قہر برپا کیا تم نے نبیﷺکا نام لے کر

[YeBeWarned]

Just saw on ARY news that the main culprit confessed that he did all this drama on the orders of University Authorities and Mishal did not do any sort of Blasphemy ... Jhoote pe Allah ki Lanat aur un per bhi jo Mishal ke murder ko justify ker rahe the, Thoo hai re tumara Shakal pe

 

[CriticalThought]

The quote you posted says the exact same thing I did, only in Urdu.

'Imam Abu Hanifa aur un ke ashab kehte hein ke nabi akram s.a.w ko gali dene se nah to zimmi ka ehd toota hai aur na hi us ka qatl lazim aata hai'
Translation;
'Imam Abu hanifa and his students believe that Blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad PBUH does not result in breaking of the dhimmi contract and will not result in his death.'

Doesn't nullify anything, it only disproves your point that there is consensus on this law - even your quote shows that Imam Abu Hanifa didn't agree with death penalty for Blasphemy when non-Muslims commit it, unlike the current blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

And that's not even considering the idea of repetition of crimes, i.e that the crime for the first offence is less severe than that of repeat offenders, which is also supported by many scholars

Calm down brother, you know very well that I have always supported Islam and Pakistan - the reason I'm against the blasphemy law is because it clearly goes against the Quran and Islamic principles - and suddenly you are accusing me of being 'un-Islamic'. That's borderline takfir.

There is no propaganda here - these kinds of reactions and outbursts have made civil discussion, and by extension, even ijtihad, impossible. If we can not discuss these things among ourselves without such accusations, how are jurists and scholars supposed to discuss this in formal settings?

It's a shame that fallacious blasphemy laws are valued more than unity among Muslims.

Please, this is what you said:

No, not really. Even Imam Abu Hanifa didn't share that view, and he is perhaps the most influential scholar of all time. He declared that non-Muslims can not be punished for the first offense, and even repeat offenders can not be killed. He also believed it was a pardonable offense.

This is what the article in my post says. Also, this is just for Dhimmi. How come you are extrapolating this to all non-Muslims, AND also to Muslims?

Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmatullah 'Alaih and his companions say that neither does cursing the Prophet Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Aailhi Wasallam break the covenant of Dhimmi nor does his killing become compulsory, but because of openly doing this, the same punishment shall be implemented, such as implemented for other prohibitions, such as reciting his religious book in a loud voice etc. Tahawi has quoted this opinion from Imam 'Thauri. The principle of Hanafia is that those actions whose execution doesn't necessitate killing, e.g., killing someone by throwing heavy rock, or intercourse with an organ other than the vagina, if such actions are committed by the actor multiple times, then the ruler can kill such a person.

Just saw on ARY news that the main culprit confessed that he did all this drama on the orders of University Authorities and Mishal did not do any sort of Blasphemy ... Jhoote pe Allah ki Lanat aur un per bhi jo Mishal ke murder ko justify ker rahe the, Thoo hai re tumara Shakal pe

Actually, I haven't seen anyone trying to justify Mishal's murder. Please point those posts out to the moderators. Thank you.

 

[TankMan]

This is what the article in my post says. Also, this is just for Dhimmi. How come you are extrapolating this to all non-Muslims, AND also to Muslims?

I'm not extrapolating this to Muslims, as the rationale for Muslim blasphemers is different as it comes into the realm of Apostasy, which is a different matter altogether.

But the Pakistan blasphemy law doesn't make this distinction - even non Muslims are given the death penalty for a single offense, which is clearly against the Quran, Hadith, and Imam Abu Hanifa's scholarly opinion.

I'm not extrapolating, the blasphemy law and its supporters are.

The principle of Hanafia is that those actions whose execution doesn't necessitate killing, e.g., killing someone by throwing heavy rock, or intercourse with an organ other than the vagina, if such actions are committed by the actor multiple times, then the ruler can kill such a person.

Can. Not 'should' or 'must'. It is the maximum penalty, not the mandatory penalty. If the repeated crime is so heinous and blatant, then the ruler can intervene and have the criminal killed. This is because by offending repeatedly, the criminal is not only commiting the crime but also constantly defying the legal system and therefore spreading disorder in the land (fasad fil ard).

This also means that the normal legal process isn't supposed to go straight to the death penalty.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm not extrapolating this to Muslims, as the rationale for Muslim blasphemers is different as it comes into the realm of Apostasy, which is a different matter altogether.

But the Pakistan blasphemy law doesn't make this distinction - even non Muslims are given the death penalty for a single offense, which is clearly against the Quran, Hadith, and Imam Abu Hanifa's scholarly opinion.

I'm not extrapolating, the blasphemy law and its supporters are.

Can. Not 'should' or 'must'. It is the maximum penalty, not the mandatory penalty. If the repeated crime is so heinous and blatant, then the ruler can intervene and have the criminal killed. This is because by offending repeatedly, the criminal is not only commiting the crime but also constantly defying the legal system and therefore spreading disorder in the land (fasad fil ard).

This also means that the normal legal process isn't supposed to go straight to the death penalty.

Good. So you agree that blasphemy by Muslims is punishable by death.

Now, don't try to swipe away the point that initially you categorically stated that repeat offenders CAN NOT be killed. If I hadn't countered you with evidence, this false knowledge would have been disseminated to everyone reading your post. Which is why I think you should keep quiet on the matter from here onwards.

 

[karakoram]

 

[Sine Nomine]

Zarwan you need to calm down, your views are really extreme. I worry for you

We should pray for them.

"Have you even thought the consequences for that" .

And I think pious Muslims in west are living without it.

 

[TankMan]

@CriticalThought Let's get one thing out of the way - do you now agree that the Pakistan blasphemy law goes against Islam and the teachings of Imam Abu Hanifa? Because I have proven to you that Imam Abu Hanifa said non-Muslims can not be given the death penalty for blasphemy. The Pakistan Penal code says they can. There is a clear conflict there.

Good. So you agree that blasphemy by Muslims is punishable by death.

Not blasphemy; the reasoning of the scholars behing blasphemy by Muslims being punishable by death is that it constitutes apostasy or kufr.

Kufr means 'rejecting the truth out of arrogance'. So in this case it depends what exactly the Muslim accused of blasphemy actually said.

If he misspoke, or accidentally said something offensive, or swears that he didn't actually say anything of the sort and there is no evidence (as often happens in such cases) - that is not punishable.

Then there is also this verse to consider:
"Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path." [An-Nisa 4:137]

If those who believe then disbelief are killed the first time they disbelieve, how are they to again believe and then disbelieve?

Like I said, it's a different matter altogether.

Now, don't try to swipe away the point that initially you categorically stated that repeat offenders CAN NOT be killed. If I hadn't countered you with evidence, this false knowledge would have been disseminated to everyone reading your post. Which is why I think you should keep quiet on the matter from here onwards.

Can not be killed under normal circumstances. If the ruler intervenes and decides that its best to give the death penalty, which would only happen if the crime was particularly heinous, then sure. Nothing false about that.

You still haven't 'countered' these verses from the Qur'an, by the way:

"When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme." [Qur'an 4:140]
"And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "to us our deeds and to you yours; peace be to you." [Qur'an 28: 55]
"Hold to forgiveness, command what is right; but turn away from the ignorant." [Qur'an 7:199]
"Have patience with what they say, and leaves them with noble (dignity)." [Qur'an 73:10]
"And the servants of Allah . . . are those who walked on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say 'Peace'" [Qur'an 25:63]
"Allah is with those who restrain themselves." [Qur'an 16: 128]
". . . But they uttered blasphemy . . . if they repent, it will be best for them, but if they turn back, Allah will punish them." [Qur'an 9:47]

It's best if you stop pretending hadith and interpretations are superior to the Qur'an.

 

[Divergent]

Interestingly enough any accused blasphemer in Pakistan hasn't actually been sentenced to death for a long time, but has served severe sentences and fined. By no means do I support blasphemy but I am so relieved this hasn't been carried out in the name of Faith, it would do more damage to both Faith and Country than glorified.

 

[CHACHA"G"]

We should pray for them.

And I think pious Muslims in west are living without it.

You to not getting it , West and Pakistan are totally different things , different society , cultures etc . etc, Don't be so childish , Law is in Pakistani society Deal with it accordingly ............... Think about it , Just look outside , talk to any raksha driver , school teacher , doctor , MNA , MPA or any one (general people 99%) Not mommy daddy class (according to your Law minster Rana g ) ....................................................................... Then let me know "The consequences "

To all , I can bat that people don't even know how this Law works in courts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But they will talk like Masters of The Constitution.
Only if accused say that he/she committed blasphemy and he/she stay on his/her stance and enough proves are there ................................................... also so many other conditions, then trial court announce(give) death plenty , Then the same procedure will repeat in High Courts and then In Supreme Court.............................................. In short , as I said ,its not the Law but its implementation , system and Govt, Now you can understand if you really want to ................. But I know You don't , Because Issue(set Agenda) is not the Law or Blasphemy , Its some ting else .

 

[YeBeWarned]

View attachment 391264

Awesome Pic, very to the point and Fit Pakistani Society ..

 

[Divergent]

ouch .. I seem to have hit a major nerve of yours! I wasn't talking about you btw ...

'Don't you dare' ... hahahaha ... please missy, get off this flying horse ... liberals are getting exposed as killers and as more blasphemy related events are properly investigated, even more will be exposed.

Irrespective of it, what makes it right? I'm not interested if the killers are liberal or mullahs, unlike you I didn't categorise them nor disdain a specific party. Killers are killers. I am more interested in the culprits being brought forward and justice being served. The mention of blasphemy law was done because they used this law to curtain their motives. Which brings us back to the point if you were reading at all, that religious motives and 'blasphemy' is used to achieve targets. When that happens, you need observe what the law actually says.

No one asked for abolishment. But reformation. Throughout this whole debate instead of forwarding your points appropriately you've been labelling people as agents, NGOs and observing their flags.

Sort your head out.

 

[Verve]

I'm not interested if the killers are .... or mullahs

I think you need to revisit your earlier posts where you were blaming blasphemy law apologists etc ... you started that thread without even knowing the truth behind this murder (confession of the killer), didn't you!?

now you are changing your tone completely!

Please, you are an exposed hypocrite, unfortunately within first 300 posts! You change your stance at whim!

You should learn from other liberal fascists, who are far more intelligent in their approach .. but they are all exposed now too.

If you want to give, then be ready to receive as well!

 

[Divergent]

I think you need to revisit your earlier posts where you were blaming blasphemy law apologists etc ... you started that thread without even knowing the truth behind this murder (confession of the killer), didn't you!?

now you are changing your tone completely!

Please, you are an exposed hypocrite, unfortunately within first 300 posts! You change your stance at whim!

You should learn from other liberal fascists, who are far more intelligent in their approach .. but they are all exposed now too.

If you want to give, then be ready to receive as well!

You suffer from deficiency by any chance?

My tone on blasphemy laws has always remained the same, its always been a grey area to me and still is. The fact that sensible, educated, level-headed, logical people have supported the stance and personal attackers and misquote on the other - I know I'm on the right side. It's draconian.

Being exposed by someone who believes I have links with NGOs - Nice shot.

I don't give but when I do, you'd wish I didn't.

Sleep on this though - try activating that 295-C - Its there but not there

LOL

 

[Verve]

You suffer from deficiency by any chance?

My tone on blasphemy laws has always remained the same, its always been a grey area to me and still is. The fact that sensible, educated, level-headed, logical people have supported the stance and personal attackers and misquote on the other - I know I'm on the right side. It's draconian.

Being exposed by someone who believes I have links with NGOs - Nice shot.

I don't give but when I do, you'd wish I didn't.

Sleep on this though - try activating that 295-C - Its there but not there

LOL

I asked you a question if you were part of an NGO, a question it was! Perhaps even that is difficult for your to comprehend that you are claiming I have been expositing you as one - absurd conclusion that! It was a QUESTION and an INQUIRY! Go read again!

Keep at it!

 

[Divergent]

I asked you a question if you were part of an NGO, a question it was! Perhaps even that is difficult for your to comprehend that you are claiming I have been expositing you as one - absurd conclusion that! It was a QUESTION and an INQUIRY! Go read again!

Keep at it!

A stupid question indeed.