In April 2020, Mubarak Bala, the president Nigerian Humanists, was arrested in Kaduna for blasphemy. His “crime” – He had made a Facebook posting that was deemed to be “Blasphemy” by some. He was then transferred from Kaduna to Kano and held there.
The latest update is that on the 5th of April, 2022, yes two years after the initial arrest, Mubarak was sentenced to 24 years in prison at a high court in the Northern state of Kano.
A group of Muslims had filed a petition to the authorities accusing Bala of posting uncomplimentary messages about Islam on social media.
Kano has a majority Muslim population. It is one of around a dozen states in northern Nigeria where Islamic law is practised alongside secular laws.
Bala could have faced the death penalty if he was tried in an Islamic court.
UN human rights experts and international rights groups had condemned his detention and called for his release.
A group of Muslims had filed a petition to the authorities accusing Bala of posting uncomplimentary messages about Islam on social media.
Kano has a majority Muslim population. It is one of around a dozen states in northern Nigeria where Islamic law is practised alongside secular laws.
Bala could have faced the death penalty if he was tried in an Islamic court.
UN human rights experts and international rights groups had condemned his detention and called for his release.
Bala renounced his Islamic faith in 2014. He was then reportedly taken to a psychiatric hospital before being discharged.
Uncomplimentary Messages!!
If indeed “uncomplimentary messages” on social media are to be deemed a “crime” then rather large proportions of the human population of almost every single nation-state on the planet would be facing jail time.
Who exactly is the victim?
Criminal proceedings take place when somebody has become the victim of a crime. Rather obviously crimes such as theft or murder have a victim who has been wronged, but when it comes to blasphemy, then who exactly is the victim?
Individuals do hold specific beliefs, and their feelings might indeed be hurt if somebody mocked that belief, but why does criticism or rejection of a religious idea inspire people to demand that all critics must be put to death or sentenced to jail for almost a quarter of a century?
In other contexts, a similar degree of criticism is accepted as normal, for example, in politics. Does any democratically elected government seriously suggest that their opponents or the media should be slaughtered or jailed?
This is not just about one system of belief. The official penalty for “blasphemy” within the bible is death. That is why the “good” Puritan-controlled Massachusetts Bay Colony made death the official penalty for blasphemy in 1636.
In Islam things get a tad complicated
If you consider Islam, then you might indeed picture within your mind imprisonment, flogging, hanging, or beheading, as the official response to blasphemy.
I have a few surprises for you …
- The Quran does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy.
- Yes Islamic Blasphemy laws have always existed, but these were rarely enforced within pre-modern Islamic societies – nobody really cared, most simply rolled their eyes and ignored it.
So why the rise of such punishments, what is going on?
The key to understanding it all is to appreciate that radical groups have used charges of blasphemy in an effort to burnish their religious credentials and gain popular support at the expense of liberal Muslim intellectuals and religious minorities. In other words, it is all about inflaming the mob to gain power and influence.
You can read up on all this within the Wikipedia page that covers the topic. There you will fins a lot more about Blasphemy within an Islamic context.
What exactly is and is not Blasphemy
What is fascinating to ponder over is the concept – what is and is not deemed to be “blasphemy”.
Mainstream Christian belief would assert that Jesus is a god and if questioned, they would reject anything and everything ever said by Mohammed. In the eyes of Islam that is blasphemy, and yet this reality is generally tolerated. Many beliefs, if not most, do have some concept of blasphemy, and so if you attempted to create and then enforce a universal blasphemy law then literally everybody goes to jail. There would be no exceptions – each and every single belief would be deemed blasphemy in the eyes of other beliefs.
This is the mess you get into when you embrace the concept that ideas have rights. They don’t, only people do.
I should perhaps clarify an important point. There are things that are clearly wrong. If you are targeting people simply because they hold a specific religious belief, then we are not talking about blasphemy. For example, targeting people for being Jewish or Christian, or Muslim.
A familiar example would perhaps be the various factions in Northern Ireland targeting people for being either Catholic or Protestant. Perhaps an example far more familiar is the Trump Administration introducing travel bans. That immoral xenophobia was driven by a desire to target people for simply having a Muslim heritage. No actual belief was needed. None of that is blasphemy and all of it is a breach of basic human rights.
When we talk about Blasphemy, what we are specifically referring to is criticism or mockery of a religious idea itself and not the targeting of individuals who hold such beliefs.
That is a rather important distinction to both appreciate and robustly embrace.
What is the International Position on Blasphemy?
The United Nations has put in place the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This is a multilateral treaty that commits states parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights, and rights to due process and a fair trial.
In theory, this is legally binding. The only nations that have not signed up are China, Cuba, and of course dear leader over in North Korea. Everybody else has.
In the context of Blasphemy, paragraph 48 states:
Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.
Well yes, a few well-known nation states have simply ignored this.
Nigeria prohibits blasphemy by section 204 of its Criminal Code and by permitting Sharia courts to operate in some states.
For a complete breakdown, nation by nation, you can find a list here of all the various blasphemy laws that simply should not exist.
Why do such laws exist?
There are a few words that perhaps sum up the real motives, namely “Insecurity” and “Control”.
Beliefs generally tend to have no evidence but instead appeal to emotions and cultural traditions. Criticism of specific religious ideas, especially by competing ideas, introduces the possibility that some other belief might move in and take over. For a belief to survive and thrive it needs a defense mechanism against such alternatives. The beliefs that thrive today do so because they have been able to defend themselves against any alternatives through the use of fear and intimidation. The concept of blasphemy is an example of this. Read the religious text of any of the prevailing beliefs, the Bible, or the Quran, and you find strict directives. Anybody advocating any competing alternative is wicked and evil. Even doubting, asking questions, or seeking evidence is considered morally dubious.
Blasphemy today is the dominant belief oppressing any minority or outside threat. This enables its dominant position to be maintained. Beliefs have perhaps been naturally selected to be like this. The ones that thrive do so because they have managed to obliterate the competition.
Why 24 years for Mubarak Bala
It is not about him. Instead it is an action that is driven by a deep fear amongst fanatics that others will follow his example and abandon Islam. It is about sending all Muslims a message – criticise Islam and this will happen to you.
This is belief deploying raw fear to keep people in line.
It reveals that those that do this have no rational or reasonable arguments to deploy, intimidation is all they have.
“With Bala’s conviction, humanists and nonbelievers in Nigeria are now potential criminals who can easily be thrown into jail just for expressing their views, Humanists have become endangered citizens of Nigeria.”
Leo Igwe of the Nigerian Humanist Association
Further Reading – Mubarak Bala
- Leo Igwe, a prominet Nigerian Humanist, writes back in 2020 about Mubarak Bala’s case on Medium – Mubarak Bala: Facebook Posts and Freedom of Expression
- Washington Post covers his recent jail sentence – Nigerian atheist jailed for blasphemy over Facebook posts
- Humanists International – ‘Day of shame for Nigerian authorities’: Mubarak Bala sentenced to 24 years in prison