SC acquits Aasia Bibi in blasphemy case

[RIP Pak LAW]

Or irreligious elements have been given the opportunity to bring out their reality, so every one can see who stands where. What looks like a win to you hides abject defeat, Insha Allah.

I stand by my SC. Those judges knows more about Islam than any Khadim Rizvi type fundo in Pakistan.

 

[LeGenD]

My area completely blocked.

Thanks to Allah Almighty that I was able to find a shortcut to home.

 

[Crystal-Clear]

We should kill millions to save one... we should follow sharia and islam rather then ignorent mullahs

according to sharia 4 witnesses is enough .

 

[Village life]

Have you read the verdict? The answer to your question is here.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Crl.A._39_L_2015.pdf

I don't need to read that ,because I my self saw that ,listened that what was on TV , and I remember that very well , and I trust those judges who gave her punishment, as much as you are trusting the judges of supreme Court , because the witnesses and the accused appeard before those judges not before this dummy baba rehmata,

 

[313ghazi]

according to sharia 4 witnesses is enough .

What happens when the statements of those four witnesses are different to each others?

Also what happens when the statements of those four witnesses are different each time they are recorded?

 

[CriticalThought]

Bullsh.i.t.

Basically you've made up your mind and want the blood of this woman, regardless of the facts. To this end you have refused to review evidence, questioned the intentions of the judge, questioned the honesty of the judge, questioned the iman of the judge, claimed whilst living in Australia that he takes inspiration from the west. Is it okay to take dollars from them and not inspiration i take it?

You're embarassing yourself.

If you bothered to read the judgement you'd know;

1. There are three judges you have to character assasinate, not just one
2. There are 14 pages of 56 dedicated to religious justification of the blasphemy laws.
3. There is clearly enough evidence to prove the witnesses told lies to the police and the courts. Their own statements which have been recorded and signed by them, contradict each other, they contradict their previous statements.

Stop recounting facts on this judgement. Are these somehow intellectually superior beings who have more insight then all judges before them? You want to see double standards? In the recent matter involving a decision made by Lahore High Court, these same judges opined that at this level, there is no need for a lengthy judgement analysing the merits of the case. But when an issue dear to their hearts emerges, they go on to analyse the very health of the evidence presented ten years ago. This is blatant disregard of justice, a farce, and a joke.

 

[Crystal-Clear]

What happens when the statements of those four witnesses are different to each others?

Also what happens when the statements of those four witnesses are different each time they are recorded?

qazi have to judge then but once a judgement passed there wont be anyone to challenge it again and again .
.
.
specially European countries .

 

[CriticalThought]

1. Religious scholars are telling us nothing to start with, but since there is no such reputable Islamic fatwa which says it is not applicable, I cannot reproduce it so I will shut up on that end.

2. Inspiration of non muslim jurists does not imply he is in love with their law, it can imply skills and ways of engagements. Pakistan has a constitution and law that the CJP must uphold, you can visit the specific parameters if you like, there is indeed a punishment for Blasphemy and rightfully so, however there needs to be sufficient evidence is what I am saying.

Where a high level of authenticity IS required - the ideology followed by the CJP - you are making excuses. Where the required of authenticity IS available, your were trying to find flaws. Case closed.

 

[Super Falcon]

If she is guilty should be hanged on spot if not than should be given freedom but take the nation to understand the case findings with crystal clear truth so no one can take un necesary benefits for their politics

 

[Lincoln]

Where a high level of authenticity IS required - the ideology followed by the CJP - you are making excuses. Where the required of authenticity IS available, your were trying to find flaws. Case closed.

A high level of authenticity is indeed required. You need to prove that the witnesses are reliable, pious and truthful because otherwise people would be producing lying witnesses from their friends to help in their case, and even criminals with horrible past records could be witnesses in such a case.

Let me provide a close analogy; in the case of Zina, of the requirements of a witness is that the witness has seen the full action in intimate detail, the witnesses are 'impeccable' meaning honest and absolutely trustworthy as well as pious and furthermore if the witnesses prove to be incoherent or liars as well as severely punished, they are to be barred from this privilege ever again, so for such any past records have also to be taken in account. You can read details for Witness criteria regarding Zina, I believe it serves as a great analogy and reference; (By this analogy, the witnesses who provided different statements in fact by Islamic law should be punished).

The witnesses in the mentioned case were incoherent and also held a grudge placing in doubt of their testimonials.
Case closed.

 

[Super Falcon]

Courts are guilty of miss leading the case why no open trial they have taken to clear the minds of common people so in future no one can miss use the situation i think SC is hiding something

I think she is guilty and in western pressure they took the wrong decision may be im wrong ALLAH forgive me

But i think case was miss handeled

Now enemies of state will take whatever benefits they can gain from situation

 

[CriticalThought]

A high level of authenticity is indeed required. You need to prove that the witnesses are reliable, pious and truthful because otherwise people would be producing lying witnesses from their friends to help in their case, and even criminals with horrible past records could be witnesses in such a case.

Let me provide a close analogy; in the case of Zina, of the requirements of a witness is that the witness has seen the full action in intimate detail, the witnesses are 'impeccable' meaning honest and absolutely trustworthy as well as pious and furthermore if the witnesses prove to be incoherent or liars as well as severely punished, they are to be barred from this privilege ever again, so for such any past records have also to be taken in account. You can read details for Witness criteria regarding Zina, I believe it serves as a great analogy and reference; (By this analogy, the witnesses who provided different statements in fact by Islamic law should be punished).

The witnesses in the mentioned case were incoherent and also held a grudge placing in doubt of their testimonials.
Case closed.

The supreme court cannot decide the validity of witnesses ten years after the events have passed. It is as simple as that.

 

[Lincoln]

The supreme court cannot decide the validity of witnesses ten years after the events have passed. It is as simple as that.

Here are your relevant Fatwa's.

"and call to witness two just ones from among you and give upright testimony for Allah (Talaq-65-2)."

Again it is said

"You who believe, call to witness between you when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons among you or two others than among you (Almaida-5-106)."


This would mean that the witnesses must be Adil i.e. the just ones as laid down in the Quran. The Sharia does not make admissible the evidence of persons convicted of any moral offence or persons having reputation of immoral character or persons who have any bias for or against the persons about whom the evidence is to be given.(Fatawa-i-Alamgiri Arabic, Volume 3, Page 465).​

Then the verdict is also as simple as that, the witnesses were incoherent, the witnesses were unreliable, sufficient evidence could not be collected. Case closed.

 

[CriticalThought]

Here are your relevant Fatwa's.

"and call to witness two just ones from among you and give upright testimony for Allah (Talaq-65-2)."

Again it is said

"You who believe, call to witness between you when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons among you or two others than among you (Almaida-5-106)."


This would mean that the witnesses must be Adil i.e. the just ones as laid down in the Quran. The Sharia does not make admissible the evidence of persons convicted of any moral offence or persons having reputation of immoral character or persons who have any bias for or against the persons about whom the evidence is to be given.(Fatawa-i-Alamgiri Arabic, Volume 3, Page 465).​

Then the verdict is also as simple as that, the witnesses were incoherent, the witnesses were unreliable, sufficient evidence could not be collected. Case closed.

Multiple justices considered them very much coherent and reliable. These matters cannot be decided ten years later by anyone Case closed.

 

[Lincoln]

Multiple justices considered them very much coherent and reliable. These matters cannot be decided ten years later by anyone Case closed.

Under Pakistani Law they can, ultimate jurisdiction belongs to Supreme Court, feel free to challenge. We're following Constitution, not Saudi law. Case closed.