What's new

Blasphemers are terrorists, says IHC judge

God helps only those ........

That old adage is still true.

Any time I feel optimistic about the prospects of Pakistan, stories like these serve as a good source of humility, caution and recognition of what more is to be done. With statements like these, our countrymen in their completely finite wisdom never fail to inspire awe.
 
The fatwas that can change Pakistan's blasphemy narrative by ARAFAT MAZHAR
https://www.dawn.com/news/1154856


Pakistan's blasphemy law continues to sustain popularity and credence, with death being considered not only the most appropriate retribution for offenders, but the only one. This ideology is embraced most wholeheartedly when it comes to non-Muslims charged with blasphemy.

In my previous article when I spoke of the authentic Hanafi position on the permissibility of pardon for all blasphemers (Muslims and non-Muslims), the overwhelming response supported such a pardon for the likes of Junaid Jamshed (a ‘fellow Muslim brother who had offended some by mistake’) but held that the same principle of pardon could not be extended to non-Muslim offenders such as Asia Bibi.

This is largely reflective of the predominant public narrative on blasphemy.

Those who dissent – who speak of pardon and of waiving the death penalty, particularly for non-Muslims – are seen to be speaking from borrowed western ideologies or from a faith deemed too weak to be seen as a credible authority for the public. This has made it convenient for citizens to largely ignore those who plead for clemency, reducing these voices to a small, ineffective and irrelevant force, at best.

There was a time when this was not so – in fact, at one point, the most revered ulema (religious scholars) of South Asia had rallied together to defend the position that non-Muslims could not be awarded the death penalty for blaspheming.

This occurred in the late 19th century, when the South Asian ulema (the overwhelming majority of whom belonged to the Hanafi school of thought) were under ideological attack from the Ahl-e-Hadith.

The Ahl-i-Hadith originated as a movement influenced (and later funded) by the Wahabis of the Arabian Peninsula. This movement challenged the established Hanafi rulings on various issues, including blasphemy, alleging that these were based on opinion (ra`y) and Greek influenced analogy-driven reasoning (Qiyas), rather than on prophetic tradition (Ahadith).

In particular, they took exception to what they perceived as Hanafi lenience towards non-Muslims blasphemers (i.e. not prescribing a fixed death penalty and the provision for pardon) which they viewed as incompatible with Ahadith.

54a7eb2f9a17a.jpg

The exact position of Abu Hanifa (the founder of Hanafi School) that ends up being a source of contention for the Ahl-i-Hadith.
These criticisms roused the Hanafi ulema to an impassioned rebuttal.

Many of them targeted the Ahl-e-Hadith from within their own framework, deconstructing several Ahadith that formed the basis of these criticisms.

One such example is a monumental, 21-volume commentary, the I'la al-Sunan(the exaltation of the normative practices [of the Prophet]) by Maulana Zafar Ahmad ‘Uthmani, aiming to demonstrate, against the charges of the Ahl-i-Hadith, that the legal doctrines of the Hanafi school were in fact solidly based in traditions of the Prophet (PBUH).

Despite monolithic individual efforts of such stature, the most profound and relevant in terms of blasphemy, in my view, was Fath Al Mubeen Tanbeeh Al Wahabin (an explicit victory and a warning against the Wahabis).

This contains a fatwa (see below) that clearly states that a non-Muslim blasphemer cannot be killed unless he/she is habitual in the offense.

This last part is an important qualifier because it differentiates single acts of blasphemy from multiple and deliberate attempts, in fact from what is considered politically rebellious blasphemy.

54a8f62127d61.jpg

The monumental fatwa endorsed by 450 scholars that shows that killing is not permissible unless adat (habituality) and kasrat (high frequency) of offenses are established.
The Ahl-e-Hadith, in challenging the Hanafi position on blasphemy presented a compilation of Ahadith which supposedly showed that blasphemous offenders (including non-Muslims) were in fact killed, and that therefore the Hanafi ruling was erroneous in this regard.

In the rebuttal, the fatwa pointed to an important flaw in the Ahle-Hadithargument — that the Ahadith thus presented all pertained to cases of repeat or habitual offenders.

There is not a single case where a non-Muslim was ever killed for committing a singular offense of blasphemy.

(Further, according to Imam Abu Hanifa, the death penalty is awarded in cases where it is categorised as siyasa (political) punishment, as opposed to sharia(divine) punishment, against elements openly rebelling against the Islamic state, using habitual blasphemy as a tool).

This legal position was approved and signed by no less than 450 of the most prestigious names in the Hanafi ulema, not just from South Asia, but around the world.

It is difficult to come up with a case study of a bigger systematic consensus (ijma) than this one. Hundreds of leading ulema of their time from South Asia have declared that non-Muslims cannot be killed for a single offense for blasphemy and their pardon is acceptable unless it becomes a habitual and high frequency offense.

But to really appreciate the magnitude of this ruling for a country like Pakistan, we must look to some of the key signatories of this stance — one of them being Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi.

Many readers might know that Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi was the founder of the Barelvi school of thought, one of the two predominant Hanafi groups, and the religious orientation to which groups like Sunni Tehreek subscribe. The founder is considered a Pir, Saint and a most revered figure, amongst his followers, and the general populace.

Ironically, four years ago this month, Punjab Governer Salman Taseer was assassinated by Mumtaz Qadri, for pleading for pardon for Asia Bibi.

Mumtaz Qadri, who is a devout Barelvi, would be surprised, I am sure, to learn that the founder and most respected figure of his sect had endorsed pardon for non-Muslim blasphemers, and the view that non-Muslims cannot be killed for a single offense of blasphemy.

Incidentally, the co-founder of the other of the two Hanafi groups (Deoband), Mahmood Hassan Deobandi – also known as the Sheikh al Hind – is also a signatory on the above.

54a7eb3076ef6.jpg

A partial list of signatories fath al mubeen showing the endorsement of founder of Barelvi and Deobandi thought.
Both the founders of Deoband and Barelvi have endorsed the position that a non-Muslim cannot be killed for a single offense of blasphemy and therefore must be pardoned.

It is interesting to note that as per the Hanafi thought, we might be talking about no jail time/punishment for the first offense.

54a8f621461a3.jpg

The Hanafi position clearly stating that first time offenders will only be warned, meaning that may not even be subjected to jail time.
Quite apart from this fatwa, there is another key scholar of immediate relevance in the minds and hearts of the nation who has echoed the same position as these revered names.

Maulana Maududi is a household name across the country and is the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the main religio-political parties in Pakistan.

Readers might be surprised to know that Maulana Maududi has also said that an act of blasphemy does not leave non-Muslims liable to capital punishment by the state.

54a7eb2f9760e.jpg

The rights of dhimmi (non-Muslims) living in a Muslim state include protection of his life even in instances of blasphemy as per Maulana Maududi.
All this nuanced handling of the issue is a far cry from the reality of its application today, where a single unfortunate, ill-informed, ill-judged alleged utterance can lead to a conviction under the law, and the death penalty.

Our law in letter and in its judicial interpretation prescribes a huddpunishment for a single offense of blasphemy.

It makes no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims, repeat vs single offences, siyasa vs sharia punishment.

It goes against hundreds of top South Asian ulema and it goes against the founders of the predominant religio-political groups in Pakistan.

The idea that the current interpretation of this law is based on a complete consensus in the religious tradition is a myth.

This is especially crucial for those currently charged under the law, held in jail and fighting for their lives, as in the case of Asia bibi.

She is not guilty of multiple offences of blasphemy.

She has begged for pardon multiple times.

According to the rulings of founder of Hanafi School, founder of Deobandthought, founder of Barelvi thought and the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, Asia Bibi should be given a pardon.

What punishment then, would our clergy, our Mumtaz Qadris, and our vigilante mobs, like to prescribe for their revered religious figures, the founders of their sects and 450 of the most prestigious scholars in South Asia and around the world, for allowing pardon for non-Muslims?

The voices of these scholars are key for the change in narrative around the blasphemy law, opening space for conversation and debate, in building tolerance, in honouring the real voices of those who have dedicated their lives to studying these positions.

Most importantly, referencing these scholars ensures that no grave injustice occurs in the fair name of our Prophet (PBUH) — an act of devotion we sorely need.
 
ABOUT 1 HOUR AGO BY STAFF REPORT
IHC-1-300x180.jpg



ISLAMABAD: Reacting strongly against sacrilegious content over social media, Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui Tuesday declared blasphemers as terrorists.

Justice Siddiqui could not control his emotions as his eyes welled up out of respect for the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) while he was dictating the ruling.

“Why is the blasphemous content present on the social media? What steps had the government taken up in this regard so far?” he raised multiple questions.

Directing Federal Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar to appear before the court in his personal capacity, Justice Siddiqui asserted the matter cannot be relegated to bureaucracy.

“I submit and sacrifice myself and all what I have including my parents, my life and job to the person of Allah’s messenger (peace be upon him),” he said adding, “If the sacrilegious pages cannot be blocked, then Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) should cease to exist.”

“Each and everything can be sacrificed for the honour of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him). I will close entire social media, if I have to,” he warned adding, “I hereby declare as terrorists who commit blasphemy to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).”

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2017/03/07/blasphemers-are-terrorists-says-ihc-judge/


@war&peace @Signalian @SherDil
As long he is judge , he shouldn't pass this statement. Now he is biased. Plus, did he ever punish any terrorist ? ...No.. now he also fall under the category of extremist.
 
Any time I feel optimistic about the prospects of Pakistan, stories like these serve as a good source of humility, caution and recognition of what more is to be done. With statements like these, our countrymen in their completely finite wisdom never fail to inspire awe.

And yet many PDF stalwarts continue to attack and castigate the few left with the courage to describe things they way they truly are. What such stories inspire is not awe, but despair at the inevitable culmination of such a tide of ignorance.

(But wait, where is that picture of that small vegetable patch in Syria, posted by @RescueRanger to make us feel good about hope? :D )
 
Last edited:
And qadri was not a terrorist, he didnt murder any innocent women and children, he served no foriegn intel against pakistan, he just killed a guy in rage and heat of the movement, how is that terrorism??, first learn the defination of terrorism , what qadri did is catogerized as "crimes of passion" across the entire globe, its not taken as terrorism...

Let me google that for you:

let me google that for you.PNG


He fits the definition of a terrorist. And justice was served upon him for murdering someone.
 
As I said earlier whatever he said is according to constitution and Pakistani laws if you have issues with that with due respect start a campaign to amend or change the constitution.

Well Salman was trying to do the same. He didnot agree with the law. Criticizing the law. Qadri was the one who broke the law and killed him.

No but should be booked under this law, Qadri took the law in his hands and punished but his action is spontaneous and for the love of Prophet so as per my personal views he is being regarded Ghazi correctly.

I believe that speaking against Prophet is wrong. But individual action in this regard, I donot agree with because cause law exists in this regard and we have an Islamic republic. So Qadri is a muderer not a Ghazi.

And dissenting with blasphemy law is not blasphemy per se.

Ghazi Alamuddin case is seperate because he rebelled under a non-muslim regime and no law existed at that time such as blasphemy law to prosecute such people under law's ambit.
 
You are in UK OK
Abuse the Queen openly and see the result.

What these so called liberal atheist bloggers are doing is extremely abusive and hurting millions of people even increasing hate for minorities we can't let it go SIR.

And you're in Australia, maybe you're missing the hypocrisy of your posts since page 2 of this thread.

Also, I can write freely: "f**k the queen and may God wipe the smile of our smug reptilian overlords known as the royal family."

See how easy that was?
 
Do it online blog where real British present not the emigrant 2nd class desi gora.

@Jungibaaz

One Question please answer me did you want that people say the same what you said about holy Prophet and walk freely.

Look genius, republicanism is a political perspective in the UK, you will find people here who regularly and openly insult the monarchy. Your monarchy too by the way, maybe if you've been around Australia long enough, you'll find that out. And yes, people here can say what I said about anyone.

I believe in free speech, although I wouldn't condone people speaking that way of the prophet, I know they have a right by law to say it and still walk freely. There are lots of blasphemers in Australia, terrorists too by that definition, please do us all a favour, out of fear for your safety and concern over any internal moral contradictions of yours, flee oppressive Australia where a man can't even gun another blasphemer down without dignity, go back to Pakistan and don't attempt to become a 2nd class desi gora.
 


I do not think you or anyone for that matter would be happy with the mother's name and picture on the internet with some filthy slogans attached. Only a begharet would not be pissed off at the very minimum. And many would be raged.

This is what happens to many of us who read and hear filthy slogans against our beloved Prophet S.A.W.

This is the problem with liberal fascists and their apologists, by insulting or protecting those who insult our Prophet S.A.W, they are causing rage and then when there is a reaction due to this rage, they start beating the victim drum and blaming the blasphemy laws.

Simply do not insult if you do not want an adverse reaction. If you overstep, others will too.

Please enlighten us by answering: What do these vile liberal fascists and their apologists gain by insulting our Prophet S.A.W and our deen?
 
Let me google that for you:

View attachment 382353

He fits the definition of a terrorist. And justice was served upon him for murdering someone.
Murdering someone is not terrorism, get ur facts right, and qadri had no political or economic agenda, taseer was not a civilian, he was inciting people to voilence by presenting controversial ideas in a deeply religious country, acts committed in the heat of the movement are not terrorism, terrorism is when due to a political or anyother agenda a group takes the life of inocent civilians to pressure a government to bow to down to thier agenda, terrorism is carefully planned, funded and committed after careful thought, it is not commited in the heat of the movement
 
Murdering someone is not terrorism, get ur facts right, and qadri had no political or economic agenda, taseer was not a civilian, he was inciting people to voilence by presenting controversial ideas in a deeply religious country, acts committed in the heat of the movement are not terrorism, terrorism is when due to a political or anyother agenda a group takes the life of inocent civilians to pressure a government to bow to down to thier agenda, terrorism is carefully planned, funded and committed after careful thought, it is not commited in the heat of the movement

Taseer was a civilian leader, therefore also a civilian, performing a civilian role and he was killed while unarmed.
Taseer was a politician and he was murdered as a politician, Qadri cited religious and political motivations for his murder. Therefore Qadri was a terrorist by any sane and literal definition, and justice was served upon him.
 
I wouldn't know, I don't insult the prophet, I spend my time pissing off conservatives and reactionaries on the internet.

Then maybe your liberal fascist buddy here can answer that instead. He seems to be in agreement with all you are saying and he was out in full force defending Bhensa (whilst ignoring all they wrote on those pages)!
 
I wouldn't know, I don't insult the prophet, I spend my time pissing off conservatives and reactionaries on the internet.
That means that u have an opinion and ur views are against conservatives yet u wont condemn people who insult the prophet(pbuh), that means that u insult conservatives but u ignore liberals who insult prophet(pbuh), that means u silently enable these vermin yet are too much a coward to openly admit that u support this form of freedom of bullshting, which means u are a hypocritte..
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom