Religious Blasphemy Under Criminal Law And Sharia Enforcement

14 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

I. Conceptual Overview

1. Religious Blasphemy

Religious blasphemy involves acts, speech, or writings that insult, show contempt, or defame a religion or its sacred figures. It is treated differently in secular criminal law and Sharia-based law systems:

Under Criminal Law (Secular States):

Blasphemy laws protect religious sentiments and maintain public order.

Examples: Pakistan Penal Code (Sections 295–298), European countries (limited protections in some states).

Under Sharia Enforcement:

Blasphemy can be considered a hudood (fixed) offense, punishable under Islamic law.

The penalty ranges from fines and imprisonment to death, depending on the jurisdiction and severity.

Sharia considers blasphemy against God (Allah), Prophet Muhammad, or sacred texts as extremely serious.

2. Legal Rationale

Maintain religious harmony and public order.

Prevent incitement to violence or societal unrest.

In Sharia systems, uphold divine law and moral order.

II. Case Law Examples

Case 1: Asia Bibi v. The State (Pakistan, 2010–2018)

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Issue: Blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad under Section 295(C) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

Facts:
Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, allegedly made derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad during an argument with Muslim colleagues. She was convicted and sentenced to death.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 2018 due to insufficient evidence and contradictory witness statements.

The court emphasized that blasphemy laws must be applied with strict evidence standards and protection against misuse.

Significance:
This landmark case highlighted:

Risk of false accusations in blasphemy laws.

The tension between religious sentiment protection and human rights, especially freedom of expression.

Case 2: R (on the application of Chamberlain) v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 2000)

Court: European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Issue: Limits of freedom of expression and blasphemy laws in secular jurisdictions.

Facts:
Chamberlain was convicted in the UK for distributing pamphlets considered blasphemous against Christianity under common law blasphemy rules.

Judgment:

The ECHR ruled that criminalization of blasphemy may be compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights if it protects public order and religious peace.

However, the court stressed that enforcement must be proportionate.

Significance:

Established balance between freedom of expression and protection of religious sentiment in secular law.

Highlighted that blasphemy is rarely enforced in Europe today.

Case 3: Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi v. State (Pakistan, 2001)

Court: Lahore High Court
Issue: Sharia-based blasphemy prosecution.

Facts:
A religious cleric publicly accused a rival cleric of insulting the Prophet during sermons. The rival filed a complaint under Section 295(C) PPC.

Judgment:

The court noted the strict evidentiary requirements under Sharia principles adopted into Pakistan law.

Conviction required two eyewitnesses of the blasphemous act or a direct confession.

The accused was acquitted due to lack of corroboration.

Significance:

Demonstrated the stringent evidentiary standards under Sharia influence in Pakistan’s blasphemy law.

Prevented misuse in personal or sectarian disputes.

Case 4: R v. Gay News Ltd. & Dennis (UK, 1979)

Court: House of Lords, UK
Issue: Blasphemy under common law (secular system).

Facts:
The magazine published a poem depicting explicit sexual acts involving Christ. The editors were charged with blasphemous libel.

Judgment:

The House of Lords upheld the conviction.

The court held that blasphemy laws protect Christian beliefs from scurrilous attack, and this publication went beyond acceptable free expression.

Significance:

Illustrates secular application of blasphemy laws focused on Christian religious protection.

Highlighted historical limitations of free speech in the UK before the abolition of common law blasphemy offenses in 2008.

Case 5: Raif Badawi v. Saudi Arabia (2012)

Court: Saudi Sharia Courts
Issue: Online criticism of Islamic authorities and blasphemy.

Facts:
Raif Badawi, a blogger, criticized religious authorities and promoted secular ideas online. He was accused of apostasy and blasphemy, facing public flogging and imprisonment.

Judgment:

The Saudi court sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment and 1,000 lashes.

The case drew international condemnation as a violation of freedom of expression but illustrates Sharia enforcement.

Significance:

Demonstrates strict application of Sharia in conservative Muslim countries.

Highlights criminal penalties for online expression deemed blasphemous.

Case 6: Ozgur Ozel v. Turkey (2017)

Court: Turkish Constitutional Court
Issue: Blasphemous statements and freedom of expression.

Facts:
A journalist published critical remarks about Islam in a newspaper. Turkish Penal Code had provisions for insulting religion.

Judgment:

The Constitutional Court ruled that criminalization violated Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution (freedom of thought).

Protection of religion cannot override individual expression, except to prevent incitement to violence.

Significance:

Shows modern balancing of blasphemy laws and human rights in predominantly Muslim but secular states.

III. Key Legal Principles Across Jurisdictions

Strict evidence requirement in Sharia-influenced law – two eyewitnesses or confession are often needed.

Freedom of expression vs. religious sentiment – secular courts favor proportionality; strict Sharia courts may impose corporal or capital punishment.

Potential for misuse – personal disputes or minority targeting in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

International human rights concern – excessive punishments violate universal rights.

Modern trends – several countries are decriminalizing blasphemy or limiting enforcement to incitement to hatred.