Jinnah's only lost case- Defending the "killer" of a Blasphemer, Ghazi Ilm Deen (R.H)

[Xestan]

Also losing this case had nothing to do with Jinnah abilities and caliber when the defendant himself refuse to fight or plea.

Absolutely, my point was something else

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Doesnt matter a bit what a fvcking foreign magazine called him. He drew our gods nude and should have been punished legally for that.Period.

But I am also proud of the fact that despite this extreme provocation, no Hindu 'martyr' plunged a dagger into him and only registered FIRs against him in police stations within the ambit of Indian law.

Karthic... I agree with you on this one... Despite the fact that I am not a Hindu, I still believe that whatever religion you choose to adhere to, your choice has to be respected... even though I disagree with Hinduism... and people should not delibrately insult others... Often though in the heat of opposition, many forget this fine line... You ll find though that Muslims are more tolerant in general than what the media depicts them to be... and almost never insult the beliefs of others...

 

[JonAsad]

The problem is in, the application of Blasphemy law in Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Many accused were not the accusers in the first place, just victims of some Muslims personal gains/agenda, The law itself is alright the misuse of it, is where the problem starts.

Ghazi Ilm Din is indeed a martyr.

 

[LaBong]

Jinnah was right to fight his case as he was just a teenager brainwashed kid. Please notice the argument Jinnah brought forth - he did the act on extreme provocation. Thankfully Jinnah didn't glorify the act of 'martyr'.

 

[somebozo]

But I am also proud of the fact that despite this extreme provocation, no Hindu 'martyr' plunged a dagger into him and only registered FIRs against him in police stations within the ambit of Indian law.

Because they already had their go at riots and the remaining credits were acclaimed at the time of partition..enough of this "bhai chara" and tolerance mask!

 

[LaBong]

Because they already had their go at riots and the remaining credits were acclaimed at the time of partition..enough of this "bhai chara" and tolerance mask!

So you're justifying or in this case glorifying the riots that Hussain's paintings caused?

 

[KS]

Karthic... I agree with you on this one... Despite the fact that I am not a Hindu, I still believe that whatever religion you choose to adhere to, your choice has to be respected... even though I disagree with Hinduism... and people should not delibrately insult others... Often though in the heat of opposition, many forget this fine line... You ll find though that Muslims are more tolerant in general than what the media depicts them to be... and almost never insult the beliefs of others...

Religions no matter what should be respected.Period.

But any attempt to defame it should be fought only on constitutional grounds and not extra-constitutionally.

Because they already had their go at riots and the remaining credits were acclaimed at the time of partition..enough of this "bhai chara" and tolerance mask!

So ??? what are you trying to say ?

 

[SQ8]

The case of Rajpal was loud and clear..
Just as Rushdie...or Ayaan Ali Hirsi..

What of Ilm deen's that would kill their wives, mothers.. sisters.. children..
Or the laughable visiting card case..
Without considering circumstances...or mental states..

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

The case of Rajpal was loud and clear..
Just as Rushdie...or Ayaan Ali Hirsi..

What of Ilm deen's that would kill their wives, mothers.. sisters.. children..
Or the laughable visiting card case..
Without considering circumstances...or mental states..

and you already know the answer to this question

 

[warrior_pk]

To seek the harshest possible punishment against a blasphemer should not be merely treated as a law because laws can be changed but this is the foundation of faith a complete code of life.Ghazi Ilm Din refused to seek legal help because in his eyes it was not about breaking the law he was merely defending his faith a right everyone acquires by birth(obviously u have to be a believer first).this has nothing to do with extremism or secularism because if u follow ur faith strictly and say pray five times a day and grow a beard then does that make u an extremist? i dnt think so but sadly it is being projected as such by the clever manipulations of not only west but certain elements within out own society.no religion allows the killings of innocent people and the ideology of destroying everything that comes in ur path and islam is no exception so yes those elements should be not be encouraged or appreciated at the same time.As in the above discussions it has been mentioned that such people should be punished within the perimeters of law well for that very reason the changes were made in our constitution so people dnt try to take things in their own hands as that would cause more damage eventually.Why the hue and cry then for changing the blasphemy law then?because its misused?yes sadly it is sometimes but then almost every other law in pakistan.should we prohibit all those too then?dont run after just one thing if u have fair justice and i say fair justice because complete justice is never fair then overhaul the whole system dnt just pick out one thing.

 

[T-Faz]

Amazing nonsense from the Jamaatis and their propaganda machine, Jinnah was not Ilam Din's trial lawyer.

Please read this article from a relative of Ilam Din to clear the misconception caused through false information.

VIEW: The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah

In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.

To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.

The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”

The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.

Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.

We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.

There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[warrior_pk]

we dont want blind extremism in our society and there is no such term as extremist in Islam.It is just been made up in the last decade to accommodate certain actions.As for secularism just go through the history of western world and u will find out how and when this term was coined too.simple fact is if we live like humans and respect each others rights and dnt try to bash the weaker elements then there will be peace all over .No one wants to fight just for the kicks.We have all seen the fruits of enlightened moderation in our society in the first decade of 21st century as our enlightened leader laid down a chain of events where the only things that stood out were booze and physical contact,people acting out of their dresses.May ALLAH save us from that kind of enlightenment.

 

[T-Faz]

Here is what Jinnah thought of the Blasphemy Law:

“How can there be such a divine sanction to this cruel, horrible, disgraceful, inhuman practice that is prevailing in India? Sir, whether certain practices have any sanction divine or religious or not, and when any social reform is suggested which goes to destroy the usages and customs to which people are used and upon which they have looked as semi-religious usages and practices, it is always known all over the world that those people who have got deep sentiments, deep convictions, strong opinions, always resent, and they believe that it is destroying the very root of their social life or religion. Always the social reformer is face to face with this orthodox opinion…But are we to be dragged down by this section for whom we have respect, whose feeling we appreciate, whose sentiments we regard, -are we to be dragged down and are we to be prevented in the march of progress, in the name of humanity, I ask you?

But, Sir, I make bold to say that if my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘You had better ask somebody else to represent you”…if we are going to allow ourselves to be influenced by the public opinion that can be created in the name of religion when we know that religion has nothing whatever to do with the matter, – I think we must have the courage to say, ‘No, we are not going to be frightened by that’.”

 

[JonAsad]

The case of Rajpal was loud and clear..
Just as Rushdie...or Ayaan Ali Hirsi..

What of Ilm deen's that would kill their wives, mothers.. sisters.. children..
Or the laughable visiting card case..
Without considering circumstances...or mental states..

I think if we start generating medical terms for their mental states and send them to rehabilitation (like mostly happens in west), instead of pronouncing their last names as Muslims, the problem will be solved.

 

[Xestan]

Amazing nonsense from the Jamaatis and their propaganda machine, Jinnah was not Ilam Din's trial lawyer.

Please read this article from a relative of Ilam Din to clear the misconception caused through false information.



Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

I was missing you Sir

Secular goons have been very active to write lies about this one, If you live in Lahore, I can actually take you to the family of Ghazi Ilm Deen and lets see what they say?

Actually, Leave it for a second.

Allama Iqbal was wrong when he called Ghazi Ilm deen a 'Warrior" ?

C'mon man! give it a break, you won't stop replying me and I won't stop arguing that Pakistan was made for Islam and we are obliged by ALLAH to fulfill our promises by implementing Islamic system.

Now if you consider Allama Iqbal to be nothing, then surely you'll reject my argument, lets see what you have to say about Allama Iqbal.