The actor Veena Malik has expressed anger at a 26-year jail term handed down by a Pakistani court after she acted in a scene loosely based on the marriage of the prophet Muhammad’s daughter.
The same sentence was extended to her husband, and to Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, owner of the Jang-Geo media group which broadcast the TV show. All three were ordered to surrender their passports and fined 3m rupees (£8,000).
The offending scene involved Malik re-enacting her own wedding to businessman Asad Bashir Khan while a religious song played in the background.
There was outrage following its original broadcast in a daytime programme on Geo TV in May, with blasphemy cases filed against the channel’s owner and the show’s anchorwoman, as well as Malik and her husband.
On 26 May, the senior vice president of the Gilgit-Baltistan chapter of Muslim religious organisation Jamaat Ahle Sunnat, lodgedan official complaint alleging the show had defiled Ahl al-Bayt – the family of the prophet Muhammad – in playing “a contemptuous Qawwali”.
Geo TV and the anchorwoman issued apologies, while Malik and Khan left the country as the subsequent investigation took place.
Announcing the verdict on Tuesday, judge Raja Shahbaz ordered the police make arrests under Section 19 (10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act in case of disobedience, as well as sell the properties of the offendants.
“After evaluation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against proclaimed offenders and absconders,” Shahbaz said.
The order reads: “The malicious acts of the proclaimed offenders ignited the sentiments of all the Muslims of the country and hurt the feelings, which cannot be taken lightly and there is need to strictly curb such tendency.”
Speaking to Gulf News from Dubai, Malik said she planned to return to Pakistan in the next fortnight to challenge the court order. She also expressed scepticism about its legitimacy.
The order was enforced in Gilgit, whose control is shared between Pakistan and the India-claimed Kashmir region, and verdicts delivered by its courts tend not apply to the rest of Pakistan.
“Twenty-six years is a lifetime,” said Malik. “But I have faith in higher courts in Pakistan. When the final verdict comes, it will do justice to me. Nothing bad is going to happen.”
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
I know the PC thing would be to be incredibly upset about this and things like it.
But I cant help but think that this is HER area and she had to know it wouldn't have been received well.
I don't agree with these kinds of things there. I don't always agree with the way things are here. But to do something that would knowingly get you in some kind of trouble without a really good reason is kind of stupid. In my opinion anyway.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
Yep, she and her husband should have know and been prepared for any consequences. A person just does not take on religion - any religion - without being ready to take the heat...
Yep, she and her husband should have know and been prepared for any consequences. A person just does not take on religion - any religion - without being ready to take the heat...
No. We aren't talking about "any" religion--or taking "heat" because of religion.
It's about freedom of speech, or lack thereof, and the extent to which a backwards religion has permeated governments in many parts of the world.
MANY movies, books, TV shows, etc... made in the U.S. have been VERY critical of Christianity. Heck, watch network TV any night of the week and you can't help but find a program where Christianity is mocked.
They take VERY LITTLE "heat" for that--and certainly don't go to jail.
Yes, maybe in this case since they lived in Pakistan, they should have known the laws and acted accordingly--but--then my original comment still stands, some cultures, specifically ones where people have freedom of speech, are better than others.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.