famous talk phrases that human right
activists use is there as a man-made law
so we seem to be divided in these
binaries of the godless versus the
god-fearing the divine versus the
profane and that’s the perspective that
our institution and I and our
institution our team tries to work on on
telling that there’s more to these
things than these two perspectives so
what happens when these perspectives
collide escalation I mean this has have
you guys seen the Dark Knight right yes
great film right and Christopher Nolan
talks about one thing that one of the
meta commentary on this is that somehow
Batman is creating the Joker somehow the
escalation that happens because you are
so tight on one end with this viewpoint
that you create and other you otherwise
half of the community this man over here
is not an antagonist
everyone knows whom Tasca 3 is right yes
he’s not an antagonist he’s not a
villain he’s a product of this society
product of discourses that have been
here for decades and centuries so when
we don’t look into these things with
nuances with academic research
investigation we lose nuance and what we
have is an escalation of binaries and
authorization us versus them and that is
what conflict management is not about
and antagonizing another person’s
perspective because you think yours is
right is the wrong way to go about it
and to be to be fair the law was passed
in its current form in 1991 it’s been 30
years 30 years of millions and millions
of dollars
according to the development sector to
try and change the law one of the reason
nothing happens is because of this
bubble so the human rights organization
lab one of them right it’s just like I’m
criticizing myself as well so the human
rights organization has this language
and framework that they’re not willing
to talk out of so you’re talking to a
community of people who have an
indigenous language who respects symbols
cultural religious traditional and
unless and until you understand unless
and until you understand that those
symbols those cultural symbols and
values are relevant and important to
those peoples emotionally as well as
intellectually if you don’t respect that
you’re not gonna get anywhere 30 years
every time there’s been an effort to
reform the blasphemy law more violent
instances have occurred think about that
you create more violence if you’re
antagonizing the other in your discourse
for change if you’re looking for a
personal victory sure if you want to
sleep you know at night thinking
yourself oh I’m a really great guy I
believe in all these great human rights
values that’s fine but if you want to
change the discourse you got to move
ahead so first you gotta do some self
check just like a therapist in
psychology to trained therapists to do
this before you have a client to do a
self check what do I feel before I ask
this person how did they feel where does
your value system come from so let’s say
your progressive coding code and you
believe that the blasphemy law needs to
be changed where does that come from
is it a Eurocentric model of human
rights international human rights are
you maybe thinking of it because you
were born in a home where that’s what
you were taught liberal values
progressive values the first thing is to
be critical of where you are coming from
and understanding that that is not the
only perspective that is deemed correct
so first self check second dialogue not
monologue if you speak in terms of
languages and I’m not just talking about
English we’ll do right bikini bottom
reading about girls but yeah if free
words exist contain if your framework if
your framework is limited to this alone
or this alone then you’re getting
nowhere there’s a fourth circle here
which is the traditional values which in
this case is religious doesn’t matter
where this religious traditional values
of the community so what you need to do
is understand and empathize emotionally
intellectually what is going on when
people say I will kill you if you offend
me in that way what is going on
emotionally what is going on cognitively
what is going on intellectually what is
going on understand those resources we
have gone through dozens and dozens of
books of hips speech trying to
understand where does it come from
third synthesize Inderjeet indigenous
resources with contemporary ones by
contemporary I mean your own right so
you’ve got these treaties international
treaties that you sign with that that
are not an ordinary sitting does not
care about you do a normal surveying say
do you care that you sign on this human
rights treaties and you say no I don’t
even know what that is
you’ve got the Constitution that people
may not know about and you’ve got the
human rights framework if you are able
to synthesize indigenous cultural
symbols languages whether that is a
Shakir Sewell you know which is
vaporized now if your soul means
something violent in South Asia means
something peaceful in Turkey I think
about that why no one when I say I
should get a Sewell you’ll think you’ll
have a violent imagery but when you
think about it in Turkey you’re thinking
you know of all those dancing Sufis
what’s up with that because these are
products and derivatives of frame
works and cultural traditions lastly
deconstruct and reconstruct so what I’ll
do is I’ll give you an example and I’ll
say an Australian animation that
demonstrates an attempt a new attempt to
reconstruct deconstruct these discourses
now there is the architect of these
blasphemy laws his name is a advocate
it’s my declaration right he belongs to
a political party jamaat-e-islami this
this talk is completely political so I’m
just being very objective so in 80’s he
drafted the law and in the early 90s he
petitioned for the law to be declared as
God’s law and the federal court in 1991
explicitly for the first time declared
this is now divine our law now speaks
this has come from God himself huh so
that guy’s which Pakistani and my
parents are 21 standing right which is
strange right so my father sort of knew
this guy and I looked at his book and it
was four years ago five years ago after
Samantha’s he was shot and we were
looking at a long example this is one of
the most extreme wines and I looked at
his perspective right everyone’s got
perspective and what he’s relying on
most of the times is tradition so he’s
saying this this jurist named if now but
he said any kafir any kafir when salsa
probably killed right and any size this
is a screenshot of that future Coffee Co
Sabo Chatham which is blasphemy given a
sabotage multiple cuyahoga right and I
and I’ve read the original resource and
it said kafir Kosovo shut up giving us a
bath or hot nanny totally Allegra it
said the polar opposite right so I call
this guy up and said image marcus nami
snow and father is so I get to say that
and he was like sure come over I come
there and he gives me a two-minute hug
I’m like it’s really awkward because he
does not really know what I’m here for
but
he thinks I am this this next defender
of the law and he tells me everything
secrets that he did not want to tell me
I showed him this and I showed him the
resource the actual resource and he said
I said listen you’re basing your
petition on something that is factually
opposite the resource you’re giving to
the court says that not bad Mouse and
will not be killed he said I’m sure it
says that I can’t do it Arabic I say you
can’t read Arabic yeah I can’t but you
have sighted Arabic text which don’t
have translation in the court and given
to them to parliamentarians is that I
was told to so okay so this is the
translation done by I’m asleep what do
you think now would you reconsider your
position he said yeah sure but for now
the seculars want to change the law so
let’s make sure they don’t know it was
literally that fear that there is an
other coming over to change box nine to
something else and he refused to change
his mistake and there are dozens of them
including the fatwa that was given to
kill Salman Taseer himself which was
based on fabricated text changing Arabic
printing them are it goes beyond what
you can imagine them on a fabrication
that exists but because the progressive
societies and progressive communities
are not willing to lick look into those
frameworks and try understand what are
they drawing authority from they get
away with it I’m and it’s my Qureshi
continues to get away with it by the
time I was done he had told me how he
had called the prime minister he called
the judiciary and he’d rigged the whole
judgment and this is what we need to
reconsider on how to do this thing so
I’m gonna show you and I’m gonna show
you an animation and as an example I’m
gonna give you five five final words
after that I’ll tell ya okay so I’m
going to show you this animation after
this animation is I’m gonna give you a
few words
close attention especially the top left
ones right guys come on come on give
some close attention to this you might
[Music]
on the night of July 1986 members of the
National Assembly under Zell Huff’s
regime met at the Parliament house where
they moved to amend the blasphemy bill
to 95 c to include the death penalty
there were six parliamentarians who
primarily debated the exclusion of the
death penalty
Milana Gauhar Emma Hamza Nina Bosman
with Han Liaquat Baloch Vega Mossad
Fatima and size char ‘ our story begins
with mallanna go Herman stating the
punishment for insulting the Prophet is
death and there’s a consensus on the
matter
Mia Nawaz hon Minister for justice
proposes the amendment in favor of the
death penalty and states
whoever defiles the sacred name of the
Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
shall be punished with death or
imprisonment for life and shall also be
liable to find who used an emotional
appeal when he claimed that if we reject
this bill let’s keep in mind that two
hundred and fifty thousand people can
surround the Parliament mr. speaker we
will not ignore this threat
Hansa saw the lone voice of opposition
interjects to state that the Islamic
sources used to justify the death
penalty should be verified
he states that on the one hand we are
being told that this is a matter of
utmost importance yet we are not doing
justice to the issue by passing it so
hardly we should consult experts who can
help verify and improve the bill the
rava interjects we would have sent this
for consultation had there been any
differing opinions on the matter in this
case there’s an age Mahon it is ma means
consensus for agreement it is one of the
four recognized sources of Sony law
utilized where the Quran and Sunnah are
silent on a particular issue
hums REI trades at least adjourn the
session for a little while so that
everyone lawyers legislators political
and religious experts can go through the
bill and refine it to present its best
possible version the rod will Huck
interrupts again mr. Hamza they are most
certainly known to opinions on the
matter to prove the claim of a consensus
yzma the Parliament repeats its
existence throughout the proceedings
justifying the inclusion of the death
penalty there was a unanimous decision
there’s no difference of opinion on this
all schools of thought the entire Muslim
community has a consensus on this there
isn’t any need for debate there’s
consensus of Islam on this issue how
could you even think of the idea of
publicizing this there is not even one
dissenting opinion there’s not even the
tiniest bit of dissent on the matter no
one could have any dissent I could not
find a single dissenting opinions after
thorough investigation in all the
mattresses this cannot be sent for
publishing now the entire Muslim Ummah
has a consensus on this except for the
death sentence there is nothing else
there are no two opinions about this
matter the entire Ummah has a consensus
there are no two opinions on the matter
there is a consensus present it can’t be
sent for consultation at this point in
time it should not be sent for
consultation and should immediately be
passed our mr. hamza needs to change his
view moreover go her lemon and terrible
Huckabee provide five texts Islamic law
that proves the alleged consensus yzma
on the death penalty the Parliament
claims that if anemia in sorrow ensued
relates and asthma on killing anyone
human cells to profit in reality this
book cites Abu Hanifa as saying that a
non-muslim will not be killed for
insulting the Prophet the Parliament
claims that the scholars of Italian
imperii relate an itch mop on awarding
the death penalty that anyone who
insults the Prophet in reality these
scholars agree that non-muslims will not
be killed for insulting the Prophet the
Parliament claims that it never began
relates in asthma on awarding the death
anyone oneself the profit on the
contrary if my Abidine says that if the
individual in question is a non-muslim
he will not be killed for insulting the
Prophet the Parliament claims that they
have further verified from them
addresses that there is an issue
regarding the death penalty for anyone
who insults the Prophet inspecting a
Hadiya a seminal text on sana
jurisprudence taught at these with
Russell’s reveals the polar opposite
it states that insulting the Prophet is
disbelief since non-muslims are not
killed for their disbelief they will not
be killed for any addition in their
disbelief the Parliament claims that
appearance of Jeep in cefalu saloon
relates in his mouth on killing anyone
who insults the Prophet on the contrary
the book cites the Hanafi position if a
non-muslim in cells the Holy Prophet he
will not be punished by death a
non-muslim
is not killed for his disbelief or
polytheism these are bigger sins than
insulting the Prophet furthermore of the
Howey a foremost Hanafi scholar has also
clearly stated that if a non-muslim
commits blasphemy he will be given a
verbal warning if you repeat the offence
he will be punished but not killed the
truth is that every text cited by the
parliament to support claims of
consensus on capital punishment for
blasphemy reveals a caveat that
non-muslims will not be killed for
insulting the Prophet therefore it is
safe to say that contrary to what the
parliamentarians claimed this law does
not apply to non-muslims
ESMA consensus is a source of Islamic
law the parliament used
yzma as a source of law for the 295 seat
bill however we find that this is not is
non-existent for non-muslims does the
death penalty then really apply to
non-muslims cons Azad raises two main
concerns one there needs to be a proper
definition of what constitutes blasphemy
to people frivolously accuse one another
being guff is in order to settle trivial
matters through thorough debate on the
bill such situations can be avoided
however Chorale accuses hans assad what
you are suggesting is not a process of
legislation but a process of making an
atom bomb and hans assad is once again
silenced and so the motion to pass the
bill to include the death penalty was
adopted barring one
closing voice in a country where it
takes months and years to pass the most
mundane of laws it took only a few hours
to include the death penalty as a
punishment for insulting the Prophet can
we call this legislative process Islamic
can we call this legislative process
Democratic is this legislative process
not fabricating a Jamaat silence
dissenting voices is it not
misrepresenting an otherwise rich
Islamic tradition are these legislators
not insulting the very religion that
they claim to draw a thority from and
the people that they claim to represent
[Music]
I’ve taken a lot of time already but I
hope you guys could see a demonstration
of how deconstructing people frameworks
and ideas from their angle can help us
come up with a counter discourse that
can help change perspectives there’s an
order version of it but there are some
people who don’t understand we do that’s
why I put up the English version I’m
gonna finish up with just one thing they
decided minority who threatened us who
makes this all of a sudden there’s an
there’s a tension in this room the
people they’ve got guns but you have
words guns cannot change perspective words can and you guys can thank you