A bizarre demand: Specter of blasphemy

The rending travesty of present time is that the dotard are full of impervious aplomb but the wise are full of myriad vacillations .The blatant fiasco of the slumbering secularists has given rise to the appalling renaissance of hideous extremism. Lately the bigoted hoodlums are provoking the spiraling of street brawls, mangling the innocent masses and threatening to pulverise the luminous ideals of the state. Twisting the sacred tenets of Islam they are manipulating the gullible. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh has observed 'Islam does not encourage the use of force in matters of religion' [Iftaker Hasan v. State 59 DLR (AD) 36]. Quran says “whosever killed a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind...”Surat 5: Al Maida: 32.
Recently people of Bangladesh have been stunned by the bizarre demands for draconian blasphemy law, adoption of eerie segregation policy in educational institutions and the demolition of emblematic statues gauged to be tokens of profanity. The extremist demand mandatory death penalty for the desecration of Islam. Their demand is anachronistic and lacerates the ethos of constitution. Law does not approve persecution in the name of prosecution. Lately the SC of Bangladesh has invalidated the provision of mandatory death penalty [BLAST v. Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR]. Even the holy Quran does not prescribe mandatory death penalty for heresy. Quran says “the punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands from the opposite sides, or exile from the land… ” Sura Maida V: 22.
The term 'Blasphemy' has derived from the Greek term 'Blasphemia' meaning to show disrespect to any religion. Blasphemy involves ribald vilification of any religion and scurrilous invective against God. The UK Law Commission for The Abolition of Offence against Religion and Public Worship formed in 1981 has defined the term as “an assault upon the mind and the spirit just as much as mayhem is an assault upon the body”. The House of Lords has defined the term as “using words which are scurrilous, abusive and which tends to vilify Christian religion” [Whitehouse v. Lemon, (1979) A.C. 617].  Underscoring the importance of blasphemy law Lord Scarman opined “I do not subscribe to the view that the common law offence of blasphemy serves no useful purpose in the modern law” [Gay News Ltd v. UK 5 E. H R. R. 123]. The crass idiosyncrasy of the offence of blasphemy is that no mental element is required for the perpetration of the crime other than the intention to utter the offending words [Bowman v. Secular Society (1917)].
Demand for blasphemy law emanates from the fallacious misconception regarding the nexus between the state and church. The radicals assume Bangladesh is a theocratic state. In this regard the above mentioned   Law Commission Of UK states “ this view point fails to take into account the changes in the relation between state and church and that from the standpoint of criminal law it has lost its validity since  the blasphemy ceased to be regarded as an offence rooted in sedition”. Bangladesh is a republic and concept of Islamic law and punishment under Islamic scriptures is totally exotic to the state apparatus [State v. Shaiokh Abdur Rahman 58 DLR 615]. There has been total estrangement of state from the clutches of religions in the modern world. The mediaeval ruling that Christianity is parcel of the laws of England (Taylor's case- 1676) has been disapproved 100 years ago by the Apex Court of UK [R v. Ramsay and Foote, 1883].
The striking feature of blasphemy laws is that these laws are mulled only to safeguard the mainstream religion. In England the Blasphemy Act 1697 was designed to protect only the Christianity and in Pakistan the blasphemy law couched in section 295-C of the penal code is promised to protect only the sanctity of Islam. In a captivating case the August court of UK has held that blasphemy law remained confined to the protection of Christianity only and did not extend to the protection of the Islamic faith [R v. Chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate (1991)]. Lord Scarman has lambasted this disparity saying- 'in an increasingly plural society, it is necessary not only to respect the different religious beliefs but also to protect them from vilification'.
The recurrence of any crime can be addressed adroitly not by the fear of gruesome penalty but by the proper application of the existing laws. There are section 99(a) of CrPC, section 57 of ICT Act 2006 and section 295A of the penal code which can dexterously curb down the perpetration of crimes offending the religious sensitivity. In modern world the enactment of blasphemy law is an anathema. It breeds bigotry, cultivates fanaticism and begets communalism in its last stage. Amnesty International in its report on The Use and Abuse of Blasphemy Law in Pakistan published in 1994 articulated “the blasphemy law has contributed to an atmosphere of hostility towards the minorities and fomented the sectarian animosity”.