{{URDU TEXT}} "One must take great care to persuade the Muslims that we love the Quran and that we venerate the Prophet. One thoughtless word or action can destroy the work of many years."
(Articale John V. Tolan European Account of Muhammad's Life.
Muhammad Edited by: Andreas Gorke. Volum-IV, Page 287. {{URDU TEXT}} John V. Tolan: European Account of Muhammad's Life : Muhammad Edited by: {{URDU TEXT}} ........ but propaganda of anti Islamic thoughts with a view to cause injury to the feelings of a Muslim sect or any slander made in writing of in spoken words insultive to the Holy Prophets or to be critical with use of derogatory language in respect of the religious thoughts or to speak in favor of blasphemy or against the law of blasphemy in insultive manner to the honour of last Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is prohibited by law and also by code of moral conduct. Therefore, publication of objectionable material on the above matters is certainly beyond the right of free expressin and the person responsible for such publication directly or indirectly and also a person who in any manner acts in aid of such activity may be guilty of offence of Blasphemy and is equally liable for prosecution under the law of Blasphemy in addition to the prosecution for libel and defamation.
38. Pakistan is a Muslim State and under the Constitution of Pakistan no law against the spirit of injunction of Islam can be made therefore any action criticizing Blasphemy law is rigidly condemnable. {{URDU TEXT}} Article 18
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. .
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The, States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. {{URDU TEXT}} Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre (sic.) public), or of public health or morals. {{URDU TEXT}} Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. {{URDU TEXT}} ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. {{URDU TEXT}} "Those who publicly mock or insult the doctrines of worship of any religious community that is legal in this county, will be punished by a fine or incarceration for upto four months" {{URDU TEXT}} "Any person who publicly or with intention of dissemination to wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation, shall be liable to a fine, simple detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years." {{URDU TEXT}} "The free communication of ideas and opinion is one of the most precious of the rights of man.
Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law." {{URDU TEXT}} There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he will fully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the' laws, contempt of religion; morality or the constitutional powers or resistance to their orders of has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone." {{URDU TEXT}} Whoever publicly or through dissemination of "(1) writings (Section 11 subsection (3) insults the content of others, religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or fine.
(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3) insults a church, other religious society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be similarly punished." {{URDU TEXT}} Whoever:
1. Intentionally and in a gross manner disturbs a religious service or an act of a religious service of a church or other religious society located in Germany: or
2. Commits insulting mischief at a place dedicated to the religious service or such a religious society, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(II) Corresponding celebrations of an organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany shall be the equivalent of religious services." {{URDU TEXT}} "A person who (I) publicly blasphemes against God or, for the purpose of offending, publicly defames or desecrates what is otherwise held to be sacred by a church or religious community, as referred to in the Act on the Freedom of Religion (267/1998) " {{URDU TEXT}} "The Netherlands: Blasphemy is a criminal offence under the Penal Code Article 147 (introduction and subsection (1) Wetboek van Strefrecht), though this provision only covers expressions concerning God, and not saints and other revered religious figures ("godalaatering"). Further, the criminal offence of blasphemy has been interpreted to require that the. person who makes the expression must have had the intention to be "scornful" ("Smalend")." {{URDU TEXT}} "Spain: The crime of blasphemy was abolished in 1988. The Constitutional Court has ruled that the right to freedom of expression, broadly protected by Article 20 of the Constitution, can be subject to restrictions aimed both at the protection of the rights of others or at the protection of other constitutionally protected interests. " {{URDU TEXT}} "6.1: The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
(1) The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State." {{URDU TEXT}} "Since the statements made by the author.... Were of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-Semitic feelings, the restriction served the respect of the Jewish community to live free from fear of an atmosphere of anti-Semitism. The Committee therefore concludes that the restriction of the author's freedom of expression was permissible under Article 19, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant." {{URDU TEXT}} "The little Red Schoolbook" {{URDU TEXT}} Obscene Publication Act, {{URDU TEXT}} "The Court's supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterizing a "democratic society". Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society". This means, amongst other things, that every "formality", "condition", "restriction" or "penalty" imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
From another standpoint, whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes "duties and responsibilities" the scope of which depends on his situation and the technical means he uses. The Court cannot overlook such a person's "duties" and "responsibilities" when it enquires, as in this case, whether "restrictions" or "penalties" were conducive to the "protection of morals" which made them "necessary" in a "democratic society". " (HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM) {{URDU TEXT}} "In the Kokkinakis judgment the Court held, in the context of Article 9 (Art. 9), that a State may legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct, including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with the respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others (ibid., p. 21, para. 48). The respect for the religious feelings of believers as guaranteed in Article 9 (Art. 9) can legitimately be thought to have been violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration; and such portrayals can be regarded as malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which must also be a feature of democratic society. The Convention is to be read as a whole and therefore the interpretation and application of Article 10 (Art. 10) in the present case must be in harmony with the logic of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 31, para. 68).
48. The measures complained of were based on section 188 of the Austrian Penal Code, which is intended to suppress behaviour directed against objects of religious veneration that is likely to cause "justified indignation". It follows that their purpose was to protect the right of citizens not to be insulted in their religious feelings by the public expression of views of other persons. Considering also the terms in which the decisions of the Austrian courts were phrased, the Court accepts that the impugned measures pursued a legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2), namely "the protection of the rights of others"."
(Dubowska and Skup Vs. Poland {{|URDU TEXT}} "However, the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the State to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines. Thus, the respect for the religious feelings of believers as guaranteed in Article 9 (Art. 9) may in some cases be violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration (see Eur. Court HR, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, p. 18, para. 47).
As a consequence, there may be certain positive obligations on the part of a State inherent in an effective respect for rights guaranteed under Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention, which may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for freedom of religion even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, X and Y v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, para. 23).
Such measures may, in certain circumstances, constitute a legal means of ensuring that an individual will not be disturbed in his worship by the activities of others."
(Dubowska and Skup Vs Poland: (Appl. Nos 33490/96 and 34055/96.) {{URDU TEXT}}
14. As a necessary corollary to the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs the following guidelines are formulated for immediate and strict action by the respondents:
(1) That Inter ministerial committee constituted by the then Prime Minister in the year; 2000 would keep a vigilant eye on the websites and in the eventuality of any objectionable material concerning the religious faith of any group would take prompt action before it reaches to the public-at-large and in case of failure the concerned persons, would be taken to task while initiating disciplinary action against them and the government would also include some members from amongst the private persons in the said committee;
(ii) That the Crisis Cell working in the Services Division ICT Directorate and Enforcement Division shall be used as a tool to unearth such material and to block the relevant website/URL forthwith and in case of failure stern action be taken against the delinquents;
(iii) That the government shall agitate the matter before the United Nations through its permanent delegate for legislation at international level against such acts and convey the reservations of the Muslims of the world in general and that of Pakistan in particular regarding the publication of such objectionable material;
(iv) That the government shall bring matter before the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) in consultation with the other member countries and would adopt a clear-cut via media to halt repetition of such incidents;
(v) That the government shall also see the viability of permanent blocking of the websites involved in unethical and illegal activities in the event that such material is again presented on internal;
(vi) That the government shall strive for legislation in this regard on the lines already adopted by other Islamic countries in additional to China;
(vii) That the government shall impart awareness amongst. the public through different modes e.g. print and electronic media regarding use and misuse of such like websites; and
(viii) That in case of repetition the government shall sue concerned authorities before the appropriate forums. {{URDU TEXT}} '35. Assuming that, deceased had actually committed the offence punishable under section 295- C PPC then what course was left for appellant to take the deceased to the task. Was he authorized to hold a court at the place of occurrence i.e. Kohsar Market, ask a question to seek explanation from the deceased about the remarks a question to seek explanation from the deceased about the remarks allegedly attributed to him, hear the explanation of the deceased in a single sentence, without framing any charge or recording any evidence then and there declare in his heart that deceased was liable to be murdered and to execute that sentence then and there. No body on earth would dare to execute that sentence then and there. No body on earth would dare to justify this conduct of the appellant as we are living in a State governed by the Constitution, law, rules and regulation and everyone is required to proceed within the limits prescribed by the State. It is observed that through his reply appellant has left it for the determination of the court to seek verdict in his favour that his act be justified under the principles of Islamic law but at the cost of repetition it is observed that we have already held that criminal act of the subject of blasphemy. This reveals that the appellant is himself not certain that his act of committing murder of the deceased was justified "