Refutation: Zaid Hamid says Yusuf was accused of ZANA (adultery) but Molvis could not prove it so according to Sharia Molvis should be lashed

Claim:

Zaid Hamid says Yusuf was accused of ZANA (adultery) but Molvis could not prove it so according to Sharia Molvis should be lashed ( korray marne chahiye) ( In video Zaid Hamid’s most focused point)

Reply:

Yusuf was not accused for Zana by majlis e Khatam Nabuwwat because according to FIR there is no section of Pakistan Penal Code regarding Zana put on him. There were some eye witness who told Ulema and media that Yusuf kazzab tried to commit adultery with their women. But no one was ready to say this in court because of our traditional hesitation on such sensitive issue. This was an indirect allegation of “Try to commit adultery, not the direct blame of adultery” He was having some “ Roohani nikah” with some of his ladies followers and saying them “Azwaj Mutahraat” Naoozbillah. But it was hard to prove so Majlis e Khatam e Nabuwwat did not insisted on this allegation and if we read the FIR, there is also written the sentence “ tried to commit adultery” and there is no section of PPC regarding adultery put in FIR. Here we present the details of all sections of Pakistan penal Code put in FIR against yusuf Kazzab by Khatam-e-Nabuwwat.

According to FIR all the sections of Pakistan Penal Code
implemented in this case are as below
1. 295A insulting religion
2. 295B Insult of Quran
3. 295C insult of Prophet SAW
4. 298 Uttering word to wound religious feeling
5. 298A use of wrong words about ahl-e-bait and Azwaaj Mutahraat
6. 505(2) creating, spreading rumors against religion or state
7. 805 seems to be misprint (because we could not find this section in PPC) we think it was 508 (Forcing or threatening some one)
8. 420 committing fraud
9. 406 criminal breach of trust

Here is copy of FIR

Below if we see the sections provided by court on which he was sentenced are also among those from FIR.

So how Zaid Hamid says that Ulema accused Yusuf Kazzab for adultery in court and they were not able to provide sharia proof so they should be lashed in public. Did Ulema put a single section of PPC regarding Zana in FIR ? If not then Zaid himself should be lashed for Qazzaf as he is blaming baseless.

Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhi wassallam) said:

“A believer is not stung twice from the same hole”. [Bukhari, Muslim]

Document (English): reply-to-zaid-hamid-defense-of-yousuf-kazzab
Scribd (English): reply-to-zaid-hamid-defense-of-yousuf-kazzab

Source