Asia Bibi blasphemy case has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 14, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Asia Bibi blasphemy case article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Asia Bibi blasphemy case. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Asia Bibi blasphemy case at the Reference desk. |
A news item involving Asia Bibi blasphemy case was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 November 2018. |
A fact from Asia Bibi blasphemy case appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 January 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Pakistan may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why were the FB references removed? They are very relevant. Please elaborate. 69.121.234.152 ( talk) 02:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
Suggestions
Some more...
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)
Okay, I think everything's covered. -- 1ST7 ( talk) 07:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
"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]"
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]
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Asia Bibi blasphemy case has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 14, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Asia Bibi blasphemy case article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Asia Bibi blasphemy case. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Asia Bibi blasphemy case at the Reference desk. |
A news item involving Asia Bibi blasphemy case was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 November 2018. |
A fact from Asia Bibi blasphemy case appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 January 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Pakistan may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why were the FB references removed? They are very relevant. Please elaborate. 69.121.234.152 ( talk) 02:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
Suggestions
Some more...
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)
Okay, I think everything's covered. -- 1ST7 ( talk) 07:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
"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]"
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]
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)