Blasphemy Case Against Muslims

7/30/2019 Blasphemy Case Against Muslims

1/33

,t~, IN THE COURT OF MR. MEHMOOD HAROON KHANADDITIONAL SESSIONS IUDGE SHORKOT.

$essions C ase No: 360f2013Sessions T rial N o: 30of2013Date of Decision: 21Jl1F lQ .1J.

".~ / ThcStateVersus

1- Haq Nawaz SID Allah Yar, Caste Karmuana RIO M ohalla TauhcedAbad, Waryam Wala, Tehsil Shorkot, D istt jhang,2- Abdur R ehman SID Muhammad Hussain, Caste Lahar RIOTauheed A bad, W aryam Wala, Tehsil Shorkot. D istt !hang.3- Muhammad Umar SID Ahmad Y ar, Caste Lahar RIO WaryamWa la,T ehsii S ho rko t, D istt jhan g.4- N isar Ahmad SID Muhammad Hussain, Caste !att RIO QaimB harw ana, Tehsil Shorkot, D istt !hang.5- Doctor M azhar Kaleem SID Noar Ahm ad, Caste Bhatti RIO,W aryam Wala, Tchsil 5harkot, D istt Jhang.aI~o

!~~Co~~~:r."",g;" " O ~ : r :~~'",,!,!~-,;;

FIR No = 479Dated = 30-05-2011Offence U/S = 295-C , PPCPS = Shorkot Citvr!""")I., )IJ.h~

[/n the nam e of Allah, the m ost G racious, the m ost M erciful](Z5-28-..Jo)...,J"'!\~.~6-0..1i.;.Jl>.I.Ji


2/33

Sessions as the offence under section 295-C PPC was triable by the C


3/33

PW 6-M unir Ahm ad (eye witness)PW 7- Sam ar Abbas, S,I (Investigating Officer)

5. In documentary evidence complaint is EX.PA. FIR is EX.PN1, perm issionof the Government of the Punjab u/s 196 CLP_C is EX-PC, certified copy ot orderdaied 15-07-2011 passed by honorable Lahore High Court, Lahore inW _P.NO_16325~11 is EX-PE, certified copy of order dated 07-10-2011 passed byhonorable Lahore H igh Court, Lahore in CRL.M _NO_9756-B-1 is EX-PF, certifiedcopy of ICANO.732-2011alongwith its order dated 05-03-2012 passed byDivision Bench of honorable Lahore High Court, Lahore is EX-PG. Re~veredbooKs are P1 to P11.

6. PW1 Mazhar Iqbal 376/C deposed that on 30-05-2011 he was posted asDuty Officer at P.S. Shorkot City. On the same day he received complaint Exh:,. .' PA drafted by Samar Abbas SI through Aamir Abbas constable 16201C,On the,.-

" . - ~;:',::>;~\~c,>,~

~r:~basis of Exh: P.A he reC1:lrded formal FIR Exh: Al1 without any addition oromisSion.

7. PW2 Noor Zaman deposed that on 12-06-2011 he joined the investigationof this case at Police Post Waryam , During investigation, the complainantproduced three ,books before the l..0--titled as "Islam -kay-Mujrim " (i"-" cfo f j... ,I )P.1, "Bulandi say Pasti Tak" (~t.ii4 C'"' c.J4) P.2 and "Tasawuf Ka TareeKTareen G haar" (.)1< :.~j i . ..s }..i '1.S""""""':;) P.3. The 1.0 took into possession thesebooks through recovery memo Exh: r.B, which was attested by him and HafizMuhammad Waris. The 1.0 recorded his statement under section 161 CI.P.C- On26-05-2011 Abdul Rehman accused and other accused persons present in the

I


4/33

"Waryam where accused persons preached that translation of Holy Ouran wasnot known to Holy Prophrd Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him), therefore,j ..,,-yo~yare also unaware of this translation. Accused persons furth


5/33

. illiterate person and Holy Quran, which, you have. is nol the original whereas the

. 'original Quran PaK is w ith the Iranians. They further staled that we had not seenHazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him) offering the prayer, thus, how we canoffer the prayer. Further slated that Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) didnot go to Meraj. There is no authenticity of "Hoz-e-Kausar" and there is no realityof :Namaz-e-Janaza". The purpose of Masjid Nabwi was for meeting and not forprayers. W e stopped the accused persons from saying such words about theH oly prophel (Peace be upon him ), Holy Quran and ArK an-e-lslam but theyremained consislent in their remarKs. The accused persons delivered the books(P.1to P.3) along with some other books and thereafter we left the placo;!.

9. PW4 Muhammad Rafique deposed that on 23-07-2011 he was posted asIncharge Police Post Waryam P.S. ShorKol City. On the same day he receivedback the challan with the objection that approval of prosecution branch,

~.go Government of the Punjab, is not attached. He moved application for such- ."",

l';;~ approval and receive


6/33

6registration of the case against the accused persons, which bears his signature.,Umar A l i , Sufi Fazal Karim and Maulana Abdul Rauf also became complainantalongiith him in this petition, He also produced the books "Haqeeqat-e-Haj'

, (e'~~) P.4, "Haqeeqat-e-Salaf P5, "Dhaka kyun" (~ ,..s."..J) P.6, "AkhirQuran sy Jang Kyun" (u.J:!S~ c:"" wI) ~j) P .? , "Ahsan-u l-Hadith " ( ~\~:i... 'iI) P.B, "Ham ara ilm-e-Tafseer"(~ rk-1.)~) P.g, Khilaf-e-QuranAloom(!",Jk. wI)"";" '; ') P.10, and "Mahasan-ul-Islam " (~'i\~) P.11, before the1.0 on 30-05-2011 in presence of Sheikh Muhammad Hanif and M uhammadM unir. T he accused persons present in the Court gave \I1ese books to him . On12-06-2011 he also produced three books P_1to P,3 before the 1.0. He producedthese books in the presence of Noor Zaman and Hafiz Muhammad Waris.T herefore, the ~ ccused persons have committed the offence.

::'J,~'~'=~

JJ" '2,~,_.11. PW6 Munir Ahmad deposed that he knows accused persons present in';:,:',?1he Court i-e. Haqnawaz etc. These accused persons CQmmitted the offence ofL",-.'-'. 'i::~.~~ilblaSPhemy by "inkar-e-Hadith", "inkar-e-Nam az", "inkar-e-M eraj M ustafa" (Peace~4, be upon him) and "inkar-e-Namaz-e-Janaza". They promoted their beliefs~~ through pamphlets and literature amongst the youth and comm itted blasphemy

and inkar-e-Quran & Hadith. Their thoughts were listened by him and SheikhM uhammad Hanif and some other persons. The complainant produced eightbooks PA to P.11 to the 1.0 who secured these articles vide recovery memo Exh:P.D , which was attested by him ac.d-Iate Sheikh Muhammad Hanif. The 1.0reCQrded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.

12. PW7 Samar Abbas SI deposed that on 30-05-011 he was posted as


7/33

7, section 161 CLP.C. Eight books (PA to P.11) were also produced by thecomplainant during the investigation which he took into possession through

". Irecovery memo Exh: P.O . Recovery memo Exh: P.D was attested by Munir./Ah;;;ad and Sheikh Muhammad Hanif. On 31-05-2011 he arrested accusedpersons Haqnawa~, Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Umar and Nisar Ahmad on 07-06--2011 after obtain ing legal opinion from DSP Legal, Jhang. He added ollenceunder section 16 MPO, On 09-06-2011 he arrested accused Dr. Mazhar Kaleemafter the cancellation of his pre-arrest bail. He obtained physical remand of thataccused from the leamed Area Magistrate, On 12-06-2011 the complainantproduced three books P.1 to P.3, which were taken into possession, viderecovery m emo Exh: P.B. Noor Zaman and Hafiz Muhammad Waris attested Iherecovery memo. On 12-06-2011 several persons 01 the area joined theinvestigation and he recorded their statements under sadion 161 CLP.C. On 13-

~.~ 06-2011 accused Dr. Ma~har Kaleem was sent to Judicial Lock up. On 14-06-"""::>J" ~ ..a, 2011 he prepared the challan against the accused persons and forwarded theO~ :!\!W am eto SHO concerned.~=~~=~~~"1A?~~ 13. After Ihe completion of prosecution evidence statements of accusedpersons were recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C , in which, they denied all theallegations leveled against them and stated that they belong to the village of thecomplainant and there is rivalry between them and the complainant due to localfraction and poBlica! affiliation. They have also differences of Islam ic thoughts

\ -nd due to this reason the complainant has lodged this false case against them .They opted l10t to appear as their own witness or to lead any evidence indefence

. -[ -.14- Thereafter trial was concluded and counselsprovided an opportunity to subm itthair arguments


8/33

Deputy District Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State duly assisted by'\M r. Asra~ Gujjm , Adv:learned counsel on behalf of the complaim :mt has opened

" his '~rg1rnents into two main heads I.e. "the law . and "the evidence" learned,c;./cOunsel has contended that in such like cases non-mentioning of date, time and

15

place of occurrence in the FIR Is not fatal for the prosecution case because thisinfidel ideology was propagated on different times and occasions. He has furthercontended that according to the observations made by the honorable LahoreHigh Court, Lahore while deciding bail application of an accused it was observedin very loud expression that prima-facie section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code, ismade out. Permission of provincial Government under section 196 of Cr.P.C wasobtained and annexed with the challan as EX. PC, hence, mandatory condition

r.;-" for exercise of jurisdiction is fulfilled.[;j

iJ.

~iL~;,n.l~16. Under the caption of "the evidence" learned counsel for the complainant,-. ,.~

~~ OJ. has argued th..t PWs have clearly deposed t.hat accused persons have passed~ :'~ derogatory remarks against prophet Muhammad P,B.U,H and denied the wellknown and popular rituals of Islam such as Prayer, "Hajj", "Meraj" and "Namaz-e-Janaza" etc. Adverting to the other submissions learned counsel has urged thatrecovery of controversial and derogatory literature 1"-1 to 1"-11 is a supportivematerial to strengthen the prosecution case, hence, maximum punishment beawarded to the accused persons. Further contended that m inor contradictions inH ie statements, of the witnesses are j9f1orable


9/33

further submilted that the accused persons are Muslim by faith and c~nllot think",ven about making derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhamm


10/33

1020. Chapter XV of Paki~tan Penal Code provides sentences for the offences!relating.! to blasphemy. According to the scheme of this chapter, Section 295, . /deals with the defiling of a place of worship, w ith intent to insult the relig ion of anyclass and provides punishment for such an offence. Seelion 295-A deals withdeliberate and malicious aels intended to outrage relig ious feelings of any classan.;! provides punishment for (he s'nne. Section 295-B deals with defiling of copyof Holy Qur'an and provides punishment for the same. Section 295-C deals withuse of derogatory remarks defiling the sacred name of the Itoly Prophet, Theseare major sections dealing with blasphemous acts. This case was initially lodgedunder seclion 295-A of PPC, and later on section 295-C was amended,therefore, I need to discuss the ingredients of these two sections in - thisjudgment. Section 295-C will come into force when it is found that the name orHoly Prophet P_B_U.H has been defiled. The first al1egation leveled against the

"';;j,.~ :,';::: accused in the first information report is "derogatory remarks. against Holy. ~::-.~~~"* Prophet Muhammad P.B .U.H . but no specific remarks are mentioned in the FIR.~,~,fl~'::'~:~~,~ction 295-C would attract only when the words spoken or written, or by any

"'K' ~ L.~ i~.'~'i:nputation, innuendo, or insinuation directly or indirectly, defile , S .the sacred nam-

e~..'~:;,j of Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B-U .H. Hence. to claim a conviction under section

295-C it would be mandatory upon the prosecution 'not only to show specificremarks given by the accused but also to prove that these remarks have defiledthe name of Holy Prophet. The word "defile", as defined and explained by thehonorable High Court in [ P l D 1994 lah 485]. means to corrupt purity orperfection of, to debase; to make cerej1).Onial1y unclean; to pollute; to sully; to

\violate the sacr~dness or sanctity of; to de;ecrate, profane; to sully the honor of,!and to dishonor. lis I havo discussed earlier that witnout mentioning specificword. sentence or remark; which has allegedly defiled the sacred name of theHoly Prophet, the charge under section 295-C cannot be proved. Careful perusalof FIR shows that no such word either spoken or writlen is mentioned therein.However, while appearing in the witness box PW2 and PW3 added that accused. . p.. /~ersons mentioned the Ho!y roPh~! as an Illiterate p e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - A ~ l ~ ~ k;I~~,;hat, 'h'amoyo' Ho'yPmphe'PBU.H '" , .,,, ," , mer.oo~m\ (',. o,ccothe


11/33

11considered


12/33

r.'..~1


13/33

~;~"

ti

13-o::-~fo,;)!:-'::"-:-(;0~-:-CJ~(_i-'i5/~i)81,-Ly

?6LdtV--F~f.JL;;",~..~I.J'.L..rp{J_.~I".i..{?::,v'=-f"4~ ~--bt,,;,=-$ ,.i.tJYJ=-..;..-:-(fo:::-,:.,I?-J~Lv2'Jf,{o,;)'V;"VJ'ifo:::-o,;)tt,.r--':;-~/.J!"".t!=-

-v: :..? ,.J~=-o ,; )I ..v .tSdh ..: - 'ili

(P3) tc!; ( ~!(...;"""'Ii/-'''':>

-'(


14/33

14It w ould not be out of place to mention here that what the "Blasphemy" is In,general' and what it meflns in our penal laws

-; /

22, Blasphemy generaily means: defilement, desecration, impiety,irreverence, profanation, sacrilege- It is outtawed under the Penal Code. Thoughblasphemy is not always punishable in all societies but it is a sinful actadmilledly. The "Book of Concord" calls blasphemy "the greatest sin that can beoutwardly committed". The "Baptist Confession of Faith" says: "Therefore, toswear vainly or ra"hly by the gloriqus and awesome name of God---~ is sin ful,and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. _m_- For by rash, false, and vain~aths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns". T he

I,~ "Heidelberg Catechism" answers question 100 about blasphemy by stating, "N oc;;

J~~

--,

:

,

;:.'

:'-

~

.

: sin is greater or PfOVO,

kes God's wrat _h more than _the b

,

laSPhemy of his na

-

me", InQ '"to: ~1!!,LD 2002 Lahore 5B7 "blasphemy" IS legal\y defined with reference to the book~~0~~:.:,~~ords and Phrases" by Butterworths, volume 1, as a m isdemeanor at common~"fi~ 'i::i~ law punishable by fine and imprisonment. It conSists in (1) scofflngly or'"~:g ::i;!": irreverenlly ridiculing or impugning the doctrines of Christian faith; or (2 ) in

uttering or publishing contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ; or (3 ) in p ro fanescoffing at the Holy Scriptures or exposing any part thereof to contempt orridicule. It is not blasphemy with due gravity and propriety to contend that theChristian religion or any part of its doc trin e, or the whol!'! or any part of Ih e HolyScripture is untrue

23, Biasphemy is not an Arabic term; several terms are used in Islamicreligious literature for the concept of blasphemy. Tllese includes "Sabb" (insult)and "Shatm" (abu se , v ilific atio n), ',"La'n" or "L a'an a" (curse) and "Ta'n" (accuse,defame), elc. In Islamic lilerature, Ihe term biasphemy sometimes overlaps withinfide l (Kuf r, d isbeliever ), "Fisq" (D epravity) and "Ridda" (apostasy. Qur'an says:

t-T-


15/33

, "...

,

...').~,:/

IS"W llO doelll greoler wrong Ihan lie wllo i/1wmtol/, 0 lieeoncemill9 Allah, or deniel/l tho truOl whel1 it cmnerh unlohim? Is no t fhere a home ill Iw ll fo r d isb elie ve rs'.

A variely of actions. speeches or behavior can (;o"slilute blasphemy but section295-C of Pakistan Penal Code will come into play only when Ihe words spoken orw r~ten, or by any im putation, innuendo, or insinuation directly or indirectly, defilesthe sacred nama of Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B.U .H. Hence dofiling of thesacred 'name of Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B,U.H is the basic ingredient ofsection 295-C wilhoul which no such offence shan constitute. In present case, as1 have discussed earlier, no specific derogatory remarks are mentioned, whilequestion of defiling of the name of Holy Prophet comes later. It is worthmentioning that prosecution was itself convinced Ihat section 295-C of P.P.C is0;:'::~

~!~

,

~

..

:.

~,1

"

o

.

'.".~.

p.~,

~~.:.adeout, that is why Ihe chellen was submilted under seclion 295-A of

~~~ ' ,:J ~ 24. It was argued from prosecution side Ihat honorable H igh Court hasobserved in its order dated 07~10-2011 passed in bail application of the accusedthai prima-facie section 295~C of P.P.C.. is attracted. In this regard I would saythat subordinate courts always bow down before Ihe findings of honorableSuperior Courts and under the Constitution of Islam ic Republic of Pakislan Ihedecisions of honorable Superior Courts are binding upon the subordinatejudiciary, but the honorable Superior Courts have also laid down some principles-egarding the observations made al ball stage. Fir$! of all. observations made atba il stag e ar~ always tentative In nature. Secondly, these observations cannotprejudice the result of trial. It was observed by the honorable Supreme Court ofPakistan In ils judgment "Sikandar A. Karim versus Ihe Stale" reported in 1995SCMR 387 thai Court, while decjding a bail app!icatlon has to avoid makingobservations which may prejudice the accused in his defence at the trial of thecase, In anolher case "Dr. Behram Khan versus Nasir Ahmed Bacha and others' IPLD 1986 SC 118, it was held that High Court on bail Xp~ca.~OI1 9iVin~, "'[/-",observalion~ in its order which were likely to prejudice case of one or other part~ \{O'

'!~-g-/3


16/33

16in tdal forum-Supreme Court clarified that trial forum shall decide case on its\ .

.' ( own merits and shall remain uninfluenced by obselVations made in bail ordersC /, j\~:'-.>,. ,--,~-, ,~.P'a_~Sed

by High Court. In 1997 SCMR 1281 it w as held that obselVations made in~ , ,'the impugned order were of tentative nature which of course would not affect the

decision of the appeal on merits. Very loud verdiel was given by the honorableSupreme Court in1998 SCMR 1993 by holding that the obselVation of theCriminal Court in the bail granting order Is wholly immaterial for fhe purpose oracquittal Of conviction of the accused. The obselVations in the orders passed inbail applications are always tentative in nature and as such, cannot be used byth e partie s fo r convic tion o r acquitta l of the accusad 1 \was fu rth er h eld In 2 010SCMR 1861 that obselVation of Suprem e Court or courts below while decidingbail applications are tentative in nature which are not binding upon Trial Courtwhich is duty bound to decide case on the basis of evidence adduced by partiesbefore it, without being influenced by any observation of Supreme Court or H ighCourt. Reliance is also placed on "Haji Inayat-u!-Haq's case 1996 SCMR 1743";~.... ;J;.:l "Iqbal-ur-Rehman's case PLD 1974 SC 63" and "Gul Ahmed's case 1997 SCMR

~ 27", Hence I have no hesitation to conclude that ObSelValion made by thaf c) ~ f:;it ~'.

~~ honorable High Court in bail application thai seelion 29,5'C of PPC is prima-facie~~~ . .. ~; ~ made out, was tentative in nature and honorable High Court never meant to~ ~~ infiuence the result of trial1i~

25. Now I come to the second al1eg~n, which is about the denial of certain\ .tenets of Islam ' such as 'Namaz", "M eraj", "Namaz--e-Janaza" and Hadith etc.

Firsl of all if we go with the prosecution version Ihal by not practicing these thingsand by making denial thereof one is guilty of blasphemy, then whole non Muslimworld will be the guilty of such an offence. Now whether we will convict all thenon M uslim s if having the power\and authority to do so? Answer is obviously"No" . Qur'an says:

(!.f-i Ji+ iSfi uro UiJ ) ,~~I ~ "~,1: ,\iT E2$-3- /.3,'ii: lJ P '" , !.


17/33

17At another place It says:

"

\,.',' \, .:.).. / ' . "...':J .""''--'-~"~"~'-A'famousMuslim Scholar M r. Javed Ahmed Ghamdi said:

t ; f j ~ ' f '~ f ~ T I Or~~':QJ

(~1) ~ ,..:.-JJIJ5..,s.~ wl I"W# ell.J C 'fi ~...1

.::- r/~#oIJ.:t-.u::_vr A(v}1.Y'""-=-J-=-qhJ}~-=--lu~v.: Llf~JJ-=--"flf!.Jy-f!--=-o;f; J~ 'J ,.-=--/.:ihJfV :'ZJ";-IL~J -,,= - t: ,?yJ I,-r .:.:t-J (~ I,..A~-I:n~LALl;/lft:l':c-J.JJvH0IJ",..;t1~"-~'rjfi"~~

_'V;tJl~/J~~,

Therefore, we have no right to punish any Muslim , non-Muslim or disbeliever forhis wrong beliefs or for not practicing the well known tenets of Islam or makingdenial th';feof iUnieSS and until he co,its blasphemy within the meaning ofsection 295-C or outrages religious feelings of any class w ithin the meaning ofsection 295-A. .It is yet to be seen that whether the accused persons haveactually denied these rituals of Islam or they are just making a differentInterpretation of Islam other than a popular interpretation and in both the caseswhether we can charge them with the accusation of blasphemy, which is a veryserious allegation and a kind of apostasy. In this regard PLD 20

,

02 _~Laho ,'

58

,,

7 i1:l

ATT T;-~61~E D. 'v",fe fe rTed a sunder;


18/33

~ '"J ; . g '

j~ "- S~ ~ " ' . . .~ , ~ ~1;1::",,=,"


19/33

19arisen in th is case. This shubbah is sufficient ground toavert Hadd punishment.

Hence it is apparent from the above referred Islam ic Jurisprudence thatblasphemy is also termcd as apostasy. Therefore. while charging someone withthis allegation we must be very careful and cautious. If a person interprets anorder of Islam in.a different way as we follow it, then if. in our opinion, he isstrayed we may show him the righteous path in a logical way with all ourhumbleness and politeness. We are perm itted to do nothing more than that. Onemay be wrong In his interpretation but merely because of disagreement with thepoputar school of thought practiced by the majority he can't be declareddisbeliever or guilty of blasphemy. M r. Javed Ahmad Ghamdi a famous religious

~ ~ scholar and former member of Council of Islam ic Ideology of Pakistan, while~{~ answering a question, said:1 ~I~~~~'~~

~ h , . , . . . J i r J " - c C " I , , " , , , " ii~JiJ~ .J-~ !t5 tfi~ ,;Y i).:~ L.:J.(V f~ .."'V .L. fU ;,:"Ii";i 1.:,;.;L !:h,,;bJ'v'~v.f!,~(;;.:.>~,JiJ"i:CJplL.:J'-~I,fd'L Q.;J

. J..;4vHf-~!f"'k.?,"~.;I'~Jr?-,,~ILv'~t.A~!J,!v:'~0


20/33

;.:0In my humble view the books recovered from the accused persons are In

/ disa~reement with a popular school of thought. The authors of these books maybe .,~ little bit rude in expressing their views but cannot be dec!ared as.'.',," .

- ~ -'C -,'"'"blasphemous. Likewise the accused persons who were promoting these booksare not intended to' commit blasphemy as it appears from Ihe facts and

fi. ~.fJ@-~:I~'D'oa ,;:;1::ii''Y . i;~-~~k~

circumstances of this case. But for a moment if it is presumed that these bookscontain blasphemous materia! then question arises that why no action has beentaken against the authors of these books or publisher houses while their namesand addresses are clearly mentioned in these books? Why the Government hasnot banned these books while the "youtube" has been blocked for havingblasphemous contents? Lers have a look on some extracts of remaining books.

(P5) ;1k.J?\:1~;?;;~

-'(U(.,..v-,...;:.-

14,~.r-~,;. u.~~Yt.P-fi;()f7-6'..li~---':;y'5.~krIPr~~~'\:1r } k(L'-7-< i! ~;5;".J.,.. 7~ v)I,.J- -'/.-- ;-J= -...,i:f.A,!'" ";~U ;~~1.1,,;,j)'iJ'-::--tI:!-VJ'y


21/33

U'i~.t.\. :;.~~-'._:[j;~; ,'.;. ''.:.''~'=-\'2d ,~

:tL1",,;'( 6:c: c!T}]fY-'~:~",/u.y"i/v ;-

_:(tlJ'",:,,(J_:~

2,~~L!J'(..{vi':~{'::':=':~L~'~ v~t:lJIf'JtvlJ - = - = - = V i A j ; ' J . - c =-,f",:",Ir;; ,/~-,?,,;:~ .Fc.. .cJ 'JiiJ.oI,L,r

-~''f.,:~..f\ScJi}~?J,';i

(PS) ~.J"'J.Ii-;~...JIcr'i ...ytlf'",:",Cf(.:-1 -,(t


22/33

;:~~

1. ,~~

~;~...~~1;:,;,,188'g~m~i

/ .t .


23/33

.: '.,

f?J,, (f:~L ' Y r ' j!,,;:,::'i

V-I;':,',~c.~..J~

23

(P11) rvr\:,'V .A .~ _,tr",:",crJ"'J'$,""~)"r'1.r ..d~,~t.:~JL~...,IV;U,f 15",;;I/J or L ";" r.lJl7"";'.II{(LVI/~_-__-~~J,...JI~~~ '{\:1~;JA7.fLJt~.I~~J~.c..~'rG-?J'1,..J)I{'::'.I!h}~,.:..>' ""'.:-U~..;.'I..i-f..,~j"'-.IIr:Vdl!r..i

-\.$ ",:",!('(~'::';'.IJlr i!.iJYr:L f

From the perusal of these contents it appears that the authors of these books arehaving serious disagreem ent in the authenticity (sehat) of'Riwayats',(narrations)mentioned in books of Hadith. The authors or Ihese books are vociferousopponents of a popular school of thought who believes In books of Hadith and is .in considerable, majority, but this lack of consensus canna! be termed asblasphemy. It is i,lecessary to clarify that11lave not quoted the view point given inthese bookS rather I have only quoted the' paragraphs or contents wI1ich showthe praIse and respect e>tpressed by the authors about our Holy Prophet (s.a.w ),because I have nothing to do with the view point given In these books nor I amsupposed to give my verdici about the correclness or falsity of this view point.

\This is the job of religious scholars having relevant know1edge of the field, Thiscourt is concerned only w ith the question that w hether the offe e ,of blasphemyhas been committed or not. thus I have referred the stuff nly related to the~.-,-Y"' '7~DqUestion in hand. In earlier tim es and prese~~fa Pe~Ple have


24/33

Hexpressed such iike disagreement with this majority who strictly believes in books01 Hadith, but they were never accused for the offence of blasphemy. Sir SyedAhmad Khan, when wrote the "tafseer" of Holy Our'an, devialed from many set.. beliefs and for this reason he was strongly opposed by other religious groups ofthat era bul he is still a respectad name for Muslims. A llam.. Iqbal also said:

j,r';:-":"l'tJ"y':,!,/~~'if/'-..::..i?

In a T.V program Dr, Khalid Zaheer said aboul the authors of books of Hadiththai U ley are not "Masoom-anil-khala" and Allama Ibtisam Etahi Zaheer alsoagreed with. Both these scholars are respected and admired in our society. A

~.,question was asked from Ghamdl sahib, a well known and unbiased Muslim

its reply :scholar, which also reflects the controversy on this subject. Sec the question and

~-'J

1'~!f\fv.tf(#{':')-'l:Jrjt1f"JJJFl:Jk


25/33

25But we cannot think even to blame these personalities for becoming disrespectful\0 our beloved Prophet (s.a,w). Hence I have no hesitation to hold that viewsexpressed in these books are merely a disagreement and difference of opinionwith a popular ideology of Islam , which has no nexus with blasphemy or hurtingthe religious feelings of any other class. It is merely a matter of differentinlerpretation of Islam , for example, as I understooo from the reading of thesebooks thatlhis school of thought is trying to explore the meanings of Arabic word"sala'eh" ( o : , J . . . o ) in e different way and took it as a vast term which describes asystem for Is!amic society and not confined to "Namaz" only . This in te rp re ta tio nof word "sala'ah" has been misconstrued as denial of "Namaz". Accused areMuslims, and as pure as any other .sect" or group of Muslims. therefore, theycannot be declared guilty of blasphemy on the basis of difference of opinion with.'",",.tl'J


26/33

26'''",missing from the very outset and prosecution witnesses have tried to cover upr"i~'i~'.!acuna by making certain improvements in their statements, therefore. thepr;~~cution evidence is remarkable in weakness only- As no date, time and/ ':;'.J

\ '-~J~ce or any specific derogatory remark is mentioned in the F.I.R. and even thesame has not been found or discovered by the Investigating Officer during theinvestigation nor is any site plan prepared by the 1/0, while the witnesses addedthese ingredients through improvements in their statement, thus the prosecutionversion suffers from inherent im probabilities and infirmities of a serious nature.

26, Next point Is the casual procedure adopted by the police to interrogate thiscase. The police have paid no heed or special attention according to !he

':f sensitivity of this case. This case has been investiga!ed in a routine matter by an. ;: :7 officer of the rank of Sub.lnspector and important instructions issued by the

I f;;:\ronorabla High Court, as reported in PLD 2002 Lahore 587, have been:'.-,,~;:c-ompletely ignored. According to these instructions honorable High Court~~i dir\'!cled the Inspector-General of Police of th~ province to ensure that whenever';,


27/33

27.Police did not mention occurrence place in site plan-VictimcategOfically doposed that he was abducted and taker! tosawmill and confined them for whole night and act ofsodomy was repeated-where in victim stated categoricallythat he had pointed out sawmill and also visited same alongwith police, thus it is established that victim had brought infonotice of police, however if there was any lapse on part ofpolice, same cannot be treated 8S fatal for prosecutionstory,-

This case law is not applicable to the preposition in hand for the reason that inabove referred case the site plan was prepared by the If0 but place ofoccurrence was not mentioned in spite of the fact that same was pointed out bythe victim whereas in present case even the sile plan is not prepared by the

:Investigating Officer nor any place of occurrence was pointed out by thecomplainant or his w itnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Prosecution contendsthat offence W flS not commftted at a specific place. 1 cannot share this viewbecause some PWs have mentioned the place of occurrence as the shop ofaccused Abdul Rehman near Railway Station "Waryam". Therefore by notpreparing the site plan the 110 has committed gross negligence which causeddent in the prosecution story.

28. Complaln,ant side has also relied"IJpon a number of judgments 10 securethe conviction of accused persons out of which two. judgments are moreim portant. First judgm ent is 2005 YLR 985 in which it was observed by thehonorable Lahore High Court, Lahore that defiling words highlighted in F.I.R. hadconstituted offence against accused under section 295-C, PPC. Five audio\cassettes were also recovered and produced in the Court allegedly containingderogatory remarks in the voice of accused: In present case, neither anyderogatory remarks or defiling words are mentioned in the F.t.R_~ r:;r'.f~ books"""."d ". '0'"'0 '0' "oymh m"'.""' Heo'.thefuct.';.i~.t~~~~:


28/33

Z8of the case in hand are entirely different from the above f('


29/33

r~;

I'; '.'.

Blasphemy Case Against Muslims

Documents

Transcript of Blasphemy Case Against Muslims