Comparative study of the incompatibility between blasphemy and freedom of religions in Pakistan and Indonesia

Comparative politics paper

Comparative study of the incompatibility between blasphemy and freedom of religions in Pakistan and Indonesia

          "The one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be punished with death: the whole assembly shall stone him with stones. Whether he is a foreigner or a native, he will die, for blaspheming the name of God" - Bible, Leviticus 24:16

In Indonesia and Pakistan, anti-blasphemy laws rule the country and seem contradictory to the principle of freedom of religion that should prevail. Both principles exist in constitutions but  in practice it seems impossible to make them coexist.

Islam of the Sunni branch is the majority religion in Indonesia and Pakistan.

The anti-blasphemy law in Indonesia was introduced in 1965 by a presidential decree. This presidential decree led to the amendment of the Indonesian Penal Code by adding Article 156a on blasphemy. The Anti-Blame Law in Pakistan was enacted in 1986 and led to an amendment to the Penal Code by introducing section 295c. These laws describe in a very general way what can be considered blasphemy, and describe the "sanctions" that will follow the sentence (prisons, death penalty etc...).

It is interesting to examine the reasons for this incompatibility between freedom of religion and anti-blasphemy laws, particularly with regard to future prospects. The application of anti-bleaspheme laws violates human rights, and this strict application of laws takes place in an international context of "return to the sacred" and "re-islamization". It is important to question this compatibility, which will provide answers to more general questions. These more general questions can be: can an Islamic state respect human rights? And even more generally, is state religion compatible with democracy (a regime characterized in particular by the protection of human rights)?

Indonesia and Pakistan are interesting examples. Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim community in the world (in numbers - especially from the Sunni branch) and Pakistan is a country with a Muslim majority - where Sunnism is also in the majority. Both countries are located on the Asian continent. In addition, in their histories, Pakistan and Indonesia with religious minorities - including Christianity and Shiism - have experienced interreligious conflicts. These two countries have experienced a revival of religion with an extremely strict response to acts of blasphemy. Finally, it is interesting to compare them because despite the differences between Indonesia and Pakistan (actors, relationship to other religions etc...), the reasons for incompatibility are identical.

The research questions explored in this paper is why blasphemy laws are incompatible with freedom of religion in Pakistan and Indonesia?

In order to answer this question in the first part, the outcome of the formulation of what blasphemy is will be discussed. First, by addressing the links between actors, their incentives and blasphemy, and then the link between religion and identity. The second part will deal with the "consequences" of these anti-blasphemy laws: in particular in terms of justice (by addressing the link between judicial decisions and the will of the people) and then the questioning of the theory, supposed to be universal, of secularism.

I- framing blasphem : against freedom of religion

A- A problem that depends on the actors

Blasphemy does not have a single definition.

This is a practice prohibited in Indonesia and Pakistan by laws that were implemented decades ago. Blasphemy can be defined in two ways: religiously or legally.

In Pakistan and Indonesia, the majority religion is Islam. Islamic scientists do not agree on a precise definition of blasphemy. Indeed, in religion the principle of blasphemy is not very explicit. So, from a religious point of view (here within the framework of the majority religion of both countries) there is no clear and unique definition of what blasphemy is.

From a legal point of view, the Pakistani and Indonesian governments have not defined precisely what this means. Therefore, blasphemy is what people want it to be as it has no characteristics listed in the legal texts, it is a broad notion subject to interpretation.

The interpretation will depend on the government of the day. Indeed, the application of laws will depend on the orders and recommendations that politicians make. In addition, the political campaigns of some politicians are based solely on the defence of the Islamic religion. Therefore, what will be considered blasphemy depends on the political agenda of the people governing the country.

In Pakistan, since the implementation in 1986 of the law prohibiting blasphemy, 10 governments have followed one another: 6 belonging to the Pakistan Muslim League, a religious party and very conservative with regard to religion. Therefore, the majority of politicians belonging to a Muslim conservative party are those who will dictate, define and interpret what blasphemy is in a country where 87% of the population is Muslim.

In Indonesia, it was in 1965 that the Indonesian President signed the decree on the prevention of blasphemy, since then 7 governments have succeeded each other. Unlike Pakistan, in Indonesia, the majority of presidents did not belong to conservative Muslim parties at all, but rather to democratic parties. However, all candidates during their campaigns have put in place strategies to reach out to conservative Muslims in a country where 88% of the population is Muslim.

Nevertheless, in Indonesia and Pakistan blasphemy is not defined or punished in the same way. Indeed, in Pakitsan the anti-blasphemy law is built in opposition to other religious minorities. Pakistan being an Islamic republic, its state religion and majority religion is Islam. No religion (Christianity, Buddhism, etc.) has the same status in legal texts as Islam. Pakistan's anti-blame law only prohibits blasphemy against Islam. The practice of another religion is often perceived in Pakistan as an attack on Islam, and must be punished. Indeed, Christianity and Islam have common bases that make some prophets in both religions but with different histories. It is considered blasphemous to question the story of a prophet, but if it corresponds to the Christian religion. In addition, the majority of Muslims in Pakistan are Sunni, hence Shia are persecuted for acts of blasphemy, even though this act corresponds just to the Shia religion.

...