What's new

Junaid Jamsheed being charged with Blasphemy !!!!

They were all Jahil to begin with - the Khaki clad clown had nothing to do with Zulfi passing anti-Ahmadi laws, for example. And many of our elected politicians (especially the religious and rural elite) threw a hissy fit when attempts were made to increase the legal age of marriage to 16 or above - bunch of pedophiles that they are.

But that was a khaki-clad clown who inserted five additional clauses in section 15 of PPC and thus made sure that the minorities would always be treated like pariahs in his islam ka qila. The religious bigots, rural elites (in other words the big landlords) and khaki-clad generals have always been good buddies, why so much hate for their all-weather friends? They always whooped lab'baik and came to the aid of our warriors whenever they conquered Islamabad. Why Pak is stuck in a deep quagmire of jahalat? Because even its liberal intelligentsia sometimes behaves like jahil mullah and khaki-clad clowns.

@AgNoStiC MuSliM Unlike Zia the Hypocrite, Bhutto personally never forced and Islamic law down the throat of downtrodden lot. The anit-Ahmadia riots were not easing off in Punjab and PPP was losing the support of the masses. The misstep he took was to allow the religious parties to table a bill for the constitutional excommunication of Ahmedis. Bhutto never forced the PPP legislators to vote for or against the legislation, whatever the decision they took was their own.
 
.
I am afraid Jinah wasn't about your expectations, if you would had the "privilege" of studying him, you wouldn't have been saying such things but "hating" Jinnah.
Since you imply that you have had the "privelage of studying Jinnah", I'll wait for a factual rebuttal from you, barring which this is nothing more than an empty claim on your part.
Rest I have not a state in time to spend it on you because I have encountered & examined your type already. Ashamed of your religion & Identity you are & for negating it you take help from takfiri elements found inside religious societies. You are excused.
A personal attack, instead of a rational counter-argument, is typically a pretty good indicator that the individual has no rational counter-arguments available and is merely looking to deflect the discussion to avoid exposing him/herself.
Why don't you go to a busy street of whatever Western country you live in & shout "holocaust was a lie"...tell us then what happens to you & then teach us about tolerance that you learnt from the west.
I don't believe the holocaust was a lie, so why should I? And on that note, I strongly oppose laws that prevent people from questioning the holocaust.

Now, with your personal attacks and attempts to hijack the discussion out of the way, perhaps you can find it in yourself to actually offer counter-arguments to the points raised.

But that was a khaki-clad clown who inserted five additional clauses in section 15 of PPC and thus made sure that the minorities would always be treated like pariahs in his islam ka qila. The religious bigots, rural elites (in other words the big landlords) and khaki-clad generals have always been good buddies, why so much hate for their all-weather friends? They always whooped lab'baik and came to the aid of our warriors whenever they conquered Islamabad. Why Pak is stuck in a deep quagmire of jahalat? Because even its liberal intelligentsia sometimes behaves like jahil mullah and khaki-clad clowns.
Bhutto himself was a "big landlord", and the tradition of "big landlords" in all 4 provinces continues to be one of enslavement of the people, so why shouldn't I "hate them"?
] Unlike Zia the Hypocrite, Bhutto personally never forced and Islamic law down the throat of downtrodden lot. The anit-Ahmadia riots were not easing off in Punjab and PPP was losing the support of the masses. The misstep he took was to allow the religious parties to table a bill for the constitutional excommunication of Ahmedis. Bhutto never forced the PPP legislators to vote for or against the legislation, whatever the decision they took was their own.
Then, as now, the party membership would not have voted against Bhutto's direction, and therefore Bhutto was completely responsible for the institutionalization of intolerance, bigotry and discrimination by passing the anti-Ahmadi laws in Pakistan. He rode the coat-tails of the military dictator he replaced, and was the quintessential "big landlord whooping lab'baik" in support of the dictator of the day until he himself got into power.
 
Last edited:
.
You want me to go to the Same Western countries whose main religion is Christianity whereas holocaust was to do with the Jewish abroad ..!!?? Or is there another type

Also what has holocaust got to do here ? Please do not come up with a half baked conspiracy theory
Ok, instead of pouring your hive mind...do some "google"...it's a law in majority of Western countries, you can not "question" the authenticity or even the exact facts & figures given by govt: about holocaust in there. If you do so, you are going to have trip to jail & a lot much will come in bonus with that.
 
.
Ok, instead of pouring your hive mind...do some "google"...it's a law in majority of Western countries, you can not "question" the authenticity or even the exact facts & figures given by govt: about holocaust in there. If you do so, you are going to have trip to jail & a lot much will come in bonus with that.
So if some Western countries have a regressive law in place you want to justify an even worse law in Pakistan?

If you really want to do a comparison between the laws against questioning the holocaust and the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, you'll still come up a loser:

1. Laws against questioning the holocaust do not result in a sentence of death as is the case in Pakistan
2. Laws against questioning the holocaust do not result in mobs beating and massacring people as is the case in Pakistan
3. Laws against questioning the holocaust are meant to prevent conspiracy-theorists from undermining a very specific catastrophic event, in which millions of innocent men, women and children were massacred by the Nazi's in horrible ways, unlike the Blasphemy laws which are broad and essentially meant to prevent an immature Muslim society from throwing tantrums in case someone questions or criticizes religious figures.

The only law that could be considered comparable to the Laws against questioning the Holocaust would be a law the prevents people from questioning the tragedy of Karbala. The Blasphemy law is a uniquely regressive instrument meant as a broad tool to stifle free speech and hide the immaturity of Muslims incapable of tolerating criticism of religious figures and religion.
 
.
Did Jinnah, in a personal capacity, support the Blasphemy laws introduced by the British?

And, again, how do you reconcile the claim that Jinnah wanted "Islamic Laws implemented in Pakistan" with Jinnah's comment of "Pakistan is not to be a theocratic State ruled by priests on a divine mission"?

i just logged in for this post,
without going into details & arguments --- there's difference between an Islamic state & a theocratic state ruled by priests on divine mission.

Jinnah understood the difference,
with little effort, you can also understand the difference.
 
.
Does any Pakistani realise how much of a laughing stock Pakistan is right now in the world? And guess who has to face it? Overseas Pakistanis who love Pakistan but are also disturbed by the waves of religious intolerance and are torn between defending their homeland from ridicule but facts are facts. We can't deny that no one takes Pakistan serious, Pakistan is seen as a over zealously intolerant society and a failed state.
 
.
well he shouldnt have gone around pinning "Fatwas" on the failings of women, this is what he will get
 
.
i just logged in for this post,
without going into details & arguments --- there's difference between an Islamic state & a theocratic state ruled by priests on divine mission.

Jinnah understood the difference,
with little effort, you can also understand the difference.
Thank you for logging in and taking the time to respond - broader public participation by Pakistanis in frank and free discourse (which the Blasphemy laws prevent to a certain degree) is essential for a society to evolve and for regressive and distorted interpretations of Islam, that have crept into the religion over time, to be debunked and rejected.

I am open to new ideas/explanations - how do you define "Jinnah's Islamic State"?

Does any Pakistani realise how much of a laughing stock Pakistan is right now in the world? And guess who has to face it? Overseas Pakistanis who love Pakistan but are also disturbed by the waves of religious intolerance and are torn between defending their homeland from ridicule but facts are facts. We can't deny that no one takes Pakistan serious, Pakistan is seen as a over zealously intolerant society and a failed state.
There is no defending the travesties that are the Blasphemy laws and laws against Ahmadis - don't even try to defend them if you want anything you say about Pakistan after that to be taken seriously.

As I said before, I do not hold back in criticizing Pakistan and those in Pakistan who continue to support these draconian laws - they are shameful and should be expunged from our legal code.
 
.
@AgNoStiC MuSliM As I have said earlier that one of the biggest dilemma Pakistan has been facing since its inception is that even its liberal intelligentsia sometimes behaved like a lowly mullah or dumb khaki-clad, and it started right from Mr. Jinnah. Bhutto should have never given in to the demand of bearded shayateen to appease them, he did it and paid a very heavy price for his blunder. But whatever he did was nothing compare to that what Zia did to this country. The credit for the whole reputation Pakistan is enjoying around the world goes only to him.
 
.
@AgNoStiC MuSliM As I have said earlier that one of the biggest dilemma Pakistan has been facing since its inception is that even its liberal intelligentsia sometimes behaved like a lowly mullah or dumb khaki-clad, and it started right from Mr. Jinnah. Bhutto should have never given in to the demand of bearded shayateen to appease them, he did it and paid a very heavy price for his blunder. But whatever he did was nothing compare to that what Zia did to this country. The credit for the whole reputation Pakistan is enjoying around the world goes only to him.
Please don't misunderstand my position on Zia - I detest him in terms of the regressive impact of his policies on Pakistan's socio-cultural trajectory, but at the same time it gets my hackles up to hear people eulogize Zulfi as some sort of democratic and progressive messiah.
 
.
I think the best answer a Pakistani gave to this was:



I came to know from the video response that this had happened:

DVD-of-Junaid-Jamshed-011.jpg

A DVD of Junaid Jamshed on sale at a stall in Islamabad. Photograph: B.K. Bangash/AP




Rich businessmen, singers of patriotic pop songs and preachers with impeccably hard-line credentials are rarely among those accused of the deadly offence of insulting Islam in Pakistan. But Junaid Jamshed, a crooning evangelical Muslim being investigated by police under the country’s notorious blasphemy laws this week, is all three.

A household name who shot to fame in the eighties as the lead singer of the band Vital Signs, he later set up his own fashion empire and joined the Tablighi Jamaat, a group of itinerant preachers with an especially austere take on Islam.

With his typical Tablighi thick beard and shaved upper lip, Jamshed could not be more different from the profile of most alleged blasphemers: the poor, the politically unconnected and religious minorities.

In recent years such people have been accused of desecrating Qur’ansor insulting the prophet Muhammad with increasing frequency – often falsely and on the flimsiest of evidence. It is a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death, the latter either at the hands of the state or by enraged lynch mobs.

Such is the sensitivity of the issue, and fear of repeating an alleged blasphemy, that many in the local media skirted around reporting what Jamshed said during a recorded religious homily published on Facebook. The country’s bestselling English-language paper merely said he had been accused of “uttering shameful words against holy personalities”.

In fact, during his talk to a small group of men, Jamshed teasingly mocked Ayesha, one of the wives of the prophet Muhammad, while explaining his view about the inherent frailties of women. A story about Ayesha feigning illness to gain the attention of her husband “proves that a woman cannot be reformed even if she is in the gathering of the prophet”, he said.

The sexism of his remark annoyed some liberals. But his casual tone outraged the Sunni Tehreek, a national grouping of clerics who launched a sit-in in Karachi to demand Jamshed’s arrest on Tuesday. With the police initiating an investigation, Jamshed, who is said to be outside the country, issued a grovelling apology in an apparent bid to stave off arrest and trial.

Those accused of blasphemy struggle to defend themselves in lower courts where judges are often terrified of acquitting.

“Because of ignorance, lack of knowledge and naivety I said some extremely inappropriate sentences about the mother of the Muslim nation,” Jamshed said in an online video. “I beseech you, I beg you like a beggar, to forgive me,” he said, his voice cracking towards the end of the short video.

It was not enough for the Sunni Tehreek.

“We do not accept any apology because blasphemy against the prophet deserves the death penalty,” said a spokesman. “We have asked the administration to arrest him and produce him in court.”

Tariq Jameel, a senior member of Tablighi Jamaat, offered only a qualified defence. In a video statement he made clear the preaching organisation “had nothing to do with his mistake”.

Personal vendettas and petty disputes often lurk beneath the rising tide of blasphemy accusations and it seems Jamshed may have been caught up in the deadly rivalry between two schools of Islam.

The country’s majority Barelvis, which are represented by the Sunni Tehreek, have long objected to the efforts by hard-line Deobandis to recruit from their flocks, take over mosques and even attack the shrines of revered Sufi saints.

Barelvis have also shown themselves to be among the most implacable supporters of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

The laws are regularly criticised by international human rights groups, but commentators say they have almost no prospect of being reformed. They have also been blamed for encouraging attacks by lone vigilantes and mobs who take it upon themselves to beat up or kill people accused of blasphemy, or even their defence lawyers.

On Thursday it was revealed gunmen had on the previous night attacked the home of a lawyer working for a university lecturer accused of blasphemy in the city of Multan. Another lawyer working on the same case was shot dead in his office in May.

Some prominent Pakistanis are increasingly alarmed by the potential for blasphemy charges to be levelled against members of the country’s normally untouchable elite. In recent months there has been a rash of cases lodged against influential personalities.

In November a court in Gilgit-Baltistan sentenced to 26 years in prison a famous actress, a talk-show host and Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman, the country’s most powerful media mogul. One of Rehman’s television stations was found to have broadcast blasphemous material when it staged a re-enactment of a wedding between the starlet Veena Malik and her husband while a popular devotional song about one of the prophet’s wives played in the background.

Last week the Lahore high court ordered a blasphemy case against Sherry Rehman, a former ambassador to the US who once campaigned for reform of the blasphemy laws, to be reopened.

And in Karachi in October the supposedly secular Muttahida Qaumi Movement demanded a case to be opened against Syed Khursheed Shah, the leader of the opposition in parliament.

“It always used to be a law that people were ashamed or embarrassed to use at a higher level,” said one prominent politician, who did not wish to be named even discussing the subject.

“Now in the last three months we have seen four cases because there is no serious national narrative against extremism.

“This is now being openly used as an instrument to settle any kind of score,” the politician said.


Pakistani police investigate preacher Junaid Jamshed over blasphemy claims | World news | The Guardian

Now my response to Sunni Tehreek.....Who the hell made you the receiver of apologies? Paindu kahin kay! I am in the mood to charge the idiots from Sunni Tehreek for blasphemously using the blasphemy laws for attention! And another case on him for treating Islam like a competition between Brailvi and Deobandi pata nai apna Brailvi and Deobandbaaz India kiyun nai chorr aai?

These milawat khor are why Muslims cant unite!
 
.
give him the due punishment, if the poor minorities are killed even without a trial, then why not this Mullah who claims to know everything? give him the strictest punishment possible, because he knew what he was saying was and that it was wrong.
 
.
give him the due punishment, if the poor minorities are killed even without a trial, then why not this Mullah who claims to know everything? give him the strictest punishment possible, because he knew what he was saying was and that it was wrong.

Or for once challenge the bloody law! To show people the law is a big bag of rubbish to apologize to the Mullahs for making fun of them!
 
.
Didn't the prophet claim in one instance that he was influenced by the devil when he spoke of worshipping pagan gods - also known as the satanic verses? Can't this guy point to that and claim the devil made him do it?

It is a loophole which can be used.
 
.
Lets just kill him by burning, a headshot or well an axe, during his remand then burn his house and a couple other ones of his closest relatives or perhaps the area he lives in and prove that in Pakistan, at least the religious law is without discrimination and applies equally to everyone. What exact fault was that of those who were never given the chance to repent or apologize? What had the people who were merely blamed for blasphemy without any proof, done to deserve their brutal and inhumane ends?

To hang till death as the law says! No apologies or forgiveness or involvement of doctrine of necessity, JJ didn't do anyone a favor by coming to religion, he has enraged millions of Muslims and just like all the non-Muslims blasphemers in the country, deserves to be treated the same. Otherwise, raise all the previous people who were sentenced to death by the state, from the dead and reverse the mistake. So, since a pure Muslim is in trouble with the very same law that is used to oppress minorities, you will find a Mullah interpretation and twisted arguments of greater control of religion by the state, in this case? Hypocrites all of you!

@Akheilos He isn't alone, the frailty of the opposite sex, happens to be a hot topic amongst hyper religious Muslims.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom