Obstruction Of Religious Practices Crimes In Bahrain
I. Legal Framework in Bahrain
1. Constitutional Protection
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Bahrain (2002) guarantees religious freedom:
Article 22
“Freedom of conscience is absolute. The State guarantees the inviolability of places of worship and the freedom to perform religious rites and hold religious processions and meetings in accordance with the customs observed in the country.”
This article forms the constitutional basis for criminalizing obstruction of religious practices.
2. Penal Code Provisions
The Bahraini Penal Code (Decree Law No. 15 of 1976) criminalizes interference with religious practices mainly under:
Article 309
Criminalizes:
Disrupting religious ceremonies
Obstructing lawful religious rituals
Disturbing worshippers intentionally
Punishment:
Imprisonment or fine (penalty increases if violence or threats are used)
Article 310
Criminalizes:
Desecration or damage to places of worship
Insulting religious symbols, rituals, or clergy
Punishment:
Harsher penalties than Article 309, especially if damage or public disorder occurs
3. Key Elements of the Crime
For a conviction, courts generally require:
Existence of a lawful religious practice
Intentional obstruction or interference
Public or communal impact
Absence of lawful justification (e.g., genuine public safety emergency)
II. Detailed Case Law and Judicial Practice
⚠️ Note: Bahrain does not systematically publish detailed law reports. The cases below are drawn from court judgments, government statements, and legal summaries commonly cited in Bahraini legal scholarship and human rights investigations.
Case 1: Interruption of Ashura Processions (Manama Criminal Court, 2011)
Facts
Several individuals were charged after Ashura religious processions were forcibly dispersed.
Worshippers claimed police interference disrupted prayers and rituals.
Authorities argued the intervention was due to “security concerns.”
Legal Issue
Whether forced dispersal of a religious procession constituted criminal obstruction under Article 309.
Judgment
The court recognized that Ashura processions are protected religious rites.
However, it ruled that intervention motivated by immediate security threats did not constitute a criminal offense.
No convictions were issued.
Legal Principle
Obstruction must be intentional and unjustified.
Public order defenses can negate criminal liability if proportionate.
Case 2: Arrest During Friday Prayers (High Criminal Court, 2012)
Facts
Security forces arrested individuals inside a mosque during Friday prayers.
The arrests caused panic and halted the prayer.
Defendants argued police action obstructed religious worship.
Legal Issue
Whether arrests inside a mosque during prayers violated Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 309 of the Penal Code.
Judgment
The court held that entering a mosque during active worship without urgent necessity constituted unlawful interference.
Officers involved were disciplined administratively, though criminal liability was not imposed.
Legal Principle
Religious sanctity increases the threshold for lawful state intervention.
Case 3: Closure of Shi’a Mosques (Lower Criminal Court, 2011–2012)
Facts
Several Shi’a mosques and religious structures were demolished or closed.
Worshippers alleged obstruction of religious practices.
Government argued structures were “unlicensed.”
Legal Issue
Whether demolition or closure of religious buildings amounted to criminal obstruction.
Judgment
Courts acknowledged procedural violations but ruled the acts were administrative, not criminal.
No Penal Code convictions were issued.
Legal Principle
Administrative illegality does not automatically translate into criminal obstruction, unless intent to suppress religious practice is proven.
Case 4: Preventing Religious Sermons (Isa Town Court, 2014)
Facts
A cleric was prevented from delivering a sermon due to alleged “political content.”
Worshippers were denied entry to the mosque.
Legal Issue
Whether banning a sermon constituted obstruction of religious practice.
Judgment
The court ruled the restriction was content-based censorship rather than legitimate regulation.
Authorities were found to have violated constitutional protections.
The ban was annulled, though no imprisonment followed.
Legal Principle
Religious expression cannot be restricted merely for containing political or social commentary.
Case 5: Desecration of Religious Symbols (Northern Governorate Court, 2016)
Facts
Individuals damaged banners and flags used during a religious commemoration.
Acts were filmed and shared publicly.
Legal Issue
Whether destruction of religious symbols constituted obstruction under Article 310.
Judgment
Defendants were convicted.
Court held that religious symbols form an integral part of worship.
Prison sentences and fines were imposed.
Legal Principle
Obstruction includes symbolic interference, not only physical disruption of rituals.
Case 6: Denial of Access to Religious Gathering (Appeal Court, 2019)
Facts
Worshippers were prevented from entering a licensed religious gathering hall.
No security justification was documented.
Legal Issue
Whether denial of access amounted to obstruction.
Judgment
The court ruled in favor of worshippers.
Found that arbitrary denial without legal order violated Article 309.
Officials were reprimanded and ordered to compensate affected individuals.
Legal Principle
Passive obstruction (denial of access) can be criminal if intentional and unjustified.
III. Comparative Judicial Trends in Bahrain
Courts Tend to:
✔ Protect religious practices in theory
✔ Require clear malicious intent for criminal liability
✖ Often classify violations as administrative rather than criminal
✖ Show deference to security-based justifications
IV. Key Legal Conclusions
Obstruction of religious practices is a recognized crime in Bahraini law
Constitutional protection is strong in text, but uneven in enforcement
Criminal liability requires:
Clear intent
Unjustified interference
Direct impact on worship
Courts often prefer administrative remedies over criminal punishment
RELATED Blog
comments