Pakistani lecturer sentenced to death for blasphemy: insulted the Prophet and Qur’an on Facebook

December 21, 2019 • 10:30 am

Blasphemy laws should simply not exist, for they penalize people specifically for giving offense to the religious. So they don’t just violate freedom of speech, but they specifically immunize religion against mockery, analysis, and criticism. Here’s a brief segment from my Jesus and Mo foreword to show how prevalent these laws are:

69 of the world’s 195 countries have laws on the books against [blasphemy], though in places the laws are vestigial and unenforced relics of an earlier time. But you can still be fined for criticizing religion in Italy, Brazil, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, and the Philippines, jailed in Germany, Poland, El Salvador, India, Finland, Ireland, India, Turkey, Morocco, and Algeria, and put to death in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.  That doesn’t count places where sharia courts can pronounce death sentences not enshrined in civil law, nor acts of murder committed by offended believers in countries like the Netherlands.

Note Pakistan there, which is now enforcing the capital punishment of blasphemy against a University lecturer who blasphemed against both Mohammed and the Qur’an on Facebook. Today he was sentenced to death.

The report is from Al Jazeera, and I can’t seem to find the report in mainstream U.S. media. Click on the screenshot below to read it.

The victim, Junaid Hafeez, has his own Wikipedia page, which reports that he’s also a graduate student and has studied in the U.S. I can’t find exactly what he said that constituted blasphemy; here’s what Wikipedia reports:

Soon after his arrival [back in Pakistan from the U.S.], Hafeez was targeted by the Islamist groups Islami Jamiat Talaba (the student group affiliate of the Islamist political party Jamaat-e-Islami) and Tehrik-tahafaz-e-Namoos-e-risalat, who opposed Hafeez’s more liberal teachings. They distributed pamphlets calling for Hafeez to be arrested and hanged, and staged a strike. Hafeez was quickly expelled and his housing and teaching contracts were revoked.

Hafeez was arrested on March 13, 2013, in Multan, Punjab province. He was held at Sahiwal Jail on the charge of violating section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, the blasphemy law that provides for a death sentence for anyone who in any way “defiles” the name of Muhammad. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are frequently used to target individuals to settle personal vendettas and to target religious minorities (such as Christians, Ahmedis, and atheists) and scholars. Hafeez’s father, Hafeez-ul Naseer, has attributed his arrest to the Islamists’ opposition to his son’s liberal views, and their desire to get one of their own members an open lecturer position. Hafeez has been held in solitary confinement since June 2014, and since 2018 his conditions have been reported to have become more extreme, and Hafeez’s physical and mental health have declined.

He has been in solitary confinement for five and a half years! The report:

An excerpt:

Islamabad, Pakistan – A court in Pakistan has convicted a university lecturer of blasphemy and sentenced him to death in a case rights groups have long cited as emblematic of fair trial concerns in such prosecutions in the country.

Junaid Hafeez, a lecturer at the Bahauddin Zakariya University in the central Pakistani city of Multan, was accused of having insulted Islam‘s Prophet Muhammad and its holy book, the Quran, verbally and on Facebook in 2013.

A court in Multan found him guilty and sentenced him to death on Saturday after a lengthy trial that saw frequent delays and transfers of judges.

Hafeez has been held in solitary confinement due to security concerns since 2014 when his lawyer, prominent rights activist Rashid Rehman, was murdered.

. . .”Junaid Hafeez’s death sentence is a gross miscarriage of justice,” said Rabia Mehmood, Pakistan researcher at Amnesty [International]. “The verdict of the Multan court is extremely disappointing and surprising. Junaid’s entire case and lengthy trial has been unfair and a travesty.”

In a statement issued on Saturday, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) said it was “dismayed by the verdict”, adding that “HRCP believes that the blasphemy laws are heavily misused”.

“In five years, at least eight judges have heard Mr Hafeez’s case, making a fair trial virtually impossible. Meanwhile, he has undergone six years’ imprisonment in solitary confinement,” added the statement.

The laws aren’t just misused—they shouldn’t exist at all. Pakistan’s attempt to stifle all criticism of Islam (they also make WordPress censor my Jesus and Mo cartoons) is ridiculous and contemptible—unworthy of any country in the modern world. Let’s hope that, like Asia Bibi, Hafeez finds justice somewhere down the line. But he’s already lost five years of his life (and reportedly much of his mental health) due to this ridiculous prosecution.

Here’s a tweet showing his photo.

41 thoughts on “Pakistani lecturer sentenced to death for blasphemy: insulted the Prophet and Qur’an on Facebook”

  1. I bet the wokes in the US are jealous. They would love to be able to fo that to the right wingers we have over here.

    2. I bet the wingnuts in the US are jealous. They would love to be able to do that to the left wingers they have over there.

    3. So which side again has main stream voters openly chant “Lock her up!”, has extremists carrying torches and killings-by-car on the other side?

      For outsiders those things make you seem not only polarized (if both sides were doing the same) but deluded (only one side and not the left is making a mockery of justice) in your opinion.

  3. Here in the States, we worry over students deplatforming a speaker. In Pakistan you can be executed for blasphemy. As different as these things are, they have a frightening element in common.

    1. You are certainly correct. Let’s go beyond being appalled by Pakistan, and focus on the damage “deplatforming a speaker” does. The underlying “values” in both cases are truly dangerous.

  4. You state:’That doesn’t count places where sharia courts can pronounce death sentences not enshrined in civil law, nor acts of murder committed by offended believers in countries like the Netherlands.’ please check your sources: we dont have sharia laws in The Netherlands and our constitution allows for the most liberal of freedom of expression.

    2. The Netherlands do not have official Sharia courts with the force of law behind their rulings. The Radboud University study pronounces that, then goes on to describe the many and diverse methods of Sharia-based conflict resolution utilized by Islamic residents there. Of course they do not pass judgements that would then be enforced by the secular government. However, there are cases where such “counseling” leads to a decision for an individual or group of Muslims to kill someone.

  5. Pakistan exists as a country because it was assumed that people who advocate for this sort of thing would destabilize India.

  6. Very depressing what humans do to one another in the name of superstition and ignorance.

    And its beyond terrifying that a country so backward ass has nukes…

      1. Thanks for the link Mr. K. I’m watching some football but got caught into the life of Khan. A lot there, a lot. I’ll continue reading.

          1. Thanks! And thankfully, there were no blowouts in yesterday’s NFL games…all close calls, though the teams who were predicted to win, did.

  7. Still another demonstration that the term
    “Islamofascism” is redundant. The most
    logical reaction to the whole culture which sentenced Mr. Hafeez to death is certainly a phobia of all that it represents.

    But as Wikipedia reports, this phobia can lead to horrors as severe as offensive sneakers: “In 1997 CAIR objected to the production of sneakers made by Nike with a design on the heel similar to the Arabic word for “Allah”.[27]” Fortunately, Islamophobic tendencies as extreme as offensive sneakers can be nipped in the bud in the US. Wiki goes on to report: “As part of an agreement reached between CAIR officials and Nike representatives, Nike apologized to the Muslim community, recalled the products carrying the design, (and) launched an investigation as to how the logo came about.”

    1. ‘Still another demonstration that the term
      “Islamofascism” is redundant. The most
      logical reaction to the whole culture which sentenced Mr. Hafeez to death is certainly a phobia of all that it represents.’

      As awkward as it may be, how about “Islamofascismphobia”? (Inasmuch as there are those chomping at the bit to use the term “Islamophobia” to describe those who utter the least criticism of Islam.) It seems to me that what is going on in this situation is Islamofascism.

      I look forward to seeing if the NY Times dares to use the word “Islamophobia” in describing opposition to this death sentence. I’m quite sure it won’t use the word “Islamofascism.”

  9. We might have more moral suasion with our “ally” Pakistan, at least in arguing against Mr. Hafeez’s being made to give the last full measure, were we to abolish the anachronistic barbarism of the death penalty ourselves. (I’m looking at YOU, the 29 US states that still have capital punishment on the books, and at YOU our federal government.)

    By the company we keep shall we be known.

    1. On the other hand, the death penalty in the 29 US states is not exacted for saying impious things about Christianity. If it did, writers of “The Simpsons” TV show, among others, would have been strung up long ago.

      1. On the other hand, the death penalty in the 29 US states is not exacted for saying impious things about Christianity.

        Yet. There are certainly forces within the US “body politic” that would support the introduction of capital punishment for blasphemy, and in a country that can elect Trump, there is a real prospect of the laws being enacted.

    2. Wait. With respect to the “moral suasion” we would have on this issue if we eliminated the death penalty*, I think it is YOOOGE stretch to compare one nation who executes people for heinous violent crimes with one who executes people based on a religious point of view. I don’t think you’re going to get much traction on that equation.

      *to avoid attacks – I think you’re right on this, my opinion is that it’s applied hamhandedly.

      1. I in no way drew that equation. Period. My point was limited to the question of punishment. Any punishment anywhere for blasphemy is unequivocally wrong. But nations that do not themselves impose capital punishment at all are in a much stronger moral position to argue against its imposition elsewhere for any reason.

        It should be a matter of concern to all thoughtful Americans that we stand all but alone among modern, developed western democracies in sanctioning the death penalty, but have it in common with numerous Islamist nations and third-word autocracies.

        1. Is the indefinite solitary confinement he would otherwise be subjected to preferable to the death penalty?
          I think I would choose death as opposed to the torture of perpetual solitary confinement.

          1. Indefinite solitary confinement can undoubtedly constitute an intolerably cruel form of punishment. But that’s a strong argument against indefinite solitary confinement, not a cogent argument in favor of the death penalty. To pose it as such presents a false dichotomy.

      2. In case you still can’t see it, here’s the plot:

        According to Posten Norge, in the Norwegian translation of the Christmas Gospel from 1930, it says that the decree from Emperor Augustus ordering everyone to register in their home town was sent “by courier.” So, the spot, by Oslo agency Pol, takes a look at the role of this courier, or mailman, as he delivers a scroll addressed to Mary and Joseph. As Mary opens the door, she looks particularly taken with the blond carrier—and nine months later her light-haired baby is born. (The ad just about stays the right side of offending Christians by saying that it wasn’t really how it happened “in those days.”)

        1. I tried a half-dozen combinations of poking holes in my security system for the 17 different script sources on that page before giving up. I guess the main site’s warning “Ad Age” was true.
          It sounds very Norwegian. They do like to bask in the glow of an apoplectic fit every so often.

          1. They do like to bask in the glow of an apoplectic fit every so often.

            I didn’t know, but I find it refreshing.

  11. Imran Kahn, Pakistan’s Prime Minister has tweeted about India’s move toward a supposedly Fascist ideology while allowing this kind of backward horror to prevail in his own country.

    No one can get a fair trial on things like this because everyone is scared that they will be killed, as his lawyer indeed was.

    Australia and other British commonwealth countries should protest strongly and exclude them from international cricket competitions.
    As they did with South Africa.

    Cricket is a passion there as it is in India and other Commonwealth countries.
    Imran Kahn the PM was an extremely well regarded cricketer, enough so that he became PM.
    Cricket is ‘the’ game in Pakistan, nothing else comes close.
    It would be an enormously strong and effective measure as a protest for such inhumanity but I doubt it will happen.

    1. It would be interesting to see what happened if the cricketing authorities tried to impose such a ban. I’m not at all sure that it wouldn’t trigger a schism within cricket into an Islamic league and a Rest of the World league.
      The cricket authorities would run, screaming, from considering such a proposal. They definitely don’t want to schism the pie in the same way as happened with the two “rugby” sports – if I’ve understood that correctly.
      There’s a good chance that excluding Pakistan would result in them playing in a league of two with Sri Lanka whose international games they already host.
      To be honest, having a political row like this would probably considerably increase global interest in cricket. It would certainly make me pay more attention to the sport. It might rise to getting a whole second of consideration per year.

  12. Hate speech is violence, and insulting the Prophet is the worst violence you can possibly commit, its like throwing acid on the face of every devout Muslim in the world, so I don’t see why this execution is troubling.

        1. No. Criticising Muhammed in [i]Austria[/i] is illegal. The ECHR only ruled that her conviction under Austrian law did not violate her human rights. There’s no EU wide law that says you can’t criticise Muhammed.

Comments are closed.