Mardan university student killed over alleged blasphemy: police

[haviZsultan]

If you agree that such values are in fact Islamic, why don't you simply call it 'the Islamic spirit', rather than 'secular'?

Because secularism is the name of a philosophy and Islam a religion. Both can clearly run together. If you look at history, that of Ibn Rushd and Mutazilites you will know that secularism can work well with Islam. If it wasn't true 44 million muslims would not be in Europe.

Secularism doesn't have a monopoly on fairness. In fact, many injustices have been perpetrated under secular regimes.

I agree with this. But modern times require evolution. Secularism is that evolution.

I agree with you that what many people consider to be 'secular values' are also supported by Islam, such as justice and non-discrimination. In fact, these were Islamic values before modern secularism even existed. There is no need to use 'secular' as a suffix to everything.

The secular system itself was devised by a man named Ibn Rushd.

This whole idea of secularism being necessary for a fair society is a fiction sponsored by the West - just because historical circumstances favoured secularism for them doesn't mean we must follow the same path.

It got rid of church injustices and Christian fanaticism. Before adopting secularism they were committing attrocities left and right. There were innocents declared witches and heretics. People would kill in the name of religion. Very much like muslims are today.

Islam also provides a path to a fair society, and that doesn't mean marginalising minority religious groups within our country.

I agree. I am not an opponent of Islam. I am just saying that religion, any religion can compliment secularism. It is the nature of the world now.

I think you mean lack of civilised debate on religion, and lack of ijtehad, has led to the decline of Islamic Society.

Yes that was a mistake. Ijtehad and Mongol invasion is associated with Iqbal for the fall of Islam. Ijtehad is just this what we are doing and I am glad we are having this debate. It is debate, religious debate where no one assumes he is superior and there is no fanaticism in the debate. However the stand of mullahs today-saying that even talk of blasphemy laws being ammended is equivalent to committing blasphemy is very far from it.

It is truly sad how we have gone from the age of Ibne Sina, Al Haytham, Razi, and countless others, to this.

At least we are condemning this. But the next logical step is reforming the system. That can only be done when people understand that secularism is not an Anti Islamic concept.

Iman, Ittehad, Nazm was the slogan of Pakistan's creation, and currently we are weak in all three of those key areas.

When religion is imposed you lose track of what is important. The economy, philosophy, education all get left behind. What matters to the population is thekedari of their version of Islam. Is the pyjama above the ankles while praying, is the beard there, are our girls wearing hijab. Concentration on these nominal problems is making us weaker. It is in itself discrimination that we have a fund for hajj but not for Hindus going for yatra or zikris going to their holy places. Islam is a religion of equality and every muslim follows his religion independently-his relation only with Allah, no need of a middleman mullah there. This fits snugly with the wider concept that Islam is in the heart, not seen or needed outward, precisely why confining religion to your own homes and masjids is necessary. It is our personal choice, how much or how little we want to follow religion, otherwise Allah would not have said, "to you be your faith, to me be mine."

Yes, even Iman - if they had Iman and truly feared the day of Judgement, they wouldn't be able to do such things.

Sir jee please don't fall into the trap of such Sectarianism. You know as well as I do that there is no shortage of Barelvis and Deobandis who support such actions and the blasphemy laws. Labels like 'Wahhabi' are often used by molvis to discredit people with a different opinion - these labels mean nothing now.

Wahabism's birth is marked by violence. But I agree that there is no shortage of fanatics in other sects either.

The problem is not however the fact that these people don't have iman. They are full of it and so are the suicide bombers-full of the belief that they are righteous. Its the mindset they are fed on and it cannot change unless we challenge it and alter the laws of the land as well as the poisonous education we give our people. That killing a person in the name of Islam is perfectly right. As I said I do not support blasphemy personally but call for a completely different reaction towards it. There is no point asking for blood. Debating and somehow winning him over with the fallen person is better than killing.

I believe in following the Quran and Hadith, and in Ijtihad and civil discussion for religious matters. Apparently, according to some people, this makes me a 'Salafi-Wahhabi', even though I am completely against this blasphemy law and so on.

I agree that is an excuse. But we all have to oppose this cursed law. It is based on fanaticism. As I said, the prophet himself would not like muslims to kill in the name of blasphemy unless there is a severe physical form of opposition.

What is the point of these labels except for creating meaningless divisions and getting brothers to hate brothers?

I think its imperative that we have debate, and in that case some sects might come under criticism for being open to terrorism or atleast being hardliners.

 

[TankMan]

And what if for example some people want to drink but others don't?What if some people are ok earning interests on their bank deposits but others are not ok?If islam becomes a state religion then please tell me how it,s not imposing forcefully on those who don,t see social drinking or earning interest from islamic point of view?
If you are officially declaring a state religion it,s only favoring the religious lot but if you are not it,s favoring everyone since secularism don,t dictate people,s life styles.
@haviZsultan Do you agree with me ?

Interest is a matter of economic policy, not something personal. If 99% of the population is against interest, the country should have policies that reflect that.

Yeah - the state will be 'favouring' the religious lot because the overwhelming majority is religious. But it would also make sure the rights of others are respected, so minorities would be able to practice their own religion in peace and security; I say the state should even provide and maintain places of worship for minorities.

Getting interest on your bank deposits is not a right. Neither is 'social drinking' to be honest, aside from the fact that it causes very many problems including health issues, it is not a right. It's already legal for non-Muslims in Pakistan though, so I don't see what the problem is.

As for 'imposing forcefully', we wouldn't be imposing our religion but our laws. Every nation in the world imposes its laws 'forcefully', including Secular countries.

 

[R Wing]

It is pathetic that whether he committed blasphemy or not is even being discussed / reported --- whether he did or didn't, what happened was absolutely despicable.

The IG should have clearly stated that the pathetic killers of this bright young man are animals who will be hanged even if Mashal had committed blasphemy --- that's the point we need to get across.

 

[CriticalThought]

And what if for example some people want to drink but others don't?What if some people are ok earning interests on their bank deposits but others are not ok?If islam becomes a state religion then please tell me how it,s not imposing forcefully on those who don,t see social drinking or earning interest from islamic point of view?
If you are officially declaring a state religion it,s only favoring the religious lot but if you are not it,s favoring everyone since secularism don,t dictate people,s life styles.
@haviZsultan Do you agree with me ?

All of these quandaries have already been solved in the times of Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Aalihi Wasallam.

1. If a person is born into a Muslim family, has grown up in an Islamic environment, and then openly commits sins, he is called a Fasiq. In a Muslim country, he will be punished because he is setting a bad example for others, and regularizing sin. A sin which someone commits personally is less evil than a sin that is committed openly and is accepted by society. In this case, the Wrath of Allah the Almighty descends on the entire nation, so openly committing sins is a punishable crime.

2. If a person is born into a Muslim family, has grown up in an Islamic environment, and then openly reverts from Islam, or if he accepts Islam and then reverts, he is called a Murtid. In a Muslim country, he will be punished by death. Intellectually speaking, his status is the same as traitor. A traitor acts against the best interests of his own country. The punishment for treason is universally death.

3. If a person is a born non-Muslim, he is called a Dhimmi. He has full rights to practice his religion.

In this way, Islam actually guarantees the rights of all religions, and it is why we want to implement Islam in letter and in spirit as revealed originally by Allah the Almighty upon the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Aalihi Wasallam.

The IG should have clearly stated that the pathetic killers of this bright young man are animals who will be hanged even if Mashal had committed blasphemy --- that's the point we need to get across.

It is a given that until and unless the state itself enforces the punishment for blasphemy - which it has failed to implement even once - people will continue to keep taking the law into their hands. When justice is denied, law of the jungle prevails.

 

[R Wing]

All of these quandaries have already been solved in the times of Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Aalihi Wasallam.

1. If a person is born into a Muslim family, has grown up in an Islamic environment, and then openly commits sins, he is called a Fasiq. In a Muslim country, he will be punished because he is setting a bad example for others, and regularizing sin. A sin which someone commits personally is less evil than a sin that is committed openly and is accepted by society. In this case, the Wrath of Allah the Almighty descends on the entire nation, so openly committing sins is a punishable crime.

2. If a person is born into a Muslim family, has grown up in an Islamic environment, and then openly reverts from Islam, or if he accepts Islam and then reverts, he is called a Murtid. In a Muslim country, he will be punished by death. Intellectually speaking, his status is the same as traitor. A traitor acts against the best interests of his own country. The punishment for treason is universally death.

3. If a person is a born non-Muslim, he is called a Dhimmi. He has full rights to practice his religion.

In this way, Islam actually guarantees the rights of all religions, and it is why we want to implement Islam in letter and in spirit as revealed originally by Allah the Almighty upon the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Aalihi Wasallam.



It is a given that until and unless the state itself enforces the punishment for blasphemy - which it has failed to implement even once - people will continue to keep taking the law into their hands. When justice is denied, law of the jungle prevails.

If the State is given proof, and is able to hear various arguments for and against the accused, perhaps it will be able to make a fair judgement. Usually, these bloodthirsty mobs don't let anyone survive that long --- and many innocents have perished this way.

The misuse of this law is so common and framing so easy that its legality must be revisited.

I can quite easily frame you --- maybe throw some torn up pages in your office dustbin or do something else, followed by enticing the local mullah and getting a mob ready.

BTW, are you aware that there are wildly differing opinions on various matters in Islam --- which is why we have sects, sub-sects and various schools of thought within each? There are various rulings by prominent scholars that conclude that even a proven blasphemer can be pardoned if he realizes his mistake and requests forgiveness. https://www.dawn.com/news/1149558

 

[TankMan]

Because secularism is the name of a philosophy and Islam a religion. Both can clearly run together. If you look at history, that of Ibn Rushd and Mutazilites you will know that secularism can work well with Islam. If it wasn't true 44 million muslims would not be in Europe.



I agree with this. But modern times require evolution. Secularism is that evolution.



The secular system itself was devised by a man named Ibn Rushd.


It got rid of church injustices and Christian fanaticism. Before adopting secularism they were committing attrocities left and right. There were innocents declared witches and heretics. People would kill in the name of religion. Very much like muslims are today.


I agree. I am not an opponent of Islam. I am just saying that religion, any religion can compliment secularism. It is the nature of the world now.



Yes that was a mistake. Ijtehad and Mongol invasion is associated with Iqbal for the fall of Islam. Ijtehad is just this what we are doing and I am glad we are having this debate. It is debate, religious debate where no one assumes he is superior and there is no fanaticism in the debate. However the stand of mullahs today-saying that even talk of blasphemy laws being ammended is equivalent to committing blasphemy is very far from it.



At least we are condemning this. But the next logical step is reforming the system. That can only be done when people understand that secularism is not an Anti Islamic concept.



When religion is imposed you lose track of what is important. The economy, philosophy, education all get left behind. What matters to the population is thekedari of their version of Islam. Is the pyjama above the ankles while praying, is the beard there, are our girls wearing hijab. Concentration on these nominal problems is making us weaker. It is in itself discrimination that we have a fund for hajj but not for Hindus going for yatra or zikris going to their holy places. Islam is a religion of equality and every muslim follows his religion independently-his relation only with Allah, no need of a middleman mullah there. This fits snugly with the wider concept that Islam is in the heart, not seen or needed outward, precisely why confining religion to your own homes and masjids is necessary. It is our personal choice, how much or how little we want to follow religion, otherwise Allah would not have said, "to you be your faith, to me be mine."



Wahabism's birth is marked by violence. But I agree that there is no shortage of fanatics in other sects either.

The problem is not however the fact that these people don't have iman. They are full of it and so are the suicide bombers-full of the belief that they are righteous. Its the mindset they are fed on and it cannot change unless we challenge it and alter the laws of the land as well as the poisonous education we give our people. That killing a person in the name of Islam is perfectly right. As I said I do not support blasphemy personally but call for a completely different reaction towards it. There is no point asking for blood. Debating and somehow winning him over with the fallen person is better than killing.



I agree that is an excuse. But we all have to oppose this cursed law. It is based on fanaticism. As I said, the prophet himself would not like muslims to kill in the name of blasphemy unless there is a severe physical form of opposition.


I think its imperative that we have debate, and in that case some sects might come under criticism for being open to terrorism or atleast being hardliners.

Overall, I agree with many of your points, but it appears you have a different definition of secularism than I do.

It got rid of church injustices and Christian fanaticism. Before adopting secularism they were committing attrocities left and right. There were innocents declared witches and heretics. People would kill in the name of religion. Very much like muslims are today.

Yes, that is true - but they have also abandoned their religion altogether. The dominant view in the West today is that religion causes violence, which is why we need to remove it from the public sphere. That is why in my view adopting secularism effectively means giving up the notion that Islam is peaceful and progressive, which isn't something I'm willing to do.

When religion is imposed you lose track of what is important.

Islam itself says that religion shouldn't be imposed, you don't need secularism to achieve that.

I completely agree with disarming Mullahs and eliminating unjust psuedo-religious laws from our system - but it's also very important to have institutions that can provide religious guidance. Simply removing religion from the state will just give the Mullahs more influence.

Think about it - what if we had ijtehad on state level? If we had actual institutions for these purposes. Not as middle-men telling people how long their beards should be etc, but for interpreting the legal, economic, political, and social aspects of Islam. If this is done properly, the rights of minorities will also be respected.

Of course, it will be difficult to make sure the institution is impartial and non-sectarian, but the same applies to any institution. The west isn't successful because they've removed religion from their system - they're successful because their institutions are well developed and generally impartial and fair.

The problem is not however the fact that these people don't have iman. They are full of it and so are the suicide bombers-full of the belief that they are righteous.

I don't think that's the case. Take the suicide bomber, for example - he has no problem ignoring the clear commands of Islam that forbid killing innocents and forbid harming yourself. I can understand someone being brainwashed into believing they're righteous if they blow themselves up. But then the person doing the brainwashing is ignoring those principles - where is his iman?

They are mentally disturbed - the contradictions inherent to their ideology are inescapable.

As for the people in the mob, most of them probably do believe they are righteous, you are right in that case. But the one who incited the mob, using religion as a tool for his own purposes; no one with actual Iman can do that, though I'm sure they managed to justify it to themselves by some twisted thought process.

 

[Kabira]

25 arrested so far, 6 from university administration and rest belong to ANP student wing PSU. Their liberal and secular agenda have been exposed. Even UNI admin is pretty much ANP.

 

[A.M.]

25 arrested so far, 6 from university administration and rest belong to ANP student wing PSU. Their liberal and secular agenda have been exposed. Even UNI admin is pretty much ANP.

Liberals and seculars don't commit such acts. You have your ideologies reversed.

 

[Dawood Ibrahim]

PESHAWAR: Mashal Khan murder case seems to take another twist as it has been revealed that the University Administration was involved behind the brutal killing episode of the Mass Communication student inside the University campus.

A very important witness in Mashal Khan lynching case, Abdullah, recorded his statement in front of police and court today.


https://timesofislamabad.com/mashal...n-revealed-to-be-the-main-culprit/2017/04/17/

 

[MultaniGuy]

investigation

Because secularism is the name of a philosophy and Islam a religion. Both can clearly run together. If you look at history, that of Ibn Rushd and Mutazilites you will know that secularism can work well with Islam. If it wasn't true 44 million muslims would not be in Europe.



I agree with this. But modern times require evolution. Secularism is that evolution.



The secular system itself was devised by a man named Ibn Rushd.


It got rid of church injustices and Christian fanaticism. Before adopting secularism they were committing attrocities left and right. There were innocents declared witches and heretics. People would kill in the name of religion. Very much like muslims are today.


I agree. I am not an opponent of Islam. I am just saying that religion, any religion can compliment secularism. It is the nature of the world now.



Yes that was a mistake. Ijtehad and Mongol invasion is associated with Iqbal for the fall of Islam. Ijtehad is just this what we are doing and I am glad we are having this debate. It is debate, religious debate where no one assumes he is superior and there is no fanaticism in the debate. However the stand of mullahs today-saying that even talk of blasphemy laws being ammended is equivalent to committing blasphemy is very far from it.



At least we are condemning this. But the next logical step is reforming the system. That can only be done when people understand that secularism is not an Anti Islamic concept.



When religion is imposed you lose track of what is important. The economy, philosophy, education all get left behind. What matters to the population is thekedari of their version of Islam. Is the pyjama above the ankles while praying, is the beard there, are our girls wearing hijab. Concentration on these nominal problems is making us weaker. It is in itself discrimination that we have a fund for hajj but not for Hindus going for yatra or zikris going to their holy places. Islam is a religion of equality and every muslim follows his religion independently-his relation only with Allah, no need of a middleman mullah there. This fits snugly with the wider concept that Islam is in the heart, not seen or needed outward, precisely why confining religion to your own homes and masjids is necessary. It is our personal choice, how much or how little we want to follow religion, otherwise Allah would not have said, "to you be your faith, to me be mine."



Wahabism's birth is marked by violence. But I agree that there is no shortage of fanatics in other sects either.

The problem is not however the fact that these people don't have iman. They are full of it and so are the suicide bombers-full of the belief that they are righteous. Its the mindset they are fed on and it cannot change unless we challenge it and alter the laws of the land as well as the poisonous education we give our people. That killing a person in the name of Islam is perfectly right. As I said I do not support blasphemy personally but call for a completely different reaction towards it. There is no point asking for blood. Debating and somehow winning him over with the fallen person is better than killing.



I agree that is an excuse. But we all have to oppose this cursed law. It is based on fanaticism. As I said, the prophet himself would not like muslims to kill in the name of blasphemy unless there is a severe physical form of opposition.


I think its imperative that we have debate, and in that case some sects might come under criticism for being open to terrorism or atleast being hardliners.

There is no such thing as wahhabism. Go to Makkah and Madinah and nobody uses the term wahabbism to describe themselves.

 

[Verve]

25 arrested so far, 6 from university administration and rest belong to ANP student wing PSU. Their liberal and secular agenda have been exposed. Even UNI admin is pretty much ANP.

Liberal KILLERS coming out in the open ..... we need proper investigations of all blasphemy related killings - will not be surprising at all that if the instigators are liberals themselves!

 

[Devil Soul]

Breakign visuals on JAAG:New video surfaces allegedly shows students taking oath not to reveal names of culprits after Mashal Khan's murder

https://twitter.com/x/status/854254731048271872

 

[I S I]

;(

 

[Musafir117]

A new video circulating on Tuesday contains footage of scenes following the Mardan university lynching and shows a man demanding that a group of students take an oath to conceal the identity of the man who shot 23-year-old Mashal Khan.


Mashal, a student of Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, had been lynched moments before the video was made over allegations of blasphemy.

The video shows the mob involved in the lynching shouting religious slogans and congratulating each other over the brutal episode.

In the video, a man who appears to be the ringleader, Arif, is heard proclaiming that anyone who names the shooter will be considered "a blasphemer".

The following is the text of the slogans being chanted in the video:

"Congratulations, congratulations!

Silence, silence!

Whoever shot him [Mashal], don't take his [the shooter's] name

Whoever takes his [shooter's] name will commit blasphemy. If you want to file an FIR, my name is Arif"

The declaration appears to be a veiled threat to silence those who may testify against the murder and protect the main culprits.

Arif names himself and his father and states that anyone who wished to lodge a First Information Report in the case is free to nominate him for the murder.

According to university students, Arif does not attend Abdul Wali Khan University, but has been allowed on the premises on several occasions. Local media reports say he is the general secretary of the Insaf Student Federation, which is the student wing of the ruling party in KP, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

An investigation into the Mardan university lynching has been initiated, but the identity of Mashal's shooter is yet to be determined.

A postmortem report of Mashal's killing states a gunshot wound was the cause of death, but also noted that the body had been subjected to serious trauma.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1327752/n...lynching-pledged-to-conceal-shooters-identity
-///---
The video in link

 

[Musafir117]

@waz @Oscar @Eagle could you please correct the spell to " Lynching " thanks