قہر برپا کیا تم نے نبیﷺکا نام لے کر

[The Sandman]

Ka'b bin Ashraf was killed because:

"Ka’b ibn Al-Ashraf had made known his support for violence against the Muslim community, so killing him was done as a legitimate act of self-defense, not simply because he had criticized the Prophet. Rather, the Prophet condemned any assassination that violates a peace treaty or security agreement."

"In these narrations it is shown that they were not killed merely for their insults. Indeed, they were only killed due to their aid of the enemy and gathering together for war and supporting it."

Source: Umdat al-Qari fi Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari 34/413

http://abuaminaelias.com/did-prophet-muhammad-assassinate-those-who-criticized-him/

 

[TankMan]

The State's got this and won't let overly emotional danda types affect logical laws which contradict Faith, enhance & protect the Country and its citizens. They are far more knowledgeable.

Let them digest its not implemented for a reason

Yes, so far the KP justice system appears to be doing its job properly. I have hopes, but it's not over yet. This is a test for the system, so far it looks like it will 'pass'.

But anything can happen.

 

[TankMan]

So are you saying (Ma'aaz Allah, summa ma'aaz Allah) that the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Aalihi Wasallam contradicted the Aayaahs of Holy Quran when he ordered the killing of Ka'b bin Ashraf?

No janaab, you clearly haven't been reading any of my posts properly.

Ka'ab bin Ashraf was killed for supporting enemies against Muslims in wartime, for inciting violence against Muslims, and for attempting to kill the Holy Prophet s.a.w. Blasphemy was not his only crime.

 

[Divergent]

Yes, so far the KP justice system appears to be doing its job properly. I have hopes, but it's not over yet. This is a test for the system, so far it looks like it will 'pass'.

But anything can happen.

Most of the points made are overly-emotional and quotes from combatant incidents, which delude logical sense. How can you give capital sentence to someone whose not of your Faith and has no or little understanding of it? Enforcements of removing content, serving sentence, being under watch deters that.

I could be an atheist and not regard God - will I get lynched for that?

This justifies any emotional decision regarding any matter.

Good for you - should calm your nerves somewhat. Now have a coke and a smile and ... you know the rest

Two people enjoying pop-corn? Thanks!

 

[TankMan]

Most of the points made are overly-emotional and quotes from combatant incidents, which delude logical sense. How can you give capital sentence to someone whose not of your Faith and has no or little understanding of it?

Islam is much more reasonable than those who misuse and distort it. It is also much more resilient. Reason and Justice will prevail In sha Allah

 

[Divergent]

Islam is much more reasonable than those who misuse and distort it. It is also much more resilient. Reason and Justice will prevail In sha Allah

Aye Aye Sir! Glad I got a Think Tank supporting this stance, Islam is logical. I'm just glad the State is more sensible, just have to tackle mob lynching and those who defame Faith.

 

[Verve]

Two people enjoying pop-corn?

Nah!

 

[CriticalThought]

No janaab, you clearly haven't been reading any of my posts properly.

Ka'ab bin Ashraf was killed for supporting enemies against Muslims in wartime, for inciting violence against Muslims, and for attempting to kill the Holy Prophet s.a.w. Blasphemy was not his only crime.

And I don't think you have been reading my posts.

1. Anyone who turns against the established views of Muslims about Islamic law is a Zindeeq.

2. The view that punishment for blasphemy is death is established as the combined view of all Muslims.

I posted Ka'ab bin Ashraf as a mere example. There are many examples of people who were killed in the times of Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Aalihi Wasallam, and upon His direct command. And the ruling which religious scholars across the entire history of Islam and Muslims have extracted, is that blasphemer should be killed. I am reposting this link because you have probably not read it yet:

http://www.banuri.edu.pk/readquestion/islam-may-shatim-e-rasool-ki-saza/-0001-11-30

 

[Divergent]

Nah!

You must know better than me, do it on my behalf.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Have you read your own post , self contradictory , As you said Azaan hurting the emotions of local population so they banned it , Then Y there is a problem with Blasphemy

Duh !!

I said the opposite. Read my post again.

 

[TankMan]

1. Anyone who turns against the established views of Muslims about Islamic law is a Zindeeq.

Views established by whom?

2. The view that punishment for blasphemy is death is established as the combined view of all Muslims.

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.

That is very different from the current blasphemy law.

Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Al-Tahawi and Imam Thauri’s Position:

Imam Abu Hanifa said “non muslim will not be killed on the basis of shatam-e-rasool. The crime of shirk that he is already committing, that in itself is a much bigger crime. This was narrated by Imam Khatabi in his book Ma`alim al-sanan `ala sunan Abi Dawud

‘Imam Abu Hanifa believes that a non muslim Shatam-e-Rasool (the one who commits blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad PBUH) will not be killed in punishment.” – Assarim al Maslool – Ibn e Taymiyyah

I posted Ka'ab bin Ashraf as a mere example. There are many examples of people who were killed in the times of Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Aalihi Wasallam, and upon His direct command.

In every single example, the person who was killed was guilty of several other crimes aside from blasphemy.
Ka'b bin Ashraf incited violence against Muslims, tried to encourage the Quraysh and other tribes to attack Muslims, and attempted to assassinate the Holy Prophet.

Another example is Abu Rafi - he was a warmonger and helped the enemies of Muslims during times of war

Another example is Ibne Khatal - he did not only commit blasphemy, but he also defected to the Quraysh after murdering a slave.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The penalty of blasphemy being death is established amongst Muslims throughout Islamic history....

That simply isn't true.

Mandatory death penalty for all blasphemers had never been an established rule, throughout 1400 years of Islamic history.

Quite the contrary...... the overwhelming majority of Ulema had always considered blasphemy to be a pardonable offense

 

[CriticalThought]

Views established by whom?

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.

That is very different from the current blasphemy law.

Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Al-Tahawi and Imam Thauri’s Position:

Imam Abu Hanifa said “non muslim will not be killed on the basis of shatam-e-rasool. The crime of shirk that he is already committing, that in itself is a much bigger crime. This was narrated by Imam Khatabi in his book Ma`alim al-sanan `ala sunan Abi Dawud

Imam Abu Hanifa believes that a non muslim Shatam-e-Rasool (the one who commits blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad PBUH) will not be killed in punishment.” – Assarim al Maslool – Ibn e Taymiyyah

You have just been caught cherry picking quotations to forward an un-Islamic and false agenda. This nullifies every single argument you have been trying to make. Now, if you have any sense of shamefulness in you, stop this fallacious propaganda.

Here is the actual quote from the very book that you have quoted above 'Assarim al Maslool'

From

https://archive.org/stream/Assaarim-ul-maslool-alaa-shatimirrasoolupDate#page/n48/mode/2up

That simply isn't true.

Mandatory death penalty for all blasphemers had never been an established rule, throughout 1400 years of Islamic history.

Quite the contrary...... the overwhelming majority of Ulema had always considered blasphemy to be a pardonable offense

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/qr-bra-a-tm-n-nba-nam-l-r.489742/page-12#post-9391717

 

[TankMan]

You have just been caught cherry picking quotations to forward an un-Islamic and false agenda. This nullifies every single argument you have been trying to make. Now, if you have any sense of shamefulness in you, stop this fallacious propaganda.

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.

 

[CHACHA"G"]

Duh !!

I said the opposite. Read my post again.

First I did got you very right ,................................................
Second and most important , You did not answer any of my question !!!!!!!! You read again and try to answer my questions , Think hard you will find out justification.......

Lastly there was no case against him, Some one (time will tell whom) killed him for any reason(again time will tell) but Islam or Blasphemy , Law have nothing to do here...... I am praying for proper and real Investigation.
And who ever did that deserve the same death (I know its not allowed in Islam and against Law of the Land).