Pakistan's blasphemy vigilantes kill exonerated man

The murder of Mohamed Imran in Pakistan illustrates why Sharia lawand secular law cannot coexist.  Imran was found innocent of blasphemy by a secular court, but he was subsequently murdered by two pious Muslims in the name of Islam.  The killers took their direction directly from the Koran which commands all Muslims to kill blasphemers against Islam and does not recognise secular law.  Evidence or any semblence of due process are not required, only a single accusation is enough to have pious Muslims murder an accused blasphemer.

Imran's murderers will certainly be hailed as heros and keepers of the faith by the vast majority of Pakistanis, and Muslims everywhere.

Importing Muslims into Western societies will ultimately import Sharia law and all its barbarisms.

FROM CNN.COM:

Pakistan's blasphemy vigilantes kill exonerated man
By Nick Paton Walsh, CNN

Talahore, Pakistan (CNN) -- Mohamed Imran had been accused, jailed, tried and cleared: if anything, society owed him a debt as a man wrongfully accused.

But his crime was blasphemy. He was meant to have said something derogatory about the prophet Mohammed, so in Pakistan justice worked a little differently.

Two weeks after he returned to his small patch of farmland on the rustic outskirts of Islamabad, his alleged crime caught up with him.

Story continues HERE.

Muslim mob beats a Christian to death

Feel the love.  A Muslim mob beats a Christian to death for "blasphemy".  

FROM DAWN.COM:

Blasphemy allegations Dawn Editorial
Sunday, 14 Feb, 2010

As the residents of a village near Kasur have demonstrated — with fatal consequences — there is little that is as explosive as anger ignited by religious passions.

In yet another incident of a frenzied mob out to punish alleged blasphemy, a young man was beaten to death after his father reportedly claimed that he was the last prophet of Islam. The alleged blasphemer — an illiterate brick-kiln worker-turned-faith healer — is in police custody and other members of his family are in hiding. Their lives may still be in danger as reports from the area suggest that public anger has not subsided.

The incident is part of an established pattern. Propelled and led by religious leaders, an angry mob takes the law into its own hands to punish alleged blasphemers. The authorities almost always fail to defuse the situation. The Gojra incident in August 2009, where allegations of blasphemy led to deaths and large-scale arson, is one example.

In its attempts to ‘Islamise’ society over the years, especially during the Zia era, the state has come to a point where it is not able to rein in the obscurantist forces of its own creation. It has lost its authority to challenge the semi-literate maulvis who do more harm than good.

Few things have fed such forces more than the blasphemy laws. Since the mid-1980s when these laws were introduced, blasphemy cases have grown exponentially. Many alleged blasphemers have died, mostly at the hands of mobs, much before their case was heard or decided.

These laws have been used as weapons for personal, political, social and economic victimisation. What else can justify the registration of a blasphemy case against the country’s foremost development practitioner Dr Akhtar Hameed Khan?

Efforts must be made towards the repeal of the blasphemy laws if the state is serious about dousing religious anger before it is consumed by it.

Blasphemy defendants left defenceless

A muslim "Catch 22". This perverted and convoluted thinking by Pakistani "lawyers" makes the Gordian knot seem simple. This article points out the massive social pressure brought to bear upon anyone even accused of blasphemy, and the lawyers who defend them.

A lawyer says: "Asif Ali Gujjar advocate said that he would not defend a blasphemer, as his religion did not allow him to do so. He said that it did not matter if the accused committed the offence or not, as the allegations are never raised without reason."

I wonder how Mr. Gujjar would justify not defending a person FALSELY accused of blasphemy. Not that any good muslim would ever falsely accuse their neighbor of such a horrible crime as blasphemy.

FROM THE DAILYTIMES.COM.PK:

Blasphemy defendants left defenceless

* FLAS chairman says lawyers defending such cases carry stigma
* Lawyer says he will not defend accused regardless of innocence of accused
* Blasphemy accused says people overly sensitive about religion, do not permit accused to prove innocence

Staff Report

LAHORE: Lawyers representing accused in blasphemy cases are under constant danger from potentially militant elements, who consider defending a blasphemy accused as un-Islamic and unethical, said various lawyers.

Free Legal Assistance and Settlement (FLAS) Chairman Sheikh Anis A Saadi advocate said that he voluntarily defended people accused of blasphemy before courts throughout the province. He said that a lawyer representing an accused in such a case was usually considered an abettor and because of that, he was subjected to a social stigma. He also said that normally, in such a case, the accused was considered guilty even before the court gave judgment against him. He said that he, along with three colleagues, had been defending blasphemy cases since 2003 and they had not only faced criticism from their friends, but had also received constant threats from different religious sects. He claimed that he had been attacked and his office had been set on fire, adding that he had filed two first information reports for attacks on him by unidentified bearded men. He also showed written threats that were sent to him and his family from a ‘jihadi’ group.

Another lawyer, Aslam Pervaiz advocate, said that from the very start of his legal practice, he had been defending people accused of blasphemy. He said that he had received death threats and been assaulted for doing so, adding that such proceedings were regularly attended by religious men, who constantly attempted to threaten the defendant’s lawyer. He also said that most Muslim lawyers avoided such cases based on their own beliefs.

Does not matter: Asif Ali Gujjar advocate said that he would not defend a blasphemer, as his religion did not allow him to do so. He said that it did not matter if the accused committed the offence or not, as the allegations are never raised without reason. He also said that his decision was not the result of pressure from society, as his conscience did not allow him to defend a person accused of blasphemy.

Sensitive: A blasphemy accused, requesting anonymity, said that when he was blamed for committing blasphemy, it seemed as though the entire society was hostile to him and people treated him like a leaper. He said that people were overly sensitive about their religion and no one allowed the accused any chance to prove his innocence. He also said that when he was arrested, his family had been unable to engage a lawyer to defend him but after some time, lawyers from Lahore had contacted his family and offered to represent him.