Zaid Hamid wrote an article in DAILY DAWN stating that the Session Court accepted the Shahadaat of 14 eye-witnesses against Yusuf Kazzabs statement that he didnt said those things that the 14 eye-witnesses were accusing him of.
Actually Yusuf never tried to refute the other claims of those 14 witnesses like proving their lies by bringing forward evidence of the fact that lets say they never met Yusuf etc. All other things that those 14 witnesses said was accepted by Yusuf. Like those witnesses said, we met Yusuf in Karachi or Lahore and Yusuf accepted it. The witnesses said, we were present in so and so speech of Yusuf and Yusuf accepted that. Yusuf accepted everything except for the fact that he called himself to be Muhammad (Nauzobillah).
Everyone must understand that a mere denial is not an evidential proof in a court of law. In order to understand this, lets take an example of a murder in which Abdullah is accused of committing a murder and 4 eye-witnesses appear in court and testify that Abdullah committed the murder in Karachi on 20th of July 2000. Now Abdullah can refute this accusation by proving in the court of law that he was not present in Karachi on 20th July, 2000. In fact he was not even present in Pakistan and was in London, by putting forward his passport with immigration stamps and travel documents. Once the court would see these evidences it would reach this conclusion that all the 4 witnesses are lying and are trying to frame Abdullah for the murder. If, on the other hand Abdullah merely states that yes I know all of these people, yes I met them there and there and accept everything else except for the murder than this is no defense at all.
Another possible way for Abdullah to defend himself could be to present eye-witnesses testifying that we were also present in Karachi on 20th July 2000, and Abdullah was in front of us all the time that night and we never saw him killing anyone.
Similarly Yusuf Kazzab could have presented eye-witnesses to testify in the Sessions Court that they were present at Bait e Raza and Yusuf never made those statements which are recorded on this audio. Or eye-witnesses that could state that we were also present during the meeting with where the other people are accusing Yusuf of stating Ana Muhammad, and we testify that Yusuf never said that.
However, Yusuf never presented a single eye-witness in his defense. In fact, although Zaid Hamid and Sohail used to be present there in all court sessions, even these two most trusted Sahabi’s of the Kazzab didnt testified as an eye-witness in favor of Yusuf Kazzab.
In order to prove someone a Kazzab only two eye-witnesses are required but AMTKN produced 14 eye-witnesses in court. AMTKN also produced Yusuf Kazzab’s personal hand written diary, Yusuf Kazzab’s audio and video speeches and proved beyond doubt in the court of law that Yusuf committed blasphemy. Ultimately the court was convinced that Yusuf committed blasphemy, declared him a kazzab and sentenced him to death
Now if Zaid Hamid thinks that Shariah requirements were not fulfilled in the court, he should do the following:
- Zaid Hamid should pin point the Shariah violations that were carried out during the trial. He should explicitly name the Shariah requirements that were not fulfilled. Merely stating that Shariah requirements were not fulfilled is not enough, He should name those Shariah requirements.
- Yusuf Kazzab is dead now, and no one can bring him back. But since Zaid Hamid thinks that Kazzab is not a Kazzab, he should go to the Shariah Court and prove in the Shariah Court that Yusuf Kazzab was falsely accused because of these and these reasons, because these and these Shariah requirements were not fulfilled. In doing so, Zaid Hamid will be able to clarify the allegations on Yusuf Kazzab and from then onwards no Muslim will call Yusuf a Kazzab.
It is not the duty of Ulema to prove once again that Yusuf was a Kazzab. Ulema have already done so. It is now a duty of Zaid Hamid (the Sahabi of Yusuf Kazzab) to prove that Yusuf was not a Kazzab – because it is he, who is insisting that we can not call Yusuf a Kazzab – so he should provide evidences in defense of Yusuf to prove that Yusuf was not a Kazzab.
But the irony of the matter is that if Zaid Hamid have had any of these so-called evidences to prove that Yusuf was not a Kazzab, he would have already provided those evidences in the Sessions Court 10 years back.