Pakistan is approximately 97% Muslim and the remaining 3% of the population are Christian, Hindu, Buddhists or others.1https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html The country has suffered chronic sectarian violence against religious and non-religious minorities, with Shia Muslims subjected to the majority of the violence, and many extremely serious incidents against the Christian minority. For individual non-religious persons to speak out is uncommon, but those revealed or alleged to be non-religious tend to provoke swift condemnation.
The legal environment in Pakistan is notably repressive; it has brutal blasphemy laws, systemic and legislative religious discrimination and often allows vigilante violence on religious grounds to occur with impunity.
|Constitution and government||Education and children’s rights||Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals||Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values|
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Countries: Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Republic of the, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Taiwan, Ukraine
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Croatia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Republic of the, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, India, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, São Tomé and Príncipe, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, Timor-Leste (East Timor), United States of America, Uruguay
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Congo, Republic of the, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Latvia, Luxembourg, Micronesia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sweden, Taiwan, Uruguay, Venezuela
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.
Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.
May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)
Countries: Andorra, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Italy, Jamaica, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine
Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.
Countries: North Korea
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Moldova, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Countries: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kosovo, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Countries: Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Italy, Kiribati, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela
Countries: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Countries: Andorra, Armenia, Benin, Bhutan, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Republic of the, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar (Burma), Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu
This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.
Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe
This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.
Countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nigeria, Oman, Palestine, Paraguay, Qatar, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Republic of the, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, North Korea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Singapore, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Finland, Georgia, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia
Countries: Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Dominica, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Guinea, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Germany, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Swaziland, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zambia
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Comoros, Cyprus, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Oman, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Denmark, Eritrea, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Korea, Republic of, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Montenegro, Myanmar (Burma), Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Article 2 of the Constitution establishes Islam as the state religion and requires that all laws are consistent with Islam. Despite the Constitution’s promise of adequate provisions for minorities to practice their religious beliefs freely, many of Pakistan’s laws and policies restrict freedom of religion or belief.2http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1333523681_951.pdf The Muslim majority is afforded more protections than the non-religious or minority religious groups. The relatively common sectarian and religiously motivated violence against minorities and individuals in Pakistan often goes unpunished.
The Constitution states that Ahmadis are not considered as Muslims, despite their self-identification as Muslims. Additionally, articles 298(b) and 298(c) of the Penal Code3https://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/46816797.pdf prohibit Ahmadis from self-identifying as Muslims, propagating or disseminating materials about their faith, or calling their houses of worship mosques. Ahmadis have been imprisoned simply for sharing Ahmadiyya literature.4https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan.pdf
The Constitution establishes a Federal Shariat Court (FSC) composed of Muslim judges to examine and decide whether any law or provision is “repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.” The Constitution gives the FSC the power to examine a law of its own accord or at the request of the government or a private citizen. The Constitution requires the government to amend the law as directed by the FSC.5https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PAKISTAN-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf
Pakistan’s Penal Code encompasses a number of Islamic legal provisions. The judicial system encompasses several different court systems with overlapping and sometimes competing jurisdictions that reflect differences in civil, criminal, and Islamic jurisprudence. For certain criminal convictions under the Hudood Ordinances,6http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/hudood.html; http://cii.gov.pk/publications/h.report.pdf; https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/06/pakistan-proposed-reforms-hudood-laws-fall-short including those for rape, extramarital sex, alcohol, and gambling, the Shariah bench of the Supreme Court and the FSC serve as appellate courts. The FSC has the power to review, of its own accord, cases in lower courts that relate to hudud laws and apply to Muslims and non-Muslims.
Government funding is available for Islamic clergy and the building and maintenance of mosques. This funding comes from a 2.5% tax the state levies on all Sunni Muslims. The funds are re-distributed amongst Sunni mosques, madrasahs, and charities. No other religious or non-religious groups are tithed.
It is a constitutional requirement that the president and prime minister be Muslim. All senior officials, including members of parliament, must swear an oath to protect the country’s Islamic identity and affirm their belief in the finality of the prophet Muhammad.7http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1333523681_951.pdf The Interior Ministry has been critical of both secular and religious parties that have protested against this move.
For lawmakers and others to critically discuss the Islamist nature of the law, such as suggesting reform of blasphemy laws (see below) or any broader secular reforms, exposes the critic to potential assassination.8aeon.co/essays/pakistan-s-political-islamists-tried-to-kill-me
According to the US State Department’s 2019 International Religious Freedom, in Pakistan:
“The constitution prohibits discriminatory admission based on religious affiliation to any governmental educational institution. According to regulations, the only factors affecting admission to government schools are students’ grades and home provinces; however, students must declare their religious affiliation on application forms. This declaration is also required for private educational institutions, including universities. Students who identify themselves as Muslims must declare in writing they believe the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet. Non-Muslims are required to have the head of their local religious communities verify their religious affiliation. There is no provision in the law for atheists.”9https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PAKISTAN-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf
In state-run schools, Islamic studies are compulsory for all Muslim students.10http://www.senate.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1505294888_739.PDF Whilst non-Muslims are not required by law to take Islamic studies, and are offered ethical studies as an alternative in some schools, in practice no alternative to Islamic studies is usually available and by consequence many non-Muslims are required to take Islamic studies.11https://dailytimes.com.pk/39753/non-muslim-students-reluctant-to-study-islamic-studies-or-ethics/ The state reportedly plans to bring in a compulsory national curriculum12http://www.mofept.gov.pk/ProjectDetail/MzkyNDc2MjMtY2VjYy00ZDA4LTk5OTUtNzUyNDI3ZWMzN2Rm rolling out in April 2021.13https://www.dawn.com/news/1542309 The first stage is expected to be implemented in years 1-6. Muslim students will be expected to study Islamiat, while non-Muslims – specifically five minority groups – will be obliged to study Religious Education instead from grade 1 onwards. The precise contents of the curriculum are not yet known.
In some places, schools, teachers and students – girls in particular – have frequently been subject to violence and terrorism by the Taliban and other extremist groups.14https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/27/pakistan-attacks-schools-devastate-education Many children are unable to attend schools, many schools are run down, and the madrasas, which in some areas provide the only available education, are notorious for teaching revisionist history and hatred of non-Islamic religions and people.15https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/education-reform-in-pakistan.pdf; crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/pakistan/education-reform-pakistan
In April 2019, the Pakistani government that it would be taking control of over 30,000 madrasa schools as part of a drive to “mainstream” the Islamic schools and address previously reported concerns regarding the existence of textbooks, educational content and teaching that sought to devalue religious minorities in “an alarming number of schools”.16https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-madrasas/pakistan-plans-to-bring-30000-madrasas-under-government-control-idUSKCN1S517Z; uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan%202014.pdf; https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan.pdf
Forced “conversion” to Islam is a serious problem faced by some minorities in the country, usually targeting young women and girls as a way of forcibly marrying them into Muslim families.17bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29008267
On 24 November 2016, the Sindh province assembly enacted the Sindh Criminal Law (Protection of Minorities) Bill proposed by a Hindu minority MP, Mr Nand Kumar Goklani, in 2015. This is Pakistan’s first law criminalizing forced conversion, under which perpetrators face a prison term of up to five years.18pakistanchristianpost.com/detail.php?hnewsid=6198
In the absence of specific language in the law authorizing civil or common law marriage, marriage certificates are signed by religious authorities and registered with the local marriage registrar. The 2016 Sindh Hindu Marriage Act and the 2017 Hindu Marriage Act (applying to all other provinces) codified legal mechanisms to formally register and prove the legitimacy of Hindu marriages.19https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PAKISTAN-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf
According to the United States’ State Department:
“Some court judgments have considered the marriage of a non-Muslim woman to a non-Muslim man dissolved if she converts to Islam, although the marriage of a non-Muslim man who converts remains recognized. Under such judgments, children born to a non-Muslim couple could be considered illegitimate and ineligible for inheritance if their mother converts to Islam. The only way to legitimize the marriage and the children would be for the husband also to convert to Islam. Under such judgments, the children of a Muslim man and a Muslim woman who both convert to another religious group could be considered illegitimate, and the government could take custody of the children. The law does not speak on any of these practices.”20https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PAKISTAN-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf
The government designates religious affiliation on identity documents such as passports and in national identity card applications. Applicants must state their religion when applying for a passport. “No Religion” is not accepted as an answer.21https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PAKISTAN-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf
Neither civil nor common law marriage are recognised in Pakistan, and religion predominates over family life and law in a variety of extremely prejudicial ways, including:
Freedom House states that, “Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom have not provided effective safeguards against discriminatory legislation, social prejudice, and sectarian violence.” Hindus have been vulnerable to kidnapping and forced conversion. Furthermore, religious minorities are targets for blasphemy accusations.22https://freedomhouse.org/country/pakistan/freedom-world/2020
Women are placed at a disadvantage under personal status laws and face discrimination in practice.23https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/pakistan
LGBTQI+ individual face discrimination and violence. Article 377 of the Penal Code criminalizes “intercourse against the order of nature”, which is believed to deter people from acknowledging or publicizing their identity. Transgender and intersex people can register as a “third gender” in official documents, and some were recognized in the 2017 census. In 2018, Parliament passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, granting transgender people the right to chose their gender and to have that recognized in official documents and the prohibition of depriving transgender people rights such as the right to vote.24https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/09/609700652/pakistan-passes-historic-transgender-rights-bill?t=1603895179330 However, it is reported that they face discrimination with regards to housing and employment in addition to violence and harassment.25https://freedomhouse.org/country/pakistan/freedom-world/2020 At least 65 transgender women have been killed since 2015.26https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/pakistan
According to Amnesty International, “In recent years, [Hindus] have faced increasing marginalization, with individuals facing false accusations of “blasphemy” – a crime that carries a mandatory death penalty in Pakistan – attacks on temples and shops, and the horrific abduction, forced conversion and forced marriage of hundreds of young Hindu women.”27https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/pakistan-must-protect-religious-freedom-for-hindus/
The right to freedom of expression, including media freedom, is frequently violated in Pakistan. The 2016 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act has given the telecommunication authority unchecked powers to censor material online, often justified by an intention to remove blasphemous and pornographic content.28https://freedomhouse.org/country/pakistan/freedom-world/2020
Chapter XV of Pakistan’s Penal Code contains a number of sections that institute blasphemy and religious defamation laws: Article 295-A outlaws “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs”; Article 295-B outlaws the defaming of the Quran; Article 295-C bans the use of insulting remarks about the Prophet; Article 298 prohibits people from saying anything that had the deliberate intent to wound religious feelings; and article 298-B punishes any misuse of epithets, descriptions, or titles reserved for certain holy personages or places.29https://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/46816797.pdf
The blasphemy laws are further bolstered by the Anti-Terrorism Act, which states that any action, including speech, intended to incite religious hatred is punishable by imprisonment.30https://www.loc.gov/law/help/fighting-extremism/pakistan.php Whilst applicable nationwide, the country’s blasphemy laws are used predominantly in the Punjab province, where local authorities have, over the course of 2020, repeatedly sought to censor expressions deemed “blasphemous” including text books.31https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/asia-central-southern-and-south-eastern/pakistan/
Blasphemy laws carry the death penalty or life in prison, and tend to target non-believers, religious minorities and dissenting Muslims. Though there has been an effective moratorium on carrying out the death sentence in recent years, dozens of people remain on death row, and furthermore those accused of blasphemy are often murdered before or after any trial takes place (see below).
Notably, for a charge of blasphemy to be made in Pakistan an allegation is all that is required – and it may be highly subjective, since the law does not provide clear guidance on what constitutes a violation. Proof of intent or evidence against the alleged is not necessary.32https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/pakistan-must-protect-religious-freedom-for-hindus/
Most blasphemy cases are either brought by those wishing to undermine minority groups or by those wishing to eliminate individuals against whom they have a grudge. The mere accusation of blasphemy against someone can result in the accused’s life being endangered.
Mullahs will often come to court to intimidate the judiciary, and obtaining a lawyer to ensure a fair trial is often impossible. In a recent incident, in July 2020, an Ahmadi man was shot dead in court while standing trial for “blasphemy.”33https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-man-accused-of-blasphemy-shot-dead-at-court-trial/a-54365714
Those accused of blasphemy, and who have been acquitted by the courts, often either flee Pakistan or are assassinated on their release from jail. Further those who represent alleged blasphemers run the risk of being accused of apostasy. In May 2014, Rashid Rehman, lawyer for Junaid Hafeez was killed for representing him.34https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-blasphemy/gunmen-kill-pakistan-lawyer-defending-blasphemy-case-idUSBREA4709N20140508
Prosecuting those who commit murder in the name of winning retribution against ‘blasphemers’ is also problematized by Islamists and others who intimidate or threaten prosecutors. In 2017 the lead prosecutor of the killers of Mashal Khan (see Highlighted Cases below) was forced to quit reportedly under extreme pressure from the families of the accused.35dawn.com/news/1366186
Blasphemy laws are also used specifically against the minority Ahmadi community. Article 298 of Pakistan’s Penal Code contains anti-Ahmadiyya blasphemy legislation. Whilst Ahmadis have the Quran as their holy book, they can be punished with up to three years in prison by just referring to their faith as Islam. At the end of 2013, a 72-year-old doctor and member of the Ahmadiyya community, Masood Ahmad, was imprisoned for ‘posing as a Muslim’ and heresy after being secretly filmed reading from the Quran at his surgery. In May 2014, a Pakistani mob killed an Ahmadi woman and two of her granddaughters after an Ahmadi was accused of posting blasphemous material on Facebook.
Perhaps the most famous cases of those killed extrajudicially are Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti. The then-governor of Punjab state, Salman Taseer, was gunned down by his own bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri, in broad daylight at Islamabad’s Kohsar Market on 4 January 2011. Qadri said he killed Taseer over what he called the politician’s vocal opposition to blasphemy laws of the country. Two weeks after Taseer was killed, the only Christian minister in the federal cabinet, Shahbaz Bhatti, was gunned down in Islamabad. He too was a critic of the blasphemy laws.36https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12111831
The politicians are only the most high profile of numerous other cases in which individuals are either locked up for many years awaiting various long-drawn out stages of the trial process, or are hurt or killed extrajudicially. The victims frequently include children, minorities, and other vulnerable people.
Human rights activists and politicians in Pakistan banded together to successfully secure the release of a jailed 9-year-old Christian boy and his mother, who could have faced the death penalty after they were accused of burning the Quran. According to the London-based charity British Pakistani Christian Association, 9-year-old Izhan was at school in the town of Quetta on 20 October 2016 when he was accused of burning a copy of Islam’s holy book.37christianpost.com/news/9-year-old-christian-boy-accused-burning-quran-tortured-four-days-police-finally-released-from-jail-171150/
On 3 June 2016, it was reported that Pakistan’s national TV regulator banned two TV hosts after a discussion about blasphemy and the status of a religious minority sparked controversy. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority said it banned Hamza Ali Abbasi, one of the country’s biggest TV stars, and Shabbir Abu Talib from hosting their Ramadan-themed shows after receiving over a thousand complaints. Mr. Abbasi asked Islamic scholars during the broadcast on the channel Aaj TV if the state had the right to declare a group of people infidels or non-Muslims. He referred specifically to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, widely regarded as blasphemers and as non-Muslims.38blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/06/21/pakistan-tv-hosts-banned-after-blasphemy-discussion/
In November 2014, a married Christian couple, Sajjad Maseeh (or Shehzad Maish), 27, and Shama Bibi (or Samah), 24, who was pregnant, were attacked by a mob of around 1,200 people after rumors that they had burned verses from the Quran. After their legs were broken to prevent them running, they were set alight and thrown in a kiln. As is often the case, the origin of the rumours have subsequently been linked to an interpersonal conflict, in this case, “revenge for unpaid bills”. The viscerally shocking nature of this case has reverberated through the ‘blasphemy’ law debate in Pakistan, prompting more than usual pressure on police to convict members of the mob who killed them. In November 2016, five of the killers were sentenced to death. An editorial in The Nation broadly welcomed the death sentences for the killers, adding: “Avenging Samah and Shehzad Maish isn’t enough, we must prevent future deaths. The root cause of the problem, the blasphemy laws, are still in place in their nefarious form, as is a politico-religious complex designed to protect them.”39christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/november/into-fiery-furnace-christians-pakistan-burned-blasphemy.html; nation.com.pk/editorials/25-Nov-2016/a-measure-of-atonement
In two separate incidents in 2019, mobs attacked Hindu properties and places of worship in the southern Sindh province after allegations of “blasphemy” were made against a Hindu school principal and a Hindu veterinarian.40https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/pakistan-must-protect-religious-freedom-for-hindus/
From 2010 onward, the government has been aggressive in its blocking of online “blasphemous” content. For example, perceived blasphemous content on YouTube is blocked by the Pakistani government, and the social-networking site Twitter has also been subject to blocking. In May 2012, Twitter was blocked briefly, and again in September that year. In May 2014, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority requested the removal of some material, much of which mocked Islam and other religions, claiming that it was “blasphemous,” “unethical” and violated Pakistan’s Penal Code. Twitter used its Country Withheld Content tool, which blocks content in a particular nation, to comply and block several dozen Twitter accounts. After international protest, including by Humanists International, in June Twitter restored access to tweets and the accounts it had blocked.41iheu.org/twittertheocracy-campaign-after-social-network-blocks-blasphemy-in-pakistan/
Under the 2016 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony is responsible for reviewing internet traffic and reporting blasphemous or
offensive content to the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) for possible removal, or to the Federal Investigative Agency (FIA) for possible criminal prosecution.42https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PAKISTAN-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf
In the past several years there have been a few preliminary efforts by responsible parties to reign in the malign influence of ‘blasphemy’ laws in Pakistan. However, such efforts have often been countered by Islamist voices and by pressure in the opposite direction.
In September 2013, the Council of Islamic Ideology recommended against amending the blasphemy laws to add procedural safeguards, noting situations of misuse or fraud could be penalized through other sections of the Penal Code. In December 2013, the FSC stated that the death penalty is the sole appropriate punishment for blasphemy and recommended the removal of life imprisonment as an option when sentencing. The government considered this recommendation, but those found guilty of ‘blasphemy’ seem to enter a permanent holding situation on death row, under a de facto moratorium.
In 2017, the High court in Islamabad asked the Pakistani government to make changes to the laws in order to prevent people from being falsely accused of blasphemy. The judicial request, while not demanding a repeal of the law, asked for the same punishment for those who falsely allege blasphemy as for those who commit the crime. Currently, the false accuser faces imprisonment of up to between two years and life, although such a sentence is rare. This request however has mostly been ignored by Parliament.43aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/pakistan-court-seeks-amend-blasphemy-law-170814120428595.html
Asia Bibi was the most prominent ‘blasphemy’ prisoner in recent times. A “lower-caste” Christian farm worker accused of ‘blasphemy’ by neighbours who objected to her drinking water from a particular well. The charge in 2009 lead initially to a death sentence in 2010, followed by years in indefinite detention, as is the fate of many ‘blasphemy’ convicts in the country.
Asia Bibi was eventually released from jail in 2019 after being cleared of charges in October 2018. The court’s decision to drop the blasphemy charges in 2018 was met with violent demonstrations by extremists calling for Asia’s beheading, which paralyzed cities across Pakistan for several days. In order to stop the violence, Imran Khan’s government struck a deal with the protesters, allowing them to petition against the Supreme Court’s judgement. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the challenge to its October ruling.44theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/asia-bibi-pakistani-authorities-barring-her-from-leaving-friend-says
While her release comes as some good news, blasphemy law remains unchanged. Asia Bibi herself has attempted to draw attention to the issue, stating that: “There are many other cases where the accused are lying in jail for years and their decision should also be done on merit. The world should listen to them.”45telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/31/asia-bibi-pleads-justice-victims-pakistans-harsh-blasphemy-laws/
Pakistan has no specific statutory law that criminalizes apostasy. However, renouncing Islam is
widely considered by clerics to be a form of blasphemy.46loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php#pakistan; https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PAKISTAN-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf
Despite all the restrictions on free expression, Pakistan’s media is diverse and varied. This notwithstanding, blasphemy laws and other laws are used by the state to justify censorship. Journalists are targeted by non-state actors, as well as by political, military, and intelligence operatives.47https://rsf.org/en/pakistan In 2019, four journalists and bloggers were killed in relation to their reporting. In fear of their lives, journalists increasingly self-censor themselves.48https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/pakistan Impunity in cases concerning murdered journalists remains the norm.49https://freedomhouse.org/country/pakistan/freedom-world/2020
Mashal Khan, a student who referred to himself as a ‘humanist’ on his Facebook page, was murdered by his fellow university students for alleged blasphemy.50https://www.dawn.com/news/1387707; tribune.com.pk/story/1382848/journalism-student-killed-mardan-university-alleged-blasphemy/ According to Pakistani media, a large group of students were involved in the attack that occurred on 13 April 2017 after Khan was accused of posting “blasphemous” content online. Khan had called himself “The Humanist” on his Facebook page. Khan appears to have posted routinely against discrimination and in favour of human dignity. Khan was reportedly shot in the head and then beaten with sticks. Video footage circulated on social media showed his lifeless body being attacked. Police were reportedly present during the attack but claimed they were unable to intervene due to the large number of attackers present. The official police report into Mashal’s death says there is no evidence supporting any blasphemy allegation. 57 suspects went on trial in 2017. The court convicted 31 people, sentenced one individual to death, two more to life imprisonment, while acquitting 26 individuals.51https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/21/pakistan-convicts-two-over-mashal-khan-blasphemy-lynching-case/ Mashal Khan’s father, Iqbal Khan, is reported to have said he rejected any attempt at “reconciliation” by the families of those who killed his son, saying “If someone wants it [reconciliation] then he should watch the videos of the brutal killing of my son.”52samaa.tv/pakistan/2017/09/iqbal-khan-rules-reconciliation-mashal-khans-killers/
In January 2017, several bloggers and activists accused of atheism or blasphemy were forcibly disappeared apparently by state security services.53https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/10/pakistan-bloggers-feared-abducted When they were released, some reported having been tortured in detention.
In October 2016, police reportedly registered a case under Section 295-A of the Penal Code against a man named only as Aslam alias Saeen Achhu. Aslam was accused of denying “Allah, all the prophets including Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH), all the holy books, angels and the prayers, fast, Zakat and Haj.” A petitioner is cited as providing recordings of “blasphemous” conversation with Aslam. At the time of writing, the status of the case remains unclear.54https://nation.com.pk/15-Oct-2016/gcci-scci-stress-joint-efforts-to-boost-exports
Fauzia Ilyas is the founder of the Atheist & Agnostic Alliance Pakistan (AAAP), which claims over 3,000 supporters. With strict “blasphemy” and apostasy laws, the very existence of the AAAP appears to have been taken as prima facie evidence of a crime. Custody of Fauzia’s daughter was granted to her ex-husband, a devout Muslim, apparently on the basis of Fauzia having left Islam. In 2015 a Lahore court initiated criminal proceedings against Fauzia and issued an arrest warrant. Fauzia has fled to the Netherlands where she is currently seeking asylum, along with her colleague and husband, A. Gilani, a spokesperson for AAAP.
In 2013, Junaid Hafeez, a visiting lecturer of English in Bahauddin Zakaria University (Multan, Punjab province) was accused by a student affiliated with Islami Jamiat Talaba of insulting the Prophet Muhammad on Facebook. Hafeez was arrested and jailed on blasphemy charges. Since June 2014, he has been kept in solitary confinement, in conditions that were described as ‘extreme’ between 2018-2019.55https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/pakistan-authorities-immediately-unconditionally-release-junaid-hafeez/ His trial, that has involved eight different judges, was lengthy and incurred severe delays since May 2014, following the murder of Junaid’s counsel, Rashid Rehman (see below). In December 2019, it was reported that Hafeez was sentenced to death for blasphemy.56https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50878432
Rashid Rehman, a lawyer who agreed to defend Junaid Hafeez, was murdered. Rehman was special coordinator for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in Multan. The Hafeez trial had been conducted in jail because of the threat to his life, and Rehman himself received death threats for representing Hafeez and he reported them to the Multan Bar Association, however no measures were taken to provide him with security. His colleagues at the human rights commission also urged the government to provide him with security. In May 2014, two men walked into Rehman’s offices and shot him dead.57https://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/pakistani-lawyer-rashid-rehman-murdered-after-taking-blasphemy-case-9341021.html They have not been caught and activists complain of the government seeking to bury the case.
|↑5, ↑9, ↑19, ↑20, ↑21, ↑42||https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PAKISTAN-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf|
|↑6||http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/hudood.html; http://cii.gov.pk/publications/h.report.pdf; https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/06/pakistan-proposed-reforms-hudood-laws-fall-short|
|↑16||https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-madrasas/pakistan-plans-to-bring-30000-madrasas-under-government-control-idUSKCN1S517Z; uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan%202014.pdf; https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan.pdf|
|↑22, ↑25, ↑28, ↑49||https://freedomhouse.org/country/pakistan/freedom-world/2020|
|↑23, ↑26, ↑48||https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/pakistan|
|↑27, ↑32, ↑40||https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/pakistan-must-protect-religious-freedom-for-hindus/|