Talk:Asia Bibi blasphemy case

Why were Facebook references removed?
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?
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)

"because the country's sharia system considered a non-Muslim's testimony to carry half the weight of a Muslim's"
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. Maybe slight rewording may do the trick?

Pinging 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, 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. In 2013 Ashraf Jehan became the first female justice of the Federal Shariat Court. '"


 * 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.—  Trip Wire  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."


 * 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?—  Trip Wire  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.—  Trip Wire  ʞlɐʇ 14:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Her alleged statement in the verdict
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 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?
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?
Should we change the title from Asia Bibi blasphemy case to Asia Bibi v. The State? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKurzion (talk • contribs) 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
"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)
 * 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"
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
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)

Missing links in language selection
In other languages this case is simply listed as 'Asia Bibi' instead of 'Asia Bibi criminal case', but the content in them is focused on the case with a short section about the person. 12 wikipedia entries about this are not in the language selection on the left. This includes popular wikipedias like the German, Russian and Spanish.

I do not know how to correctly cross reference or merge those to make them available in the language selection without spamming new articles, redirecting to the main article either the person or criminal case, in all the involved wikipedias.

Wikidata for 'Asia Bibi' https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q58198703#sitelinks-wikipedia

Wikidata for 'Asia Bibi criminal case' https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q82306#sitelinks-wikipedia 37.201.194.112 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction with Islamic law
Is this really adding value to the article? Of course some people will say this is not according to islamic law, I am sure there are also a lot who will say it does. It seems to me that someone wanted to add a sort of 'nothing to do with (the real) islam (sharia)' remark to the article. I would like to remove it. As an excuse it is also rather lame, because then only a muslim can be sent to death for this, but that then is morally right? AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Literate or not?
The statements in the article are contradictory. On one hand, Her case also achieved extensive media coverage, and American journalist John L. Allen Jr. wrote that she is "almost certainly the most famous illiterate Punjabi farm worker and mother of five on the planet". and Noreen is illiterate, and Tollet was unable to visit her directly due to prison restrictions.; on the other hand, Asia Noreen was reading the Bible when she heard the news (...). 89.64.70.36 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The cited sources don't say she was reading the Bible. Someone stuck that in for some reason. I have removed that phrase. Good catch. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)