There is consensus between Aasia Bibi’s statements in the sessions court Nankana Sahib and the investigative report of Mohammad Amin Bokhari (SP Investigation, and witness for prosecution) that the blasphemy spat between the women started when Aasia Bibi’s Muslim accusers refused to drink water she offered to bring them because Aasia Bibi was Christian. One Muslim complainant, and witness in the case, had asked for water. Helpfully, Aasia Bibi brought it for her. But the complainant refused the kindness, instead heaping insult and injury to Aasia Bibi’s feelings by refusing the water solely on the basis of her religion. The Muslim women have not denied this fact and, indeed, this fact is part of the prosecution’s case.
According to Aasia’s testimony, “hot words” were exchanged between the women after Aasia was humiliated thus. Aasia was made to feel dirty, impure and unclean due to the religion she belongs to. So filthy and low that Muslim women did not deem it fit to drink from the utensil she had touched.
Indeed, the sessions judge records the following in paragraph 28 of his judgement: “So, the question arises, what type or nature of the hot words would there be between the Christian and Muslim ladies when the quarrel started from the refusal of drinking water by the Muslim ladies from the hands of a Christian lady. So, the phenomenon was ultimately switched into a religious matter and hot words were none other than the blasphemy.”
Now let us take a look at Section 295-A, the very first article of the blasphemy laws, and begin to ask questions that should have been the very first questions to be asked by anyone connected to the case or opining the matter: “295-A — Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.”
Did the Muslim women deliberately and maliciously outrage the religious feelings and beliefs of Aasia Bibi? Did the Muslim women make Aasia Bibi feel untouchable only because she was a Christian? Did the Muslim women insult the religion of Christianity by telling a follower that they refuse water from the hand of a Christian? Did the Muslim women insult Hazrat Isa (PBUH), Allah’s messenger whose message and religion Aasia follows — for the water was refused only because she follows him? Did the Muslim women insult the Holy Book of Christians by deeming a person of the book “paleed”, by dint of the message she follows, not by dint of her personal hygiene? Did the Muslim women commit unprovoked and intentional blasphemy?
Then there is section 153-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, on promoting enmity between different groups, etc: “Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or incites, or attempts to promote or incite, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or (b) commits, or incites any other person to commit any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or any group of persons identifiable as such on any ground whatsoever and which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquillity; or (c)…shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.”
Did the Muslim women promote and incite disharmony, hatred and ill will between religions by openly saying and doing what they did? Did the Muslim women incite and provoke Aasia into saying hot words with their actions? The matter is sub judice in the Lahore High Court and it remains to be determined whether, in response to the water incident, Aasia Bibi did or did not indeed make derogatory remarks against the Holy Quran and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). But let us assume, for argument’s sake, that she did make derogatory remarks about her co-workers’ religion in retaliation. Based on this assumption can her response be deemed to be calculated, and intended to create fitna and disharmony? Can her response be deemed to be the result of her venting her injured feelings of being humiliated and the child of a lesser God? Can her response be deemed to be an attempt to express her enraged feelings and to hurt those who had spurned her kindness and hurt her?
Were questions on these lines on the mind of our late Governor Salmaan Taseer? Was he sympathetic to a poor illiterate woman condemned to death because her Muslim co-workers spurned her kindness, insulted and hurt her and provoked her into some kind of retaliation? Was he killed for his humanity, fair-mindedness and bravery? May God rest him in eternal peace.
Will Pakistan’s legal community and great legal minds ponder these questions? Does the onus of maintaining religious harmony not fall predominantly on the overwhelming majority, i.e. the Muslims? Will legal minds embark on a greater examination of this aspect and help us find the answers?
The writer is a journalist and television anchor and can be contacted at [email protected]