Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Asia Bibi Blasphemy Acquittal Upheld By Pakistan Court
28 Answers
Yay, some good news. Just thought I'd share it with you all.
Now what happens?
https:/
Now what happens?
https:/
Answers
//...there's hope for the country yet then if the official, supreme, court can come to a rational decision on ridiculous areas of law// The decision was "rational" only in the sense that the evidence for the blasphemy of which she'd been found guilty was insufficient
20:40 Tue 29th Jan 2019
I'm sure you're right retro, more's the pity.
// The country is braced for further protests by Islamist groups, although a number of prominent hardline clerics held responsible for the unrest last year are currently in jail following a government crackdown. \\
I'm sure there are plenty more where those came from.
She's been offered refuge by several other countries. Fingers crossed she can get there safely and that she will be safe once there. I guess there are those who will make it their life's work to make sure she doesn't and she's not!
As you say Naomi, Watch that Space.
// The country is braced for further protests by Islamist groups, although a number of prominent hardline clerics held responsible for the unrest last year are currently in jail following a government crackdown. \\
I'm sure there are plenty more where those came from.
She's been offered refuge by several other countries. Fingers crossed she can get there safely and that she will be safe once there. I guess there are those who will make it their life's work to make sure she doesn't and she's not!
As you say Naomi, Watch that Space.
//The Pakistan Supreme Court is not a shariah court though//
But the laws in question are part of the sharia as well as being part of the Pakistani constitution. So, in principle, they should "give a fig", Retrocop.
She was originally acquitted because: "... the case was based on unreliable evidence and her confession was delivered in front of a crowd 'threatening to kill her'". So what's not being given a fig for are the rules of evidence.: clearly it doesn't matter whether she actually insulted the Prophet, only that she upset Muslims by sticking up for her faith.
There is still bad news. For her? Well, she is still in Pakistan and not yet re-united with her family. And some
for us in Britain: all our Muslim citizens and their imams who who would happily see her dead. What the percentage is in each category I can't say, but I'd guess it would be the majority of the imams.
But the laws in question are part of the sharia as well as being part of the Pakistani constitution. So, in principle, they should "give a fig", Retrocop.
She was originally acquitted because: "... the case was based on unreliable evidence and her confession was delivered in front of a crowd 'threatening to kill her'". So what's not being given a fig for are the rules of evidence.: clearly it doesn't matter whether she actually insulted the Prophet, only that she upset Muslims by sticking up for her faith.
There is still bad news. For her? Well, she is still in Pakistan and not yet re-united with her family. And some
for us in Britain: all our Muslim citizens and their imams who who would happily see her dead. What the percentage is in each category I can't say, but I'd guess it would be the majority of the imams.
.
by the 1973 Constitution. Later on, a new court called, Federal Shariat
[By the High Court (Bengal) Order 1947, 9, By the Federal Government of Pakistan Order 1948]
..... Court was created in 1980 with jurisdiction to determine, suo moto or on petition by a citizen or the Federal or a provincial Government, as to whether or not a certain provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.
// The Pakistan Supreme Court is not a shariah court though.// oh dear well that is not quite right then it it?
from
http://
appealing acquittals - terribly bad idea - yes I know it has recently been allowed in English law
interest rei publicae, sit finis ad litem
( there should be an end to all this legalling )
and that certainly isnt Urdu !
by the 1973 Constitution. Later on, a new court called, Federal Shariat
[By the High Court (Bengal) Order 1947, 9, By the Federal Government of Pakistan Order 1948]
..... Court was created in 1980 with jurisdiction to determine, suo moto or on petition by a citizen or the Federal or a provincial Government, as to whether or not a certain provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.
// The Pakistan Supreme Court is not a shariah court though.// oh dear well that is not quite right then it it?
from
http://
appealing acquittals - terribly bad idea - yes I know it has recently been allowed in English law
interest rei publicae, sit finis ad litem
( there should be an end to all this legalling )
and that certainly isnt Urdu !
Pakistan must reform; the landmark decision has definitely paved the way for Bibi's exit from Pakistan, a country where religious hardliners bay for her blood. But we must not turn a blind eye to the fact that the court freed Bibi by using the same blasphemy laws that put her in jail in the first place. The Supreme Court acquitted Bibi — and then rejected the appeal against her acquittal — on the basis of a lack of witnesses. In a country like Pakistan, false accusations and witnesses are not hard to come by.
Pakistan, thus, must make sure that no person should simply be arrested on the basis of accusations and claims. Therefore, while we must respect that most Pakistanis are sensitive about blasphemy, legal loopholes must be removed to ensure that an innocent person doesn't have to suffer the way Bibi did.
Pakistan, thus, must make sure that no person should simply be arrested on the basis of accusations and claims. Therefore, while we must respect that most Pakistanis are sensitive about blasphemy, legal loopholes must be removed to ensure that an innocent person doesn't have to suffer the way Bibi did.
//...there's hope for the country yet then if the official, supreme, court can come to a rational decision on ridiculous areas of law//
The decision was "rational" only in the sense that the evidence for the blasphemy of which she'd been found guilty was insufficient, OG.
If the court had determined that the testimony of witnesses in the case was honest, then the original conviction would have been upheld and Bibi would have been either executed or back on death row.
The law is quite explicit. The constitution prescribes a range of penalties for "blasphemy", a concept which includes "insulting" Mohammed, his companions or his family. I've read them: they range from the death penalty for insulting the Prophet to imprisonment and/or fines depending on the status or family connection of the person being "insulted".
Most of this "sharization" goes back to General Zia's day (the one who hanged Benazir's dad) and agitation for Islamisation by ultra-conservative (i.e. fascist to you and me) political parties like Jamaat-e-Islami. This latter organisation has a pernicious influence on Britain's Pakistani Muslims through its creature the Muslim Council of Britain.
The decision was "rational" only in the sense that the evidence for the blasphemy of which she'd been found guilty was insufficient, OG.
If the court had determined that the testimony of witnesses in the case was honest, then the original conviction would have been upheld and Bibi would have been either executed or back on death row.
The law is quite explicit. The constitution prescribes a range of penalties for "blasphemy", a concept which includes "insulting" Mohammed, his companions or his family. I've read them: they range from the death penalty for insulting the Prophet to imprisonment and/or fines depending on the status or family connection of the person being "insulted".
Most of this "sharization" goes back to General Zia's day (the one who hanged Benazir's dad) and agitation for Islamisation by ultra-conservative (i.e. fascist to you and me) political parties like Jamaat-e-Islami. This latter organisation has a pernicious influence on Britain's Pakistani Muslims through its creature the Muslim Council of Britain.
For people who don't do PP he's probably talking about this bloke:
https:/
PS: was he the one who had the word "Muslim" removed from his headstone?
Coming to a city/town/hamlet near you. If of you're on the border of the UK.
https:/
PS: was he the one who had the word "Muslim" removed from his headstone?
Coming to a city/town/hamlet near you. If of you're on the border of the UK.
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Is Farage Labours Secret Weapon ?.
Politics14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.