You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
India-Pakistan
Blasphemy defendants left defenceless
2008-11-24
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.
Posted by:Fred

#5  Old Patriot,
That's why an Iranian friend of mine began drinking again. The illogic of the mullahs was too much to handle while sober!

Posted by: Frozen Al   2008-11-24 18:06  

#4  And I wonder why I oppose immigration of Muslims.
Posted by: Goober Sneamble4879   2008-11-24 16:45  

#3  Never make the mistake of associating logic with Islam, Anonymoose - it'll drive you to drink!
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-11-24 16:16  

#2  A crafty judge could turn this around by invoking a pseudo-Sharia decision that "interfering with a blasphemy trial is in itself blasphemy." Of course it's utter nonsense, but if you insist on logic in the first place, why are you hearing court cases about blasphemy?
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-11-24 13:31  

#1  Well if she floats she's a witch and needs to be burned. If she sinks and drowns then she wasnt a witch.

Or perhaps you could build a bridge out of her?

Posted by: OldSpook   2008-11-24 00:16  

00:00