“ The Bared sword upon the neck of the Blasphemer of Rasool Allah”: Defending Article 295-C

[punit]

just one question >. please !! @Pakistani Exile i read some where that as some Sufis True meaning of : "Lai Laha Illaha" is " there is nothing except God". What do you think ?

 

[Jugger]

This thread was a very interesting read.

I see reforms happening, but not before much blood is spilled.
Good luck!!

 

[The Sandman]

u forgot to tag @Horus

I think it will be of no use that guy was @OverLoad mods ban him but he come back again with different ID's at first he was just trolling and used abusive words but now he is openly threatening me and 1 other member he is taking screenshots of our posts and posting them on other forums inciting hatred against us by calling us supporters of BHENSA page and is threatening to file complaint PDF administration just refuses to take any action against him despite my request so i will leave it to it he will come back again with a new id in 1 or 2 days. I think maybe i will be avoiding such threads.

 

[punit]

I think it will be of no use that guy was @OverLoad mods ban him but he come back again with different ID's at first he was just trolling and used abusive words but now he is openly threatening me and 1 other member he is taking screenshots of our posts and posting them on other forums inciting hatred against us by calling us supporters of BHENSA page and is threatening to file complaint PDF administration just refuses to take any action against him despite my request so i will leave it to it he will come back again with a new id in 1 or 2 days. I think maybe i will be avoiding such threads.

i saw that. any one opposing him was a closet supporter of Bhensa. He is using the incident for his own agenda. lets see what action Mods take.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

When any Muslim comit any such act he become non Muslim and converting from Islam to any religion punishment is death

Another huge misconception.

Many people left Islam infront of the Prophet (SAW) peacefully but the issue only arose when false converts would in communication/coordination with the Mekkans defect to the Mekkans in battle and when captured they were not be taken as POW but to be executed; in modern terms this is simply called treason and can get you executed in almost every country.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...y-201458142128717473.html?utm=from_old_mobile
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kashif-n-chaudhry/does-the-koran-endorse-ap_b_5539236.html

In Islamic believes no Prophet of God is sinful. All the Prophets are sinless and innocent.

That's not true.

 

[v9s]

Guy opens thread;
- bases support of killing a blasphemer by supporting it with "Quranic ayats"
- doesn't realize what he has copy pasted is out of context verses explained using "Tafseer" (i.e. not Quran, but man made words trying to explain the Quran using the author's biased understanding),
- and Hadith (again, man-made words written 200 years after the Prophet's death).

This is the definition of blasphemy.

 

[R Wing]

It is truly astonishing that so many posters here feel that Wahabbi/Salafist/Deobandi interpretations/tasfeer are the ultimate, conclusive and only correct interpretations of Islamic values and jurisprudence.

Sorry to burst their bubble, but this is categorically false. There are different opinions on the punishment for blasphemy across various schools of thought in Islam.

Are you aware that terrorist movements, including the TTP, LeJ and others use a very similar premise to brainwash kids to kill innocent civilians (e.g. they tell them that the average Pakistani civilian is a heretic because he/she is not rising up against an Army and govt that cooperates with the USA, and other similar arguments, so it's okay to kill them).

This is a dangerous and needlessly rigid approach to a beautiful religion. You must accept that there are various interpretations of the Quran and Hadith (which is why there are so many schools of thoughts, sects, sub-sects and so on within the religion).

 

[Pakistani E]

just one question >. please !! @Pakistani Exile i read some where that as some Sufis True meaning of : "Lai Laha Illaha" is " there is nothing except God". What do you think ?

Interesting concept, which in itself is of course true as well. We are what we are because of what God is. Although if we did look at the word to word transliteration, it would be there is no God except God. But you're better off asking a Sufi for deeper explanation of this translation., but I find nothing disagreeable in it and is true as well and I have no problem believing that.

Guy opens thread;
- bases support of killing a blasphemer by supporting it with "Quranic ayats"
- doesn't realize what he has copy pasted is out of context verses explained using "Tafseer" (i.e. not Quran, but man made words trying to explain the Quran using the author's biased understanding),
- and Hadith (again, man-made words written 200 years after the Prophet's death).

This is the definition of blasphemy.

I was going to say something along the lines as you when I pasted the verse in reply, but I am scared for that guy's safety so I did not mention it, the last thing I want is some deranged individual to go after him. I wish him well, I think he is just eager to pass of a belief he's been taught instead of actually investigating the matter himself.

 

[Mutakalim]

33:48
"And do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites but do not harm them, and rely upon Allah . And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs."

There are more directly addressing the matter. I will be presenting them as well.

Please present all verses which are negating blasphemy law. Also, do come up with references of the Aimah e Tafseer which are negating the capital punishment of blasphemers. To me the interpretation of holy verses by you or people like Ghamdi means nothing.

Not mentioned in the ayat in any shape or form and is in fact a commentary by Mazhari for which you have not provided any reasoning to show how or where he reached this conclusion from or how is it related to the verse mentioned. Yet this is supposedly a proof from the Quran...

Reference is provided for a reason. If I start copying whole commentaries of Aima e Tafseer than it's a useless thing to do. It is a commentary of Mazhari if you want to negate it bring the reference of a person which is equal in stature. To some, just a reference to a person like mazhari is enough and to some Sahih Ahadees of Bukhari are not enough. I have mentioned it previously that I have compiled and collected various sources. If a person claims that these sources are wrong in interpretation of the verses then he should negate them with equal or more powerful sources.

The ruling of apostasy is understandable given that any true believing Muslim would never insult or abuse the Prophet (PBUH) intentionally. However, the penalty of death is again mentioned just like that without any reasoning behind it claiming that it is related to the verse above when the verse itself does not mention anything of the sort. And this is also being presented as supposed 'proof' for the punishment from the Quran.

Sir, to me the reasoning is acceptable.If you have a difference of opinion then you are free to bring more credible sources. Inshallah, I will accept the reasoning of a more credible scholar.

Not found in the Quran or the Ahadith and related to a relatively unknown Suffi scholar who was mentored by a very controversial figure. But sure, I'll let it be. However, I fail to see the relevance of this with the argument at hand.

It's a fairly established conclusion. Suggested in various verses of Quran. Time is the main constraint.

Again just a statement presented without establishing its link to the verse above or anything else said in the Quran. How is this proof from the Quran?

Can't copy all text of tens of commentaries. Links are established and are fairly debated in original sources. If Reference is provided take a look at it. And if you found a more or equally credible source who is negating the above-mentioned assertion then I will accept it happily.

How was this extracted from the verse above? This is becoming a trend with your 'proofs'...

You should ask this question to Sheikh Saadi. You have your reservation then present a more credible source. Proofs and interpretations are mentioned in original sources. To me, Saadi is definitely a more credible source than you.

Where? How? When? Through what reasoning???

Referred to source.

Side note: Read up on Ibn e Taimiyah and his many different rulings. You'd stop presenting him as any support for anything.

Read statements of Peer Mehar Ali Shah regarding Ibn e Taimiyah. He is not a new personality to me.

I don't even know where to begin with all of the above. None of it makes any sense or even relates to the matter or the Quran

Again its your thinking.

You have cherry picked unknown and at times down right scandalous 'scholars' with cherry picked translations, coupled them with blank statements and completely unrelated ahadith and then presented it all as the essence of the surrah and hence proof from the Quran where as the very Surrah only a few verses before on the exact same matter is explicitly telling the Prophet (PBUH) that "do not harm them". I can't help but wonder if this was deliberate.

Your own thinking. Do we have to believe you on face value? Why don't you present names of scholars who have negated these assertions? And please next time come up with something solid. Your words meant nothing.

 

[Sugarcane]

What about enforcement of 295 and 295A, making the punishment same like 295C? That will make the whole article just for all the citizen of country.

 

[Mutakalim]

Bro, that was in response to your claim that "Blasphemy is Fasad fil Arz" ...

I have stated it openly that my own claims hold no value in matters of shariah.

As for your "majority is right" argument, I for one do not accept it. But as you do, let me tell you that Hanafi and Shafi`i schools of jurisprudence accept the repentance of blasphemers. Almost two thirds of the Muslims are adherents of these schools of jurisprudence and they are widespread in countries such as India, Pakistan,Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Central Asia, The Caucasus, The Balkans, Turkey,Parts of Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Sri lanka, Maldives, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen,East Africa (Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania) . .

Hanbali and Maliki schools of jurisprudence do not accept repentance. These schools of thought are prevalent in Saudi Arabia (Hanbali) and African Countries(Maliki) only. (However, Non Muslims can be forgiven if they convert to Islam).


Now, one may think that why, in a country like Pakistan where 60 -70 % of the total Population is Hanafi, do we have (laws closest to) Hanbali/Saudi laws ?? (Hanbali jurisprudence is the only jurisprudence with a mandatory death punishment for Blasphemy cases, both for Muslim men and women)

Sir, provide references.

In an a case of history repeating itself, he followed in Al-Bazzazzi’s footsteps in erroneously subverting the position of Imam Ibn Abidin.

At one point, in Fatawa e Shami, Ibn Abidin takes Bazzazzi’s claim – ‘the punishment for blasphemy is death, it is unpardonable and anyone who disagrees is also guilty of blasphemy’ – dissects it and goes on to criticise it for the next six pages.

Advocate Ismaeel Qureshi, grasping the first thing he saw, slaps Imam Ibn Abidin’s name on to the very position that Abidin so passionately refuted right after quoting the original problematic claim:

Original sources Sir. We are not discussing or resolving quarrels of India and Pakistan.

 

[M. Sarmad]

\

Sir, provide references.


Original sources Sir. We are not discussing or resolving quarrels of India and Pakistan.

Source/link had been provided ... Did you miss it ?

Or are you not willing to accept simple facts like "Majority of Pakistani Muslims is Hanafi" or "Hanbali jurisprudence is the only one mandating a death penalty for Both (Muslim) men and women guilty of blasphemy" ?? Please be specific

 

[Sugarcane]

Guy opens thread;
- bases support of killing a blasphemer by supporting it with "Quranic ayats"
- doesn't realize what he has copy pasted is out of context verses explained using "Tafseer" (i.e. not Quran, but man made words trying to explain the Quran using the author's biased understanding),
- and Hadith (again, man-made words written 200 years after the Prophet's death).

This is the definition of blasphemy.

For some people their religion starts from death penalty.

 

[M. Sarmad]

What about enforcement of 295 and 295A, making the punishment same like 295C? That will make the whole article just for all the citizen of country.

Thanks to General Zia, who enacted new laws that contrary to the previous blasphemy laws (that addressed ‘all religious beliefs’), were specific to ‘particular religious beliefs’ and no law was enunciated to provide a remedy to the non-Muslims from any act of other citizens that might hurt their religious feelings.

None of the blasphemy cases filed from 1947-1979 were related to any defilement of the Holy Quran or defamation of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) by any Muslim or non-Muslim, then why did Zia find it necessary to enact this "new" law in the first place ?? Most probably to gain public support for his illegitimate rule by stirring and arousing religious sentiment within Muslims (i.e 97% of Pakistani population)

 

[Mutakalim]

Source/link had been provided ... Did you miss it ?

Or are you not willing to accept simple facts like "Majority of Pakistani Muslims is Hanafi" or "Hanbali jurisprudence is the only one mandating a death penalty for Both (Muslim) men and women guilty of blasphemy" ?? Please be specific

Does Ibn e Aberdeen Shami negate the punishment of death to a blasphemer? The issue of repentance is secondary. You accept Ibne Abideens view that If a person doesn't repent his punishment is death? Please dont try to mix up things