FactFocus’s ten-month investigation reconstructs how a livelihood built around a weighing machine ended in prison after a dispute turned into a blasphemy prosecution.

Police sought the death penalty without a single video, CCTV recording, or independent piece of corroborative evidence.

The Lahore session court ruled that the alleged remarks about the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) marriages and matrimonial life were not blasphemous but matters open to intellectual discussion within Islam, acquitting the accused after ten months in prison.

The trial court ultimately concluded that the alleged remarks did not constitute blasphemy, exposing the profound human cost of vague and frequently abused irrational blasphemy laws.

Qindeel Azeem

A Lahore Secession Court in its judgment in a case of blasphemy of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), has ruled that raising questions about the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his matrimonial life are not derogatory, but a topic for discussion within the intellectual circle of Islam.

Recent data, official records, and reports by human rights organizations indicate that the majority of blasphemy cases are fabricated or initiated for ulterior motives. Many of the remaining cases involve discussions concerning the matrimonial life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and questions about his wives that may naturally arise in the course of intellectual inquiry.

FactFocus’s investigation in this case involving charges of blasphemy of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), conducted over more than ten months, involved a meticulous examination and analysis of the evidence, as well as extensive interviews with the accused, lawyers, the complainants, witnesses, police officials, and the Superintendent of Police (SP). The investigation found that a case which could have resulted in the death penalty was handled with extraordinary carelessness and a striking lack of seriousness, apparently due to fears of public backlash. As a result, the lives of a 50-year-old blind Christian man Nadeem Masih and his family were turned into a living nightmare.

Background and the incident

Nadeem Masih, 50, was blind from birth and was a resident of a village near Okara. Despite his disability, he was a hardworking and ambitious young man. Determined to build a dignified life, he pursued his education at special education institutions before moving to Lahore to continue his studies. He eventually completed his graduation. Unfortunately, despite his educational qualifications, he was unable to secure suitable employment.

Rather than giving up, Nadeem decided to earn an honest living. He purchased a weighing machine and began offering weighing services to visitors at Nawaz Sharif Park in Model Town Lahore.

Nadeem was known as a decent and hardworking man. Many visitors to the park would voluntarily pay him more than the prescribed fee, apparently out of appreciation for a blind man who had chosen to work instead of begging. According to people familiar with the park, this became a source of resentment for the contractor operating the park canteen, who exercised control over small vendors and individuals earning a livelihood within the park. Nadeem’s earnings were higher than those of others working under the contractor’s patronage.

According to multiple accounts obtained by FactFocus, individuals engaged in small-scale businesses inside the park were often expected to pay money to the contractor or his associates. Nadeem, being educated and aware of his rights, resisted such demands. However, because he was poor, blind, and vulnerable, he would occasionally hand over money to the contractor or his associates after being assured that it would be returned. On one occasion, he gave Rs9,000 to a canteen employee, a sum that, according to available information, was never returned.

According to Nadeem Masih, canteen contractors would frequently intimidate and, at times, physically assault Nadeem in an attempt to force him to leave the park and go to some other place. Because of the large number of daily visitors, some of whom came from the affluent surrounding neighborhood, Nawaz Sharif Park in Model Town, Lahore, was a profitable location for individuals earning a livelihood by providing weighing services.  

Following two such assaults, Nadeem called the police by dialing the emergency helpline, 15, from his mobile phone. FactFocus has independently verified that these calls were made in the month of August 2025 by examining Nadeem’s call records.

The dispute escalated. The canteen contractor allegedly sought the assistance of the contractor managing the nearby parking lot of the same park. The parking contractor Waqas Mazhar and his employee Asif Mukhtar appeared to be better connected and, rather than relying on intimidation or physical force, adopted a different strategy that ultimately resulted in Nadeem’s arrest on blasphemy allegations. 

According to the statements of the parking contractors, on August 9, 2025, during an argument with them, Nadeem allegedly uttered derogatory words about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The same accusers further alleged that another confrontation took place on August 21, 2025.

The accusers Mazhar and Asif admitted in their statements before the police and the trial court that on August 21, 2025, they themselves initiated the conversation by asking Nadeem why he had never married and discussing his matrimonial life. It is unclear whether this portion of the statements made by the accusers, Mazhar and Asif, presents the complete account of the exchange or whether they themselves also made remarks about Nadeem Masih’s religion and Prophet. To avoid an unnecessary controversy, FactFocus is not reproducing the details of that exchange as there are conflicting claims. However, the account provided by the accusers is incomplete and they themselves provoked Nadeem by making remarks about his faith.  The exchange soon became heated. According to the allegations made by the accusers, Nadeem again uttered the same words about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that he had allegedly used during the earlier incident on August 9.

At that point, Waqas Mazhar, the main parking contractor, called police officers who were already present near Nawaz Sharif Park. According to the complainants, Nadeem continued repeating the same remarks about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The police then took Nadeem into custody and transported him to Model Town Police Station. The police declared Nadeem Masih a blasphemer, and he was sent to jail, which became a living hell for him. Being blind, he struggled with even the most basic daily tasks. From eating and taking a shower to using the restroom and finding a place to sleep, every aspect of prison life became an immense challenge. His ordeal was made even more unbearable because everyone around him believed he had committed blasphemy, exposing him to constant hostility and unimaginable hatred from all sides.

Interview with Superintendent of Police Revealed High-Level Insensitivity and Lack of Seriousness in Blasphemy Investigation 

The FactFocus team interviewed Superintendent of Police (SP) Dr. Ayyaz Hussain, the investigating officer in this case. He was SP Model Town Lahore at that time and currently serving in Islamabad Police as SP Operations, City Zone. Dr. Ayyaz was asked what evidence he had ultimately presented before the trial court after completing the investigation and submitting the final challan, in which he concluded that the accused, Nadeem Masih, had committed blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (PBHU), an offence that carries a mandatory death penalty under Pakistani law.

In response, Dr. Ayyaz stated “The statements of the witnesses and interrogation of the accused constituted the principal evidence in the case”.

He was then asked whether the complainants had produced any independent evidence to substantiate their allegations or whether the prosecution case rested solely on their statements. Dr. Ayyaz candidly acknowledged that the complainants had not produced any digital evidence of any kind, including CCTV footage, video recordings, or any other electronic evidence. “There is no digital evidence, CCTV footage of a video recording,” Dr Ayyaz said. He added that, based on his investigation, including his questioning of the complainants, he was satisfied that Nadeem Masih had committed the alleged offence.

Low income class groups of the society and the use of mobile phone

Dr. Ayyaz was asked why none of the many people present at the scene, including the complainant, the witnesses, and even the members of the police raiding party, had recorded a video of the alleged incident. According to him, people belonging to lower-income segments of society generally lack sufficient awareness of how to use mobile phones.

Dr. Ayyaz was further asked whether he had investigated the possibility that the complainants might have had a personal or business-related dispute with Nadeem Masih that could have motivated the allegations. He frankly admitted that he had not explored that aspect during the investigation. He added, “Now that you have raised this issue, I will look into this aspect again.”

Dr. Ayyaz was reminded that he had already completed the investigation and submitted the final challan before the court. Nevertheless, he maintained that he could still examine that aspect of the case.

When asked how an investigation into an offence carrying the death penalty could be concluded solely on the basis of the complainants’ allegations without any independent corroborative evidence, Dr. Ayyaz told FactFocus that, in such cases, the statements of the complainants and witnesses constitute the primary evidence.

(The interview was conducted on November 03, 2015, a few weeks after the incident.)

The Court Proceedings

The Sessions Court, presided over by Judge Saad Salman Khan, heard both parties at length and conducted a detailed examination of the evidence, witness statements, and cross-examinations.

No video recording despite ample time and many people at the spot

In its analysis of the facts, the court pointed out that all the witnesses, including Prosecution Witness 1 (PW-1) Muhammad Ayub SI (He was contact of Nawaz Sharif Park parking contractor Waqas Mazhar), Prosecution Witness 3 (PW-3) Asif Mukhtar, and Prosecution Witness 4 (PW-4) Waqar Younis, a constable who was part of the raiding party, had essentially relied on what they had heard from Prosecution Witness 2 (PW-2), Waqas Mazhar, who was himself the complainant and primary witness in the case. On the other hand, the court observed, the complainant and primary witness failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his allegations. The judge noted that there was ample time and a large number of people present at the scene. The accused was blind and could not have known if he was being recorded. Yet no one recorded the alleged remarks. According to the judge, this situation clearly created doubts about the prosecution’s case.

SP Police caught lying in the court

The judge also highlighted that the complainant and primary witness, Waqas Mazhar, testified before the court that he gave his first statement to Muhammad Ayub SI (PW 1) on the day of the incident and met the Superintendent of Police (SP) (PW 6), the investigation officer in the case, the following day. However, during his cross-examination, the SP claimed that he had personally recorded the statements of the witnesses, including PW-2 (Waqas Mazhar), around midnight on the day of the incident. The court observed that the SP was attempting to mislead the court by presenting the work carried out by his subordinates as his own, even though the law requires that investigations into such blasphemy cases be conducted only by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. The court held that this rendered the statement of the primary witness devoid of evidentiary value.

Exact words allegedly uttered by the accused person

The court then reproduced the exact sentences allegedly uttered by the accused. The judge specifically raised the question whether discussions or questions concerning the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or his matrimonial life could be considered derogatory.

Para 22 of the judgement reads;

“22. Alleged derogatory remarks are reproduced by the PW-2 which are as under:-

“The accused said that your Prophet had contracted many marriages. Your Prophet was fond of sex”.

For the sake of arguments, even if we consider that such remarks were actually uttered by the accused, then the question arises that which part of such a sentence is derogatory or it had actually defiled (Na- Bilah) the respect and honor of the Prophet (PBUH). Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is not only rehmat-ul-Muslemeen but he is also rehmat-ul-Aalameen.”

(Some typing mistakes in the text are corrected)

The Ruling of the court

The court then ruled that such discussions and questions are not derogatory but constitute a topic for discussion within the intellectual circle of Islam, and that the illiterate prosecution witnesses and police officials had dealt with the matter with utmost irresponsibility.

The Judgement

Based on its detailed analysis of the facts, examination of the evidence, and assessment of the witness testimony, the court declared the accused, Nadeem Masih, innocent and acquitted him of the charge of committing blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), despite the fact that a Superintendent of Police had concluded during the investigation that he had committed the offense.

Note: Complete judgement can be downloaded by clicking this link.

Irreversible Damage of Blasphemy Politics 

As demonstrated by Nadeem Masih’s case, innocent individuals can remain imprisoned under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws for extended periods while awaiting the conclusion of lengthy court proceedings. The slow pace of the justice system often means that blasphemy cases take years to resolve. In many instances, trial courts have passed the problem to higher courts by sentencing the accused rather than issuing acquittals in contentious cases, leaving higher courts to reassess the evidence. As a result, individuals may spend years in prison before their convictions are overturned, with devastating consequences for their lives and the well-being of their families. Nadeem has lost 10 months of his life, while his family has endured immense emotional distress and financial hardship throughout his imprisonment. Although the court has acquitted him, his ordeal is far from over. Like many others accused of blasphemy in Pakistan, he continues to face serious threats to his safety even after his release, underscoring the long-lasting consequences of blasphemy allegations beyond the courtroom. 

---