Chapter 3

Case Studies

First: Working Papers

1. The Status of Religious Freedoms in Pakistan

Father James Channan*

            Although the Pakistani nation was essentially created as a country for Muslims, its founding father Mohamed Ali Jenah, strove to establish it on a secular base. Mr. Jenah thought that religion had no connection to the state and should remain every individual’s personal faith, he also considered inhabitants of the state the citizens of one country enjoying the same rights and having to perform the same duties.

            On March 24, 1947 a new law was ratified, the law stated that Pakistan will be a state for Muslims but did not mention Islam, it was quite clear that there was complete separation of religion and state, and that citizens were treated on an equal footing. But in 1949 things changed when a new law was adopted, which gave Islam a bigger standing as the source of legislation, all state legislation had to confirm to Islamic principles, this new affected the entire Pakistani population.

            Three different Constitutions were adopted in 1956, 1962 and 1973, but later military governors cancelled all three Constitutions.

*The Religious Institute, Pakistan.

They introduced the system of separation of electoral districts, which required Muslims to elect Muslims candidates, while Christians could only elect Christian candidates, according to this system the entire country was divided according to sectarian and religious lines, without any consideration for the need to achieve coexistence and harmony between the followers of various sects and religions.

      Members of minorities felt they were treated like second class citizens, some cases of human rights violations occurred, like Muslim parents killing their daughter who had embrace Christianity, while the Priest who had helped her was persecuted and had to flee. Urdu media channels do not support minorities, and they are mostly publish reports antagonistic to them, but the English speaking Media adopts a somewhat different policy.

      The fundamentalist trend increased in education, religious schools dedicated exclusively to Muslims increased from 800 schools in 1979 to around 20 000 schools play a powerful role in Pakistani life, and their activities should be closely monitored.

      Since General Pervis Mosharaf came to power in Pakistan he introduced some changes in government policy, as he applies the edicts of Islam in a liberal and progressive manner, in addition he wants to deal with all citizens with some equality, for example, President Musharaf cancelled the system of separation in electoral districts, and instead applied a system of common districts. He affirmed that all educational curricula taught in religious schools would be reviewed, and that focus will be on realizing equality and non-discrimination in dealing with the followers of other religions.

He also imposed a ban on all groups with fundamentalist inclinations; such groups advocate not applying the principle of equality and support bigotry and extremism.

      Finally, I say that in spite of all the problems that I have mentioned earlier there are now in Pakistan some indications that encourage an optimistic outlook.

2. The French model

Father Jean Marie Gaudeul*

            I tried through this paper to describe the legal framework under

Which live Christians and Muslims in France. The main idea is that the Government in France is secular and unbiased, and does not recognize except mere citizens regardless of their sectarian, ethnic or religious affiliations. This is the reason we have no census of the actual number of Christians or Muslims in France.

            In the first part of the paper I relied on information given to me by Dr. Layla Abou Bakr, the current President of the Islamic Council Muslims in France, who offered me a comprehensive review of the status of Muslims in France. I endeavored to explain how such situations evolved in France until we got to the point where we now have the national Council for Muslims, although this Council is not elected by Muslims but rather by people who occupy leadership positions in France. It can be said that the Council does not really represent the Muslim population in France, but represents the people responsible managing houses of worship in our country.

            In reality we faced many problems in this context, like defining the number and location of the houses of worship, and the procedures that should be followed when establishing a new house of worship.

While in relation to the position of Muslim Imams, the French law had put a job hierarchy similar to the one adopted by the Catholic clergy, which caused many difficulties.

            The issue of Muslim burial plots represents one of the main problems that we face in France, as naturally Muslims are buried in graves built to face the direction of Mecca, but French law stipulates that no distinctive marking of a religious nature appear on graves.

*Secretary for relations with Islam, France.

To be built facing towards “the correct direction”, and to be available to all French citizens.

            Thus the law always strives to consider the current facts at hand in reality but without abandoning the main principle: the government and the citizens.

            We are now facing a delicate situation in relation to the field of education; especially the issue of Muslim girls wearing the veil in their schools, as a law was adopted defining the type of clothes that girls should wear in elementary and secondary schools. The law was problems due to discrimination or mutiny conducted by some students.

            From the Christian point of view the Church had opposed this law, but public opinion played a decisive role in pushing and approving the law.

            As you know have priests in the Army and in jails while Muslims do not have the same right to a Muslim cleric, and now they ask to be treated like the followers of other religions.

            The last part of the paper explains the effect of international problems on the spirit prevailing among various groups in France.

While the Palestinian problem causes feelings of antagonism to often flare up between French Jews and Muslims, the matter completely differed in relation to the position taken by France towards the war in Iraq, as this position helped establish a kind of calm and quit between French citize4ns in general.

3. The Situation in Nigeria

Father Mathew Kukah

            When the British colonizers came to Nigeria, Islam had already been present for 700 years in some regions of Nigeria and for 800 in other regions. One of the first things that the colonizers tried to do in order to consolidate their rule was to try and find a legal base for the Colonizing State in Nigeria; local traditional practices were one of the first victims of this attempt while another victim was Islamic Shariaa regulations prevalent at the time like administration of divine ordinances; Muslims considered this to be an attack on the principles of Islam.

            By 1957, 1958 which is the time when the British were preparing to grant Nigeria in its independence, three Nigerian provinces enjoyed a degree of autonomy as each had its own bureaucratic system and legislative council, but suddenly the British decided to unify Nigeria and incorporate the autonomous provinces within a unified nation. Muslims in the northern region tried to face the problems that were created as a result of this decision.

            Nonetheless, Nigeria got its independence on the 1^st of October 1960, but just five years after independence the first military coup took place on 15 January 1966, this was the forerunner of the problems the country suffered then, and is still suffering now. The country remained under military rule from 1966 to 1976, until the Army decided to hand over power to a civilian government, at the time military leaders started to look for a constitutional foundation to once more revert to civilian rule.

*Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria.

There are now in the North of Nigeria, 6 states that want each to have their own Court of Appeal, which would rule according to their own views of Islamic Shariaa, this of course constitutes a problem for Nigerian Muslims.

            In view of the above, many observers of the development of religious conditions in Nigeria see the 1976 Constitution as the reason behind the mounting tensions in the country. The 1976 Constitutions stipulated the establishment of a Federal Shariaa Court that would be link connecting the various states Sharia Courts with Supreme Nigerian Court; the Constitutions also allowed every state in Nigeria to have its own Shariaa Court.

            This state of affairs continued for a period of time until the Army-unfortunately-once more took over power in Nigeria in 1993, and the country was again submitted to Military Rule. I pointed in my paper to some matters that became a source of problems due to the Military Rule.

            The creation of new states in our country was one of the sources of problems, as their creation was accompanied by the creation of new identities, which in turn generated countless tensions from which we are still suffering today, especially that many of these states adopt positions that seem to defy the government authority.

            In 1999, our country took an extremely new and impressive turn, when the Shariaa Courts and the states applying the Islamic Shariaa decided to widen the scope of cases that full under Laws of the fact caused problems to flare even more and continue for almost three years, it also undermined the democratic process in our country.

But after Nigeria reverted to civilian rule, many Nigerians felt optimistic about peaceful coexistence, but later matters did not go as well as it was hoped for.

            At the conclusion of my paper I was keen to express my opinion that failure of the country’s institutions and systems is the reason behind some of the difficulties that we face in Nigeria in relation to religion, and I believe that this applies to Nigeria as well as to many other countries in the African continent. 

4. Supervision of Religious Freedoms

Dr. Gane Mc Auliffe*

            As you will notice, this paper differs somehow from the three other previous papers, and what implied me to write this paper is my interest, in my country’s initiative, in regards to providing an international instrument to monitor the status of religious freedoms.

            This paper is divided into three main sections, the first section discusses the definition of some thinking configurations, through which any monitoring operation can be undertaken, and some questions about responsibility and authority, as who has in fact the right to speak in the name of or for a particular religious traditions?

            Procedures for international monitoring of religious freedoms started in its modern form in the United States by a congressional Session held in 1998. during this session the International Law of Religious Freedom was adopted, which stipulated the establishment of the new section in the State Department, which would be responsible for the Religious Freedom Affairs on the international level, and that would issue an annual report. The Law also created the position of Roaming Ambassador, who would be responsible for this mission, and for establishing a new verification instrument in the form of a bi- partisan Committee that would be responsible for the issue of religious freedom at the international level.

            In spite of all the criticism leveled the annual report, its main importance lies in the fact that it is the only instrument providing international coverage for conditions in the field of religious freedoms, as well as the only instrument that drew attention to the importance of the religious freedom and the need to separate this freedom from other considerations related to human rights.

_____________________

*Dean, Georgetown College, USA.

            The report reviews with critical eye the position of specific countries, and suggests applying sanctions against those countries;

Furthermore the report draws attention to cases where religious freedom is badly exploited. This is not considered the only efforts in the field of international monitoring of religious freedom; nevertheless it is the biggest and most comprehensive one. In my paper I reviewed all the other monitoring efforts like efforts by the International Helsinki Union for Human Rights, or by the International Partnership Institute and others.

            The third part of the paper discusses the results that were realized through the monitoring efforts of the United States and of NGO”s, and then using those results as a base conducting studies of cases that focused on 4 countries: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq and Germany, in an attempt to understand the factual conditions in these countries.

            The paper also includes a final part, which discusses effects of the American war on terror, as people responsible for the preparation of the American State Department report consider that the policy adopted towards the issue of religious freedom is one the tools to fight international terrorism, and that countries that enjoy the highest degree of religious freedom are at least susceptible to suffer from extremism or religious terrorism.

            But the American State Department efforts in this matter typically have numerous facets of inner inconsistency, as in many situations a country is praised for repressing the religious freedom what are called radical or extremist groups.

            Following the September ii attacks, the United States became target of criticism, because of the sorting process the US applies to United States was also criticized because of prevalent racial practice and of the restrictions that the American administration started to impose on some religious groups’ civil and religious freedom. 

Nevertheless I believe that the efforts aiming to deal separately with the issue of religious freedom, outside the comprehensive framework of the subject of human rights, and creating an annual monitoring instrument, really helped us conduct a wide debate regarding the status of religious freedom at the international level, and helped us broach new subjects.

                                                              ***

 

Second: Discussions

            In relation to religious freedoms in Pakistan, the participants had the following questions and comments:

            *The paper did not differentiate between schools affiliated to various movements and trends; are we allowed to generalize? And do all religious schools to do the things that the paper accused them of committing?

            *One should not deal with these schools from a hostile perspective as the Arab media does when it pictures those schools as the source of all threats in the world. Pakistan is poor country, and these schools fill a basic need in the education sector especially in rural areas, there is a need to develop these schools by providing them with specialized teachers of scientific and other subjects.

            *Feeling of hate and resentment always are rife in those schools, but it is not fair to say that they are the main cores of the problem. During the Ziaa Elhaq era these schools did not constitute a problem although they did then what they are doing today, but as time passed Gulf countries offered support to these schools with blatant encouragement from the US, because at the time the US need those Mullahs and others to fight and carry Jihad in Afghanistan. But currently after the problem in Afghanistan no more exists, talk about feelings of hatred and resentment has started.

            *We should all speak carefully about foreign parties exploiting

Religious minorities, as in fact this is a weapon used against religious minorities in various regions of the world, and also used by authorities to find justification, within defects of their religion, for collectives practices against those minorities.

            The present religious confrontation in Pakistan happens between Muslims and Hindus, not Christians, but this confrontation also affects Christians because they constitute another religious minority in Pakistan. There is another dimension related to Muslim in Pakistan, as there are great number of Shiite Muslims that have an ongoing conflict with Hanafy Sunni majority, there is also another conflict with the Ahmadeya sect, whose followers were considered by the 1973 Constitution as non-Muslims, this also affected all the other minorities specially Christians.

            Father Channan also pointed to a very important matter when he said in his paper that religious minorities have to join efforts with the majority to establish a democratic society in Pakistan, because society still suffers from a widespread low level of education and from the tribal disputes. Some provinces are under the power of rulers called “Saridar”, and in those provinces the population has to embrace the ruler’s religion.

            We are required to fight democracy in order to obtain rights, education opportunities and to liberate women, to also realize all the principles on which is based the concept of religious freedom, because if there is no democracy there will be no religious freedom. In the fact minorities joined this struggle but at a later stage, as Islamic democracy, in order to establish a secular society and to draft a secular constitution.

            I have an important and final comment, which is that during the Ziaa Elhaq’s rule there were laws for divine statute, blasphemy and other Islamic laws, but a wicked plan was devised through the Constitution, when new and alternative judicial power, the Federal Shariaa Court, was created to replace the existing judicial system.

            The Federal Shariaa Court became a kind of parallel parliamentary council to the original Legislative Council in Pakistan, and any ruling issued by this Court becomes immediately operational, even if the two Councils of Parliament hold a different opinion about the rulings.

            In relation to the status of Muslims in France, the participants had the following questions and comments:

            *I do not know how useful or effective it is to review one model only to demonstrate Europe secular tendency, you presented the French model while I think you should present several models in order to give people a clearer picture.

            *France has a special status regarding the way it deals and understands the concept of a secular state, and which we may not be able to see in many other countries.

            *I have a feeling that Islam has caused some changes in European Churches existing system. The increasing presence of Islamic communities in numerous European countries presented doubts about the veracity of the idea of non-interference from the State in religious matters, as a religious matters were considered a private and personal matter, but this idea did not presently seem applicable. Many European countries, including France, started to make changes in existing systems to make them correspond with religious considerations and needs.

            *Many of us have preconceived idea of a one and shared religion for all, which is untrue, we might use the same terminology but to great extent we mean different things. It is preferable to carry a dialogue around our own depiction of this concept. For example do we believe that women wearing the veil is a religious matter? Or don’t  we?

             If we manage to get away from the prevalent image about secularism being a principle that stands at the opposite end of religion, and start looking at secularism in a different manner bearing in mind that its intent to establish impartial secular societies, and to allow all human beings to coexist within a climate of religious and cultural variety, wouldn’t this conform with the values and beliefs taught to us by our religious in relation to leaving room for the others to move?

            I have a question about Muslim in Europe. They all unconsciously and somehow feel that they are under the Church’s power and authority, although this varies from the European country to other. Muslims also do not enjoy within European societies, the same secure standing enjoyed by followers of other religions; they also believe that changing themselves in the manner required by European societies will clearly endanger their existence and their Islamic identity. Can any democratic society based on the principle of pluralism continue to perform its missions and duties towards those living in it, if some groups within society do not have representatives to speak in their name?

            *Being a member of any faith is a very important matter, thus we feel very worried about the extreme and overrated concept of secularism, which does categorically, refuses the idea of the group. I consider that recognizing that recognizing the group would be recognizing the dogma of faith itself, which I think is extremely important.

            The issue of individuals and various societies recognizing all religions and religious ideologies, which differ from their own religion and beliefs, is indeed a very important matter that should be stressed in all religions. I think that Islam has effectively realized this, as Islam always allows acknowledging other religions, and I believe that Christianity has started to take steps in the same direction to achieve this.

            Another matter is that Muslim in the Balkans, and especially in Australia, acquired self-rule and currently enjoy a special standing there, the Australian government even appoints a representative for the Muslim community. Thus I can say that there is an existing model for Islamic presence in Europe, and we can discuss how effective this model is.

            As to the issue of Muslims having no representation, I see that the problem here is not connected to the Church but rather to the fact that Muslims come to Europe from different countries, which is the same problem Jews face in Britain where they are divided into two distinct groups.

The idea of choosing a person to speak in the name of a certain group is simple and easily applicable; France started to understand the importance of this idea and to undertake procedures in this direction, the same thing is also happening in Belgium. The main idea behind representation is that governments want to convey and explain their policies to Islamic communities and get feedback about Muslims’ opinion of the policies as well as their demands.

            *Muslims in South Africa represent 1.3% of the population, and until the latest elections that took place a month ago Muslim representation in Parliament was 14% of the total number of deputies, while 16% of Cabinet members were Muslims, the head of the Senate was a Muslim woman, who has currently become the Minister of Education. Thus we are looking at a country with secular tendencies, but secularism is not a new phenomenon in South Africa as our non-reliance on racial differences, which are two balanced and equivalent foundations of society.

            In relation to the study of the Nigerian situation, the participants had the following questions and comments:

            *How strong is the Nigerians’ feeling of national unity and national allegiance? And is there for example a great number of Nigerians not interested in belonging to the Nigerian nation, or do they have feelings of loyalty to other bodies and identities?

            *I would like to ask about the foreign influences affecting Islam in Nigeria, in relation to religious freedom and to application of the Shariaa?

            *Where is the issue of apostasy located within the framework of Islamic conditions in Nigeria, and are there actual cases where people abandoned Islam and embraced Christianity? Did Shariaa-related laws contains any items referring to how to deal with cases of apostasy?

            *When explaining “Safeya’s” case, in the past the lawyer defending Safeya’s case the Court of Appeal asked for my opinion

In this matter and I informed him that she should not be tried under the Laws of the Shariaa, as the alleged crime in this case had been committed before the application of the Shariaa, and as such the Court accepted to hear to her appeal. Consequently the original sentence against Safeya was not carried out, and the court even pronounced her innocent of the crime of adultery.

            *The question that presents itself now is why do Nigerians in the northern region want to apply the Islamic Shariaa? I think that Father Mathew answered this question when he mentioned that the system of judicial justice entirely collapsed, furthermore Islamic Laws are considered sacrosanct and directly address the human conscious while the State is not. But unfortunately in Nigeria politicians tried to exploit this to realize their personal goals.

            *I would like to say that none of the mentioned sentences were carried out, and until now that the matter has not exceeded legal discussions and defense speeches in Courts between judges and lawyers. I am sure that the final outcome in such cases will be similar to the outcome in Safeya’s case.

            *Father Matthew mentioned at the end of his presentation that hopes are tied to the realization of Democracy, as it is the only way that can produce settings that allow people of different faiths to coexist. I know that in the other countries in Africa, like Kenya for example, permission was granted for the establishment of an Islamic party, but this matter is not perceived in the positive or supportive manner.

            If consent is given to a kind of political democracy based on religion, in my opinion this will not realize good results, it might even have an adverse outcome and could generate numerous threats.

            There is another important issue related to the manner the Shariaa can be applied in a society based on pluralism, this issue is currently forcefully discussed, and I do not know how a country like Nigeria will deal with the matter. Northern states that apply Shariaa have non-Muslim citizens; and in my opinion this situation is very difficult.

            In relation to monitoring religious freedoms, participants had the following questions and comments:

            *I ask about monitoring procedures used when religious freedom are wrongly used, wouldn’t be better to have religious circles handle the matter? They will certainly deal within from a different perspective. Regardless of how true is the information deduced by any other monitoring authority’s work will always be tainted by an intrinsic prejudice stemming from the fact that political authority performed the work.

            I have to ask if the US deals equally with various countries I the relation the religious freedom? I also have to point to provocation that Muslim and Christian Palestinians had to suffer at the hands of Israeli forces before the current Intifada. My next question is : Does this suffering fall by any measure under the law that was adopted by the Congress? And is this in fact what has been done since the law was adopted in 1988?

            *Since the end of the cold war, and especially after the September 11 attacks, matter became very complicated; the support offered since then by the Americans to Pakistan is pretty obvious, and prevented the adoption of any procedures aiming to reveal this country’s violations.

            *I believe that the idea that the religious authorities can monitor the status of human rights and religious freedom is correct and applicable, but on the other hand any monitoring operation is always based on biased point of view. Here lies the difficulty of procedures involved in monitoring case like religious freedom. But nevertheless we should not abandon this noble mission.

            *Even if impartial judicial authorities were charged with monitoring, some prejudice would still remain possible, in addition to what I call “cultural relativity”. This occurred in some cases reviewed by the European Court for Human Rights”, in some opinion the best thing for facing the problem of monitoring, is a wider exchange of information among all interested parties, and to focus on how to constitute established committees in an efficient manner.

            *People inquire if the American Committee for Religious Freedoms considered any discussion of the conditions within the Unite States itself.

            *In relation to religious authorities taking on the responsibility of monitoring, there is in fact within the Catholic Church an authority that issues annual report, but it mainly relies on the American report for information. On the Islamic side “The Institute for Muslim Minorities Affairs” conducts studies of the status of Muslim minorities in various regions of the world, but its work is very academic, and the Institute is not really considered a monitoring instrument.

            *I would like to know how do interested authorities and organizations gather information related to the status of religious freedom? Are there specific procedures to investigate the veracity of forgery and information obtained? I believed that sometimes there is a lot of forgery and information manipulation.

            *I personally was deeply affected by the manner prisoners in the Guantanamo Camp were treated, and my question is: did religious circles or any American organizations interested in Human Rights, do anything about the matter?

Third: Comments

Comments By Father Matthew:

            We all have to understand that there is under the slogan of politics in Nigeria an influential and active power, which is oil and its financial revenues; oil represents a driving force behind political activities in our country. I spoke to some religions and states rulers that strive to apply the Islamic Shariaa and learned a lot of really very awesome facts.

            I think that the issue of applying the Islamic Shariaa is not in

Fact linked to religion, and many ordinary citizens look upon the

Shariaa as a basic tool that helps realize a kind of order within society, and also helps limit the ruling class irresponsible acts and practices, members of the ruling class steal their resources and then claim they are Muslims.

            International reactions to application of the Shariaa, did not help improve the situation in Nigeria, adversely they helped, with other important factors, to exacerbate the problem.

            In relation to plurality in Nigeria, many Muslims and Christians started to join several political parties, which forecast a much brighter future, but on the other hand Muslims are required to exert greater efforts to solve the problem of applying the Shariaa in Nigeria.

I completely agree with what my colleagues mentioned above criminal law, we witness now in Nigeria a unique situation, as in addition to the Supreme Shariaa Court, we have regular courts that administrate people from the level and judicial aspect. I really do not know how the government is going to deal with the unique situation.

            In relation to what my colleague mentioned about religious schools, I see that this situation represents part of the heritage left to us by colonialism, if a person in the country is to get an important position in the government, this person has to acquire a western-type education, while the type of education received by the students of religious schools does not prepare them to employed in governmental institutions. Therefore religious schools are just a institutions, this state of affairs undermined the position and influence of religious schools.

            In relation to how qualified are judges to preside in Shariaa Courts? This is one of the problems that we face, because when state governors increased the number of Shariaa Courts demand for judges and experts could not be met, which meant that judges working in such Courts were not properly qualified. Some states were forced to take this matter into consideration.

             In the eyes of an ordinary citizens one of the advantages of Shariaa Courts is the swift way they process cases, which many Christians merchants in Nigeria decide to go to the Shariaa Courts for their grievances.

            I have to mention that the issue of apostasy was never mention in our country before the first International Conference on the Shariaa was held, what was the most conspicuous was the staunch supporters of applying the Shariaa did not adopt a define position about this matter during the conference, they preferred to postpone any discussions to a later date. But in 1987, Nigeria was exposed to the first major religious crisis when a Muslims converted to a Christianity, this convert gave a public speech in which he used Koranic verses as the bases for embracing Christianity and for denying the existence of Islam itself, this generated immediate reactions, as a Fatwa was issued against the apostate and he had to flee Nigeria.

            Until the present time, foreign influence in the political field does not constitute a dangerous problem in Nigeria.

            I have previously explained that national identity represents a kind of unanimity. But in fact Nigerians have different identities, this is due to the fact that Nigeria has now around 770 regions under local governments, and each region is controlled by a specific sect or ethnic group.

            Those are some of Nigeria’s problems, which complicate the project of realizing national unity in the country. But reverting to normal political condition might help face these problems in an effective manner and within an acceptable time.

            Father Jean- Marei Gaudeul’s Comments:

                        In relation to the question of choosing Imams and how it is handled, it is true that we have now a number of schools established by Muslims in France where individuals are trained to work as Imams, but these schools realized a very limited success.

A very limited number of Imams actually graduated from these schools, and the most dangerous is that an even smaller numbers have actually worked as Imams, because as Imams they get a very low salary being employed by local and poor Islamic Unions.

            A number of Imams come from abroad and most of them are self-appointed in the job, which causes a lot of problems. During the last four months of 22 of those foreign Imams were deported after they were classified, within the framework of the war against terrorism, as having fanatic inclinations.

            I recognize that Islam in France has no suitable leadership. This is not my opinion alone, Muslims also think the same and of course they are not happy with the situations.

            Assessments point, that around 80% of the Muslims community in France avoid Muslims religious organizations, what pushes them to do so? I do not know the correct answer to this question, but some those people are trying to forge new ties with what are called “secular Muslims”, which means they wish to belong to new groups or organizations, away from the traditional houses worship in France.

            As to the clamor about girls wearing the veil, in fact extensive discussions about this subject uncovered other controversial issues.

Discussions started about the mutiny shown by some young men against being taught by women teachers, about their refusal to study natural sciences or to play sports in schools. This explains the other difficulties Muslims who have traditional and conservative views, have with the curricula designated by the government to be taught in governmental schools. The latest governmental law was mainly issued to realize the purpose. Therefore we have to understand that this issue is much more complicated that it outwardly seems.

            Allow me to broach the subject of the secular state. French people, whether Muslims or Christians, are currently facing an increasing trend from the state to directly and openly oppose religion in general, government authorities consider that religion has no place in society, this attitude will affect Muslims as well as Christians.

            There is another dangerous possibility, which is that government authorities or local councils and organizations could be used as tools to control citizens and prevent unrest and riots. When there are international problems, like the war in Iraq or unrest in Palestine People, get provoked, in such cases the authorities call on Cardinals, Rabbis and Imams to try and face the situation, and make them hold a joint meeting to issue directives to followers of each religion calling for peace and keeping calm. Of course this is not the role we would like to play in society, but it happen in real life.

            French history explains that the concept of secular state had originally appeared as a kind of reactions against religions circles and organizations including the Church itself, and maybe mainly against the Church. In the same manner Islam perceived in negative way because it is come to resemble the Church in many ways, to the extent that it can be said that currently Islam is dealt with from perspective of being the “Islamic Church” if I am allowed to use such term, which naturally a difficult position.

            You might remember what a colleague said about the Church currently facing regarding giving greater area of existence and freedom of movements to others; but I think that France, and not Christian religion itself, is currently facing the challenge.

France is not Christianity and Christianity is not France, and the Church itself is currently striving to have a more palpable and effective presence in society.

Father James Channan’s Comments:

            I confess that not all religious schools incite hatred and resentment or propagate terrorism, but many of them are accused of doing so. Religious schools are strict to their teaching in science of one religion without mentioning other religions, modern sciences or what happens in the outside world. Religious schools should be restructured and developed through modern educations systems and by broadening their student’s scope of knowledge.

            I have the comments concerning the use of minorities as tools in the hands of foreigners, and think this opinion is highly exaggerated and I could like to affirm that we are not tools in the hands of foreigners, but we are struggling to get our political and religious rights, and have our standing and position within our country.

             If those international parties shows interest and worry about the status of minorities in Pakistan, expressing their support for our case and making sure it is moving in the right direction, we have to pursue our struggle without this being construed that we have become tools in the hands of foreign circles. We are happy that these authorities and numerous Islamic organizations in Pakistan support us, so we can realize the fine outcomes we wish for our country.

             The law blasphemy against religion applied in our country is used as threatening tool, not only against minorities but in some cases against the majority. Until today all judicial case against Muslims as well as against members of minorities, which where initiated based on this law, have not proven to be true and were finally dismissed by courts of law.

            In reality, this law is quite dangerous because as soon as a person is tentatively accused of blasphemy he can no longer live in Pakistan and has to immediately leave the country. Therefore efforts should be made to fight such laws and oppose them.

             For a final point, I completely agree with the opinion saying that there is a close relationship between religious freedom on one side and political freedom on the other side. In addition how should we fully contribute to the nation’s construction? As we are fully committed to this task and we consecrate our lives and all our skills to serve our country, Pakistan. We are not only one to present some objections and questions, numerous human rights groups are also asking similar questions. But we think that conditions in Pakistan are going to improve when we find solutions to all the problems we are facing.

Dr. Gene Mc Auliffe’s Comments:

            In my paper, I discussed two instruments used to collect information in the United States, the first is an office attached to the State Department, which mainly relies on human rights experts in embassies and consulates, the office require the experts to provide information on an annual basis, regarding the status of religious freedom in the countries where they are located. Later the office checks the veracity of the information provided through NGOs.

            The second instrument is the Committee on Religious Freedom, which criticized cases where breaches occur or if certain countries provide insufficient information, or when it is reveal that officials in the embassy or consulate of a certain country did not deal with attention with information they presented.

            As I mentioned earlier, the Committee of Human Rights is an American bi-partisan committee which means it is not an international committee, although it comprises representative of numerous religious groups in the United States. This Committee does its utmost to widen its scope of representation.

             Every year the report comes under a lots of criticism, because its adopts positions that are lenient or even lax towards Israel and Saudi Arabia, which are the two countries where the United States has a lot of interest, and the State Department does not want to upset the stable conditions there because of what the report about them might say.

This is a criticism, which is always directed at the report.

            In relation to questions around legitimacy and credibility, I would like to ask your permission to use an American term to answer this question: “The jurors are still out on this matter”. Would it be better to gather information and criticize their bad sides, or just sit back and do nothing at all?

            But I believe that if we strive to establish the ideal monitoring instrument, if we secure the funds to support its operation, we would carry this mission in a completely different manner. In this

Case, the monitoring instrument would be a global international instrument that does not submit to any government or specific authority, and would be also concerned with all religions.

            But I believe that in all case this problem will remain unsolved.

Even if international NGOs sometimes include in their rulings praise for the United States efforts in the field of monitoring, I still believe that doing something is better than doing nothing at all. Starting to activate new instrument that would issue an annual report would make the issue of religious freedom one of the numerous cases to be relied upon in the field of human rights, in addition it will raise awareness of this subject to a level and manner never known before in the world.

            I have to say that the report itself did not look critically at the United States, which would be sufficient reason for the report to be criticized.

            All human rights organizations, as well as numerous Churches declared their strong opposition to what is happening in Guantanamo.

This matter caused a great uproar, and started to actually affect the Administration’s policy.

                                                                 * * *