This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 22 March 2015, At: 08:00

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Review of Faith & International

Affairs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfia20

THE PUBLIC DISORDER OF BLASPHEMY

LAWS: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Neil Hicks
Published online: 24 Feb 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Neil Hicks (2015) THE PUBLIC DISORDER OF BLASPHEMY LAWS: A
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 13:1, 51-58, DOI:
10.1080/15570274.2015.1005917

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2015.1005917

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our
agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are
not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not
be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015
 THE PUBLIC DISORDER OF
BLASPHEMY LAWS: A
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015
L
aws criminalizing blasphemy, or
mocking or insulting religions or
religious symbols, are to be found in
countries in all parts of the world. These
laws prohibit injuring religious feelings or
insulting religious figures, or, more broadly, the
sacred, by words or actions. They exist in a few
countries in Latin America, including Brazil; they
are to be found in Europe and Africa (more in
North Africa than in sub-Saharan Africa), and are
especially prevalent in the Middle East and South
Asia. A study by the Pew Research Center found
that out of the world’s 198 countries, 94 or 47
percent had either laws against blasphemy,
apostasy, or defamation of religion (or some
combination of the three) (Pew Forum on
Religion and Public Life 2012).
A study compiled by Human Rights First and
the Cardozo Law School in 2014 found blasphemy
laws in 57 states (Human Rights First 2014). These
states differ enormously and it is clear that the mere
existence of blasphemy laws, usually to be found in
penal codes or press laws, says little about the
general climate for religious freedom within a given
country. Saudi Arabia and Finland, for example,
have very different attitudes toward respect for
diverse religious beliefs and practices, but they both
have laws against blasphemy.
Such laws differ widely in their content and
origin. They can be found in countries with
established official state religions and those
© 2015 Institute for Global Engagement
By Neil Hicks
without, and in countries where adherents of a
variety of religions form the majority of the
population.
There is a distinction to be drawn between (1)
blasphemy laws that are designed primarily to
uphold public order by prohibiting actions likely
to offend the sensibilities of a particular group of
religious believers, and (2) blasphemy laws
intended to protect from insult a religion, its
symbols, and its sacred objects. The former may
have secular origins stemming from the state’s
recognition of its obligations to safeguard public
order, and that religious feelings can be volatile and
subject to exploitation by those with an interest in
fomenting instability for political or other reasons.
Such types of blasphemy laws are, therefore, a
method by which states can police public discourse
and impose restrictions on freedom of expression,
including on religious subjects, deemed harmful to
public order or public morals.
Such restrictions on speech are provided for
in Article 19 (3)(b) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which
permits “certain restrictions” on freedom of
expression, “such as are provided by law and are
Neil Hicks is the Director for Human Rights Promotion at Human
Rights First, an independent non-governmental organization in
New York. He has written extensively on human rights issues in the
Middle East, on US policy and human rights, and on
counterterrorism and human rights.
the review of faith & international affairs | 51
 public disorder of blasphemy laws
necessary: for the protection of national security
or of public order (ordre public), or of public
health or morals.”
The latter type of blasphemy laws have a
different effect in that they empower those
authorities that claim authority to interpret and
protect religion. In some states, the guardians of
“right religion” and the de facto rulers of the state
are one and the same. For example, in the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Article 4 of the Constitution
provides that:
All civil, penal, financial, economic,
administrative, cultural, military, political,
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015
and other laws and regulations must be
based on Islamic criteria. This principle
applies absolutely and generally to all
articles of the Constitution as well as to all
other laws and regulations.
The power to decide what “Islamic criteria”
ordain rests in the hands of the Council of
Guardians and the Leader of the Islamic
Republic, who is both the supreme religious and
political authority.
In other states, religious authority and state
authority are technically vested in separate
institutions, but blasphemy laws have empowered
religious leaders to increase their political and
social influence. The clearest example of this can
be seen in Pakistan, where the blasphemy law has
evolved from an initial focus on enabling the state
to protect public order by protecting “any class of
persons” from having their religious feelings
outraged or insulted, to a set of laws that protects
religion and religious symbols—in this case
exclusively Islam and its symbols—from insult or
desecration. The original blasphemy law came
into force in 1860 after the Indian Mutiny of
1857–1858. In 1927, the British expanded the
scope of the law, but retained its focus on
protecting persons, not religion, after further
religiously motivated unrest. General Zia-ul-Haq,
Pakistani President from 1978 to 1988, presided
over the expansion of the scope of the blasphemy
law to protect first the Qur’an and then the
Prophet Mohamed from desecration or insult.
In British colonial times, the blasphemy laws
were adopted to strengthen state power against
52 | volume 13, number 1 (spring 2015)
threats to public order brought about by the
outraged feelings of groups of religious believers.
General Zia’s further expansion of the laws had
the effect of empowering religious groups who
arrogated to themselves the power of deciding
when an insult or act of blasphemy against Islam
had taken place, thereby weakening state power.
Such laws do not comply with international
standards upholding freedom of expression. The
General Comment to Article 19 of the ICCPR
notes that: “Prohibitions of displays of lack of
respect for a religion or other belief system,
including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with
the Covenant … .”
Other states also have laws seeking to protect
the feelings of groups of religious believers. These
laws are designed to empower state authorities to
control threats to public order caused by
outraging the sensibilities of groups of people and
other laws that prohibit insulting religion. For
example, Article 98(f) of the Penal Code of Egypt
makes it an offense to “disdain or show contempt
for any of the heavenly religions.” A separate
article, Article 178, prohibits all forms of
expression deemed to be “against public morals.”
Several European states, including Denmark,
Norway, and Germany, retain rarely used
blasphemy laws that are written to protect the
feelings of members of a religious community
rather than religion qua religion or its symbols.
The German Criminal Code makes clear the link
between the insult or defamation and disturbing
public peace. Section 166 of the German
Criminal Code states: “Whosoever … defames
religion or ideology of others in a manner that is
capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable
to imprisonment … .” In this type of blasphemy
law insult or defamation of religion alone is not
sufficient to constitute an offense; the additional
standards of being “capable of disturbing public
peace” must also be satisfied.
The religious framework of the state can be
the reason for the existence of blasphemy laws.
Under international law, a state may declare an
official religion, provided that fundamental
human rights such as non-discrimination, and the
rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion
or belief, and freedom of expression are respected
for all. In practice, having an official state religion
 neil hicks

often allows states to determine which types of the peaceful expression of political or religious
beliefs, religious practices, or expressions are views. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom
acceptable in that society—and which are not. of Expression has noted that “Anti-blasphemy
The constitutions of countries including Poland laws … are inherently vague and are often used as
and Sri Lanka do not explicitly state that there is a means of quashing the right to freedom of
an official state religion, but the Polish and Sri expression” (La Rue 2012). He has called on
Lankan constitutions provide privileged status to states to repeal anti-blasphemy laws and to
one religion over another: the Roman Catholic initiate legislative and other reforms that protect
Church and Buddhism, respectively. Other the rights of individuals in accordance with
constitutions limit the number of recognized international human rights standards.
religions. For example, Indonesia recognizes only Allegations of blasphemy serve as a pretext for
six official religions: Islam, Buddhism, religious extremists to polarize society and to foment
Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and public disorder. Monitoring and exposing alleged
Confucianism. The Ahmadiyya sect is considered blasphemy, and urging the state to be zealous in
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015

an illegitimate form of Islam and, therefore, countering it, is an effective tactic for extremist
illegal. Similarly, the Baha’i movements to build support
faith is considered illegal in and bolster their narrative that
several countries. Law No. ALLEGATIONS OF BLASPHEMY their religion is under assault
263 of 1960 in Egypt SERVE AS A PRETEXT FOR from hostile forces.
characterizes practicing the RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS TO Accusations of
Baha’i faith as blasphemy POLARIZE SOCIETY AND TO blasphemy have resulted in
(Freedom House 2010, 29) in arrests and arbitrary
that periodic crackdowns FOMENT PUBLIC DISORDER detentions and have sparked
against Egypt’s small Baha’i assaults, murders, and mob
minority have been carried out using the attacks. For example, in February 2011, more
blasphemy article of the Penal Code, Article 98(f) than 1000 protestors stormed a District Court
(Human Rights Watch 2007, 31). in Indonesia after a Christian found guilty of
blasphemy received what extremists believed to
The Problem with Blasphemy Laws be too lenient a sentence (Bellman 2011). The
Blasphemy laws, which are designed to protect sentence was for five years—the maximum
abstract ideas or religions, are inconsistent with penalty allowed under the criminal code. That
universal human rights standards. Laws designed same month, more than 1000 Indonesian
to prevent defamation of religion risk promoting villagers armed with machetes and sticks
an atmosphere of hostility in which governments stormed a house of worship of Ahmadiyya, a
can restrict freedom of expression, thought, and minority Muslim sect whose beliefs are deemed
religion, thereby having a chilling effect on the blasphemous under Indonesian law. Three
peaceful expression of political or religious views. people were killed and six others wounded. The
They permit governments to determine which attackers were videotaped stoning their victims
ideas are acceptable. to death while police officers and villagers
Such laws create particular problems for those watched and did nothing to stop the bloodshed.
holding religious views that differ from the The perpetrators of such violence received
majority religion, as well as adherents to minority sentences of three to six months—and none
faiths that may be deemed by some to be heretical were charged with murder. The same court
or blasphemous. UN experts and other human found an Ahmadi victim whose hand was nearly
rights monitors have found that many national severed during the attack guilty of disobeying
laws prohibiting blasphemy, religious police orders and sentenced him to six months
defamation, injury to religious feelings, and in prison (Human Rights First 2012, 2).
incitement to hatred have been abused by Journalists, bloggers, teachers, students,
governments and others to target individuals for poets, religious converts, Internet users, and

the review of faith & international affairs | 53

 public disorder of blasphemy laws
others have been targeted, charged, and sentenced
to prison or received other punishments for
exercising their right to freedom of expression. In
February 2012, a 23-year-old journalist from
Saudi Arabia, Hamza Kashgari, was accused of
blasphemy—a charge that carries the death
penalty—after he posted a string of Twitter
messages of an imaginary conversation with the
Prophet Mohammad. Within hours of his
postings, more than 30,000 people responded to
his tweets, many calling for him to be punished.
On Facebook, more than 12,000 people called
for Kashgari’s execution. Kashgari was eventually
released from prison in October 2013 (Freedom
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015
House 2013).
Those accused of blasphemy are at risk
before, during, and after their trials. Bail is often
denied. Legal proceedings can take years, while
those accused languish in jails where some have
been reportedly subject to mistreatment or even
torture. A number of accused have been killed
while in prison.
Even when acquitted, those charged with
blasphemy are marked for life and may have to
live in hiding or seek exile. Due to death threats
and verbal and physical attacks, lawyers are often
reluctant to take on blasphemy cases. Those that
do, along with the judges that decide them, have
been subject to intimidation, death threats, and
violence. In July 2010, two Pakistani brothers
accused of defaming the Prophet Muhammad
were shot to death by unidentified gunmen as
they emerged from a courthouse where they had
been cleared of all blasphemy charges.
The assassinations of Pakistani Governor
Salmaan Taseer on January 4, 2011, and
Minority Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti on
March 2, 2011, illustrated how risky criticism of
blasphemy laws has become in that country. Both
men were murdered because they spoke out in
favor of reforming abusive blasphemy laws and
specifically against the proposed death sentence of
Aasia Bibi, a Christian farm laborer convicted of
blasphemy following a disagreement with a
Muslim coworker. Aasia Bibi remains in jail,
often in solitary confinement to protect her from
attack by her fellow prisoners. She lost an appeal
against her sentence in October 2014, but her
lawyers are appealing to the Pakistan Supreme
54 | volume 13, number 1 (spring 2015)
Court (BBC News 2014a, 2014b). Her family is
in constant fear for their lives and an imam has
offered a $6000 reward to anyone who takes
Bibi’s life if her death sentence is not upheld.
As a result of the murders of the prominent
Pakistani officials, serious debate about the need to
reform Pakistan’s blasphemy laws has been largely
stifled. Religious groups and political parties
pressured the government to withdraw a bill
proposing amendments to the blasphemy law.
Following the arrest of Governor Taseer’s
murderer, police officers investigating the case were
threatened—as were lawyers representing the state.
Justice Pervaiz Shah, who presided over the murder
trial, was forced to go on leave for an indefinite
period of time after receiving death threats.
An Alternative to Blasphemy Laws
Those who support the concept of blasphemy
laws argue that such prohibitions are necessary to
protect religion; that without legal protections
backed by state power, religion and religious
believers face insults and defamation that can lead
to discrimination and eventually persecution on
the basis of religious belief. These fears are not
entirely without foundation; it is easy to see how
religious minorities in particular may feel
powerless to resist a campaign of defamation
directed against them by an intolerant majority.
For example, the growth of popular anti-Muslim
sentiment and xenophobia in parts of Europe is
often given as a reason why religion may be in
need of legal protection from insult. But there are
ways, other than through the criminalization of
insults against religion, to counter religious
hatred and persecution, harassment, and violence
directed against religious minorities (Human
Rights First 2010). Such concerns can be
addressed by an approach that both supports
existing international norms on freedom of
expression and confronts the growing problem of
hostility and violence targeting members of
religious and other minorities, whether they are
Muslims in Europe or other minorities elsewhere
in the world. This proactive approach prioritizes
(1) the need to combat violent hate crimes
through legal accountability and effective law
enforcement; (2) the importance of fighting
offensive speech through counter speech from

political leaders and other prominent figures,
including religious leaders and notable figures in
popular culture, rather than through legal
restrictions like blasphemy laws; and (3)
addressing discrimination, and ensuring equal
treatment under the law for all, including respect
for freedom of religion.
In March 2011, the United Nations Human
Rights Council adopted a resolution by consensus
entitled “Combating intolerance, negative
stereotyping and stigmatization of, and
discrimination, incitement to violence, and
violence against persons based on religion or
belief,” which followed an approach of not
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015
criminalizing allegedly blasphemous speech
(OHCHR 2011). Commonly referred to as
Resolution 16/18, this document focused on the
protection of individuals, rather than the
protection of abstract ideas and religions.
Recognizing the positive role that the “open,
constructive, and respectful debate of ideas can
play in combating religious hatred, incitement,
and violence,” it called for “strengthened
international efforts to promote tolerance and
peace based on respect for human rights and the
diversity of religions and beliefs.” The resolution
further recognized the importance of leaders
speaking out against intolerance and expanding
human rights education and interfaith and
intercultural efforts to raise awareness. The United
Nations General Assembly endorsed the approach
of the Human Rights Council in December 2011,
and then in March 2012 the Human Rights
Council once again adopted a similar text.
As a follow-up to Resolution 16/18, the US
government hosted the first of a series of ongoing
meetings in December 2011 called “The Istanbul
Process.” International experts were invited to
share best practices on how to fight
discrimination based on religion or belief,
without laws restricting freedom of expression.
The focus of the gathering was to enhance
international and technical expertise on
challenges that law enforcement officials and
other national experts face when tackling conflict
prevention and religious intolerance.
While Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul
Process may indicate that at the international
level there is movement away from the concept of
neil hicks
passing laws against insulting religion, at the
national level human rights abuses that stem from
blasphemy laws continue throughout the world.
Typology of Abuses Resulting from
Blasphemy Laws
The different ways that blasphemy laws can
lead to horrific abuses can be divided into the
following types: Blasphemy laws used to stifle
discussion and dissent in the public sphere—
literature, media, and the Internet; outbreaks of
mob violence as a direct consequence of
blasphemy laws; blasphemy laws and violations of
freedom of religion, thought, or belief; and
blasphemy laws used to settle private disputes
(Human Rights First 2012).
Blasphemy Laws Used to Stifle
Discussion and Dissent in the Public
Sphere: Literature, Media, and the
Internet
Blasphemy laws provide a context in which
governments can prevent the peaceful expression
of political or religious views, including those on
the role of religion in law, society, and the state.
By restricting these essential freedoms in the
name of protecting religion from defamation,
governments are able to stifle the healthy debate
and discussion of ideas and essentially determine
which ideas are acceptable and which are not.
Teachers and students, clergy and congregants,
writers and journalists, and web and social media
users have all suffered prosecution under national
blasphemy and related laws for exercising their
right to freedom of expression. The Rabat Plan of
Action (OHCHR 2012b) that emerged from an
international conference convened by the UN
Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights in 2012 noted that efforts to restrict the
open debate of religion by the use of blasphemy
laws are counterproductive:
At the national level, blasphemy laws are
counter-productive, since they may result
in the de facto censure of all inter-religious/
belief and intra-religious/belief dialogue,
debate, and also criticism, most of which
could be constructive, healthy, and needed.
In addition, many of these blasphemy laws
the review of faith & international affairs | 55
 public disorder of blasphemy laws
afford different levels of protection to
different religions and have often proved to
be applied in a discriminatory manner.
There are numerous examples of
persecution of religious minorities or
dissenters, but also of atheists and non-
theists, as a result of legislation on religious
offences or overzealous application of
various laws that use a neutral language.
Moreover, the right to freedom of religion
or belief, as enshrined in relevant
international legal standards, does not
include the right to have a religion or a
belief that is free from criticism or ridicule.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015
(OHCHR 2012)
Outbreaks of Mob Violence as a Direct
Consequence of Blasphemy Laws
Blasphemy laws do damage that goes beyond
the impact of individual prosecutions. One of the
more alarming aspects of both the international
debate about defamation of religions (e.g.
controversies such as those that occurred over
“The Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video and
the Danish Cartoons) and national-level debates
over blasphemy laws is the way they are
manipulated by extremists to foment conflict and
violence. Such incidents enable extremists to
portray the state, or the West, or the United States,
as defenders of blasphemers and propagators of
ungodly ideas, thereby mobilizing public opinion
against them in the name of defending religion. In
the largely manufactured atmosphere of outrage,
what is inevitably lost is the fact that the original
alleged offense was trivial and would have offended
few—because a mass public would never have
known about it but for the protests and outrage
purposefully generated by those most interested in
promoting a narrative of religious division.
In Pakistan, it has become commonplace for
mobs to gather in and outside the courtrooms
where blasphemy cases are tried, asserting that
they are prepared to take the law into their own
hands if the court does not hand down a guilty
verdict. Violence does not end at the courthouse
doors. Mobs have descended on towns, burning
places of worship, looting homes, and killing or
injuring residents. Faced with these pressures,
governments have sometimes failed in their
56 | volume 13, number 1 (spring 2015)
obligations to protect people—both alleged
violators of blasphemy laws as well as judges and
lawyers involved in those cases—from
extrajudicial mob violence. In fact, in some
instances the authorities have been complicit. In
some cases, the perpetrators have asserted it to be
their “religious duty” to kill blasphemers and
their supporters, which include friends, family,
judges, and lawyers. In Pakistan, it is the mob
violence that is more harmful than the
implementation of the law itself. Although no
one has actually been executed under the
blasphemy laws in Pakistan, at least 30
individuals accused of committing blasphemy
have been killed extra-judicially since the 1980s
(Shea 2009). The perpetrators of such
extrajudicial violence are rarely brought to justice.
Blasphemy Laws and Violations of
Freedom of Religion, Thought, or Belief
Blasphemy laws create particular problems for
adherents of minority faiths that are deemed
heretical or blasphemous by a nation’s majority or
state-backed religious establishments. The laws
perpetuate prejudice, promote religious
intolerance, and prevent the discussion of views
which some segments of the population may find
offensive. The UN Special Rapporteur on
Religious Freedom has urged states to repeal
blasphemy laws because of the damage they do to
the rights of religious minorities. “States should
repeal any criminal law provisions that penalize
apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytism as they may
prevent persons belonging to religious or belief
minorities from fully enjoying their freedom of
religion or belief” (Bielefeldt 2012).
Blasphemy Laws Used as a Weapon to
Settle Private Disputes
The loose and unclear language of existing
blasphemy laws—along with procedures in some
countries which allow private individuals to
initiate blasphemy cases without prosecutorial or
judicial review—provides dangerous ammunition
to those who have used them to victimize
individuals and as a weapon in private disputes.
Accusations of blasphemy are often the
byproduct of disputes between neighbors,
colleagues, political opponents, religious and

academic leaders, and business associates whose
dealings have become adversarial. Given the severity
of the punishment provided under many of the
national blasphemy laws, the ease with which one
may initiate a proceeding raises serious concerns of
due process and the right to a fair trial. The use of
blasphemy laws to settle disputes is most prevalent
in Pakistan. Though successive governments have
recognized that these laws are abused, they have
been either unwilling or unable to adopt the
reforms necessary to address this problem.
Accounting for the Massive Variance
in the Impact of Blasphemy Laws
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015
As noted above, laws providing for the
criminal prosecution of those who insult, mock,
or defame religion or religious symbols exist in at
least 57 countries. In the great majority of those
countries the laws are virtually never invoked. It is
notable that the largest number of separate
incidents of abuse and the most serious instances
of abuse take place in relatively few countries:
Pakistan (which is in a category of its own), Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Afghanistan, and
Indonesia chief among them. These are countries
that have blasphemy laws that seek to protect
religion and religious symbols from insult or
defamation in a manner that goes beyond the
restrictions on freedom of expression permitted
under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.
The broadening of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws,
which have made the country an often cited
example of why governments should not adopt
laws seeking to protect religion from defamation or
insult, came about for political reasons. President
Zia-ul-Haq sought to broaden his own political
support and weaken his opponents by garnering
support from conservative Islamic forces in
Pakistan and by portraying himself as a defender of
Islam. The expansion of the scope of Pakistan’s
blasphemy laws was largely a political gambit to
legitimize President Zia’s authoritarian rule, fusing
together nationalism, military rule, and religion.
Religious parties in Pakistan pressured Zia to
make these legislative changes and largely in the
years after his death have been able to use the
issue of protecting Islam and its symbols from
blasphemy as a political rallying call. Corruption,
poverty, and political instability have sapped
neil hicks
public confidence in the government and state
institutions and created discontent on which
religious extremists have capitalized. Their
willingness to incite and use violence, as in the
murders of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhati, has
magnified their impact on the climate of public
debate and religious freedom in Pakistan.
While Pakistan is an extreme case study,
particular political developments can be seen as
having contributed to the prevalence of blasphemy
cases and to the human rights problems deriving
from them in other countries with a high incidence
of blasphemy prosecutions and blasphemy-related
incidents. For example, both Iran and Sudan
underwent top-down Islamization processes driven
by political leaders who used religion for political
purposes to burnish their credentials as defenders
of the faith and to discredit their political
opponents as impious. Ayatollah Khomeini
presided over the implementation of the Islamic
Penal Code in 1981which provided for
punishment for a variety of broadly defined
offenses against God and Islam, including
provision of the death penalty for speaking
disparagingly of the Prophet Mohammad.
President Nimeiri, with his able Attorney
General Hassan al-Turabi, took a political
decision to Islamize Sudan by imposing the
September Laws in 1983, designed to impose
Islamic Law, including harsh punishment for
blasphemy, on his large and diverse country.
While the worst excesses of the September Laws
have been removed from Sudanese law,
blasphemy remains a crime and Sudan’s current
president Omar al-Bashir continues to follow
Nimeiri’s example of manipulating religious
sensitivities to build his political support base.
President Sadat in Egypt amended Article 2
of the Egyptian Constitution to render Islamic
law the “principal source of legislation,”
indicating his political choice to forge an alliance
with religious political forces against his more
secular opponents. Pandering to Islamism
remained a feature of Egyptian political life
under President Mubarak’s long rule and
remains so under President Sisi, who despite his
ruthless repression of the Muslim Brotherhood
has been keen to build his own political
legitimacy as a defender of Islam, in some ways
the review of faith & international affairs | 57
 public disorder of blasphemy laws

forging the same kind of religio-military-
nationalist hybrid that has emerged in Pakistan
since the days of President Zia (Dunne 2011).
There was a notable uptick in blasphemy
prosecutions and blasphemy-related incidents
after the overthrow of Mubarak in 2011 and
this trend is continuing under President Sisi.
The issue of blasphemy is susceptible to
exploitation for political gain; by ambitious
authoritarian rulers, which may go some way to
explaining the passage of a new blasphemy law
in Russia in June 2013; and by organized
religious extremists, who know the power of
protecting religion from insult as a mobilizing
technique. It is this interaction between
authoritarian rulers and extremist religious
movements that has fueled human rights abuses
related to blasphemy in a handful of countries.
Given the volatility of the issue and the recent
history of violence and abuses, calls for retaining
or extending blasphemy laws should be viewed
with extreme skepticism. v

References
BBC News. 2014a. “Pakistan Court Upholds Asia Bibi Death Sentence.” BBC News website. Accessed October 16. http://www.bbc.com/
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 08:00 22 March 2015

news/world-asia-29640245
BBC News. 2014b. “What Are Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws?” BBC News website. Accessed November 6. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
south-asia-12621225
Bellman, Eric. 2011. “Blasphemy Sentence Sparks Riot.” The Wall Street Journal. Accessed February 8. http://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB10001424052748704364004576131850273645210
Bielefeldt, Heiner. 2012. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, A/HRC/22/51.” Accessed December 24.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/A.HRC.22.51_English.pdf
Dunne, Michele. 2011. “Egypt’s Imperiled Transition: Pakistan on the Nile?” The Atlantic Council. Accessed November. http://www.
atlanticcouncil.org/images/files/publication_pdfs/7631/111411_ACUS_Egypt.pdf
Freedom House. 2010. “Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights.” Freedom House Report. http://www.
freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Policing_Belief_Full.pdf
Freedom House. 2013. “Freedom House Welcomes Release of Saudi Writer Hamza Kashgari.” Freedom House website. Accessed October
29. https://freedomhouse.org/article/freedom-house-welcomes-release-saudi-writer-hamza-kashgari#.VIH_0dLF-6U
Human Rights First. 2010. “Confronting Hatred While Respecting Freedom of Expression.” Human Rights First report. http://www.
humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Confronting_Hatred_While_Respecting_Freedom_of_Expression.pdf
Human Rights First. 2012. “Blasphemy Laws Exposed: the Consequences of Criminalizing ‘Defamation of Religions’.” Human Rights
First Report. Accessed March. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/Blasphemy_Cases.pdf
Human Rights First. 2014. “Compendium of Blasphemy Laws.” Human Rights First Report. Accessed May 20. http://www.
humanrightsfirst.org/resource/compendium-blasphemy-laws
Human Rights Watch. 2007. Egypt: Prohibited Identities. New York: Human Rights Watch.
La Rue, Frank. 2012. “Statement of UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.” Accessed November 5. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12744&LangID=E
OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2011. “Resolution of the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/RES/
16/18.” Accessed March. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.RES.16.18_en.pdf
OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2012a. “Rabat Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2012.
Laws Penalizing Blasphemy, Apostasy, and Defamation of Religion are Widespread.” Report. Accessed November 21. http://www.
pewforum.org/2012/11/21/laws-penalizing-blasphemy-apostasy-and-defamation-of-religion-are-widespread/
OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2012b. “Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of
National, Racial, or Religious Hatred that Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence.” Accessed [February 5]
http://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/opinion/seminarrabat/rabat_draft_outcome.pdf
Shea, Nina. 2009. “Pakistan’s Anti-Blasphemy Laws.” Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs. Accessed
October 8. http://www.scribd.com/doc/21004000/testimony-of-Nina-Shea-director
United Nations Human Rights Committee. 2011. “General Comment No. 34, July.” CCPR/C/GC/34.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2015.1005917

58 | volume 13, number 1 (spring 2015)