Talk:Asia Bibi blasphemy case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why were Facebook references removed?[edit]

Why were the FB references removed? They are very relevant. Please elaborate. 69.121.234.152 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove them but would speculate someone thought they weren't very notable. There are FB pages on many topics and we usually don't link them in Wikipedia articles. I moved it to the "External links" section at the bottom, where it is more appropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
While I'm all in favor of supporting her in every way, unfortunately unofficial facebook groups spring up around every event, and while they're very good, they aren't material for an encyclopedia. Sorry.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was her statement removed from the page?[edit]

A few weeks ago I added the statement attributed to Asia Bibi on which the court based her blasphemy conviction. A Huffinton Post reference was provided, a CNN reference can also be added: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/11/christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-in-pakistan/. I wonder why would someone need to remove that, because that statement is the very basis of the sentencing that made Asia Bibi's issue important. The "Case" section in the absence of that statement provides only the context and verdict of the case without providing the details of the charge, hence rendering the section incomplete. I would ask the page administrators to please undo the removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.128.109 (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asia Bibi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: 1ST7 at 22:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article and expect it to be ready in a few days. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this! --1ST7 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Sorry for the delay. Overall it looks good but there are still some areas needing improvement. See my comments below. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Few areas
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    2 minor instances + Lead section
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    4 statements
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Few areas
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold: Waiting for the issues to be addressed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    Everything done, the article passes. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

  • (1A, 3B):--(see above) Under "Early life", the quotation about the village can be removed as it seems unnecessary and out-of-place; then you'll have maybe a single sentence about the village. The opinion that "Christians in the district, and elsewhere in Pakistan, usually have lower class occupations" which is attributed to Walsh, can be paraphrased more and written like a fact since many sources support this. (just a suggestion and not within this GA review).  Done --1ST7 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, this whole section may be trimmed and I propose the article be rearranged like this:- "Background and arrest", "Prosecution and imprisonment", "Local reactions" (+subsection "Assassinations of Taseer and Bhatti"), "International response" (+subsection "Memoirs"). But these both depend to some extent about what you think about moving this article page.  Done --1ST7 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Arrest and imprisonment"
    • (1): First para- " Some of her Muslim fellow workers also became angry when they saw that she had drank from the well and the cup, which they claimed as their own, as they considered Christians to be "unclean"." can be merged with the previous sentence and shortened into something like "and some of the other workers considered her to be unclean because she was a Christian". Remove " Apparently some arguments ensued.", as it is a word-to-watch and the sentence does not add any more meaning there. (again a suggestion: add a link to Falsa in this para)  Done --1ST7 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • (2B): Second para- Consider splitting this para in half (again, a suggestion) and replace "expressed her belief that"->"said that". The following two statements are sourced to potentially biased sources and are WP:REDFLAG issues: "However, because the country's...she had difficulty defending herself in court" and "Zardari later decided against granting a pardon after a number of "massive" demonstrations..."(why the quotation marks for massive and best just say that Zardari didn't grant a pardon...keep it to the minimum) Also what is the relevance of the long quotation in the right, it is not present in the given inline citation, better remove or replace it. UPDATE: I found and replaced it with the correct link to Catholic Herald, but the relevance of this long quote still needs to be established. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Fixed Added another source for the statement about a non-Muslim's testimony carrying half the weight of a Muslim's, reworded the part about Zardari, and incorporated the quote into the rest of the section. --1ST7 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • (2B, 3B): Third- Last two statements both use "it was reported" and are again referenced to potentially biased sources. The last quotation does not belong there, it's from her memoirs if I'm not mistaken. Fixed Added two more references to support the statements and removed the quote. --1ST7 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (1) "Local reactions"- "Her family was offered asylum by France...her family asylum in the event of her release" is redundant and can be merged into a single statement. "the village mosque in Ittan Wali...should she be pardoned or released"—Join these two statements since they both are just his own opinion and can have that preceding inline citation.  Done --1ST7 (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • These two statements written immediately after each other are a bit confusing, "The next day, thousands turned up for governor his funeral in Lahore in spite of warnings by the Taliban and some clerics. Thousands of Sunni Muslims also rallied in support of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan after the murder, and 500 Barelvi clerics prohibited their followers from sending condolences to the family of Taseer." They are contradictory and for the sake of flow, add the third statement ("...seemed to praise Qadri as a hero,...", remove seemed to) in-between them.  Done --1ST7 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (3B): Under "Memoirs", the last quotation about her "imploring the reader" can be done away just like the above one. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)  Done --1ST7 (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Some more...

  • (3B): Now since that this article needs to focus just on the event, these two personal details about her can be removed: "regularly attended the nearby Church of St. Teresa" and this entire sentence "Fearing discrimination...contained "only a small Bible hidden under the mattress". Both seem a bit trivial and the last one comes from one source which is biased.  Done --1ST7 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (1B): The lead section does not cover the entire article entirely. Perhaps two or three sentences more would make it seem more complete. Some recommendations: elaborate that the argument was over a cup of water, family going into hiding and worrying she'll be killed if released, more on the support/opposition and protests and mention about Pope Benedict; It depends on what you feel is more important.  Done --1ST7 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"The verdict, which would need to be upheld by a superior court...", I don't think offers the complete view. Maybe you could elaborate? The local court sentenced her, the higher court is yet to reach a verdict on this and no presidential pardon...Am I right or does this need an update? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)  Done --1ST7 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That, I think, covers most of it, I might give some more minor suggestions which are not really within this review and make a few tiny edits myself. I'll place it on hold for a week once you tell me what you think about renaming this article (as that is also beyond the scope of this GA review), tell me if you have any time-related issues. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I'll start trying to fix the issues you described above. As for changing the name of the article, I'm not opposed to it, as most information on the subject is related to the blasphemy case. --1ST7 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Most welcome. Once these have been answered, I'll be happy to pass it. Tell me If you have any query or problem with any of these suggestions. Besides this, here are a few extra minor issues/suggestions I've found which you may want to consider.
  • Maybe a good caption for Taseer's image? "His son was kidnapped"...is there any update on this, as the statement ends abruptly.  Done --1ST7 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the references mentions how these cases take usually long, remain pending and no one has been actually executed so far. There was even a quote from the Pakistan Human rights watch about this, I think. Maybe a good addition? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)  Done --1ST7 (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think everything's covered. --1ST7 (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. The article passes...Good work! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review! --1ST7 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"because the country's sharia system considered a non-Muslim's testimony to carry half the weight of a Muslim's"[edit]

This was removed here. It was sourced to an online National Review report and Paul Marshall's book. Found out that there seems to be some truth in it afterall, see Pakistan's entry at Application_of_sharia_law_by_country#Asia. Maybe slight rewording may do the trick?

Pinging TripWire While you're partly right, dead links are usually not removed...see WP:KDL. I've found an archive link here. It does indeed support the statement.

Also pinging 1ST7, do you have access to Marshall's book, so that we can verify the said statement? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

First, thanks or pinging me and bringing the issue up for debate. Now, the question is regarding the fact that does Pakistan as a country follow Sharia Law or PPC (Pakistan Penal Code}? Whereas Pakistan do have Shariat Courts, as it also does Anti-Terrorism Courts, but then again, does having a Shariat Court (which ONLY award punishments as per Sharia in specific cases only) is akin to saying that these courts does not grant equal rights to a woman's or minority's testimony? How about this, Ref: Taken from Federal Shariat Court:

"In 1982 the Federal Shariat Court ruled that there is no prohibition in the Qur'an or hadith about the judgeship of woman nor any restriction limiting the function of deciding disputes to men only.[1] In 2013 Ashraf Jehan became the first female justice of the Federal Shariat Court.[2]"

The Sharia Court allows a woman to be a Judge, but at the same time it does not take a woman's testimony equal to that of a man??
What's funny is that many Non-Muslims (e.g Rana Bhagwandas, Alvin Robert Cornelius, Rustam S. Sidhwa, Dorab Patel)can be Chief Justice of Pakistan and try non-Muslims and Muslims in their courts , but at the same time a non-Muslim's testimony carries half the weight?!
Lastly, irrespective of what Pakistan's Shariat Court say, the actual question to be asked is whether Asia Bibi was tried under a Shariat Court or PPC? If it was the former, then this debate can be productive, if not, then there's nothing to discuss as PPC gives equal rights to everybody including Ahmadis.—TripWire ʞlɐʇ 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You do have point but this explanation is beyond the scope of this article. I think a simple rewording and a valid link would solve this problem: something like "because the country's partial sharia system considered a..." though I can't find any suitable links (Pakistan Shariat Court etc). Tell me, is there no truth to this statement at all? why is the source(s) saying so then? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we are mixing two issues here, that are:
  • Whether as per Sharia Law the testimony of a non-Muslim carries half the weight of that of a Muslim
  • Whether as per PPC (under which Asia Bibi was tried) also says that the testimony of a non-Muslim carries less/half the weight to that of a Muslim, and did this affect Asia's trial?
The first point is not our discussion's scope. However, the second issue is. The fact of the matter is simple: Asia was tried by a Session Court and PPC AND NOT Sharia Law or NOT by a Shariat Court. This is a known fact, but for those who dont know, I am quoting the following text:

Shakir attempted to argue that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Noreen’s case, citing a 1991 decision by Pakistan’s Federal Shariat Court that blasphemy cases, covered by Section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code, came under Islamic shariah law. Referring to the landmark judgement he quoted the following words from the judgement:

"The contention raised is that any disrespect or use of derogatory remarks etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet comes within the purview of hadd (losely translated as 'Islamic law') and the punishment of death provided in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah cannot be altered."

He said witnesses in Noreen’s case should have had been tried under the special Islamic law of evidence, known as Tazkiya-tul-Shahood and the witnesses must meet the Islamic criterion of piety and religious observance.

If that were true, responded appeals judge Anwal-ul-Haq, the entire trial of Noreen should be declared unlawful.[3]

Now this is strange, isnt it? The Defendant Lawyer is rather trying to get Asia's trial under a Shariat Court so that she can be saved! He is rather arguing with the appellate court that trying Asia under PPC (which just like the US law grants equal rights to all) was wrong. Anyhow, that's not what we are discussing here. What I wanted to say by quoting the above text is that Asia was tried by a PPC Court (Session Court> High Court> Supreme Court of Pakistan)which give equal rights to all: Men/Women, Muslims/Non-Muslims when it comes to trial or testimony or witnesses. Now, if someone can source me info which says that the PPC does not grant equal rights to witnesses or for that matter considers the weightage of a Non-Muslims's testimony to be half of that of a Muslim, I will let the info stay in the article.
Sorry, but I hope I am not confusing the issue? My argument is simple: Asia was tried by a PPC Court which allows equal rights to Muslim and non-Muslim witnesses. The author in your source has just generalized everything by saying and assuming that just because Pakistan has separate Shariat Courts so may be PPC Courts also follow the same ruling. For the record, Pakistan does not follow Sharia Law. Had it been, it would not have sacrificed 5000 soldiers and 60000 civilians while fighting those who want to implement Sharia in its North-West region of FATA. Also, can you too quote me other sources saying that Asia's trial was biased because the Court by which she as tried does not grant equal rights to Muslim and non-Muslim witnesses?—TripWire ʞlɐʇ 17:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, so if I understand clearly, both the sources generalised it even though she was tried under PPC. One thing to note is that both the sources are pro-Christian and I wouldn't count them for such factual statements. I'm not the major contributor to this article and the other editor whom I pinged seems to be unavailable to provide a quote from Marshall's book. I tried to do a basic search but couldn't find any WP:RS repeating the claim. I'm removing it per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It's wonderful that we have an agreement here. Thanks for your time.—TripWire ʞlɐʇ 14:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ansar Burney v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1983 FSC 73–93; reaffirmed in Mian Hammad Murtaza v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2011 FSC 117
  2. ^ "Pakistan Shariat court gets first woman judge". Retrieved 10 January 2014.
  3. ^ "Pakistan court upholds death penalty for Asia Bibi despite serious legal loophole in trial".

Her alleged statement in the verdict[edit]

I am surprised to see that the blaspheme comment attributed to Aasiya has been replaced with an altogather different one. It protest this misguiding. Her original statement that is part of her court judgment should instead be displayed. Complete copy of the verdict is available at following link: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2104046-complete-court-document.html I will quote her statement from the verdict, "Asia Parveen uttered derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) by stating that (Maaz Allah) the Prophet of the Muslims fell ill one month prior to his death and the insects nourished in His mouth and ear. She further stated that your Prophet (PBUH) married Hazrat Khadija (R.A) just for her wealth and after looting the same, she was deserted by Him. She further stated that Holy Quran is not the book of God but a man-made book." In absence of her statement the article remains biased in her favor. --Gujjar123 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Before the quote, it states "Noreen recounts that...", properly attributed to her--not presenting it as a fact. Showing what the verdict is and what they accused of her saying will need reliable sources for that, using the original verdict would be a primary source. Since this is a case of allegations from both sides, their allegation would need to be sourced properly too. I doubt that the alleged comment can be put verbatim in the article at this rate but maybe we could mention that their account of what she said differs or something (with a source, of course). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I've added this as I've mentioned above. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to add something here. The sharia law doesn't count a "Non- Muslims" testimony as Half but in fact woman's testimony (2 women = 1 man's regardless of the faith) The accused was outnumbered in the original conflict case. Hope this helps Shoptechonline (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Any RS saying that she has actually been released yet?[edit]

Do we have any WP:RS saying that she has actually been released yet, as distinct from the Supreme Court just saying she is free to go provided she is not wanted on any other charge? Tlhslobus (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Change Title?[edit]

Should we change the title from Asia Bibi blasphemy case to Asia Bibi v. The State? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKurzion (talkcontribs) 02:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • No. The case has international facets and it is being raised far more by Islamic literalists than by the state. The state has not been the entity that has been vs. Asia Bibi but this was rather the community she lived within.
When you say "should we" I note that, after much preparatory work on your user page, this is your logins first edit in relation to a Wikipedia article. Special:Contributions/LordKurzion
GregKaye 08:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Unclear and misleading sentence[edit]

"On 2 November 2018, the Government of Pakistan under the administration of Imran Khan and the Tehreek-e-Labbaik political party, which encouraged the protests against Asia Bibi, came into an agreement that barred Asia Bibi from leaving the country, in addition to releasing Tehreek-e-Labbaik protesters".

The sentence needs rephrasing. At the moment it is suggesting that Imran Khan's govt is encouraging protests. Anna (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Roy: It's even worse now with the text saying "the government of Pakistan under the administration of Imran Khan signed an agreement". I'd suggest a change to something like: " the government of Pakistan made agreement". I did page searches on the three of the related citations that I happened to have left open and didn't see a reference to anything being "sign"ed by anyone. GregKaye 09:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Unfortunately much focus in recent mass editing has been to propagate personal views and wishes rather than improving quality of article. I had changed the sentence but was restored--AhmadLX (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The references supporting the assertion make a clear reference to Imran Khan's government. I actually don't see a reason why that was removed. Rzvas (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"UK Asylum Claim"[edit]

I've removed the claim that her UK asylum request was denied for 'security reasons', as it's a third-party claim and not from the Home Office. It's also an exceedingly dubious claim, as she would be ineligible for a UK claim given that she's not yet left Pakistan (https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum - "To be eligible you must have left your country") Jellyfish dave (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Huffpo claim is dubious. I couldn't find any substantiation online, and Huffpo cited no sources. I didn't revert it because I believe Huffpo is generally regarded as RS. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Actual Blasphemy is Missing from the Lede[edit]

A brief sentence outlining (or characterizing) the blasphemous statements should be in the Lede. It's absence was irritating, and I resented having to read the whole article looking for it, not knowing if it would be there or not. When someone is sentenced to death for something they said, the 1st thing a Reader wants to know is what they said.Tym Whittier (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the accused didn't actually say anything 'blasphemous' - she drank from a cup that was shared with Moslems, and that in itself was considered blasphemous.
I've actually tried to find out a bit more about this story, and it is difficult - we're dealing with illiterate villagers, and a moslem cleric who seems to be a bit of a firebrand.
It doesn't help that I don't believe there is any such thing as blasphemy. I don't believe in god, so I don't think it is possible to defame him or use his name in vain. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
To be a bit fairer, I think it is said she was criticized for her Christian beliefs; and in turn, she criticized the prophet Mohammed. I think that is what was determined by the court that acquitted her. I don't how how one might find reliable sources for such a statement; frankly I don't think Pakistani state institutions are reliable sources (yeah, I know, it was the Supreme Court). MrDemeanour (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)