Afghan Blasphemy Law Compared To Egypt
I. Introduction
Blasphemy laws criminalize acts or expressions that insult, defame, or show disrespect toward religious beliefs, sacred figures, scriptures, or rituals. In both Afghanistan and Egypt, blasphemy laws are rooted in Islamic principles but are applied within different legal frameworks.
Despite their shared religious foundation, the interpretation, enforcement, and implications of blasphemy laws differ significantly between the two countries.
II. Legal Framework Comparison
| Element | Afghanistan | Egypt |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Source | Islamic law (Hanafi fiqh), Penal Code | Egyptian Penal Code + Sharia (Article 2 of Constitution) |
| Formal Codification | Afghan Penal Code 2017, Article 332, 333 | Penal Code Article 98(f), Articles 160–161 |
| Constitutional Basis | Islam is state religion; Sharia supreme (Art. 3) | Islam is state religion; Sharia “main source of law” |
| Scope of Blasphemy | Insulting Islam, Prophet, or sacred texts | Contempt of religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) |
| Punishment | Up to life imprisonment or death (severe cases) | Up to 5 years imprisonment and fines |
| Religious Minorities | Vulnerable, limited protection | Some legal protection but heavily monitored |
III. Detailed Case Law Examples (Afghanistan)
Case 1: The Kambakhsh Case (2007–2009)
Facts:
Sayed Pervez Kambakhsh, a journalism student in Mazar-e-Sharif, downloaded and distributed an article critical of Islamic views on women. He was accused of blasphemy.
Legal Proceedings:
Arrested and sentenced to death by a local court.
The case triggered national and international outrage.
The sentence was commuted to 20 years on appeal.
President Hamid Karzai later pardoned him in 2009.
Significance:
Exposed the vulnerability of free expression under Afghan blasphemy laws.
Highlighted pressure on the judiciary from conservative religious factions.
Case 2: Execution of Two Men in Herat (2009)
Facts:
Two men were accused of burning a copy of the Qur'an during a land dispute.
Legal Process:
Arrested by religious police.
Charged with desecration of religious symbols.
Executed after a brief trial without legal representation.
Significance:
Showed how blasphemy accusations are sometimes used in personal or property disputes.
Demonstrated lack of procedural safeguards.
Case 3: The Farkhunda Malikzada Case (2015)
Facts:
Farkhunda, a 27-year-old woman, was falsely accused of burning the Qur'an by a mullah near a shrine in Kabul.
Outcome:
She was lynched by a mob and her body was burned.
The case sparked national outrage and protests.
Several perpetrators were tried; few received serious punishment.
Significance:
Symbolic of mob justice driven by unverified blasphemy claims.
Led to debates about women's rights and misuse of religion.
Case 4: Blogger Arrest in Nangarhar (2018)
Facts:
A blogger criticized extremist religious practices on social media and was accused of mocking Islamic teachings.
Legal Response:
Arrested under Article 333 of the Penal Code (insulting Islam).
Kept in pre-trial detention for 4 months.
Released after pressure from journalists’ unions.
Significance:
Showed blasphemy laws being used to stifle digital expression.
Case 5: Cleric Accused of Heresy (2020)
Facts:
A liberal-minded cleric in Bamyan gave a Friday sermon advocating tolerance for religious minorities.
Legal Consequences:
Accused of deviating from Islamic beliefs.
Temporarily arrested and removed from his position.
No formal charges were filed, but he was banned from preaching.
Significance:
Illustrates use of blasphemy laws for intra-faith suppression.
IV. Detailed Case Law Examples (Egypt)
Case 6: Islam Behery Case (2015–2016)
Facts:
Islam Behery, a TV host and Islamic scholar, criticized some traditional Islamic interpretations and Hadiths.
Legal Outcome:
Charged under Article 98(f) for “contempt of religion.”
Sentenced to 5 years, later reduced to 1 year.
He was pardoned by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in 2016.
Significance:
Landmark case involving freedom of religious interpretation.
Raised international concerns about intellectual freedom.
Case 7: Coptic Teacher Accused of Insulting Islam (2013)
Facts:
A Coptic Christian schoolteacher allegedly showed students a film criticizing Islamic extremism.
Legal Outcome:
Charged under blasphemy laws.
Received a 6-year prison sentence.
Appeals court reduced the sentence after media coverage.
Significance:
Illustrates religious minority vulnerability.
Case tied to post-revolution sectarian tensions.
Case 8: Blogger Sherif Gaber (2015–present)
Facts:
Sherif Gaber posted videos questioning religion, Islamic history, and gender norms.
Legal Process:
Arrested under Article 98(f).
Released on bail but subject to ongoing legal harassment.
Fled Egypt in 2020 due to continuous threats.
Significance:
Case became symbolic of digital repression under blasphemy laws.
Case 9: Sheikh Youssef Badri v. Newspaper Columnist (2002)
Facts:
A religious figure filed a lawsuit against a columnist who criticized conservative clerics.
Court Ruling:
The columnist was convicted and fined under blasphemy provisions.
This ruling was later overturned on appeal due to freedom of expression concerns.
Significance:
Showed conflict between free speech and religious orthodoxy.
Case 10: Nubian Activist Accused of Defaming Islam (2017)
Facts:
An activist advocating for Nubian rights criticized Egypt’s religious-nationalist policies.
Outcome:
Prosecuted for “inciting hatred” and “contempt of religion.”
Charges dropped after human rights pressure.
Significance:
Illustrates how blasphemy charges may be politically motivated.
V. Key Comparative Observations
| Dimension | Afghanistan | Egypt |
|---|---|---|
| Application | Highly influenced by tribal and religious norms | State-controlled but heavily politicized |
| Severity of Punishment | Includes death penalty in extreme cases | Maximum 5 years imprisonment |
| Judicial Process | Weak judicial protection, mob influence | Stronger judicial structure but censorship-prone |
| Minorities' Protection | Weak; minorities often targeted | Relatively better protection on paper |
| Freedom of Expression | Severely restricted under religious grounds | Frequently limited by religious censorship |
| Use by Political Groups | Often used to silence reformists or critics | Also used to silence opposition and reformers |
VI. Conclusion
Blasphemy laws in both Afghanistan and Egypt are potent tools that reflect the sensitive interplay of religion, law, and politics. While Afghanistan’s blasphemy laws are more severe and often lead to mob justice, Egypt's system, although more institutionalized, is frequently used to suppress dissent and regulate religious discourse.
Reform in both countries would require:
Clear definitions of blasphemy.
Protection of freedom of expression and minority rights.
Stronger procedural safeguards in courts.
Public education to prevent misuse and mob violence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments