Category: Opinion

Posted on

UN Working Group Confirms FRF’s Stand

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s Detention Violates Human Rights.

The Foundation for Religious Freedom (FRF) welcomes the recent publication of Opinion No. 32/2024 by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. This landmark decision sheds light on the injustice suffered by Yahaya Sharif-Aminu and confirms FRF’s long-held position: his arrest, trial, and continued detention violate Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights law.

Summary of the UN Working Group’s Opinion

The UN Working Group examined the circumstances surrounding Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s arrest, trial, and sentencing under Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code. It concluded that his detention is arbitrary and falls under three critical categories of human rights violations:

Category I – The lack of legal basis for his arrest and detention, including being held incommunicado and denied due process.

Category II – His prosecution resulted directly from exercising his right to freedom of religion, thought, and expression.

Category V – His detention was discriminatory, targeting him as a member of a religious minority.

The Working Group unequivocally stated that Nigeria must release Yahaya immediately and compensate him for violating his fundamental rights. It further urged the Nigerian government to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and trial to hold those responsible accountable.

Validation of FRF’s Advocacy

Since his unjust arrest in March 2020, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu—a young Nigerian musician—has endured years of systemic injustice. Convicted without legal representation and sentenced to death under Kano State’s Sharia laws, Yahaya’s case has highlighted serious procedural irregularities and constitutional violations. FRF has consistently argued that:

Yahaya’s arrest and trial were unlawful and unconstitutional.

Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code exceeds its constitutional mandate, which limits Sharia laws to personal matters such as marriage, inheritance, and family affairs.

Yahaya’s continued detention despite these violations amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice.

The UN Working Group’s opinion affirms these points. It underscores that Nigeria, as a signatory to international covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has failed to protect Yahaya’s fundamental rights, particularly his freedom of expression and religion.

Nigeria’s Silence: A Missed Opportunity

The UN Working Group formally invited the Nigerian government to respond to its findings and clarify the legal basis for Yahaya’s continued detention. Regrettably, the Nigerian authorities chose not to engage with the Working Group’s investigation. This silence only deepens concerns about the government’s commitment to upholding international human rights standards and addressing systemic injustices.

Call to Action: Immediate Release and Compensation

The Nigerian authorities must heed the UN Working Group’s decision. The following steps are imperative:

Immediate Release: Yahaya Sharif-Aminu should be released without further delay. His continued incarceration, despite procedural irregularities and the violation of his rights, is unjustifiable.

Compensation: The government must compensate Yahaya for the physical, emotional, and financial toll inflicted upon him and his family over the past four years.

Legal Reforms: Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code must be re-evaluated to ensure alignment with Nigeria’s constitutional and international human rights obligations.

FRF’s Continued Advocacy

The FRF remains unwavering in its commitment to securing justice for Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. We will continue to advocate relentlessly for his release, compensation, and the abolition of unconstitutional blasphemy laws that target religious minorities. Yahaya’s case is not only about one individual’s freedom but also about protecting the principles of tolerance, the rule of law, and freedom of religion in Nigeria.

The UN Working Group’s opinion is a powerful reminder that no one should suffer persecution for peacefully expressing their beliefs. The Nigerian government has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to right this wrong and demonstrate its commitment to justice and human rights.

We will not rest until Yahaya Sharif-Aminu is free and justice is served.

Read the entire UN Working Group Opinion here.

Posted on

Much Ado About The Sharia Law

It is alarming that whilst Mr. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu has been languishing in jail for over four years trying to prove his innocence and also to challenge the constitutionality of the Sharia law as it is currently being practised in Kano State, a lawmaker seeks to expand the scope of the Sharia Law by removing the restriction from Islamic Personal Law to just Islamic Law. This is a sneaky and dangerous move and it must not be allowed to pass.

Kola Alapinni

On the 31st of October 2024, I wrote a letter to both the President of the Nigerian Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was my reaction to the Bill that was surreptitiously sponsored by Mr Aliyu Bappa Misau (PDP Bauchi). A week earlier, on Thursday, 24th October 2024, Mr Misau had presented a Bill to the House of Representatives where he sought to expand the scope of the limitation placed on the Sharia Law in the Constitution through the back door. S. 277 of the Nigerian Constitution limits the jurisdiction and the application of the Sharia Law to questions of Islamic Personal Law such as marriage, validity of marriage and its dissolution, family relationship, guardianship of an infant, Wills, Succession, et cetera.

Imperfect as it may be, the framers of the Nigerian Constitution were deliberate in limiting the application of the Sharia Law to personal matters because Nigeria is a peculiar country. It is the largest Black nation in the world. Multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, boisterous and could be highly volatile. It is a huge melting pot of various nation-states coupled together by the colonial British government for their economic interests. Nigeria was not created for Nigerians, it was created for trade, commerce and to supply Britain the ‘mother-ship’ with the much-needed raw materials and mineral resources the Empire needed. 

In recent years, the demography of Nigeria has almost split the country into two along religious lines. Originally, Nigeria used to be two countries, the Northern and Southern protectorate. Lord Fredrick Lugard, the colonial administrator fused the two together to ease the burden of financial administration on the British. The large, agrarian North was not sustainable without the wealth of its Southern counterpart.

The lawmaker thus submitted a Bill for reading to the House, but refused to provide copies of the Bill to his colleagues to study beforehand. None of them had seen the Bill before he introduced it on the floor of Parliament. It was a booby trap. He sought to expand the scope of the Sharia law limited to Islamic Personal law in the Constitution to just ‘Islamic Law’. It was a ruse. The oldest trick in the book. Of course, there was an uproar in Parliament, and the Bill was stood down for proper discussion and for him to provide copies of the proposed Bill to his colleagues to enable them to study it for a proper debate.

Upon the return of democracy in 1999, it was the first time a Northern Nigerian had not been at the helm of affairs since July 1966, except for the accidental regime of General Obasanjo, who succeeded his boss, General Murtala Mohammed. Gen. Mohammed had been assassinated in Ikoyi, Lagos, on his way to the mosque on Friday, 13th February 1976. Obasanjo thus ruled briefly from February 1976 to the 1st of October 1979, when he handed over to the civilian administration of Sheu Shagari. The North held sway again for an uninterrupted twenty years till 29th May 1999 when a now ‘civilianised’ Olusegun Obasanjo was returned to the Presidential Lodge.

A few years into Obasanjo’s first term, one Sani Ahmed Yerima, who had been elected Governor, took it upon himself to champion the introduction of the criminal aspects of Sharia Law in his Zamfara State. It spread like wildfire in Northern Nigeria, and we now have fourteen States in Northern Nigeria practising this brand of the Sharia Law. The Attorney-general of the Federation then ought to have approached the Supreme Court of Nigeria for an interpretation of the Constitution, but he failed to do so, perhaps because of his Principal’s quagmire. Obasanjo was seen as a Northern candidate. He had not only lost in his State, he lost in his ward. If he was going to get a second term, he dared not ruffle the feathers of Northern Nigeria. He thus settled for a political solution and reportedly said it would blow away. The problem is that the storm didn’t blow away, it has turned into a hurricane destroying everything in its path.

The epicentre of this destruction happens in the huge and sprawling city of Kano, where in September 2020, I led the legal team that intervened in two shocking cases of the implementation of the Sharia Law. The first was the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (popularly named ‘The Kano Singer’ by the Nigerian media). The second was Omar Farouq Bashir (The Minor). Mr Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death without legal representation for sharing a WhatsApp voice note where he allegedly elevated his Prophet of the Tijjanniya movement above Prophet Mohammed. Omar Farouq was sentenced to ten years in prison for an utterance he made in a verbal argument when someone took his phone and would not return it to him. He was just a child!

The Kano State High Court freed the minor. In Yahaya’s case, his death sentence was overturned for procedural irregularities and for being sentenced to death without any legal representation. We had argued that the Sharia law was unconstitutional. The court did not agree. The Court even said that S. 10 of the Constitution that states that ‘The Government of the Federation or of a State SHALL not adopt any religion as State Religion’ is not justiciable. We made a further appeal to the Court of Appeal (a federal court), which is the second-highest court in Nigeria. The Court upheld our argument on S. 10 and lampooned the lower court, but the judges couldn’t agree amongst themselves if Nigeria was a secular country or a multi-religious country!

Nigeria is a signatory to various international human rights treaties and instruments like the African Charter, The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The Child Rights Convention (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to mention a few. The provisions of the Sharia Law currently practised in Northern Nigeria thus violate these documents we have voluntarily signed up for. The Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law of 2000, for instance, has several provisions that allow for stoning to death, amputation of limbs, flogging or lashing of multiple strokes of the cane. This is a violation of S. 34 of the Constitution, which protects the Right to Dignity. The former Governor of Zamfara, who ended up in the Senate, married a thirteen-year-old girl, and nothing happened. It claimed it was his right under Sharia Law, yet Nigeria is a signatory to the Child Rights Convention and also domesticated it as an Act of Parliament. It is called the Child’s Rights Act. None of the Northern States implemented it as a Law in their jurisdiction.

It is thus alarming that while Mr. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu has been languishing in jail for over four years trying to prove his innocence and also to challenge the constitutionality of Sharia law as it is currently being practised in Kano State, a lawmaker seeks to expand the scope of Sharia Law by removing the restriction from Islamic Personal Law to just Islamic Law. This is a sneaky and dangerous move, and it must not be allowed to pass.

In any case, we have alerted the leadership of the National Assembly to refrain from any further discussions on the matter as this would be contemptuous. The matter is sub judice. It will also be an incursion into the territory of the judiciary. It is a legal question that must be answered one way or the other by the Supreme Court. What the National Assembly should be asking is why a criminal appeal and one that is seeking the determination of a crucial question on the constitutionality of the Kano State Sharia penal Code Law has not been heard since being filed at the apex court for two years?

We understand that the Court is overburdened and has not had its full composition for many years. This delay has given room for the likes of Mr. Misau to try to legitimise the injustice in Northern Nigeria by sneaking in an expansion. There is a reason for limiting the Sharia Law application in the Constitution to just ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW. And if the Northern States were right, the lawmaker wouldn’t be seeking an expansion. Though the Constitution allows for State Houses of Assemblies to make their own laws, it cannot be in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution reigns supreme.

We are sitting on a keg of gunpowder. Our country is being torn to shreds with all manner of religious and tribal sentiment. We must decide quickly how we want it. The First Amendment of the American Constitution guaranteed this for its citizens. Delay is dangerous. We must all be vigilant.

Kola Alapinni
FRF Director of Operations & General Counsel
International Human Rights Lawyer
Recipient of the 2023 US Secretary of State Award on International Religious Freedom

Posted on

Bid to extend Shariah Law

On Thursday, 24th October 2024, the House of Representatives rejected a bill seeking to amend the Federal Constitution by expanding the scope for Sharia Law. The 1999 (Amended) Constitution permits States to enact Shariah provisions, but this right is explicitly limited to personal law, such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

The bill, sponsored by Bauchi State member Aliyu Misau, sought to remove the word “personal” wherever it appeared in sections 24, 262, 277, and 288 of the Constitution. Misau argued that restricting States to personal Shariah prevents them from implementing Islamic commercial law, which is required with the advent of Islamic banks.

Soloman Bob, representing Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency, Rivers State, opposed the bill, warning that it would expand the application of Islamic law beyond the “Personal matters” envisaged by the drafters of the 1999 constitution. He said, “The word ‘personal’ was put there for a reason.”

We are grateful to the National Assembly for rejecting this bill. In some ways, it could be viewed as a Trojan Horse. Zamfara State introduced Shariah Criminal Law in January 2000, and by 2002, a further 11 States had followed suit. Shariah Criminal Law goes far beyond the Constitutional permit but is in daily use in Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara. This bill would have helped shield these states from Supreme Court action to strike down these unconstitutional laws.

Nigerian States that have implemented Shariah Criminal Law are vulnerable in two ways: firstly, they have exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution and, secondly, aspects of Shariah Criminal Law conflict with human rights conferred by both the Constitution and by the The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Nigeria has ratified.

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu is an example of a Nigerian citizen whose rights have been trampled by Shariah Law. In August 2020, the 22-year-old was sentenced to death by hanging for praising Imam Ibrahim Inyass on WhatsApp. He was tried and sentenced without legal counsel. Our lawyers intervened and appealed against his conviction. On appeal, his conviction was set aside but was remitted back to the Shariah Court for retrial.

Our lawyers are now awaiting a date for the Supreme Court to hear Mr Sharif-Aminu’s third appeal. At this hearing, we shall argue that the Shariah Laws used to prosecute him are unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Please see below a letter from our Director, Kola Alapinni, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives addressing this matter.

“Thursday 31st October 2024
 
Sir:
 
RE: BILL SEEKING THE EXPANSION OF THE PROVISION FOR ISLAMIC LAW AS CONTAINED IN THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED) BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBER ALIYU BAPPA MISAU
 
The above subject-matter refers.
 
We acted as Counsel in two blasphemy trials that took place in the Kano State High Court and the Court of Appeal, Kano Division between 2020 – 2022 and continue to act as legal advisers to numerous other blasphemy cases in Northern Nigeria.

One of those cases is now at the Supreme Court and the appellant Mr. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (a.k.a The Kano Singer) is challenging the constitutionality of the Sharia/Islamic Penal Code as currently being practised in fourteen States of Northern Nigeria. Please, see attached our Brief of Argument filed before the Supreme Court in Yahaya Sharif-Aminu vs Attorney-General of Kano State & Governor of Kano State (SC/CR/1454/2022)

It is our argument that the Sharia/Islamic law as currently being practised in Northern Nigeria is a violation of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and also a violation of the obligations of Nigeria under international human rights law which it has signed up to voluntarily. Though, the constitution allows component States of the Federation through their State assemblies to enact Laws, those Laws must be in consonant with the Constitution. The Constitution remains the grundnorm.

This attempt to amend the Constitution through the Bill sponsored by Hon. Aliyu Bappa Misau is a feeble attempt to expand the Sharia/Islamic Law which is limited in the Constitution to Islamic Law ONLY, through the back door. It will fail! We are happy that the National Assembly stood this Bill down for further discussion. It is pertinent to note that, the details of this Bill was not even presented to the members of the National Assembly to study. It is a ruse. If the Sharia Law/Islamic Law as being practised by fourteen Northern States of Nigeria is Constitutional, then there will be no need to seek for an expansion through this Bill.

We hereby draw to your attention that this issue is subjudice. In the interest of the separation of powers, YOU MUST ALLOW the Supreme court to decide this legal question speedily. It is a legal issue, it is not political. You may wish to implore the Supreme Court of Nigeria to hear this without further delay in the interest of justice and once and for all allow all the citizens of this great country to know where they stand. Our client has been incarcerated unjustly for four years.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Warm regards,
 
 
Kola Alapinni (Senior Partner)
of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Barrister & Solicitor
LLM in International Human Rights Law I Essex I
US Secretary of State Awardee on International Religious Freedom”
Posted on

UN Support for Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

Today, United Nations experts urged Nigerian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. On August 10, 2020, an Upper Shariah Court in Kano State, Nigeria, sentenced 22, year-old Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, to death by hanging on charges of blasphemy. Sharif-Aminu was tried without legal representation after being held incommunicado for six months.

The Foundation for Religious Freedom (FRF) swiftly appealed the conviction at the Kano High Court. The appeal was successful, and the conviction was quashed on 21 January 2021. However, the court ordered that Sharif-Aminu be remitted to the original Shariah court for a re-trial. Four days later, FRF appealed to the Appellate Court against the retrial. It took until August 2022 for the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal. Following this setback, FRF appealed to the Nigerian Supreme Court. A date for the hearing is awaited. Meanwhile, Sharif-Aminu remains incarcerated more than four years after his arrest.

This case has caught the attention of international bodies and human rights advocates. UN experts have repeatedly urged Nigerian authorities to release Yahaya unconditionally. They emphasize that his detention and potential retrial violate fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression and belief, enshrined in international law and the Nigerian Federal Constitution.

They requested the Nigerian government to urgently review Sharif-Aminu’s situation, guarantee the protection of his human rights and ensure his physical and psychological well-being as well as that of anyone seeking to assist him in defending his human rights.

“Should the death sentence be re-confirmed by a court, the Government must issue a stay of execution until Nigeria’s laws comply with its international human rights obligations in matters relating to the death penalty,” they said.

The imposition of the death penalty on charges of blasphemy would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of life under international law.

The experts also recommended that Nigeria establish a moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to completely abolishing it.

FRF continues to champion Yahaya’s cause, highlighting the broader implications of his case. It is not just a fight for one man’s life but a stand against the persecution of religious minorities and the suppression of free expression in Nigeria. The FRF calls on the Nigerian government to align its laws with international human rights obligations and to ensure that no one else suffers the same fate as Yahaya.

The prolonged detention and the threat of re-prosecution highlight a critical human rights issue. FRF and international supporters urge the Supreme Court of Nigeria to prioritize Yahaya’s case and deliver justice that reflects the country’s commitment to human rights. The establishment of a moratorium on the death penalty for blasphemy and similar charges is imperative to prevent future miscarriages of justice.

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s case poignantly reminds us of the importance of safeguarding religious freedom and freedom of expression. FRF remains steadfast in its mission to defend these rights and secure Yahaya’s release. We urge all concerned individuals and organizations to join us in this critical fight for justice and human dignity.

The UN experts who spoke out today were Alexandra Xanthaki, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights; Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.

Posted on

Appeal Court Judge’s home raided by armed EFCC agents

Yesterday, armed officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) invaded the Kano residence of Justice Ita Mbaba, Presiding Judge of the Kano Court of Appeal. The alarming, unexpected raid took place at 5:00 am in the hours of darkness.

Justice Mbaba was one of three judges who heard our appeal against the decision to retry Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, who had been given a death sentence by a Shariah Court on blasphemy charges. More details here. Our appeal was rejected by a majority decision. Justice Mbaba delivered the dissenting judgment, arguing that Sharif-Aminu should be freed.

Armed dawn raids may be the appropriate way to deal with drug dealers and armed robbers, but such a frightening forced entrance cannot be justified on the residence of an appeal court judge.

In a statement, Wilson Uwujaren, Head of Media and Publicity for the Commission, admitted the raid took place but said Justice Mbaba was not the target. Uwujaren claimed the raid was concerned with a “property verification exercise”, and since Mbaba is not the owner of the house, it did not concern him. Except, of course, it did. Mbaba lived at the property located in the Nassarawa Government Reservation Area, he was awoken by the commotion, and he witnessed armed men forcing their way into the house.

The EFCC statement beggars belief. Are armed dawn raids standard procedure for property verification in that organisation? Can they show us the clauses in their Operations and Procedures Manual that sanctions this aggressive style of investigation? Have property verification exercises ever before been conducted by armed dawn raids? 

EFCC chairman Abdulrasheed Bawa, later called Justice Mbiba to “apologise for any embarrassment caused”.

One thing is certain, such raids can intimidate their victims and make them wonder if their lives are safe. What the real reason for this raid was, we do not know. But we cannot help wondering if it was connected with Mbaba’s dissenting Judgement in Sharif-Aminu’s appeal. We may never know, but we salute Justice Mbaba for his integrity and courage in delivering a dissenting Judgment in a blasphemy case.

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Yakubu Maikyau, issued a statement after the incident condemning the raid and calling for the operatives involved to face disciplinary action.

We agree. Nigeria needs a strong and independent judiciary that is not subject to harassment and intimidation.

Posted on

Blasphemy laws

Blasphemy laws; what are they? And why they must go.

What are blasphemy laws?

Blasphemy laws criminalize speech that is critical of religion or religious figures, or speech that a court finds to be offensive to religious believers.

Some blasphemy laws also criminalize intentional damage to property, such as places of worship, sacred sites or items that are revered by religious people. Blasphemy laws of this type are pointless, since all countries have criminal damage laws that can be used in such cases.

At the Foundation for Relious Freedom we are concerned about blasphemy laws that curtail freedom of expression.

Why do we have blasphemy laws?

Two reasons are usually given to justify blasphemy laws:

    1. They avoid hurting the feelings of religious people. This, it is argued, helps promote harmonious coexistence between different religious groups.
    2. They avoid inflaming the passions of religious believers which could spill over into civil disturbances and violence. In this way they help to keep the peace.

Many people suspect there is a third, unspoken reason for blasphemy laws which is to prevent criticism of a dominant religion that could result in believers drifting away from the faith. In this way, religious leaders and their political allies collaborate to defend the status quo. In effect, this is an attempt by authorities to force their beliefs onto the people which would be a gross violation of freedom of religion.

Are the reasons for blasphemy laws valid?

There is no reason religious feelings should be exclusively protected. It would be absurd, for example, to prohibit criticism of political beliefs. Indeed, only the worst police states would make laws to that effect.

We commonly see people holding very divergent political opinions and living together harmoniously in the same neighborhood—we even see it within families. It would be wrong to prohibit speech that might hurt political feelings and it is wrong to single out religion for such protection. Indeed, being able to discuss the differences between us is an indicator of a healthy society. Open disagreement can help us all to learn.

Using blasphemy laws to prevent civil disturbances and violence is unfair and wrong-headed. Violence and civil disturbance are crimes. In effect, blasphemy laws take away everyone’s right to freedom of expression so that some people will not be tempted to commit crimes.

This is like making it a crime for anyone to buy a new car because that will tempt some people to steal it! It is unquestionably perverse.

Blasphemy laws around the world

It is worth noting that only 69 countries have blasphemy laws which leaves some 126 countries managing perfectly well without them. Furthermore, of those countries with blasphemy laws, many no longer use them—they have become obsolescent.

Most countries with blasphemy laws have had them for a very long time. They are archaic laws that are slowly being repealed. For example, in the last decade or so, Greece, Ireland, UK, Malta, Iceland, Denmark, France, New Zealand, and Canada have repealed their old blasphemy laws.

The penalties for blasphemy range from a modest fine to execution. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet in 13 countries you can be put to death for doing something that is a fundamental human right in other countries. All the countries with harsh prison sentences, or in which blasphemy is a capital offense, are majority Muslim countries.

In Nigeria, 12 states have adopted a Shariah-based penal code in which blasphemy is an offence that may carry a death penalty.

So, what’s wrong with blasphemy laws?

As we have discussed, blasphemy laws are perverse and unnecessary. And they do not keep the peace. On the contrary, it is only in countries with blasphemy laws that people take offence and march through the streets to protest rumours of blasphemy. It is only in these countries that we see civil disturbances and violence resulting from allegations of blasphemy. The truth is, blasphemy laws, far from preventing civil unrest, actually promote it.

The way to reduce violence and civil disorder is to promote tolerance but blasphemy laws do the opposite. They send a strong message that the state will not tolerate criticism of religion and harsh penalties indicate that blasphemy is a terrible crime. Blasphemy laws promote intolerance. It is only in countries with harsh penalties for blasphemy that we see mobs killing people in the streets following allegations of blasphemy.

Blasphemy laws take away one of our most important rights—the right to express your opinion and they do that for no good reason. Blasphemy laws are demonstrably unnecessary.

It is not easy to define what speech is blasphemous and what is acceptable. Where is the dividing line between expressing your own personal religious view and offending someone else’s? This allows a person to be accused of blasphemy when they intended no affront, but were merely expressing a personal opinion. It is a crime that you may not know you have committed.

Finally, in blasphemy cases there is often no physical evidence. It is one person’s recollection of what said against another person’s recollection. This allows people to be accused of blasphemy for malicious reasons or through simple misunderstanding of what was intended. A misunderstanding that could change, or end, your life.

FRF’s view

At FRF we oppose all blasphemy laws and call for their repeal everywhere.

We support freedom of religion which means people should be free to practice a religion or to have no religion, to speak openly about their religious beliefs, and to change their religious beliefs. Religion is a matter for the individual, it is not for the state to mandate what beliefs a person may or may not have.

We campaign against blasphemy laws and, wherever possible, we will seek to defend people who have been accused of blasphemy.

Posted on

Freedom of expression

Why FRF supports freedom of expression

Salman Rushdie

If you are in your forties or older, you will remember the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses in September 1988. When publisher Viking Penguin, took on this novel they could never have imagined the dire consequences that decision would bring.

Some Muslims in the UK considered the book blasphemous and the publisher received tens of thousands of letters demanding that the book should be withdrawn from sale. Then there were demonstrations and bookshops were picketed, then bookshops were bombed. Some countries banned the sale of the book.

With the publication of the book in the US in February 1989, the turmoil stepped up a gear. Demonstrations grew in number and violence and spread to many parts of the world. On Valentine’s Day 1989, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, threw petrol on the flames by issuing a Fatwa declaring the book blasphemous and ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie wherever in the world they find him.

No one knows how many people lost their lives to violence throughout the Rushdie affair but it is almost certain to be counted in dozens.

Recent cases

For many in the West, this was their introduction to the tension between the cardinal Western value of freedom of expression and the Islamic value of intolerance toward criticism of the religion or its Prophet. But we have lived to see dozens more cases from the 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre in response to the magazine publishing cartoons of Muhammad, to the recent death sentence by hanging imposed on Yahaya Sharif-Aminu in a Northern Nigerian court for “insulting the Prophet”. We have seen judicial killings, isolated attacks and we have seen mob violence.

Echoes of Charlie Hebdo can be heard today as those accused of collaborating with the 2015 attackers are brought to trial in France. On October 16, French teacher Samuel Paty, was decapitated near his school after showing his students images of several Charlie Hebdo front covers in a discussion on free speech. Thirteen days later, three people were killed by an Islamic attacker in the Notre Dame Basilica in Nice. One victim, a 60-year-old woman, was decapitated. In a third incident two days later, a Greek Orthodox priest was shot twice in the stomach by a man carrying a sawed-off shotgun. The assailant is being hunted by police who are investigating a possible religious motive for the attack.

President Macron

France’s President Emmanuel Macron’s condemnation of these attacks and vigorous defense of free speech, including the freedom to depict Muhammad in cartoons, led to protests around the Muslim world with calls to ban French goods and the burning of Macron effigies.

The Muslim response

Many Muslims in France and beyond have condemned the killings in France or, at least, claimed that the killers were not “real” Muslims. For example, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of the leading Sunni Islamic institution in Egypt said, “As a Muslim and the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, I declare that Islam, its teachings and its Prophet are innocent of this wicked terrorist crime. At the same time, I emphasize that insulting religions and attacking their sacred symbols under the banner of freedom of expression is an intellectual double standard and an open invitation to hatred.”

What we say

We applaud Muslims who speak up and condemn acts of terrorism. But Muslims need to go further than Al-Tayeb. It is not enough to condemn violence without condemning the values that underpin it. Here Al-Tayeb grants that Muslims have valid grounds for hatred. They do not. Fundamentally, hatred is the problem. Hatred must be attacked as much as the violence it spawns. As long as we have hatred, we will have people who will be provoked into violence.

In our world more than 80% of the population is religious and there are dozens of religions and tens of thousands of religious denominations. That makes disagreement over religion inevitable. We can either make our world a tinder-dry forest waiting to be set ablaze by any careless remark or we can act to make it fireproof.

We can make it fireproof by emphasizing tolerance over hatred. Let’s teach our children that tolerance is noble and hatred is wicked. Let’s teach them to talk calmly with people they disagree with, or just to walk away if they hear things that are too uncomfortable to tolerate. In such a world, there would be no judicial killing, no isolated attacks, and no mob violence will befall those who utter unpopular opinions. The world would be a safer place and we may all learn something when ideas can flow freely.

This is why those who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 included Article 19, the fundamental human right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Blasphemy laws outlaw speech that religious people find offensive. Such laws are usually justified on the grounds that they prevent speech that might cause a breach of the peace. But that logic is utterly perverse. It takes away one person’s fundamental rights in the hope that it will stop another person from engaging in criminal behavior. That is exactly like a law that prohibits me from buying a beautiful car because that will stop potential criminals from stealing it!

At FRF, we strongly support freedom of expression and oppose blasphemy laws that curtail freedom of expression and are themselves a cause of injustice, violence and hatred. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean we encourage people to insult or mock religions—we don’t, but we do defend everyone’s right to speak freely, even when some people may feel insulted as a consequence.

Blasphemy laws must go.

_______
Photo credit: Creative Commons