Punjab: Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy

[Ahmad]

I have still got my questions about Jizya, and can this ruling be amended?

Is Jizya the same as income tax or Zakat?

Does the amount of Jizya differes or same for everyone?

If a muslim is poor he is in no obligation to pay Zakat, but what happens to a poor non muslim, does he still have to pay jizya?

 

[Ahmad]

As Developereo said, since non-Muslims do not pay zakaat, they only pay regular income tax, i.e. jizya:

I thought Zakat, income tax and jizya was 3 different concepts?

 

[T-Faz]

Sentenced to hang

Asia Bibi is seen in an undated photo handed out by family members. PHOTO: REUTERS
Asiya Bibi had, in 2009, been asked to fetch water while working in the fields near Nankana Sahib, a town some 75 kilometres from Lahore. For this, it seems, she could end up at the gallows. A district court has sentenced the Christian mother of five to death for blasphemy, under the controversial section 295-C of Pakistan’s Penal Code. She becomes the first woman to be convicted on the charge.

The whole matter exposes the absurdity of the provisions. From what we know of the story, some Muslim women labourers had objected to Asiya touching the water bowl on the grounds of her belief. It is, of course, a fact that their objection has no roots in Islam, a religion which makes no distinction on the basis of caste or creed.

Unfortunately, clerics in the area to whom the women went a few days later, accusing Asiya of committing blasphemy, did not bother to point this out. The women have latched on to the allegations that the unfortunate woman had used derogatory language against the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) and acted to bring her before a court. We should ask what our religious leaders are doing to correct the many misperceptions that seem to have crept into the minds of people about Islam and its principles. We would expect for instance that, as men committed to a faith based on tolerance, peace and equality for all humans, they would now step forward to state that there should be no space for bigotry of the kind seen at Nankana Sahib or for the raising of objections over fetching water which seem to have led to more serious charges.

It is unclear why Asiya should have chosen to commit blasphemy. The whole matter, like many of the cases of the same kind, seems to hinge entirely around blind bias and a desire to ‘punish’ minority communities. This is one reason why rights activists have sought changes in the blasphemy law for years, to ensure they cannot be used as a means to seek vengeance. A further complication is frequently created by the fact that extremist groups and clerics rally to create an environment which makes it difficult to look at matters fairly whenever a charge of blasphemy is brought. It is this environment which has played a part in encouraging actions that have led to persons accused of blasphemy being killed even before a final verdict can be delivered. Some have been murdered in jails; others outside courts. It is also true that a number of those who currently languish in jails after being held on charges of blasphemy suffer mental sickness and need treatment rather than imprisonment.

We need to find a way out of a situation that is growing worse by the year. The blasphemy provisions are used more often as a means to settle petty disputes. Asiya’s sentence will be appealed in the Lahore High Court. Her husband maintains there is nothing to the charges. But the case exposes just how much hatred now runs through our society. It will add also to the insecurity felt by all minority groups which have already been pushed to the very sidelines of society with laws, such as those on blasphemy, acting to facilitate those who choose to act against them.

The government needs to ensure that the procedural change that was initiated in the law’s operation is implemented. According to this, once a complaint has been received that an individual or individuals have committed blasphemy, a senior police official is tasked with first investigating to check whether the complaint has credibility. This is crucial because, more often than not, we have seen blasphemy charges levelled against people who are then convicted of them in the most dubious of circumstances, often by lower court judges who are afraid to give but a guilty verdict. In most such instances, the local Muslim population is often incited to act as a mob and during hearings the mere presence of so many charged people in and around the courtroom is enough to intimidate anyone. Perhaps the superior courts need to take notice of this case and order a retrial.

Sentenced to hang – The Express Tribune

 

[kashith]

So in the last 70 odd years you find a couple of examples of individuals but no islamic nations demanding jizya.
In afghnistan 99.7% of the population is muslim leaving 0.3% non muslim.....the taliban must have raised millions
Please do give me the link where the afghan taliban as a group-govt started to take jizya.

Please do tell us about the choth tax the hindu mahrattas imposed and what it meant for muslims.

There is no Chath tax,this shows your ignorance. Marathas oppose chath puja because it is done by biharis and regarding jaziya, I found these links :



Obama's Modern Friendly Islam Demands Jizya (Jizia) From Non-Believers - Atlas Shrugs

Christians Fleeing Violence in Iraq - Jihad Watch

Walter Laqueur

 

[nirvana seeker]

peaceful islam at its best

 

[T-Faz]

peaceful islam at its best

Actually it's not Islam but it's crazy followers.

So your statement should be:

Peaceful Muslims at their best.

Btw, we did not have these odd laws before 1986, it was a gift from Mard-e-Momin Zia ul Haq. It is but one of the many gifts he gave our nation that has turned it into a glorious one.

 

[T-Faz]

No more off topic posts about jizya and zakat.

 

[The_Assassin]

And then they say the minorities are not persecuted in pak. Whenever muslims have a fight with the non-muslims in Pak, the non-muslims are accused of blasphemy. This law is used as a tool of persecution against minorities. Very sad indeed.

 

[T-Faz]

^^^^

This law was implemented for this reason alone, to suppress minorities in Pakistan and make sure they do not have the opportunity to challenge the burgeoning alliance between Mullahs and other institutes at the time, the 80's.

People use it for petty gains as the use of religion in Pakistan is for petty gains alone.

Our people are quick to cry foul about other nations but stay quiet when such a matter arises, hypocrisy at it's best.

 

[Vimana1]

Is this law that hard to scrap considering there is now a democratic elected goverment in Pakistan? can it not just be deemed unconstitutional given the fact that Jinnah wanted a secular, progressive society.

 

[T-Faz]

Is this law that hard to scrap considering there is now a democratic elected goverment in Pakistan? can it not just be deemed unconstitutional given the fact that Jinnah wanted a secular, progressive society.

Musharraf tried to scrap it but some of his own party members were not supportive and the Mullahs said that if it was scraped, then they will cause chaos in the country. Something all mullahs specialise in.

As for Jinnah's vision, today's Pakistan has got nothing to do with him. It's unfortunate but true because Pakistan today is the opposite to what Jinnah had planned especially constitutionally.

As he died with the birth of our nation, things went down a different path.

 

[Durran3]

I am so utterly disgusted that i have no words... I feel like going to the court room that ordered this sentence and sticking a grenade in the judges mouth because in my books this court room is clearly a murderous institution and not a justice one... this is BLATANT Murder period.. killing someone for a victim less crime is murder

 

[Vimana1]

Musharraf tried to scrap it but some of his own party members were not supportive and the Mullahs said that if it was scraped, then they will cause chaos in the country. Something all mullahs specialise in.

As for Jinnah's vision, today's Pakistan has got nothing to do with him. It's unfortunate but true because Pakistan today is the opposite to what Jinnah had planned especially constitutionally.

As he died with the birth of our nation, things went down a different path.

I think this speaks volumes for the case of the Church and State being separate entities. Looking through history in countries like UK, France when religion and politics went hand in hand you will find similar cases of abuse taking place. I think this is why Bhutto was killed she wanted to change such laws and amend the constitution as for her husband the less said about him the better.

 

[Durran3]

Where are the MMA Protests now? They love bruning Israeli, American and Indian flags.. where is Imran Khan? or Nawaz Sharif regarding this issue.. Shame..

 

[T-Faz]

I think this speaks volumes for the case of the Church and State being separate entities. Looking through history in countries like UK, France when religion and politics went hand in hand you will find similar cases of abuse taking place. I think this is why Bhutto was killed she wanted to change such laws and amend the constitution as for her husband the less said about him the better.

Here is an excerpt from Jinnahs constituent speech that he gave at the inception of Pakistan.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Mr. Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

As for Bhutto getting rid of these laws, no chance at all. Her father was the one who mixed state and religion in our country even after his religious adviser warned him against it. He did it to win a few votes and to remain in power, the same mullahs then went on to get him hanged.

If she did want to repel such laws and separate religions and state, she could have done it before.