School of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, SMME
National University of Science and Technology, NUST
Section 295-C: Between Sacred Law and
Systemic Failure
A Critical Analysis of Blasphemy Law in Pakistan
Pakistan studies
Name: Khansa Malik
Reg. No: 453832
Table of Contents
1.
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1.
3.
Section 295-C: Text, Intent, and Religious Foundation ...................................................... 7
3.1.
Islamic and Constitutional Grounding ..................................................................... 8
3.1.1.
Islamic Foundation ......................................................................................... 8
3.1.2.
Constitutional Basis ........................................................................................ 8
3.2.
4.
Concept of Blasphemy in Islam ............................................................................... 6
Intended Purpose of the Law ................................................................................... 9
International Blasphemy Laws......................................................................................... 9
4.1.
Blasphemy Laws in Muslim-Majority Countries ........................................................ 9
Indonesia ..................................................................................................................... 10
Brunei .......................................................................................................................... 10
Malaysia ....................................................................................................................... 10
Kazakhstan and Tajikistan ............................................................................................. 10
Turkey........................................................................................................................... 10
Jordan .......................................................................................................................... 10
Egypt ............................................................................................................................ 10
Iran............................................................................................................................... 10
Yemen .......................................................................................................................... 10
Pakistan ....................................................................................................................... 11
Sub-Saharan Africa ....................................................................................................... 11
4.2.
Blasphemy Laws in Non-Muslim Countries ............................................................ 11
Japan............................................................................................................................ 11
Myanmar ...................................................................................................................... 11
New Zealand................................................................................................................. 11
Philippines.................................................................................................................... 11
Singapore ..................................................................................................................... 11
Thailand ....................................................................................................................... 12
Austria.......................................................................................................................... 12
Denmark ...................................................................................................................... 12
Finland ......................................................................................................................... 12
Germany ...................................................................................................................... 12
Greece ......................................................................................................................... 12
Ireland .......................................................................................................................... 12
Italy .............................................................................................................................. 12
Poland .......................................................................................................................... 12
Russia .......................................................................................................................... 13
Spain ............................................................................................................................ 13
Switzerland................................................................................................................... 13
Ukraine ......................................................................................................................... 13
Latin America ............................................................................................................... 13
Canada ........................................................................................................................ 13
5.
The “Freedom of Speech” Debate: A Misplaced Criticism?.............................................. 13
6.
How and Why Section 295-C Is Misused?....................................................................... 15
7.
Case Studies: ............................................................................................................... 15
7.1.
7.1.1.
Background .................................................................................................. 16
7.1.2.
Legal Issues Raised ....................................................................................... 17
7.1.3.
Supreme Court Reasoning and Judgment....................................................... 17
7.1.4.
Asia Bibi’s Defense and Acquittal................................................................... 18
7.1.5.
Aftermath and Impact ................................................................................... 18
7.2.
Salman Taseer / Shahbaz Bhatti ............................................................................ 18
7.3.
The Lynching of Mashal Khan (2017) ...................................................................... 18
7.3.1.
Background .................................................................................................. 19
7.3.2.
The Incident .................................................................................................. 19
7.3.3.
Investigation and Legal Proceedings .............................................................. 19
7.4.
8.
Asia Bibi v. The State (2010–2018).......................................................................... 16
Junaid Hafeez (2013) ............................................................................................. 20
7.4.1.
Background .................................................................................................. 20
7.4.2.
Blasphemy Allegations and Arrest.................................................................. 20
7.4.3.
Legal Proceedings and Challenges ................................................................ 21
7.4.4.
Conviction and Sentencing .............................................................................. 21
7.4.5.
Reactions and Human Rights Concerns ........................................................... 21
7.4.6.
Current Status................................................................................................. 22
Critical Analysis: Is the Law at Fault? ............................................................................. 22
Intent vs. Implementation: The Fundamental Gap .......................................................... 22
8.1.
Systemic and Legal Loopholes: ............................................................................. 23
Accusation = Conviction ............................................................................................... 23
No Definition of ‘Blasphemy’ ......................................................................................... 23
Enforcement Without Safeguards .................................................................................. 23
No Protection for the Innocent ....................................................................................... 23
8.2.
Root of the Problem .............................................................................................. 23
9. Reform Proposals ............................................................................................................. 24
9.1. Define Blasphemy Clearly .......................................................................................... 24
9.2. Investigate Before FIR ................................................................................................. 24
9.3. Punish False Accusers ............................................................................................... 25
9.4. Special Rules for Trials ............................................................................................... 25
9.5. Fast Trials & Protection ............................................................................................... 25
9.6. Equal Protection for All Religions ................................................................................ 25
9.7. Public Awareness....................................................................................................... 26
9.
Conclusion: .................................................................................................................. 26
10.
References ............................................................................................................... 27
1. ABSTRACT
Blasphemy laws have been a subject of intense debate in Pakistan, particularly
Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which prescribes the death penalty
or life imprisonment for derogatory remarks against the Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH). While its stated objective is to protect the religious sentiments of the
Muslim majority, it has frequently become a lightning rod for controversy, both
domestically and internationally. Critics argue that this law infringes upon freedom
of speech, is incompatible with modern human rights standards, and has been
consistently misused — often to settle personal vendettas or marginalize religious
minorities 1.
However, such critiques, though not entirely unfounded, often overlook the law’s
original intention, its religious and constitutional basis, and its context within
Pakistani society. In a country where religion is deeply intertwined with identity and
law, the presence of a blasphemy law is not an anomaly. What distinguishes
Pakistan is not the existence of Section 295-C, but the manner in which it is
interpreted, implemented, and often manipulated to serve personal or political
goals 2.
This paper contends that Section 295-C is not inherently unjust. Rather, it is the
institutional fragility, societal intolerance, and absence of legal safeguards that have
enabled its misuse. Through a comparative analysis of blasphemy laws in other
countries, detailed case studies of high-profile misuse, and a critical examination of
the law’s interaction with freedom of expression, this study argues that the problem
lies not in the law itself, but in its abuse. The solution, therefore, is not repeal, but
reform — to preserve its original intent while safeguarding against its exploitation.
2. INTRODUCTION
The etymology of the term ‘blasphemy’ itself is providing with an approach to
analyze the term. It is derived from the Greek blas-phemeo, whereas blas means
‘wrong’ and phemi means ‘to speak’. So according to this term, it simply means to
speak ill or insult. The term was used in quite a broad sense by secular Greeks,
where it was used to describe great insults, either by actions or words spoken,
against the God. The use was not only limited by only referring to the God, but it also
included an insult to God’s way and an insult to those He had sent. The concept of
blasphemy is related to ‘the sacred’ in a society. Religion and its ingredients were
always considered sacred in most of the societies and still they are ‘the most
sacred’ in many societies. Every religion has provided with its own treatment for the
act of blasphemy committed against it.
2.1. Concept of Blasphemy in Islam
In Islam, the definition of a Muslim is rooted in the belief in the oneness of Allah and
the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH). While Muslims acknowledge
all prophets mentioned in Christianity and Judaism, the finality of prophethood is
specifically linked to Muhammad. Consequently, the concept of blasphemy
primarily revolves around his personality and teachings.
The Holy Quran, regarded as the ultimate source of Islamic teachings, explicitly
commands punishment for those who defame Islam or the Prophet Muhammad.
Muslims are instructed to defend the Prophet's honor, and those who speak ill of
him face severe consequences, including death. The concept of respect for the
Prophet is crucial in Islam; derogatory remarks can lead to the loss of good deeds
and, ultimately, apostasy.
Historically, blasphemy has been a significant issue in Islamic jurisprudence.
Muslim jurists have categorized blasphemy based on the offender’s identity —
whether a Muslim or a non-Muslim — and the nature of the act. For Muslims,
speaking ill of the Prophet results in a consensus for a death penalty, with no
difference in punishment between genders. Even honest repentance does not
exempt one from this fate.
In the case of non-Muslims, the punishment for blasphemy may vary. While the
Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools generally advocate for the death penalty for
blasphemy against the Prophet, the Hanafi school suggests that proof of blasphemy
is required. Notably, if a non-Muslim converts to Islam and repents for prior
blasphemy, they are forgiven. (Muhammad Ali)
Blasphemy extends beyond the Prophet Muhammad to include all prophets, angels,
companions, and even the wives of the Prophet. Derogatory statements regarding
any of these figures are treated seriously and could lead to severe penalties. The
preservation of respect and honor for the Prophet Muhammad and other sacred
figures remains a fundamental aspect of Islamic belief, with significant implications
for both social and legal frameworks within Muslim societies.
The British government had promulgated the blasphemy laws in 1860. Initially, four
blasphemy laws IPC 295[1], 296[2], 297[3], and 298[4] were introduced. In 1927, the
IPC 295 was supplemented by 295A[5] as a result of the famous case of Ilm-ud-din,
a Muslim carpenter who killed Mahashe Rajpal for publishing the book ‘Rangila
Rasul’.
The book was considered derogatory towards Muslims and the Holy Prophet
(PBUH). Ilm-ud-Din was arrested, prosecuted and eventually executed, despite
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the counsel, requesting for commuting death sentence into
life imprisonment. Nearly 600,000 people attended Ilm-ud-Din’s funeral.
It was the first major blasphemy related incident in the undivided sub-continent that
witnessed stark violence resulting from an accusation. Coincidently, it was a period
when the Indian society was going through a phase of political polarization
especially along religious lines. This incident only exacerbated matters further. But
crucially, it resulted in the introduction of 295A, which also became a trigger for the
independence movement for India and Pakistan.
In 1982, President Zia al-Haq introduced Section 295B to the Pakistan Penal Code
punishing defiling the Holy Qur'an with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C
was introduced, mandating the death penalty for using derogatory remarks in
respect of the Holy Prophet. The majority of cases of blasphemy filed in Pakistan fall
under Articles 295 or 298 of the PPC. Penal Code of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is
taken against who commit this act. The penalty ranges from a fine to death. More
than 96% of Pakistan’s population is Muslim. If we compare anti-blasphemy laws of
Muslim majority countries, Pakistan practices strictest laws.
While Section 295-C is often blamed for injustice, this paper argues that the real
issue lies in how it is applied, manipulated, and misused by individuals and
institutions — not in the law itself.
3. Section 295-C: Text, Intent, and Religious
Foundation
Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) states:
“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or
by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the
sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with
death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
This wording establishes a zero-tolerance policy for any statements or actions
perceived as insulting to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).The broad phrasing of
"words, either spoken or written" indicates that the law covers various forms of
expression.
3.1. Islamic and Constitutional Grounding
3.1.1.
Islamic Foundation
The roots of Section 295-C lie deeply embedded in Islamic teachings, where respect
for the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is of utmost importance. In Islamic
jurisprudence, the Prophet represents the pinnacle of moral and ethical conduct,
and defiling his name is viewed as a grave offense. This is supported by several
Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet) , all four school of thoughts and consensus of
scholars (ijma) , which emphasize the need to protect his honor. The law reflects a
societal obligation to safeguard religious sentiments, rooted in a collective belief
system.
3.1.2.
•
Constitutional Basis
Article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan:
This article guarantees the right to freedom of religion, stating:
“Subject to law, public order and morality, every citizen shall have the right to
profess, practice and propagate his religion.”
This means that while freedom of religion is protected, it is subject to restrictions
that preserve public order and religious sentiments.
•
Article 227 of the Constitution:
Article 227 mandates that all laws must be in conformity with Islamic
injunctions:
“All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid
down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.”
This requirement legitimizes Section 295-C within the Pakistani legal framework,
as it is designed to uphold religious values recognized by the state.
•
International Law and Human Rights Considerations:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18) states that everyone
has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. However, it also
recognizes the necessity of restrictions in instances where religious feelings are
concerned. This aligns with Pakistan's legal rationale for Section 295-C, as it
seeks to balance individual rights with communal respect for religious beliefs.
3.2. Intended Purpose of the Law
The primary intent of Section 295-C is to protect the sanctity of the Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) and the feelings of the Muslim community. The law was
enacted with the goal of preventing derogatory remarks that could incite communal
violence or unrest. By establishing severe penalties for blasphemy, the law aims to
deter individuals from making statements that could be construed as disrespectful
or offensive.
However, it is essential to clarify that the intended purpose is not to promote mob
justice or extrajudicial actions. The law should serve as a protective measure for the
community's religious sentiments, yet its application has often led to unintended
consequences, such as:
•
•
Mob Violence: In several instances, accusations of blasphemy have incited
public outrage, leading to mob violence against alleged offenders. This
phenomenon reflects a breakdown of law and order, where individuals take the
law into their own hands rather than relying on the judicial system to adjudicate
claims.
Fear and Intimidation: The potential for severe consequences under Section
295-C creates an atmosphere of fear, where individuals may refrain from
expressing their opinions or engaging in discussions about religion. This fear
stifles genuine dialogue and hinders freedom of expression, contradicting the
law's intended purpose of fostering respectful discourse.
4. International Blasphemy Laws
Almost 54 Muslim countries have blasphemy laws which are present from decades
and in some cases from centuries. Among 54 countries almost five have strict
blasphemy laws in which Pakistan is top of the list, other countries with strict laws
are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran. In these countries punishment of
blasphemer is death sentence. Blasphemy laws exist in various forms across the
globe, with significant differences in their application and consequences. The
severity of these laws and their implications for human rights and freedom of
expression vary widely, particularly in Muslim-majority countries compared to
secular states.
4.1. Blasphemy Laws in Muslim-Majority Countries
Muslim-majority countries emphasize respect for the teachings of Prophet
Muhammad, with blasphemy laws deeply rooted in Islamic legal traditions.
Indonesia
In Indonesia, the Penal Code punishes public expressions that insult religion with
up to five years of imprisonment. Additionally, Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 prohibits
interpretations of religion that deviate from recognized teachings. This legislation
was upheld by the Constitutional Court in 2010.
Brunei
Brunei enacted the Syariah Penal Code in 2013, which includes blasphemy as a
crime. Offenses such as declaring oneself a prophet or disrespecting religious texts
can lead to death or lengthy imprisonment. The law also criminalizes proselytization
and insults against Islam.
Malaysia
Malaysia has laws in Chapter XV of its Penal Code addressing offenses related to
religion, including harming places of worship and inciting religious discord,
punishable by up to five years in prison. The Sedition Act of 1948 has been amended
to include promoting ill will based on religion, with severe penalties.
Kazakhstan and Tajikistan
In Kazakhstan, actions aimed at insulting religious feelings or propagating
exclusivity are punishable by imprisonment. Similarly, Tajikistan imposes fines for
religious insults and unregistered religious activities.
Turkey
Turkey does not have a specific blasphemy law, but its Criminal Code addresses
insults to religious beliefs, with penalties up to one year in prison.
Jordan
Jordan explicitly criminalizes blasphemy, imposing prison sentences for insulting
the Prophet Muhammad or publishing offensive materials.
Egypt
In Egypt, using religion to incite strife can lead to imprisonment and fines.
Iran
Iran enforces strict punishments for blasphemy, with penalties including execution
for insulting the Prophet Muhammad or Shi'ite Imams.
Yemen
Yemen similarly penalizes public ridicule of religious beliefs with imprisonment.
Pakistan
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, introduced during British rule, were amended in the
1980s to impose severe penalties for insults against Islam, particularly Section 295C, which prescribes the death penalty for defaming the Prophet Muhammad.
Sub-Saharan Africa
In various Sub-Saharan African nations like Comoros and Gambia, insults to
religious beliefs are criminalized, with penalties including imprisonment. Somalia
enforces blasphemy laws under its penal code, punishing public insults to Islam
with fines or imprisonment.
4.2. Blasphemy Laws in Non-Muslim Countries
Blasphemy laws exist in various non-Muslim countries, emphasizing the protection
of religious sentiments and prohibiting acts that disrespect religious beliefs. The
severity of these laws varies significantly across jurisdictions.
Japan
In Japan, profaning places of worship and interfering with religious services are
prohibited. Individuals who publicly profane a shrine or temple may face
imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to 100,000 yen. Interference with a
sermon or funeral service can lead to imprisonment for up to one year.
Myanmar
Myanmar’s Penal Code penalizes anyone who insults a religion or religious beliefs
with the intent to outrage feelings. This includes spoken or written words, visible
representations, or gestures aimed at offending religious sentiments, punishable by
imprisonment and/or fines.
New Zealand
In New Zealand, the offense of “blasphemous libel” is punishable by imprisonment
for up to one year. However, expressing opinions on religious subjects in good faith is
not considered an offense. Notably, only one charge has reached the courts since
the law's introduction in 1893.
Philippines
The Philippines prohibits acts offensive to the feelings of the faithful in places of
worship or during religious ceremonies, punishable by imprisonment under Article
133 of the Revised Penal Code.
Singapore
Singapore’s Penal Code includes several provisions against religious offenses:
•
Section 295: Injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult a religion
is punishable by up to five years of imprisonment.
•
Section 298: Uttering words with the intent to wound religious feelings can lead
to imprisonment for up to three years.
•
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act allows the government to restrain
religious groups, with penalties for breaches.
Thailand
The Sangha Act in Thailand prohibits defamation or insult of Buddhism, with
violators facing up to one year’s imprisonment. The Criminal Code also includes
sections against insulting religious objects and disturbing religious ceremonies.
Austria
Austria's Criminal Code states that anyone who publicly disparages or mocks the
worship of a religious group can face imprisonment for up to six months or fines.
Denmark
In Denmark, Article 140 of the Penal Code criminalizes public ridicule of religious
communities, with penalties including fines or imprisonment for up to four months.
Finland
Finland penalizes public blasphemy against God or sacred beliefs, potentially
leading to imprisonment for up to six months.
Germany
Germany’s Criminal Code addresses public defamation of religions that disturb
public peace, with penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment or fines.
Greece
Under the Greek Penal Code, public blasphemy can result in imprisonment for up
to two years for insulting God or any religion.
Ireland
Ireland's Constitution prohibits blasphemy, with the Defamation Act of 2009
defining blasphemy and imposing fines up to €25,000 for offenses.
Italy
Italy previously included blasphemy in its Criminal Code but reformed its laws to
limit penalties to monetary fines for public blasphemy against divinity.
Poland
In Poland, offending religious feelings through public defamation can lead to up to
two years of imprisonment.
Russia
The Russian Criminal Code criminalizes actions disrespecting religious beliefs,
with penalties increasing for violations in places of worship. This law was amended
following the Pussy Riot incident.
Spain
Spain penalizes publicizing offensive remarks about any religion, with fines imposed
on violators.
Switzerland
In Switzerland, publicly insulting or mocking religious convictions can result in a
monetary penalty.
Ukraine
The Ukrainian Criminal Code punishes insulting the religious convictions of others,
with fines and possible imprisonment.
Latin America
Several Latin American and Caribbean countries have blasphemy laws:
•
Antigua and Barbuda: Punishes blasphemous language in public.
•
Brazil: Penalizes mocking individuals for their beliefs or disturbing religious
ceremonies.
•
Guyana: Criminalizes blasphemous libel with a penalty of up to one year
imprisonment.
•
Trinidad and Tobago: Punishes blasphemous acts with imprisonment.
Canada
Canada’s Criminal Code penalizes publishing blasphemous libel with imprisonment
of up to two years. However, expressing opinions on religious subjects in good faith
is not an offense.
5. The “Freedom of Speech” Debate: A Misplaced
Criticism?
One of the most common criticisms levelled against Pakistan’s blasphemy laws—
particularly Section 295-C—is that they allegedly violate the fundamental right to
freedom of speech. Western liberal frameworks often consider religious blasphemy
laws inherently oppressive, incompatible with modern democratic values, and
indicative of authoritarian or theocratic tendencies. However, such critiques, while
valid within their own contexts, often fail to recognize the religious, constitutional,
and sociocultural landscape of Pakistan, where freedom of expression is not
absolute and is intentionally limited by both law and moral values.
Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan does indeed guarantee the right to freedom
of speech. However, it explicitly subjects this right to
“reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam, or the
integrity, security or defence of Pakistan...” 3.
This clause legally and philosophically limits speech that could incite religious
hatred, defame sacred figures, or threaten communal peace. Thus, in the Pakistani
context, freedom of speech is not an unqualified right—and intentionally so, given
the religious foundation of the state as outlined in Article 227 of the Constitution,
which requires all laws to conform to the injunctions of Islam 4.
Furthermore, even in Western democracies that are hailed as bastions of free
speech, restrictions exist—especially in the realm of hate speech, Holocaust denial,
or incitement to violence. For example, Germany criminalizes Holocaust denial, and
France has laws against religious hate speech.
So, it’s not true that freedom of speech is unlimited anywhere in the world. No doubt
freedom of speech is necessary for development and progress of any society in the
world, but this freedom can't be used to insult religious feelings of any group.
Section 295-C was not made to stop people from having discussions or debates
about religion. It was made to stop hate speech, public insults against sacred
beliefs, and provocation that could cause violence or unrest. In Pakistan, where
people deeply love and respect the Prophet (PBUH), even small insults can lead to
serious public reactions.it can be argued that Section 295-C is more of a public
order safeguard than a gag on free speech.
What truly threatens freedom of expression in Pakistan is not the text of the law,
but its exploitation. False accusations, mob violence, media sensationalism, and a
lack of legal protection for the accused are the real issues. The very freedom of
speech that critics wish to protect is actually undermined by the abuse of the law,
not the law itself.
Thus, instead of framing Section 295-C as inherently anti-democratic, it is more
intellectually honest to recognize its function as a culturally and legally embedded
limitation on speech—similar in logic to hate speech laws in other jurisdictions. The
need of the hour is to enforce the law responsibly, not abolish it under the banner of
misunderstood liberalism.
6. How and Why Section 295-C Is Misused?
While Section 295-C was created to protect the honor of the Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH) and maintain religious harmony, the way it has been used in practice tells a
different story. Over the years, there have been many cases where the law was
misused to harm innocent people.
In many cases, false accusations have been made over minor disagreements,
property issues, or even simple misunderstandings. Sometimes, people are
accused just to settle personal scores. Once an accusation is made, the situation
can quickly become dangerous. They take the law in their hands and do not even
wait for the judicial verdict. The judgments of the superior courts have proved that
this law on blasphemy is being ruthlessly abused for settling personal scores and, of
course, for religious persecution. Angry mobs, pressure from religious groups, and
fear of backlash often stop the police or courts from doing a fair investigation 1.
Under Musharraf, who ruled from 1999 to 2008, a new amendment required police
to investigate blasphemy allegations before making an arrest, but this rule is rarely
observed in practice. For example, a study by the International Commission of
Jurists found that many blasphemy cases are registered without any real proof, and
the accused are often denied proper legal defense. In some cases, even judges and
lawyers who try to defend the accused are threatened or attacked 2.
This kind of misuse not only harms innocent people—it also damages the real
purpose of the law. When people use Section 295-C for their own benefit, it
becomes harder to protect the true religious values it was meant to uphold.
It is also important to note that this misuse creates fear in society. Religious
minorities, often feel unsafe, knowing that a simple comment or rumor could lead to
serious consequences—even death. This fear goes against the basic values of
justice, equality, and protection promised by the Constitution of Pakistan 5.
Therefore, the real issue is not that Section 295-C exists, but that there are no
strong checks to stop people from misusing it. If the law is going to serve justice, it
needs proper safeguards, honest investigation procedures, and punishment for
those who make false accusations.
7. Case Studies:
7.1. Asia Bibi v. The State (2010–2018)
7.1.1.
Background
Asia Noreen, popularly known as Asia Bibi, a Christian woman from Ittanwali village,
District Nankana Sahib, Punjab, was accused of blasphemy under Section 295-C of
the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in June 2009. The charge arose following a dispute in
the fields while plucking falsa berries with other Muslim women. The accusation
was that she had insulted the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the Holy Qur'an.
(Ranjah, n.d.)
Sequence of Events
•
•
•
14 June 2009: Alleged blasphemous remarks made during a verbal altercation
over fetching water. Muslim women refused to drink from a utensil touched by a
Christian.
19 June 2009: After a reported village gathering, an FIR was lodged by Qari
Muhammad Salaam.
November 2010: Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by a trial court in
Sheikhupura.
•
•
October 2014: Lahore High Court upheld her conviction.
31 October 2018: Supreme Court of Pakistan overturned the decision and
acquitted her on the basis of insufficient evidence and flawed trial.
7.1.2.
Legal Issues Raised
•
Reliance on Extra-Judicial Confession: The court questioned the validity of the
public confession allegedly made under duress, highlighting it as a "fragile piece
of evidence" and almost "naught" in legal value unless voluntarily made. (Ranjah,
n.d.)
•
Delay in FIR: A 5-day delay occurred between the alleged incident and the FIR.
The prosecution failed to adequately explain the delay, which undermined the
case's credibility. (Ref: Iftikhar Hussain v. The State).
•
Flawed Police Investigation: Initial investigation was conducted in violation of
Section 156-A CrPC by a low-ranking officer. The proper investigative authority
(SP) was involved only at a later stage. (Ranjah, n.d.)
•
Bias and Witness Inconsistencies: Eyewitnesses—Mafia and Asma Bibi—were
revealed to have a personal conflict with Asia Bibi over a matter of caste and
religion, yet this was concealed during trial and surfaced only through other
testimonies. (Ranjah, n.d.)
•
Failure of Courts Below: Both the trial court and the LHC overlooked
inconsistencies and the socio-religious context that could have led to false
accusations. The SC criticized this lack of scrutiny. (Ranjah, n.d.)
7.1.3.
Supreme Court Reasoning and Judgment
•
Credibility of Witnesses: The SC ruled that the witnesses were not trustworthy
due to contradictions, omissions, and biased motives. They failed to mention the
water dispute during initial investigations. (Ranjah, n.d.)
•
Lack of Corroborative Evidence: No independent witnesses testified. The
location of the public gathering, the number of attendees, and exact words used
were all ambiguous or missing in the record. (Ranjah, n.d.)
•
Religious Context and Misuse: The SC, referencing Quranic principles and the
Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) covenant with minorities, emphasized the sanctity
of justice and protection for non-Muslims. The judgment acknowledged that
blasphemy laws were being misused to settle personal grudges. (Ranjah, n.d.)
•
State’s Role Reaffirmed: It clarified that only the State (not individuals or mobs)
is authorized to investigate and prosecute blasphemy under Article 4, 37(d), and
175(2) of the Constitution. (Ranjah, n.d.)
7.1.4.
Asia Bibi’s Defense and Acquittal
Asia Bibi maintained that she never uttered any blasphemous words and was
falsely implicated due to religious prejudice. Her alleged confession was coerced.
The Supreme Court accepted this defense, stating that prosecution had "failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt." (Ranjah, n.d.)
7.1.5.
Aftermath and Impact
•
Asia Bibi remained on death row for nearly 8 years under intense international
scrutiny.
•
She was finally released in November 2018 and granted asylum in Canada due to
threats to her life.
•
The acquittal was met with widespread protests from extremist groups in
Pakistan, but it also sparked debate about the misuse of blasphemy laws,
judicial independence, and minority rights.
7.2. Salman Taseer / Shahbaz Bhatti
In 2010, recently some politicians opposes this law and suggested that this law
should be amended and death penalty should be reduced because it has been
misusing but two of them Punjab Governor Salman Taseer and Pakistan's Federal
Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti were murdered opposing this laws. Salman
taseer was shot dead by his security guard for supporting Asia Bibi who was on
November 2010 was sentenced to death by hanging on a charge of blasphemy the
case that has yet to be upheld by the Lahore High Court has sparked international
reactions. Similarly Pakistan's Federal Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti was
killed because of his efforts to reform blasphemy laws .
7.3. The Lynching of Mashal Khan (2017)
7.3.1.
Background
Mashal Khan, a 23-year-old journalism student at Abdul Wali Khan University in
Mardan, Pakistan, was known for his outspoken views against university
mismanagement and corruption. On April 13, 2017, he was falsely accused of
posting blasphemous content online. An official university notice announced an
investigation into these allegations, which led to his suspension.6
7.3.2.
The Incident
Following the announcement, a mob of students and university staff formed,
accusing Mashal of blasphemy. Despite the presence of at least 20 police officers
on campus, the mob violently attacked Mashal in his hostel room. He was stripped,
beaten with sticks and bricks, shot, and his lifeless body was desecrated. The brutal
assault was recorded and shared on social media, sparking national and
international outrage. 6
7.3.3.
Investigation and Legal Proceedings
A Joint Investigation Team (JIT) concluded that there was no evidence supporting the
blasphemy allegations against Mashal. Instead, it was revealed that the lynching
was premeditated, orchestrated by certain university officials and student leaders
who viewed Mashal's activism as a threat.6
Legal actions taken included:
•
•
•
61 individuals arrested in connection with the lynching.6
One individual sentenced to death, five given life imprisonment, and 25 others
received four-year jail terms.6
Two additional suspects were later awarded life imprisonment in 2019.6
Mashal's father expressed satisfaction with the verdicts but indicated plans to
challenge the acquittals of some suspects.
7.4. Junaid Hafeez (2013)
7.4.1.
Background
Born in Multan, Punjab, Pakistan, Junaid Hafeez pursued medical studies at King
Edward Medical College before shifting his focus to English literature at Bahauddin
Zakariya University (BZU) in Multan. His academic excellence earned him a Fulbright
Scholarship to Jackson State University in the United States, where he specialized in
American literature, photography, and theater. Upon returning to Pakistan, Hafeez
joined BZU as a visiting lecturer in the English Literature Department.
7.4.2.
Blasphemy Allegations and Arrest
In 2013, while teaching at BZU, Hafeez faced accusations from university students
of posting derogatory comments about the Prophet Muhammad on social media
platforms. These allegations led to his arrest on March 13, 2013, under Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which prescribes the death penalty for blasphemy
against the Prophet. The case against him was primarily based on printouts of online
content attributed to him, though the defense argued that this material was
doctored.
7.4.3.
Legal Proceedings and Challenges
The trial commenced in 2014 and encountered numerous obstacles:
•
Defense Counsel Assassination: Hafeez's initial defense lawyer, Rashid
Rehman, was murdered in his office on May 7, 2014, after receiving threats for
representing Hafeez.
•
Judicial Delays: The case saw the transfer of at least seven judges, contributing
to prolonged delays. Defense attorneys faced intimidation, with some
withdrawing due to threats.
•
Solitary Confinement: Since June 2014, Hafeez has been held in solitary
confinement for his safety, following attacks by fellow inmates.
7.4.4.
Conviction and Sentencing
On December 21, 2019, after years of protracted legal proceedings, a Multan district
and sessions court found Hafeez guilty of blasphemy. He was sentenced to death
and fined under Sections 295-A, 295-B, and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. The
court's judgment stated that all sentences would run consecutively and denied
Hafeez the benefit of sentence reduction provisions.
7.4.5.
Reactions and Human Rights Concerns
The verdict elicited strong reactions from human rights organizations:
•
Amnesty International: Described the verdict as "a gross miscarriage of justice"
and called for Hafeez's immediate and unconditional release.
•
Human Rights Watch: Highlighted the case as emblematic of the misuse of
blasphemy laws in Pakistan to suppress dissent and target minorities.
•
Family's Statement: Hafeez's family expressed that the verdict was influenced
more by the sociopolitical environment than the legal merits of the case. They
emphasized the challenges in securing a fair trial, especially after the
assassination of defense counsel Rashid Rehman.
7.4.6.
Current Status
As of April 2025, Junaid Hafeez remains incarcerated. His legal team has filed an
appeal against the death sentence, and the case is pending before the higher courts.
The prolonged nature of his detention and the circumstances of his trial continue to
draw international scrutiny and calls for judicial reform in Pakistan.
8. Critical Analysis: Is the Law at Fault?
The core controversy surrounding Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code isn’t
simply about its existence—it's about how it is interpreted, enforced, and exploited.
On the surface, the law claims to defend religious sanctity. In reality, it often
becomes a tool for personal vengeance, political manipulation, and mob justice.
•
•
Critics denounce the law as vague, disproportionate, and dangerously open
to misuse. They highlight that it has created a culture of fear, silencing
genuine debate and threatening lives based on mere accusations.
Supporters, however, argue the law reflects Islamic values and is essential in
a country where blasphemy is viewed not just as a crime but a moral
betrayal. For them, the law is about upholding religious dignity, not
oppression.
Both perspectives stem from real concerns. But the crucial question remains:
Is the law itself flawed—or is it the way it's implemented that creates injustice?
Intent vs. Implementation: The Fundamental Gap
Section 295-C’s intent—to protect sacred religious figures from insult—is not
inherently unjust. In fact, many countries around the world criminalize forms of hate
speech or religious defamation. The difference lies in how Pakistan applies the
law. Instead of functioning as a fair legal safeguard, it has evolved into a weapon of
suppression, largely because of structural flaws in the justice system.
8.1. Systemic and Legal Loopholes:
Accusation = Conviction
•
•
•
The law allows the testimony of a single individual to initiate an FIR and
imprison the accused.
Police are not required to verify or investigate claims before filing charges.
This opens the door for fabricated cases, often driven by personal feuds,
land disputes, or ideological differences.
No Definition of ‘Blasphemy’
•
•
There is no legal definition of what constitutes blasphemous content. This
ambiguity gives unchecked power to both accusers and judges, allowing
almost any expression to be construed as blasphemy.
In most trials, the alleged blasphemous remarks are never repeated in court
(as doing so might itself be considered blasphemy), making fair defense
nearly impossible.
Enforcement Without Safeguards
•
•
•
There is no independent inquiry mechanism—only the police and the
accuser’s claims shape the early stages of the case.
Hearing under criminal law means the accused faces the stigma and
process of criminal prosecution even if ultimately found innocent.
No time limits for trial lead to prolonged detentions without resolution,
often lasting years.
No Protection for the Innocent
•
•
Even if acquitted, the accused remains under threat. Social stigma,
extremist threats, and absence of state protection destroy lives post-trial.
Judges and lawyers face threats when handling such cases, creating an
environment of fear and bias.
8.2. Root of the Problem
This is not merely a legal issue. The deeper crisis lies in Pakistan’s weak judicial
structure, politicized policing, and lack of accountability. Laws across the board—
whether they relate to corruption, terrorism, or blasphemy—are routinely abused
due to the same underlying issues:
•
No rule of law.
•
•
No independent institutions.
No protection for truth-tellers.
Therefore, the issue is not with Islam, or even the existence of religious protection
laws, but with a system that allows these laws to be misused with impunity.
9. Reform Proposals
Blasphemy laws like Section 295-C are based on the deep respect Muslims have for the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The law itself is not the problem—it’s how it is used and
enforced in Pakistan that creates issues. The goal should be to protect religious values
without allowing the law to be misused for personal or political gain.
9.1. Define Blasphemy Clearly
One major issue is that the law does not explain exactly what counts as blasphemy. This
creates confusion and gives people a chance to twist the law.
The law should clearly say:
•
What is and is not blasphemy.
•
How intent and context matter.
•
The difference between a real insult and an honest mistake or misunderstanding.
Without clear definitions, even normal discussions or questions can be misunderstood
as blasphemy.
9.2. Investigate Before FIR
Before anyone can file a case or FIR:
•
There should be a proper investigation by legal and religious experts.
•
The police should not arrest anyone without solid proof.
This would stop false cases made out of personal revenge or pressure from groups.
9.3. Punish False Accusers
People who lie and make false blasphemy accusations should face serious
punishment. This could include:
•
Jail time.
•
Heavy fines.
•
A criminal record.
This would make people think twice before using this law to hurt others unfairly.
9.4. Special Rules for Trials
There should be clear rules for how blasphemy cases are handled in court. For example:
•
Judges should not be forced to repeat the alleged blasphemous words.
•
The case should follow a strict and fair legal process.
•
Evidence should be required—not just one person’s claim.
Right now, most cases are based only on one witness and weak evidence, which is
dangerous and unfair.
9.5. Fast Trials & Protection
•
Special courts should handle these cases quickly so that people don’t stay in jail
for years without being proven guilty.
•
Judges, lawyers, and even the accused should get proper protection from threats
and mobs.
No one should live in fear while the case is being heard.
9.6. Equal Protection for All Religions
The law should be applied fairly to everyone, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim.
Everyone deserves safety and justice.
However:
•
For Muslims, if someone is proven guilty of insulting the Prophet (PBUH) with
clear intent, the death penalty is valid under Islamic law.
•
For non-Muslims, the punishment can depend on the severity—either death or
long-term imprisonment.
This approach is based on traditional Islamic teachings, which take into account a
person’s faith and intentions.
9.7. Public Awareness
The public must be educated through:
•
TV campaigns, school lessons, and religious discussions.
•
Explaining what really counts as blasphemy.
•
Warning people about mob justice and false cases.
People need to know that justice belongs in courts—not in the streets.
The law must stay—but its use must be fixed. A law meant to protect religion should not
become a tool to destroy lives. If applied with honesty, clarity, and justice, Section 295-C can
serve its real purpose: to guard the honor of Islam—without harming innocent people.
9. Conclusion:
The law against blasphemy in Pakistan, particularly Section 295-C, stands on deeply
rooted Islamic principles that emphasize reverence for the Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH). It is not merely a statutory provision — it carries profound emotional,
spiritual, and social weight in a Muslim-majority society. Yet, when a law intended to
protect sacred values is used to settle personal scores or to fuel mobs, the problem
is no longer just legal — it becomes a national crisis of conscience.
The core issue lies not in the presence of the law, but in how it is weaponized in the
absence of judicial integrity and procedural safeguards. Accusations are treated as
verdicts. The burden of proof is replaced by public anger. And the accused — even if
later acquitted — often live in exile, silence, or fear. This disconnect between sacred
law and its practical application erodes both justice and sanctity.
The current system allows a single accusation, often unsupported by evidence or
context, to trigger irreversible consequences — arrests, trials, and even death
threats. This not only undermines the rights of the accused but also dilutes the
seriousness of true blasphemy, making a sacred offense seem like a political or
social tool. Such misuse hurts the very cause the law aims to defend.
Equally concerning is the absence of legal literacy and the blurring of lines between
genuine disrespect and theological disagreements. In a society where religious
discourse is part of daily life, it is essential to distinguish malicious intent from
sincere difference of opinion. Respecting the Prophet is non-negotiable in Islam —
but defining disrespect must follow clarity, not chaos.
Reform, therefore, is not a compromise — it is a necessity. The law must evolve to
include precise definitions, strict evidentiary standards, and mechanisms to
penalize false allegations. Investigations should be independent, not reactionary.
The safety of those who speak, judge, defend, or are accused must be guaranteed.
And no law, however sacred, should exist without an honest system to uphold it.
Lastly, the emotional and religious intensity surrounding blasphemy must be met
with responsibility, not rage. Islamic teachings stress fairness, due process, and
protection of the innocent — principles that must guide both public sentiment and
state action. A law grounded in divine respect must never become a tool for human
injustice.
Only then can Pakistan uphold both its Islamic identity and its commitment to
justice — not by abandoning sacred laws, but by honoring them the way they were
meant to be upheld: with truth, fairness, and dignity for all.
10.
References
•
(AS GOOD AS DEAD: THE IMPACT OF THE BLASPHEMY LAWS IN PAKISTAN., 2016)
•
(ON TRIAL: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PAKISTAN’S BLASPHEMY LAWS, 2015)
•
(CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, ARTICLE 19, N.D.)
•
(CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, ARTICLE 227, N.D.)
•
(RANJAH, N.D.)
•
(THE LYNCHING OF MASHAL KHAN , 2017)
•
LEGALITY OF BLASPHEMY IN ISLAM: A BRIEF COMPARISON OF LEGISLATIONS AROUND THE
WORLD, MUHAMMAD ALI, DR. LIU YI DENG, MUHAMMAD KHABEER KHALID. (Muhammad
Ali)