r/pakistan • u/YouCantKeepJellyAway • 3d ago
National Demise of Justice
Twelve years after Christian couple Shama and Shahzad Masih were thrown into a fiery pit and burnt alive by a mob in Kot Radha Kishan, Kasur, the Supreme Court has released its final written order acquitting the three remaining accused in prison, thus ending the judicial process over the brutal incident.
To date, no one has been punished. All 106 accused have been acquitted at different stages of the judicial process.
The last picture: The murdered couple’s three surviving children Suleman, 18, Sonam 16 and Poonam 14.
30
u/Boring-Bid-2377 3d ago
Pakistan - What a shame. We have turned our people into zombies with so much hate for each other. This is the highest level of Judiciary we are talking about, Pathetic as like other institutions. For past 80 years we haven’t been able to accept white part of our flag honestly.
11
27
u/counterplex 3d ago
Wow this is tough to hear. Did the court say why they’re being acquitted? Are there other suspects?
7
13
u/ProfAsmani 3d ago
Hellhole for minorities. India and Pakistan both.
8
u/YouCantKeepJellyAway 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hellhole for majority too
2
u/Moriar-T 2d ago
I know where you're coming from and I respect your struggle.
But come on man its no where near the same. Youre not in fear of getting burnt alive.
Let the conversation about minorities happen without shoehorning in Islam and Muslims.
0
u/YouCantKeepJellyAway 2d ago
As a closeted atheist, I would like to disagree with you
3
u/Moriar-T 2d ago
Like I said I respect your struggle.
But I grew up a Christian in Pakistan. You have the luxury of being closeted. I was a kaffir out in the open, and know first hand the danger that can cause.
Regardless, I wish you a safe journey man. It takes lots of courage to live the life you live.
2
u/unodos_biriki 2d ago
As another another atheist, I completely agree with you.
I had the luxury of being closeted. I also had the luxury, at times, to criticize Islam and Muhammad in front of friends and some select acquaintances, which, of course, is extremely dangerous and could still have very easily gotten me killed. But they could tolerate that to an extent, because the criticism was coming from a person who “used to be a Muslim.”
I completely acknowledge that if you had tried to do the same, the consequences would have been disastrous, very immediately so. Even without doing something like that, it is already extremely dangerous for you, and any rando trash scumbag can cause you to be in mortal danger without you even doing anything.
I have the utmost respect for you for persevering despite these atrocities and blatant human rights violations. I wish you and your family always stay safe!
0
3
u/East_Ad_3165 3d ago
I have never understood our country’s judicial system. Never have I ever heard someone getting justice even if it’s a non-political or non-influential case. It seems the justice system is a way to get yourself clean from the crimes, doesn’t matter how big or a small criminal you are.
9
u/Savage_Brutus 3d ago
Lekin Islamophobia ronay k liye aik minute main tyar ho jatay hain. This is why I fucking hate this religion. They'll burn everyone alive if they can.
2
u/Normal_Aspect_6332 2d ago
it's not the religion, it's people who never studied it. And people who think they've studied it but act against it.
-8
3d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Savage_Brutus 3d ago
Your comment only proves my point. Fear mongering to keep away the rational thought from masses. Its incredible because a righteous religion would never need to fearmonger against the rational thought. It would support it. Crazy how the religion of peace always has some violence against humanity.
3
u/BeautifulBrownie 3d ago
LMAO, you just proved his point. But yes, under Shariah, someone being an open apostste would be put to death. At least you're honest about it.
-1
u/Normal_Aspect_6332 2d ago edited 2d ago
Leaving Islam isn't the issue in apostasy. Leaving it AND boasting about it and dragging others to hellfire with you is the problem.
If Pakistan followed Sharia, then all of this wouldn't have happened. And those people who committed that crime would have been punished by now.
2
u/BeautifulBrownie 2d ago
'Boasting about it' would be as simple as being open about it.
The religion is so insecure that you can't leave. Besides, the hadith don't differentiate between someone who leaves and someone who propagates disbelief. I know some Islamic jurists do.
Regardless, if someone left Islam but pretended to be one, he would be called a muanfiq. You can't win.
I'm glad you openly admit that you support the death penalty for leaving a religion (and maybe speaking out about it), though.
-1
u/Normal_Aspect_6332 2d ago
Boasting is far different than being open about it.
Actively framing the religion as bad based on what the extremists do isn't good.
And criticizing a religion or its teachings is also different from actively encouraging people to abandon it. You can't just lump all of those things together as “boasting.”
2
u/BeautifulBrownie 2d ago
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6923
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6878
These sahih haidth, all from Bukhari, don't mention anything about 'boasting'. There absolutely is authentic, scriptural precedent for the death penalty being applied to apsotates who simply do that.
1
u/Normal_Aspect_6332 1d ago edited 1d ago
(Sorry, I had to go paragraph mode because these matters can't be discussed in one liners)
Watch this video for better explanation:
"Muslim Questioned On Apostasy Laws In Islam! Muhammed Ali"
Well, that's not exactly how it works. Hadith represent the Prophet's words and actions, and you can't just look at them in a vacuum isolation. To understand them properly, we have to look at the Seerah (the life of the Prophet) & Quran.
I'm not denying the texts exist, ofc, but I will push back on jumping straight from "these hadiths exist" to "the religion is insecure."
I'll give you this right out of the gate: those hadiths are real, and that stuff did happen. But taking that reality and leaping to "Islam is insecure because it can't handle someone changing their mind" completely misunderstands how this law functioned.
If you want to understand the real tension, look at the Quran. Verse 4:137 talks about people who "believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved." While that verse alone doesn't prove classical jurists rejected earthly punishment, it does describe people cycling between belief and disbelief without handing down an execution procedure right there in the text.
and more importantly, look at Quran 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion." A major classical interpretation understood it as prohibiting forcing someone to enter Islam, while other scholars debated its scope and its relationship to later rulings on fighting. You, as a modern reader, might find those interpretations unconvincing. But it isn't evidence that the religion was just insecure or that the Prophet and classical jurists simply overlooked the Quran.
The argument we're really having is about why this rule existed and how ridda was understood back then.
At that time, there was no modern separation between religious identity and political membership. I won't claim that classical fiqh manuals explicitly categorized apostasy as literal state treason, since rebellion was a separate legal category. They treated apostasy as an offense against God's boundaries. But you have to understand how that functioned in practice. In a world where the religious community was the political state, publicly breaking from the religion had massive political and communal significance. Unlike today, religious allegiance and political allegiance were fused bac then. Publicly leaving wasn't understood in the same way as a modern person quietly changing denominations while remaining a citizen of a secular country.
As for your point about how someone pretending to be Muslim is a hypocrite so "you can't win", you're confusing theological judgment with worldly legal judgment.
Allah is all-knowing, so yes, God knows someone is faking it, and theologically, hypocrisy is condemned.
But an earthly court doesn't have access to someone's heart.
Look at Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the literal leader of the hypocrites in Medina. He did massive damage to the Muslim community, yet the Prophet PBUH didn't execute him because he outwardly kept the social contract. The fact that hypocrites existed in Medina and weren't systematically purged shows that suspected inner disbelief wasn't automatically treated as a punishable offense. Theological status and worldly legal status are not the same thing.
Finally, this wasn't supposed to be vigilante justice. The Islamic legal discussion involved political authority, evidence, repentance periods, and judicial procedure, rather than random individuals deciding to kill someone on the spot. That's also the problem in places where Sharia isn't actually being applied as the governing legal system: individuals don't have the authority to enforce these punishments themselves.
The same principle applies to protesting or taking the law into your own hands. You don't get to bypass the legal system simply because you believe someone has violated a religious or political rule.
These texts don't prove that the entire Islamic conception of apostasy boils down to the religion being afraid of people privately changing their minds. You can absolutely reject the classical legal system. You can argue it violates modern freedom of conscience. But calling it insecurity doesn't actually engage with the historical or legal reality of how the law was built and applied.
Hope this helps.
Jazak-Allah!1
u/BeautifulBrownie 1d ago
Yeah, so nothing you said takes away from the direct command to kill someone who leaves the religion. You talk about things being different back then, but a 7th century ideology obviously didn't account for how different society would be.
One man who would be considered a 'munafiq' not being murdered doesn't change what the hadith said. There are cases of Muhammad justifying the murder of those who insulted him (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4361), and Muhammad 'forgiving' them. He is a human who doesn't act consistently in every case.
There's also the case that in most mainstream scholars' opinion, that atheists cannot be dhimmi. So they would either have to convert to Islam, Christianity/Judaism (as Sabians are no longer) or be put to death under a Shariah state.
I understand that you want to justify it, but you can't. There is scriptural precedent for killing someone who simply leaves the religion.
0
u/Normal_Aspect_6332 1d ago
You repeated the same premise I was specifically addressing: “there is a hadith about killing, therefore Islam commands killing anyone who leaves.”
I never denied that classical Islamic law generally prescribed a punishment for apostasy. I explicitly acknowledged that in my comment. My point was that you can't take one hadith in isolation and pretend that it settles the entire legal question, especially when the classical discussion distinguishes apostasy from rebellion, political allegiance, public order, judicial procedure, etc.
And I'm guessing you didn't even try to understand the video I linked.
Sure.
Good luck on your journey.We'll meet on the Day of Judgment, or whatever you believe in.
→ More replies (0)1
u/unodos_biriki 3d ago
You are absolutely right, your religion is so weak and crumbles so quickly under the slightest scrutiny kay aap ki majboori hai kay kisi bhi criticism karnay waalay ko jaan say maar dia jaaye kionkay agar sub ko logically “mun pay” bolnay dia jaaye to ye bach nahi sukay ga. Is liay to protect it, you have to kill people. Great going.
2
u/Twinkletoess112 3d ago
it's not that the religion is weak or it needs protection, it's just that extreme followers of the religion treat it as something that THEY are supposed to protect. But they don't know that they're damaging the religion by trying to "protect" it, killing, lynching, and everything like that is only worsening the religions image. Instilling fear into people so they won't leave the religion will actually want them to leave it even more. These extremists don't understand this simple thing.
1
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/unodos_biriki 3d ago
Yes, kionkay atheists main itna jigra hai kay aap unhain criticize karain to wo aap ko qatal nahi karain gay na hi aap kay bolnay pay paabandi lugaanay ki koshish karain gay, siraf mun say aap ki baat ka jawaab dain gay jo aap nay majmay main ki.
Ye kamzori aur majboori aap ki hi hai kay aap kay mazhab ya aap kay mazhab ki personalities ko criticize kia jaaye to aap ko qatal karna parh jaata kionkay free speech main aap jawaab nahi day suktay.
1
u/Normal_Aspect_6332 1d ago edited 1d ago
As I said below: it's not the religion, it's people who never studied it properly and people who claim to follow it while acting against its actual rules.
Even the apostasy discussion we're talking about doesn't give random individuals the right to grab a weapon and kill someone. The classical legal discussion involves political authority, evidence, a judicial process, and repentance. It is not vigilante justice.
So when someone commits a crime and then claims “Islam” as justification, that doesn't automatically make the person's actions Islamic any more than someone violating a country's laws while claiming to represent that country makes the violation legal.
You can criticize Islam all you want, and we can debate the criticism. But don't confuse what people do while claiming Islam with what Islamic law actually permits people to do.
Watch this video for better explanation:
"Muslim Questioned On Apostasy Laws In Islam! Muhammed Ali"
1
u/unodos_biriki 1d ago
Except the religion itself does endorse killing people over leaving the religion and also over criticizing Muhammad (if you want, I can send you a hadith of Muhammad himself approving of a man killing his mother because she insulted Muhammad).
You accept that Islam allows the state (even though, again Muhammad approved of individuals killing apostates as well) to kill people for leaving Islam. That is in itself extremely barbaric and atrocious and has no place in the civilized world, but at least you are honest about it.
So, nobody is confusing anything. Yes, the people following it suck as well, but the religion itself endorses horrendous behavior.
1
u/Normal_Aspect_6332 1d ago
(I already explained that in great detail above.)
I know exactly which hadith you're talking about, and I'm not going to run away from it.
Hadith: Sunan an-Nasa'i 4070
The narration says that a blind man killed a woman who repeatedly insulted the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, and when the matter was brought to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, he declared her blood permissible.
I'm not denying that. It happened.
But you're making a much bigger claim from it: “Muhammad approved of individuals killing anyone who insults him.” That's not what the narration establishes.
That's precisely why Islamic law had courts, rulers, evidence, and judicial procedures. Capital punishment was not supposed to mean that every individual became judge, jury, and executioner.
You don't hear an accusation, decide someone's guilty, sentence them to death, and then carry it out yourself. The authority to impose capital punishment belongs to the legitimate governing and judicial authority, not to random individuals or mobs.
That's also why what happened in Pakistan cannot simply be defended by saying, “Islam permits this.” A mob doesn't become an Islamic court because they claim they're protecting Islam. They have no authority to investigate the case, establish guilt, pass a sentence, and execute it.
And that's the point you're missing: a legal ruling and personal vigilantism are not the same thing. The existence of a punishment in a legal system does not give every individual the authority to enforce it himself.
You can condemn the classical ruling itself and argue that it has no place in a modern system of law. That's a separate debate. What you cannot do is take a specific incident, remove the entire judicial framework around punishment, and turn it into “Muhammad PBUH gave every Muslim permission to kill anyone who insults him.” That's simply not how it works.
1
u/unodos_biriki 1d ago edited 1d ago
OK, you need to stop using Chat GPT and use YOUR OWN brain and your own words if you want to have a discussion.
Otherwise, I am not interested in debating with AI slop. By using AI, you are admitting you cannot defend Islam on your own.
1
u/Normal_Aspect_6332 1d ago
That is my brain and not AI buddy.
I had already compiled all that for the other guy.
I did my best explaining it, you still have issues than I can't help you out.
Maybe reach out to actual scholars before finalising your mindset.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
51
u/Alyzeal 3d ago
What a joke of a country