Ahmadi literature: Printing press employees accused of blasphemy

Hearing of post-arrest bail pleas adjourned for February 7.


Rana Yasif February 04, 2013
The four accused are Ahmadis.

LAHORE:


An additional district and sessions judge has fixed February 7 for arguments on the after-arrest bails of four men accused of publishing allegedly blasphemous books about the Ahmadi faith.


Moeed Ayaz, Asmatullah, Razaullah and Ghulamullah, employees of Black Arrow Printing Press, were arrested on January 7 as they loaded a small truck with thousands of books and CDs. The four accused are Ahmadis. Arrest warrants have been issued for the printing press’s owner, who is at large.

The lawyer for the accused, in their post-arrest bail pleas, said that local police had acted illegally against his clients as they had arrested them on the basis of a call made to 15 before an FIR had been registered, as was evident from the statement of the complainant.

He said that even if the complaint were true, his clients should have been charged under Sections 6 (literal distortion of ayah text), 7 (translation or interpretation of Holy Quran contrary to belief of Muslims) and 9 (penalty) of the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) Act of 2011 – which carry a maximum penalty of three years in prison – rather than Sections 295B (defiling the Holy Quran) and 298C (an Ahmadi calling himself a Muslim or preaching his faith) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

At their remand hearing before a magistrate, Advocate Chaudhry Ghulam Mustafa, the lawyer for the complainant, contended that the accused were planning to distribute the “blasphemous literature” in various markets. The magistrate remanded them in judicial custody for 14 days.

The FIR was registered on the complaint of Muhammad Tayyab. Islampura police confiscated the material and truck and registered a case against the men on January 7 under Sections 295B and 298C of the PPC, as well as Section 24A of the Press and Publications Ordinance, though the ordinance was repealed in 2002.

Advocate Mustafa, the lawyer for the complainant, told The Express Tribune that his client, who lived in the same area as the printing press, had heard about the material being published and called the police when he saw books being loaded into a truck there on January 7.

He said that he had filed an application with the magistrate seeking the inclusion of Section 295C (making derogatory remarks about the Holy Prophet (pbuh)) of the PPC – which is punishable by death   in the charges against the accused. On his application, the magistrate had ordered the investigation officer to proceed in accordance with the law.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 5th, 2013.

COMMENTS (103)

The Indian | 7 years ago | Reply

best example of Pakistani tolerance of Minorities

John Joseph (15 November 1932 – 6 May 1998) was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Faisalabad from 1984–1998 and was best known for committing suicide to protest the cruel treatment of Christians by Pakistani Muslims.

Reas | 8 years ago | Reply

@Usman:

I dobt if they are 'conspirotors'. Pakistan has has laws for conspiratorsw. Were they conspirators, relevant law could be applied. It is awkward way of handing matters which are non issues. It only gives bad name to Pakistan and also to Islam.

If one is not innocent and is a conspirator, it should be handled on case to case basis and should not be generalized.

One is muslim or not is only with God. Let them call what they want to be called. We have so many Mushriks among Hindus, Muslims Jews, Christians etc. Our Mushrikeen call themselves muslims. A muslim is one who does not associate partners with God. He obeys god by following Gods message. Most of Muslims do not understand message of God.

Usman the constitution provides freedom of expression and freedom of relgious obligations. They are Pakistanis and should enjoy the respect a Pakistani deserves..

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ