There are lessons to be learnt from this episode. For one, give such hypocrites an inch and they will take a yard. That is how, over the years, they have built up their nuisance value. So we should speak up with courage rather than be cowed into submission when they wrongly presume to interpret the teachings of Islam on our behalf. They don’t have a monopoly on our faith. So we shouldn’t be defensive about taking them on when their motives are questionable. Two, the hypocrites have no vote bank. Elected representatives should have greater faith in the wisdom of the people who elect them rather than cringe before those who are rejected at the polls.
This episode has also served to focus upon the Quaid i Azam’s vision for Pakistan. Did the Quaid envisage a theocracy or not? Did he want the state to be run by mullahs? Would he have allowed the supremacy of an elected parliament to be undermined by a Court whose judges are appointed by a capricious President who is not directly elected by the people nor answerable to them? For too long, we have begged these central issues. Now we should stand up and be counted among those who will not allow these hypocrites to knock the foundations of our state.
Whatever else we may think of her, Benazir Bhutto’s recent bout of courage is exemplary. In the face of truth, such hypocrites are paper-tigers. They opposed the creation of Pakistan in 1947. Now they want to exploit democratic freedoms to butcher democracy in this country. It would be a monumental tragedy if we were to hand it over to them on a silver platter.