The fate of minorities in Pakistan

[Mujahid Memon]

I know you don't. Instead, ask them if they generally feel discriminated against in the country.

If you ask me the same question then my answer will also be Affirmative. I have also faced discrimination several times, sometimes gender based, sometimes ethnicity based and sometimes looks based. But one thing is for sure, that if I become filthy rich or at least an upper middle class, all or most of those discrimination will just wash away.

A street cleaner (irrespective of his/her religion) will obviously face discrimination but on the other hand even a so called Muslim who day/night gives kafir fatwas to every other person will also kiss his billionaire hindu boss's feet just to get a few thousand rupees promotion.

Amazing but just like observational bias we also need to be wary of hasty generalization. For example, many Indians claim that there is no persecution of their Muslim minority because they've had a Muslim president

First thing, there was no nationwide systematic hate against Muslims before 2014. Second, Abdul Kalam was a Muslim just for the sake of name only. Third, he gave India nuclear power against a Muslim state, so at least India did not give a favor by making him president.

 

[krash]

If you ask me the same question then my answer will also be Affirmative. I have also faced discrimination several times, sometimes gender based, sometimes ethnicity based and sometimes looks based.

Then ask them if they've been discriminated against particularly because of their religion and also if they think their religion has hindered their socio-economic position in Pakistan. Please don't give me these deliberately empty circular statements. We both don't have time for that.

But one thing is for sure, that if I become filthy rich or at least an upper middle class, all or most of those discrimination will just wash away.

A street cleaner (irrespective of his/her religion) will obviously face discrimination but on the other hand even a so called Muslim who day/night gives kafir fatwas to every other person will also kiss his billionaire hindu boss's feet just to get a few thousand rupees promotion.

That has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed.

First thing, there was no nationwide systematic hate against Muslims before 2014. Second, Abdul Kalam was a Muslim just for the sake of name only. Third, he gave India nuclear power against a Muslim state, so at least India did not give a favor by making him president.

First: There wasn't? What was up with the 1964 Kolkata Riots? The 1983 Nellie massacre? The original Gujarat riots from 1969 to 1989? The 1987 Hashimpura massacre? The 1989 Bhagalpur riots? The 1992 Bombay riots? The Gujarat riots of 2002 which made Modi famous? Or the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots?

You will go as far as rejecting the half a century long persecution of Muslims in India just to deny the oppression your minorities face. Good job. Don't think I could've proved your agenda any better myself.

Second & Third: So? Him being a Muslim just for the sake of name only (or not) and him giving India nuclear power (or not) has literally no baring on the fact that Indians use his example to claim that there is no subjugation of their Muslim minority. Exactly as you claimed with Mr. Lodi's example. Why are you introducing statements in this discussion which have nothing to do with it?

 

[Mujahid Memon]

Then ask them if they've been discriminated against particularly because of their religion and also if they think their religion has hindered their socio-economic position in Pakistan. Please don't give me these deliberately empty circular statements. We both don't have time for that.



That has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed.



First: There wasn't? What was up with the 1964 Kolkata Riots? The 1983 Nellie massacre? The original Gujarat riots from 1969 to 1989? The 1987 Hashimpura massacre? The 1989 Bhagalpur riots? The 1992 Bombay riots? The Gujarat riots of 2002 which made Modi famous? Or the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots?

You will go as far as rejecting the half a century long persecution of Muslims in India just to deny the oppression your minorities face. Good job. Don't think I could've proved your agenda any better my self.

Second & Third: So? Him being a Muslim just for the sake of name only (or not) and him giving India nuclear power (or not) has literally no baring on the fact that Indians use his example to claim that there is no subjugation of their Muslim minority. Exactly as you claimed with Mr. Lodi's example. Why are you introducing statements in this discussion which have nothing to do with it?

I think I have made my point(s) clear already. Now I neither have time nor energy to beat dead horses anymore.

Regards and Good Night.

 

[krash]

I think I have made my point(s) clear already. Now I neither have time nor energy to beat dead horses anymore.

Regards and Good Night.

Sure you did.

 

[Mutakalim]

Idiotic comment. Ad hominem will never get you anywhere.

At least I am not sympathizing with blasphemers of Prophet A.S. Different priorities, I suppose. For you, life of blasphemer is worthy of protection, for me its worthless.

Had you had any education on the matter you would have known that there is a sea of scholars opposing these punishments ever since they were brought about.

Why dont you name some of those scholars who have opposed capital punishment for blasphemer of Prophet A.S? Educate us please!

In fact, the majority of today's blasphemy laws were imported in Muslim countries through British Imperialism

Again, you are stating your so called facts without a shred of evidence.

Regardless, there are more than 50 verses in the Quran directly advising on what to do when faced with ridicule against Islam, Allah (S.W.T), or the Prophet (S.A.W). You can easily google them. Although I can bet anything that you already know at least a few of them. I will not be posting them here since it is against the forum rules.

Yeah, ridiculing Islamic and state laws is justified according to forum rules, however providing evidence is not.

You said, and I quote, "Rabid degenerates are those who tolerate blasphemy of Rasool Allah P.B.U.H. Even they are worse than degenerates." Leave the Quran and the Sahabah alone, the Prophet (S.A.W) himself tolerated and then forgave thousands of blasphemers.

True, Prophet A.S forgave his Blasphemers on some occasions. It was His A.S prerogative. While on other occasions, He A.S directed Ashab to kill blasphemers. Maybe, that fact is hidden from your eyes or its convenient for you to brush aside those facts because you are overwhelmed with love of Murtadeen and Shatmeen.

Secondly, can you state any occasion in Islamic history where Ashab e Rasool or Ummat e Muslima forgave blasphemers of Prophet, after His A.S departure? Can you state few names of those scholars who gave fatwa that blasphemers of Prophet A.S should not be harmed? Lets see, how wide that sea of scholars is.

Heck he chose to forgive physical assault. Chose not to bring down two mountains on Taif when given explicit divine allowance, while his boots were still full of blood.

Prophet A.S is Rahmat e Aalam, not you or me. It was His A.S prerogative. Who the hell are you to forgive His A.S blasphemers? Or does any school of thought in entire Islamic history advocated that blasphemers should not be harmed?

I have observed during my interaction with supporters of Shatmeen that their heart and minds are blinded with love of their liberal masters. They dont even realise consequences of that Madar Pidar Azadi, which they eagerly support. You can not listen insults against your mother (excuse me please), but you are ready to forgive a person who have hurled insults against our Beloved A.S. What kind of love and respect is that? Leave arguments aside for a moment, and think what will you say to Prophet A.S in the afterlife that I have spent my entire life supporting your blasphemers.

What should we do in case some degenerate decides to advertise blasphemous content in public, replicating France's actions? I can not fathom, how a person can tolerate insults directed at his/her beloved? How a person can find courage to openly defend the right of life for those blasphemers? But maybe, it is allowed in Deen e Ghamdi.

So, you just called him what you did. You blasphemed.

So if supporting capital punishment for blasphemers of Prophet A.S is blasphemy (naoz o billah), then the majority of Ummah is committing that blasphemy including Ashab e Rasool who killed those blasphemers.

No one cares what it is or is not for you. The sentiments of an insecure nobody hold no sway on the religion. Give me arguments, not infantile feelings.

Its not only me, its the feeling of majority that's why those laws were enacted and that's why no one in his right mind has the guts to even make slight alteration in blasphemy laws. If you are so confident that your criticism on these laws is justified then move back to Pakistan and try preaching your ideas in public. Lets see how far it goes and how confident and secure you are. Its easy to ran away from Pakistan and the writ of state to hurl abuses against its laws. I dont know how the likes of Waqas Goraya and Gul Bukkhari are different from you. Dont talk about insecurity while hiding under the protection of foreign state.

Exactly the point. And don't kid yourself, these laws are not about the "respect of Prophet P.B.U.H." They exist to protect the fragile egos and insecurities of corrupt "Musalmans".

Its true, my ego hurts when someone abuses my beloved and same goes for Majority of Pakistanis. Unlike you, we dont seek protection of foreign state to preach our ideas.

Given that someone needs to educate you and your lot on the sanctity of human life shows exactly how much you know about the religion you claim to "protect".

There is no sanctity of life in Islam for Murtadeen and Shatmeen. My religion doesn't need protection from anyone, its protected by God, Himself. Although, blasphemers and their sympathizers do need a lot of protection, which they happily seek from foreign masters and then they brag about security.

Refer to the above, or the fact that neither during the time of the Prophet (S.A.W) or the Rashidun was there any law of the sort ever enacted. In fact, it wasn't enacted until hundreds of years after the death of the Prophet (S.A.W). When it was, it was enacted upon Muslims and not non-Muslims.

Should I quote those narrations which states that how and when these laws were enacted by Prophet A.S and then implemented by Him and Ashab e Rasool? Or its against forum rules? Can you state who enacted those laws hundred of years later and how and when non Muslims were exempted?

The largest fiqh, for example, only allows capital punishment if the offender also commits treason after committing blasphemy. If he does not, he goes free. Consider yourself enlightened.

Prove your claim with evidence or is it not allowed in your religion? Claims and more claims, without anything to show for. Secondly, do you believe in that ruling of the largest fiqh, or its other rulings regarding irtidad?

 

[krash]

At least I am not sympathizing with blasphemers of Prophet A.S. Different priorities, I suppose. For you, life of blasphemer is worthy of protection, for me its worthless.

Yes, it is. Any life is worth far more than mere words. Islam teaches you that. In fact, every school of thought in Islam which does advise the death penalty advises it based on liability to 'treason' and not 'blasphemy'. You want to not only take something which you have no right to, something which is sacred as per God's commands, but you also want to do it while ignoring the very same thing, i.e. Islam and the Prophet (S.A.W), that you claim to protect. No one cares what your insignificant and infantile sentiments are about it.

Why dont you name some of those scholars who have opposed capital punishment for blasphemer of Prophet A.S? Educate us please!

Glad you asked. How about the largest school of thought in Islam and also the very school that is the primary reference for all official Islamic jurisprudence in Pakistan, the Hanafi fiqh? The Hanafi Madhab predominantly considers any blasphemy against Islam by a non-Muslim only an extension of his/her disbelief, i.e. Kufr. You cannot kill anyone for his/her Kufr. And so the consensus in the Fiqh over a non-Muslim's blasphemy is that capital punishment cannot be given.

So says Abu Hanifa himself as reported in "Al Saif al Maslool",

"If a dhimmi (non-Muslim) insults the Holy Prophet, he will not be killed as punishment. A non-Muslim is not killed for his kufr (denying the Prophet) or shirk (polytheistic beliefs). Kufr/Shirk are bigger sins than sabb e rasool. – (Therefore non-Muslims will not be killed for sabb e rasool.)"


Abu al-Husayn Ahmad al-Quduri (a famous Islamic jurist) is reported in Al-Tajrid:

‘"Non-Muslims insult Allah and say that He has a son and the Zoroastrians say He has an “opposite.” This does not break their covenant of security, therefore the same applies to insult of the prophet PBUH."


Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Marghinani (You know, the guy taught all over Pakistan as one of the foremost Islamic jurists?) in Al Hidaya:

"Insulting the prophet is kufr/disbelief. Since the non-Muslims are not killed for their disbelief, they will not be killed for any addition in their disbelief."


Al-Tahawi is one of the strict ones on the matter. He states in Mukhtasar al Tahawi:

"If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, he will be given a verbal warning. If he repeats the offense, he will be punished but not killed."


Fatawa-e-Alamigiriyah (The most consulted source of fatwas in the subcontinent) notes:

"If a Dhimmi (Non-Muslim) refuses to pay Jizyah, or kills a Muslim, or commits Zinnah with a Muslim Woman, or disrespects the Prophet (S.A.W) then his 'Covenant of the Dhimmi' on the State's behalf will not be considered null or void, i.e. he will remain a protected person. If he refuses to pay Jiziyah then he has broken the covenant on his behalf."

In fact, the Hanafi Fiqh is virtually unanimous in prohibiting capital punishment for non-Muslims for blasphemy. I'm surprised that as the foremost self-acclaimed defender and mujahid of Islam you had no clue about this. The only exception given is for repeated offenders who are then considered as inciting discord/mischief in the society which is then considered treason and are therefore considered liable but still only at the discretion of the ruler who can then prescribe any punishment, including death.

I don't understand how a population of 220 million, whose entire narrative on state's role in religion is built on the demand that the former be governed word for word by the later and that too according to the Hanafi Fiqh, can so deliberately go against such an explicit ruling by virtually all the scholars of the Fiqh. Heck, you didn't even know the most abundant ruling on the matter and were standing there, with that inflated chest, so assured that you had it right. Oh I know, it's because you and your lot are not actually governed by your supposed love for the religion or the Prophet (S.A.W) but instead by the gratification of your own pathetic egos and emotions which you disguise as love for the Prophet (S.A.W). Your claims for the love of the Prophet (S.A.W) are fake. Two better men had this to say on the matter,


Ashraf Ali Thanawi, arguably the most popular 20th century jurist from South Asia remarks:

"A feeling of dishonour ('bey-gharati') is natural when I think of Hanafi tradition on non-Muslim blasphemers i.e. they will not be killed for it. Then God puts in my heart the thought that Abu Hanifa (who prohibited the death penalty for non-Muslim offenders) has more honour/ghairat than us." - [Malfoozat e Hakeem ul Ummat, Vol. 26]

Qasim Ibn Qutlūbughā aka Allāmah Qāsim warned jurists against letting exactly this ego and emotion dictate the law:

“Although our hearts tilt towards a strict punishment to the non-Muslim blasphemers, we must not pay heed to it.”


Since Hanafism categorically forbids the death punishment for non-Muslims we Pakistanis had to build our entire legal and religious narrative on the matter by purposefully and disingenuously distorting the rulings and teachings of massive Hanafi Scholars just to justify the capital punishment for non-Muslims.


The federal Shariat Court deliberately misquoted Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Razi to justify the capital punishment. The man however said the opposite in Sharh Mukhtasar al Tahawi:

"Whoever insults the Prophet, non-Muslims will not be given a death punishment."

Did you notice who Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Razi is using as his source for the ruling?

This is just one example. Would you like to get educated further on this as well? I can walk you through exactly how your lot did it. Doubt it will help though. Like I said, you don't care for the religion or the Prophet (S.A.W), or even the truth. You want your itty bitty little emotions satisfied.

So, no. While you might think that just by attacking Ghamidi you can justify your embarrassing emotional needs and reject his arguments without ever actually addressing or even understanding them, I doubt you'll have the gall to do it to the above quoted men.

Educated yet?

Ps: The case of Muslim blasphemers is even more interesting but you and your lot don't really care about them. You only want to kill non-Muslims. As evident from Junaid Jamshed's blasphemy case.

Again, you are stating your so called facts without a shred of evidence.

As a rule of thumb, one should refrain from making claims so arrogantly in matters one clearly has no knowledge of. Because when they get negated, it only leaves you embarrassed. Provided that you have the integrity to feel shame or acknowledge the truth.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15570274.2011.571423

Unholy Speech and Holy Laws: Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan - Controversial Origins, Design Defects, and Free Speech Implications 17 Minnesota Journal of International Law 2008

Cite as: 17 MINN. J. INT'L L. 303 (2008)Unholy Speech and Holy Laws: BlasphemyLaws in Pakistan-Controversial Origins,Design Defects, and Free SpeechImplicationsOsama Siddique* & Zahra Hayat**I. IN TR O D U CTIO N ........................................................................ 305A...

heinonline.org

Is Blaspheme Punishable by Death in Islam?

There is nothing in the Quran or the authentic teachings of Prophet Muhammad (s) justifying the killing of people for opposing, criticizing, humiliating or showing irreverence toward holy personages ..

www.islamicity.org

About this Collection | Legal Reports (Publications of the Law Library of Congress) | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

This collection features research reports and other publications on a wide range of legal topics prepared by the Law Library of Congress in response to requests or recurring interest from Congress and other federal government entities on issues concerning foreign, comparative, and international...

www.loc.gov

Explained: Pakistan’s emotive blasphemy laws

In recent years, a record number of cases have been filed under blasphemy law introduced during British colonial rule.

www.aljazeera.com

What are Pakistan's blasphemy laws?

The BBC looks at Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which have caused the deaths of scores of people.

www.bbc.com

Long read: The forgotten faces and hidden history of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws

The criminalisation of blasphemy has become synonymous with Pakistan.Tweet No case highlights the fervour and frustration associated with blasphemy more than that of Asia Noreen (better known as As…

forbinfull.org

Blasphemy and Censorship. The Historical Importance of Passive and ...

This article intends to investigate the wider contextual history of censorship and the questions this poses using blasphemy as a detailed ‘worked’ example. This investigates how we might gain much ...

journals.openedition.org

The history of the blasphemy law | The Express Tribune

Here are some key facts about blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

tribune.com.pk

Yeah, ridiculing Islamic and state laws is justified according to forum rules

Actually, debating if they are Islamic in the first place. Which, you know, is sort of the responsibility of every self-acclaimed Muslim and "protector of Islam and the Prophet (S.A.W)".

True, Prophet A.S forgave his Blasphemers on some occasions.

No. The Prophet not only forgave but never even made the blasphemy a point of discussion on every single confirmed occasion.

It was His A.S prerogative.

It was and still is only his and his Lord's prerogative. You are no one, no body. Your emotions count for nothing. How can you even use them as an excuse? You have been explicitly told by God to keep within your limits and not take upon yourself that which is His (S.W.T) right.

While on other occasions, He A.S directed Ashab to kill blasphemers. Maybe, that fact is hidden from your eyes or its convenient for you to brush aside those facts because you are overwhelmed with love of Murtadeen and Shatmeen.

You mean the only two very contested instances? Against the hundreds if not thousands of unanimously accepted ones? Or do you have more?

Secondly, can you state any occasion in Islamic history where Ashab e Rasool or Ummat e Muslima forgave blasphemers of Prophet, after His A.S departure? Can you state few names of those scholars who gave fatwa that blasphemers of Prophet A.S should not be harmed? Lets see, how wide that sea of scholars is.

The sea doesn't get any "wider" than virtually the entire school of Hanafism over the course of 1300 years. Shall I keep adding to the names above? Or can you for once get off your uneducated self-serving narrative and actually learn the religion that you are the self-acclaimed protector of? One would think that that is in fact your religious responsibility.

Prophet A.S is Rahmat e Aalam, not you or me. It was His A.S prerogative. Who the hell are you to forgive His A.S blasphemers?

Actually, who the hell are you to take upon yourself a transgression committed against the Prophet (S.A.W)? Literally, no one. You are a nobody. No one gave you the right to.

Or does any school of thought in entire Islamic history advocated that blasphemers should not be harmed?

Yeah, only the largest one with the most followers in the world and Pakistan.

I have observed during my interaction with supporters of Shatmeen that their heart and minds are blinded with love of their liberal masters.

Given the extent of your knowledge on the matter and the religion, I'd say your interactions, just as yourself, are biased, uneducated, based on lies, and devoid of any truth and are only fueled by an intense sense of insecurity in your belief which you resort to hiding/placating through an over-expression of emotion. Unless, you're claiming that Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa was also blinded by the love of his liberal masters one thousand three hundred and twenty two years ago.

They dont even realise consequences of that Madar Pidar Azadi, which they eagerly support. You can not listen insults against your mother (excuse me please),

Never have I ever heard anyone demand the murder of someone because they insulted their mother.

You not only do not understand the consequences of Bidah, you also have no care for the fact that the Prophet (S.A.W) himself promised to testify against any and every Muslim who commits injustice against a Dhimmi.

but you are ready to forgive a person who have hurled insults against our Beloved A.S. What kind of love and respect is that?

That's the thing. You keep over estimating and over stating your place and position in Islam. So much so that you are ripping apart the Divine Covenant given to the 'protected' by the Prophet (S.A.W) himself. You are no one to forgive or not forgive any insults against God, His religion, or His Prophet (S.A.W). You have no authority, you are nothing. That too when you are so utterly uneducated on the matter. You cannot take upon yourself a judgement which is the sole right of God. Cannot commit an act which stands so juxtaposed against the entire life of the Prophet (S.A.W), everything that the Quran says, and the 1300 years of scholastic decrees by many of the most revered scholars in the Deen, scholars that you follow. If you do then you are a hypocrite.

Leave arguments aside for a moment, and think what will you say to Prophet A.S in the afterlife that I have spent my entire life supporting your blasphemers.

Since you put it that way.

"I spent my entire life trying to educate those who willfully went against everything that you (S.A.W) have said and stood for, every assurance of security you (S.A.W) and Islam have provided the "protected (Dhimmi)". Oh Prophet (S.A.W), when you stand witness infront of Allah against those who breached the Divine Covenant you gave to these 'protected', as is your promise, please note that I tried, whatever little I could, to stand against them."

What should we do in case some degenerate decides to advertise blasphemous content in public, replicating France's actions?

What do you expect to be done to you when you openly ridicule a Hindu God?

I can not fathom, how a person can tolerate insults directed at his/her beloved? How a person can find courage to openly defend the right of life for those blasphemers? But maybe, it is allowed in Deen e Ghamdi.

Takes a grown man to do it. One who actually wants to protect his religion and country from the corruption of those who only seek to use the religion as a crutch to further their own sacrilegious and sinful agendas. Also one who has enough spine to call out injustice no matter how rabid the opposition may be. One who has enough character to place what is right before his infantile emotions. And the one who has enough integrity to educate himself on the matter before running his insolent mouth off.

So if supporting capital punishment for blasphemers of Prophet A.S is blasphemy (naoz o billah), then the majority of Ummah is committing that blasphemy

You mean only the 6 or so Muslim countries out of a total of 50? Do you know which ones? At least one of them has never executed anyone for the offense.

including Ashab e Rasool who killed those blasphemers.

Go ahead, prove it.

Its not only me, its the feeling of majority that's why those laws were enacted and that's why no one in his right mind has the guts to even make slight alteration in blasphemy laws.

You are using 'appeal to popularity' as a defense? That too in a country which is one of the most dishonest and corrupt in the world? A country where people use religion to openly further their personal, political, and even militant agendas? You know the good stuff is haram, right?

You are If you are so confident that your criticism on these laws is justified then move back to Pakistan and try preaching your ideas in public. Lets see how far it goes and how confident and secure you are. Its easy to ran away from Pakistan and the writ of state to hurl abuses against its laws. I dont know how the likes of Waqas Goraya and Gul Bukkhari are different from you. Dont talk about insecurity while hiding under the protection of foreign state.

Its true, my ego hurts when someone abuses my beloved and same goes for Majority of Pakistanis. Unlike you, we dont seek protection of foreign state to preach our ideas.

There it is. That desperation born from helplessness against the truth and what is right. That absolute desperation which in the end can only resort to threats and ad hominem. The exact same desperation which overwhelmed the Quraish. The same one again which the Prophet (S.A.W) foretold for his people (Can you imagine? He literally warned us against you). The one that declared the Quaid a Kafir and Iqbal a blasphemer. Don't blame you, though. You have nothing else; no knowledge of the religion you pretend to follow, no knowledge of the Man (S.A.W) you pretend to love, no knowledge of the law you support. Just an overwhelming sense of helplessness and insecurity. Pretty sure you would have threatened Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa as well. Good thing you're as impotent as you are.

Anyway, open to meet up. Visit Pakistan twice a year.

There is no sanctity of life in Islam for Murtadeen and Shatmeen.

Well, best take it up with God then. You know, the one who gave them the Divine Covenant of protection from the likes of you?

My religion doesn't need protection from anyone, its protected by God, Himself. Although, blasphemers and their sympathizers do need a lot of protection, which they happily seek from foreign masters and then they brag about security.

All the more reason for you to take your place in that small corner and let God handle his business.

Should I quote those narrations which states that how and when these laws were enacted by Prophet A.S and then implemented by Him and Ashab e Rasool? Or its against forum rules? Can you state who enacted those laws hundred of years later and how and when non Muslims were exempted?

Let's have it. Let's have you put your money where your uneducated mouth is. Let's have you copy paste all those distorted and corrupted sources.

Prove your claim with evidence or is it not allowed in your religion? Claims and more claims, without anything to show for.

Think this post should have satisfied you now?

ps: My religion? Elaborate on this please.

Secondly, do you believe in that ruling of the largest fiqh, or its other rulings regarding irtidad?

Ruling of the largest Fiqh? You mean the Hanafi Fiqh? The same one I quoted above? See what I've been talking about? You have no clue what you are saying. You are not only shamelessly dishonest enough to concoct false religious decrees but then you also go ahead and pin them on some of the greatest scholars Islam has ever seen. Scholar's whose teachings can be read on google from thousands of sources in seconds.

PS: I can school you on the Hanafi ruling on Irtadiat as well. See, I educate myself before opening my mouth.

 

[POPEYE-Sailor]

کراچی گلشن اقبال وقاص مارکیٹ کے پاس مسیحیوں کے فلیٹ نمبر A.4 پر مسلمانوں کا قبضہ .
کہاں ہیں ہمارے سیاسی اور مذہبی رہنما ؟؟؟
اب پاکستان میں مسیحیوں پر ظلم روز کی کہانی بن چکا ہے ۔حکومت بھی مسیحیوں کو تحفظ دینے میں ناکام ہو چکی ہے ۔بلکہ وہ مسیحیوں کو تحفظ دینا ہی نہیں چاہتی ۔بلکہ وہ انہیں دیوار کے ساتھ لگانا چاہتی ہے ہمارا الیکشن سسٹم ختم کرکے سلیکشن سسٹم صرف اسی لیے لگایا گیا کہ مسیحیوں کو دیوار کے ساتھ لگا دیا جائے

https://www.facebook.com/cya.karachi/posts/215405000338454

 

[PakPrinciples]

That is a lie. Pakistan was created so that the Muslims of the subcontinent could live without fear of the Hindu majority and in accordance with their beliefs. It was not created so that they could then instead subjugate their minorities. Pakistan was absolutely not made for just Muslims.

You're right and you're wrong.

No one said that Pakistan was created to subjugate kafir's.

What we're making clear is that Pakistan was first and foremost created by the Muslims of Pakistan for the Muslims of Pakistan.

Allama Iqbal stated in the Allahbad Address of 1930 that the goal was:

"... the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India."​

Chaudhary Rehmat Ali in his pamphlet “Now or Never: Are we to perish or live forever?” published in 1933 reconfirmed Iqbal and the Muslim League's stance stating:

“all those five Provinces [Punjab, NWFP, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan] should have a separate Federation of their own outside India... we are entitled to ask our delegates for what purpose we are being pressed to sacrifice our nationality [Pakistan] and to submit ourselves and our posterity to non-Muslim domination.​

So you're correct Pakistan was to be a nation free of Hindu domination, tyranny and interference but at the same time it was a nation created for Pakistani Muslims by Pakistani Muslims which is further illustrated by Jinnah who stated:

"It is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality... Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions."​

​

Mohammed Ali Jinnah 23 March 1940​

The kafir's are primarily those settled into our lands by British colonialists or byproducts of past invasions of our territory.

Careful before the Indians start claiming that you only exist today because of the 1000 year long colonial rule of Muslim invaders. Apart from the facts that Hinduism predates Islam in the region and that the Christian and Sikh converts were non-Muslims.

Do you think me or any Pakistani gives a damn what your

Hinduism predates Islam?

Aside from the fact that Islam is a continuation of a message going back farther than Moses the Quran mentions in Surah 41:33 and Surah 3:64 that those who practice Islam are Muslims but where is it written that those who worship whatever Indians do are "Hindu" or refers to what they believe in as "Hinduism"?

The word doesn't originate from any language or dialect out of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka nor will you find it in any "religious" text originating from our nations.

Pakistani's were never "Hindu's" going back centuries we are a civilization that not only cultivated meat for food but we ate diets heavy in meat and we still do:
Indus Civilization People Ate Mainly Meat and Dairy Products

Our civilization developed around the Indus while theirs developed in the Gangetic plains and Deccan Plateau.

We're Muslims while India is littered with their cult because we're two different civilizations even before Islam's arrival. We understood the concept of monotheism they never did.

****************************

QUOTE="krash, post: 13006098, member: 17941"]
I'm curious, do you only present idiotic arguments which have nothing to do with the discussion? Exclusively those that make no sense?
[/QUOTE]

Are these Hindus, the ones who chose to stay in Pakistan and become Pakistanis, the ones who killed those Muslims in 47?

So those "oppressed but patriotic Hindus" you speak of were offered citizenship by an enemy state India, traveled there to join their Hindu buddies that waged 3 wars on our peaceful nation all while praising a Hindu terrorist Modi but found living with other Hindu's so unbearable they wanted to return to Muslim Pakistan where they were supposedly being "tortured" and "oppressed" yet this has nothing to do with a discussion about this supposed horrible fate of minorities in Pakistan?

Those Hindu's that "chose" to stay in 1947 either did so out of greed to keep their homes/businesses they built up under British rule or because they were too poor to leave.

They had little to no love for Pakistan since this was never their nation considering they had little to nothing to do with its creation in fact it's the exact opposite.

A great example is the Pakistani National Congress in 1947 who were made up of your "Pakistani" Hindus that hated Jinnah, hated Pakistan, did everything in their power to prevent the creation of a constitution and then waged war on Pakistan by pushing lies in the 70s to worsen the Bengali language crisis that culminated into a war during which they partnered with India.

PS: A Native American in Canada today enjoys far more rights and far less discrimination than a non-Muslim does in Pakistan.

That's an absolutely disgusting statement.

So after centuries of murder, rape and torture that culminated into what is likely the worlds worst genocide which only very recently saw the end of Residential Schools only 25 years ago in 1996 that robbed native Americans of their culture and destroyed their families leading to broken homes and rampant drug and alcohol abuse within the native communities you just mock their ongoing suffering because "it's not so bad"?

I'm sorry but $2 Billion in reparations and an apology after the Canadian government spent $18 Billion on murdering Afghans at the behest of the US isn't enough.

Here's the difference between Pakistan, the US and Canada... We didn't have to murder our native inhabitants instead this is a nation born out of our own people by Muslims for Muslims.

Pakistan has been a lot kinder to the kafir invaders and refuse of British colonialism than Canada has been its native inhabitants.

So I ask once again how many marches and protests have you been to to highlight the suffering of native American communities in Canada if you're so concerned with "minority rights"?

Why aren't you out at parliament 24/7/365 campaigning for more representation of the native community within their own native homelands government and demanding better treatment for their communities including equal access to education?
First Nations Schools Are Chronically Underfunded

It takes a special kind of fool to not realize that he is criticizing India for exactly what he wants to do in his own country. You are no different than them.

You advocate for the same things those "Muslims" who wanted to live with Hindus and chose India did eventually turning that secular liberal cesspool into one large open air prison for Muslims.

Did you forget Sheikh Abdullah or Abdul Ghaffar Khan?

 

[Itachi]

That is a lie. Pakistan was created so that the Muslims of the subcontinent could live without fear of the Hindu majority and in accordance with their beliefs. It was not created so that they could then instead subjugate their minorities. Pakistan was absolutely not made for just Muslims

You seem to be contradicting yourself here....you said Pakistan was created for Muslims then you said Pakistan wasn't made for Muslims...

Yet Muslims are the overwhelming majority. At least 96%. If you count the Oversea Pakistanis then at least 98%.

Apart from the facts that Hinduism predates Islam in the region and that the Christian and Sikh converts were non-Muslims.

How do you know that??

Historically, monotheism came before polytheism. It only makes logical sense to worship one God before multiple. Hinduism itself has many monotheistic elements which prove it was monotheistic at one point. Obviously, you can call that monotheistic religion whatever but Muslims believe in Islam being on this planet since Adam A.S.

 

[krash]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here....you said Pakistan was created for Muslims then you said Pakistan wasn't made for Muslims...

Yet Muslims are the overwhelming majority. At least 96%. If you count the Oversea Pakistanis then at least 98%.

Not a difficult concept to understand. 'A country made for Muslims to live free of any oppression from the Hindu majority of today's India, in accordance with their beliefs,' and 'a country made just for Muslims and only for Muslims who willfully subjugate their minorities' are two very different countries. Country 1 is where the minorities have equal rights of citizenship, country 2 is ruled by bigots claiming to be Muslims. Or are you saying that Muslims cannot practice their religion without subjugating their minorities? That just to have your religious rights catered to, you have to oppress the non-Muslim's rights.

Tell me the exact contradiction that you see and I will explain it.

How do you know that??

From the fact that the advent of Islam in the region is extremely well documented.

Historically, monotheism came before polytheism. It only makes logical sense to worship one God before multiple. Hinduism itself has many monotheistic elements which prove it was monotheistic at one point. Obviously, you can call that monotheistic religion whatever but Muslims believe in Islam being on this planet since Adam A.S.

We do, however, we are not discussing our religious beliefs here. If we cannot provide empirical evidence then that belief has no place in an academic discussion. Will you accept the Hindu beliefs on Bharat? Secondly, our belief itself does not tell us in any way, shape, or form that Islam was indeed present in the subcontinent before the Prophet (S.A.W). Thirdly, a monotheistic religion does not make Islam. Fourthly, the earliest Muslim travelers in the region did not record anything resembling Islam. Nor did anyone before them. So, at the very least, the current iteration of Islam is most definitely predated by Hinduism. Lastly, please understand what is being discussed before introducing extreme tangents to the debate.

 

[krash]

What we're making clear is that Pakistan was first and foremost created by the Muslims of Pakistan for the Muslims of Pakistan.

And what exactly does that entail?

Allama Iqbal stated in the Allahbad Address of 1930 that the goal was:

"... the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India."​

​

Chaudhary Rehmat Ali in his pamphlet “Now or Never: Are we to perish or live forever?” published in 1933 reconfirmed Iqbal and the Muslim League's stance stating:

“all those five Provinces [Punjab, NWFP, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan] should have a separate Federation of their own outside India... we are entitled to ask our delegates for what purpose we are being pressed to sacrifice our nationality [Pakistan] and to submit ourselves and our posterity to non-Muslim domination.​

Neither of those quotes support what you are claiming in any way, shape, or form........

So you're correct Pakistan was to be a nation free of Hindu domination, tyranny and interference but at the same time it was a nation created for Pakistani Muslims by Pakistani Muslims which is further illustrated by Jinnah who stated:

"It is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality... Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions."​

​

Mohammed Ali Jinnah 23 March 1940​

Again, has nothing to do with your claim. A claim which stands directly opposed to Quaid's very famous statements regarding the Pakistani minorities.

The kafir's are primarily those settled into our lands by British colonialists or byproducts of past invasions of our territory.

Uneducated and dishonest claim. Back it up.

Do you think me or any Pakistani gives a damn what your dimwitted Hindus think?

Yeah, those of us who are not bigoted fools stand shoulder to shoulder with our non-Muslim Pakistani brethren.

Hinduism predates Islam?

In Pakistan? Yes, obviously. Explained above.

Aside from the fact that Islam is a continuation of a message going back farther than Moses the Quran mentions in Surah 41:33 and Surah 3:64 that those who practice Islam are Muslims but where is it written that those who worship whatever Indians do are "Hindu" or refers to what they believe in as "Hinduism"?

Another idiotic statement. Explained above.

The word doesn't originate from any language or dialect out of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka nor will you find it in any "religious" text originating from our nations.

Yet another idiotic statement, clearly devised to side step the obvious. Has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed.

Pakistani's were never "Hindu's" going back centuries we are a civilization that not only cultivated meat for food but we ate diets heavy in meat and we still do:
Indus Civilization People Ate Mainly Meat and Dairy Products

That claim only satisfies your insecurity. Be it Hinduism or any other religion, the fact remains that our ancestors at one point in time were not Muslims.

Our civilization developed around the Indus while theirs developed in the Gangetic plains and Deccan Plateau.

So? Incase you are too blind to see, these non-Muslims lived and developed right here in the Indus valley. Just like your ancestors never roamed Hijaz. What sort of stupid statements do you think I'll entertain?

we're two different civilizations even before Islam's arrival. We understood the concept of monotheism they never did.

So you belong to the Indus and not Hijaz but the Hindu living from and off the Indus belongs to Ganga?

India's "Hindus" are

Do not attack another's religion. I will not allow it. Twice you've done it now in this post. The great Musalman that you are, you should know that your religion does not allow it.

So those "oppressed but patriotic Hindus" you speak of were offered citizenship by an enemy state India, traveled there to join their Hindu buddies that waged 3 wars on our peaceful nation all while praising a Hindu terrorist Modi but found living with other Hindu's so unbearable they wanted to return to Muslim Pakistan where they were supposedly being "tortured" and "oppressed" yet this has nothing to do with a discussion about this supposed horrible fate of minorities in Pakistan?

Huh....? Again, what does what is happening in India have anything to do with what you do to your minorities?

Those Hindu's that "chose" to stay in 1947 either did so out of greed to keep their homes/businesses they built up under British rule or because they were too poor to leave.

Yeah...notice the massive palaces all these Hindus live in. Like I said, stop concocting idiotic statements to further your bigotry.

Too poor to leave? You mean the ones who were already leaving everything behind?

They had little to no love for Pakistan since this was never their nation considering they had little to nothing to do with its creation in fact it's the exact opposite.

Neither did you or your ancestors. Most of you opposed it, called the Quiad kafir-e-azam. You don't get to become the thekedars of Pakistan now. Regardless, educate yourself please.

The role of minorities in creation of Pakistan

Pakistan was the first country in the world to reassure its minorities about their future rights by specifically allocating a portion of the national flag — the white colour which...

www.thenews.com.pk

A great example is the Pakistani National Congress in 1947 who were made up of your "Pakistani" Hindus that hated Jinnah, hated Pakistan, did everything in their power to prevent the creation of a constitution and then waged war on Pakistan by pushing lies in the 70s to worsen the Bengali language crisis that culminated into a war during which they partnered with India.

Many, MANY more "Muslims" of Pakistan have actively committed treason against the country, do it to this day. Hindus did not call the Quaid Kafir-e-azam, did not call Pakistan Kafiristan, did not form the TTP, I can go on for days. How can you present that idiotic excuse?

That's an absolutely disgusting statement.

So after centuries of murder, rape and torture that culminated into what is likely the worlds worst genocide which only very recently saw the end of Residential Schools only 25 years ago in 1996 that robbed native Americans of their culture and destroyed their families leading to broken homes and rampant drug and alcohol abuse within the native communities you just mock their ongoing suffering because "it's not so bad"?

I'm sorry but $2 Billion in reparations and an apology after the Canadian government spent $18 Billion on murdering Afghans at the behest of the US isn't enough.

Here's the difference between Pakistan, the US and Canada... We didn't have to murder our native inhabitants instead this is a nation born out of our own people by Muslims for Muslims.

Pakistan has been a lot kinder to the kafir invaders and refuse of British colonialism than Canada has been its native inhabitants.

So I ask once again how many marches and protests have you been to to highlight the suffering of native American communities in Canada if you're so concerned with "minority rights"?

Do the US and Canada and their people systematically discriminate against these Native Americans today? No. Pretty stupid to excuse what you do today for something another did centuries ago.

Why aren't you out at parliament 24/7/365 campaigning for more representation of the native community within their own native homelands government and demanding better treatment for their communities including equal access to education?
First Nations Schools Are Chronically Underfunded

Another stupid and desperate statement. 1) Canada and Canadians do not actively discriminate and oppress the Native population, as do Pakistanis. 2) The Native Americans are not my people, Pakistani non-Muslims are. 3) My support or lack thereof has no baring on what my stance with regards to the Pakistani non-Muslims is. It is your dishonest desperation which makes you think that if I do not actively defend the Native Americans then I cannot be allowed to actively defend non-Muslim Pakistanis. A typically Pakistani tactic.

You advocate for the same things those "Muslims" who wanted to live with Hindus and chose India did eventually turning that secular liberal cesspool into one large open air prison for Muslims.

Did you forget Sheikh Abdullah or Abdul Ghaffar Khan?

Hogwash. You want the exact same thing which the Hindu in India wanted and wants. You are no different than them. While you moan and wail about the Indian Muslims, you want to exact the same atrocities on your minorities. There is literally nothing in Islam or your Musalmaniyat which would need you to deny your minorities their rights. In fact, the religion you claim to be a proponent of has given these minorities divine assurances against what you plan to enforce. You are an uneducated hypocrite, who uses Islam as an excuse to further his own bigoted agenda.

 

[Itachi]

From the fact that the advent of Islam in the region is extremely well documented.

No Hindu today is following the Hinduism of 3,000 years ago......

Most Hindus follow Hinduism from the 10-15th century.....if you count Sanghis then they follow Hindisum from the 20's (or whenever RSS was made).

Islam predates everything. Up to you to believe it or not. Btw, Islam came to South India first before coming to Sindh.....did you even know that?

We do, however, we are not discussing our religious beliefs here. If we cannot provide empirical evidence then that belief has no place in an academic discussion. Will you accept the Hindu beliefs on Bharat? Secondly, our belief itself does not tell us in any way, shape, or form that Islam was indeed present in the subcontinent before the Prophet (S.A.W). Thirdly, a monotheistic religion does not make Islam. Fourthly, the earliest Muslim travelers in the region did not record anything resembling Islam. Nor did anyone before them. So, at the very least, the current iteration of Islam is most definitely predated by Hinduism. Lastly, please understand what is being discussed before introducing extreme tangents to the debate.

Are you Muslim?? Because Muslims believe Islam predates all other made up religions.

That's all I have to say.

Not a difficult concept to understand. 'A country made for Muslims to live free of any oppression from the Hindu majority of today's India, in accordance with their beliefs,' and 'a country made just for Muslims and only for Muslims who willfully subjugate their minorities' are two very different countries. Country 1 is where the minorities have equal rights of citizenship, country 2 is ruled by bigots claiming to be Muslims. Or are you saying that Muslims cannot practice their religion without subjugating their minorities? That just to have your religious rights catered to, you have to oppress the non-Muslim's rights.

Tell me the exact contradiction that you see and I will explain it.

India acted like it was a democracy. It didn't work out. Now we see it's a Hindu country......how it was meant to be all along....no matter what Gandhi wanted.

Similarly, Pakistan was meant to be a Muslim country. For Muslims......the stuff about minorities is what any Muslim country would do. That doesn't mean we have to be overly nice to our minorities and to put them on a pedestal.

A true Sharia compliant country also puts extra taxes on non-Muslims, called the Jizya.....which I don't think Pakistan has done yet...

The minorities are always free to move to India (like those Hindus did sometime back but then came back cuz of "harassment" in India), US or the West.

 

[Mutakalim]

Any life is worth far more than mere words. Islam teaches you that. In fact, every school of thought in Islam which does advise the death penalty advises it based on liability to 'treason' and not 'blasphemy'. "The largest fiqh, for example, only allows capital punishment if the offender also commits treason after committing blasphemy. If he does not, he goes free".

Life of Shatmeen and Murtadeen is not protected under Islamic law. For Muslims, words of Prophet A.S are more sacred than lives of Kufar and Murtadeen. Before moving towards four school of thoughts lets see what Prophet A.S said about Murtadeen and whether their life is protected or not. Moreover, whether death penalty is granted based on liability to treason or is their any restriction of treason in case of blasphemy or apostasy? Lets see!

1. Ibn e Abbas R.A narrated, The Apostle said: Kill those who change their religion. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4351)

There is no mention of treason in this narration. The Hukm e Sharai derived from this ruling is Aam e Mutlaq and it can not be restricted unless a stronger Nas is available, according to Hanfis. (Usool e Shashi). Imam Shafai also argued on the basis of this narration that this hukm is Mutlaq and will not be restricted.

As this Nas is derived from Mutafaq Alaih Ahadith, therefore, to restrict this hukm e Sharai, Nas e Qatai is required. You haven't provided any Nass e Qatai, instead you relied on childish claim of consensus ("every school of thought in Islam") without any evidence.

2. Abd Allah (b. Mas`ud) reported the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah should not be lawfully shed but only for one of three reasons: married fornicator, soul for soul, and one who deserts his religion separating himself from the community. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4352)

Although, separation from the community is mentioned in this narration but this is not the condition of Irtidad, nor it was understood as such by four school of thoughts, as we will see. Moreover, Laws of Muharba and treason are mentioned in separate chapters in books of Hadith and Fiqh and for 1400 years Ummah is treating them as separate issues. Moreover, Imam Bukhari and Imam Abu Daood treated both cases separately.

3. Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: AbuMusa said: Mu'adh came to me when I was in the Yemen. A man who was Jew embraced Islam and then retreated from Islam. When Mu'adh came, he said: I will not come down from my mount until he is killed. He was then killed. One of them said: He was asked to repent before that. ( Sunan Abi Dawud 4355)


4. Abu Burdah said: A man who turned back from Islam was brought to Abu Musa. He invited him to repent for twenty days or about so. Muadh then came and invited him (to embrace Islam) but he refused. So he was beheaded. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4356)

5. Narrated `Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

(Chapter: Al-Murtad and Al-Murtaddah, Sahih al-Bukhari 6922)

Imam Ibn e Hajar Asqalani while interpreting this Hadith didn't mentioned any condition of treason. Moreover, those people were the citizens of Islamic state and were not involved in any treason except the fact that they changed their religion.

Ibn e Hajar Asqalani while interpreting one of the traditions in this chapter quoted Imam Ibn e Munzar, “a person who abuses Prophet A.S in explicit terms must be killed. Furthermore, Imam Abubakr Farsi Shafai said that a person who abuses prophet must be killed and his repentance will not be accepted.


6. Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (ﷺ) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4361)

That women didn't rebelled, nor she committed any treason. She was punished by the Companion of Prophet for blasphemy and Prophet A.S later sanctified that action. This Hadith is enough for a straightforward Muslim to acknowledge the truth, however, those who are blinded by the love of blasphemers will try to hide behind exceptions of law.

7. AbuBarzah said: I was with AbuBakr. He became angry at a man and uttered hot words. I said: Do you permit me, Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), that I cut off his neck? These words of mine removed his anger; he stood and went in. He then sent for me and said: What did you say just now? I said: (I had said Permit me that I cut off his neck. He said: Would you do it if I ordered you? I said: Yes. He said: No, I swear by Allah, this is not allowed for any man after Muhammad (ﷺ).

Abu Dawud said: This is Yazid's version. Ahmad bin Hanbal said: That is, Abu Bakr has no powers to slay a man except for three reasons which the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had mentioned: disbelief after belief, fornication after marriage, or killing a man without (murdering) any man by him. The Prophet (ﷺ) had powers to kill.
(Sunan Abi Dawud 4363)

Again, even not a hint of treason. To qualify a Hukm e Aam there needs to be a ruling more stronger than that hukm , its a basic principle of Usul ul Fiqh and you havent provided any evidence of explicit ruling.

Imam Abu Daood wrote a whole chapter in his sunan about a person who reviles Prophet A.S. "Chapter: The ruling regarding one who reviles the prophet (pbuh)". Moreover, he didn't restricted the capital punishment to treason. It's just your invention.

8. Imam Tahawi Hanfi narrated in his book:

Those people were spreading religion of Musailma and didnt committed any treason, in fact they were residing inside Islamic state. They were killed on the orders of Usman bin Affan R.A, due to the fact that they changed their religion.

Now lets move to four school of thoughts and find out whether they restrict capital punishment of Riddah or Sabb to treason or not. Or in other words whether they advise it base on liability to treason or whether a shatim or Murtad can be killed just because of his act of Riddah or Shatm, without any treasonous act.

1. Imam Qadoori in his Mukhtasir ul Qadoori the foundational text of Fiqh e Hanfi said, " And if a Muslim turned back from Islam then he will be convinced to revert back and his objections will be clarified. He will be imprisoned for three days and if he didn't revert back then he will be killed. (Mukhtasir ul Qadoori, Bab ul Riddah) (Fatawa e Aalamgeeri)

Again, no mention of treason and Muharbah, in fact I have read the whole chapter and didn't found anything. Therefore, according to Fiqh e Hanfi, this ruling is explicit and is applicable to all Muslims residing in Darul Islam.

He further said, "If someone killed him before presenting Islam, then its a Makroh act and the killer will not be liable to Qisas". (Qadoori, Aalamgeeri, Fathul Qadeer)

I dont know how you managed to quote Fiqh e Hanfi to support your claim, when according to its rulings the killer of Murtad will not be killed. Should we apply this ruling in Pakistan? Will you support it? Or your sole purpose is to defend shatmeen by picking statements from here and there?

Another important thing to note in Mukhtasir ul Qadoori is the fact that the rulings concerning treason and rebellion are mentioned just below the Ahkam of Riddah and Imam Qadoori didn't mentioned the condition of treason or liability to treason in apostasy.

2. Imam Tahawi Hanfi said, "the ruling of Murtad is like a non Muslim fighter and he will be killed". (Faiz ul Bari, Ibn e Hajr)

The important thing to note here is that the ruling or punishment of Murtad is like a non Muslim fighter, or in other words he will be killed just like a person who is non Muslim and fighting Islamic state. The punishments of Harbi Kafir and Murtad are similar and treason is not the condition of irtidad, there is a clear difference. His life will not be protected, unlike your claim.

3. Murtad women are to be subjected to physical punishment with an interval of three days till they repent. (Qadoori, Fatwa e Alamgeeri, Jamae Sagheer)

However, Murtad women will be killed acording to Ibn e Umar R.A, Imam Zuhri and Ibrahim Nakhai.

I am not sure, which punishment is more severe for Murtad women, capital punishment or physical punishment with an interval of three days. Should we implement this law in Pakistan? Or you just want to pick and choose Hanfi laws, according to your own liking?

It is clear from above mentioned narrations and sayings of Mujtahideen that lives of Murtadeen and shatmeen will not be protected and they will be killed. Moreover, the Hukm of death for Murtadeen and Shatmeen is Aam e Mutlaq and will not be restricted. Moreover all the above mentioned punishments were awarded due to change of religion or blasphemy, not due to treason. Countless other narrations of Prophet A.S and sayings of Mujtahideen can be quoted regarding irtadad and blasphemy but for a sane minded person these evidences will suffice.

No one cares what your insignificant and infantile sentiments are about it.

Unfortunately for you, my sentiments are supported by Ahadith and by absolute majority of Muhadiseen and Mujtahideen. Moreover, my sentiments are reflected in Pakistan's law and people like you cant do anything about it, besides whining on an online forum.

How about the largest school of thought in Islam and also the very school that is the primary reference for all official Islamic jurisprudence in Pakistan, the Hanafi fiqh? The Hanafi Madhab predominantly considers any blasphemy against Islam by a non-Muslim only an extension of his/her disbelief, i.e. Kufr. You cannot kill anyone for his/her Kufr. And so the consensus in the Fiqh over a non-Muslim's blasphemy is that capital punishment cannot be given.

As I have said earlier, the love for blasphemers of Prophet A.S has blinded your eyes and clogged your mind to an extent that you even cant recognize the fact that your are claiming one thing and providing evidence of another. What you have written is reflection of your twisted mentality. Read your statement again.

You claimed that, " Had you had any education on the matter you would have known that there is a sea of scholars opposing these punishments ever since they were brought about. In fact, the majority of today's blasphemy laws were imported in Muslim countries through British Imperialism. Regardless, there are more than 50 verses in the Quran directly advising on what to do when faced with ridicule against Islam, Allah (S.W.T), or the Prophet (S.A.W). You can easily google them."

"And don't kid yourself, these laws are not about the "respect of Prophet P.B.U.H." They exist to protect the fragile egos and insecurities of corrupt "Musalmans". The same Musalmans who proudly give the examples of the Prophet's (S.A.W) mercy as proof of themselves being 'peaceful'. There is literally nothing anyone can ever say or do to malign Him (S.A.W). Except when "Musalmans" commit heinous acts in His (S.A.W) name."

"Refer to the above, or the fact that neither during the time of the Prophet (S.A.W) or the Rashidun was there any law of the sort ever enacted. In fact, it wasn't enacted until hundreds of years after the death of the Prophet (S.A.W). When it was, it was enacted upon Muslims and not non-Muslims. That too with a fair few caveats. The largest fiqh, for example, only allows capital punishment if the offender also commits treason after committing blasphemy. If he does not, he goes free. Consider yourself enlightened."

You claimed that Islam doesn't grant capital punishment to blasphemers of Prophet A.S and blasphemy laws are not Islamic, in fact they are enacted as a result of British imperialism. Moreover, you also claimed that blasphemy laws were not enacted during the time of Prophet A.S or Sahaba R.A. When I confronted you and demanded evidence, you came up with an exception in Hanfi law. You need to enlighten me again that how an exception can render the rule void? You also didn't bothered to look at numerous narrations of Prophet A.S, acts and Fatawa of Sahaba R.A. Are you not aware of Sahih Ahadith about about that matter? Or you just ignored them because they doesn't suit your twisted and disgusting ideology?

Secondly, does Madhab e Hanfia denied the capital punishment of Murtad? Or did they absolutely denied the capital punishment for Shatim? Everyone know that some Hanfis create an exception in case of women and some hanfis also make an exception in case of Zimmis. There is also a clear difference of opinion, in Fiqh e Hanfi itself, regarding capital punishment of women and Zimmis, as some Aima awarded capital punishment to them while other denied it. However, their is a consensus about capital punishment of a Muslim male blasphemer in the school of Imam Abu Hanifa. According to jamhoor, the capital punishment for shatim is absolute and they dont make any exception in cases of women and Zimmis, as well. You just picked a Qol e Marjoh and rejected the overall ruling based on an exception, which is also not Mufta beha anymore.

Thirdly, how about you accept the ruling of largest Fiqh in Islam and the very school that is the primary reference for all official Islamic jurisprudence in Pakistan? Their ruling regarding a male Muslim blasphemer is absolute. Are you ready to accept that ruling?

Finally, their is no consensus in Fiqh about the ruling that capital punishment shouldn't be awarded to Zimmis. Just a group in Hanfis granted that exception with clear difference of opinion. That difference of opinion will be highlighted later. While other three school of thoughts are quite clear about the ruling with absolutely no difference of opinion that shatim will be awarded capital punishment irrespective of gender or religion.

So says Abu Hanifa himself as reported in "Al Saif al Maslool",

"If a dhimmi (non-Muslim) insults the Holy Prophet, he will not be killed as punishment. A non-Muslim is not killed for his kufr (denying the Prophet) or shirk (polytheistic beliefs). Kufr/Shirk are bigger sins than sabb e rasool. – (Therefore non-Muslims will not be killed for sabb e rasool.)"

What is the status of Saif ul Maslool in Fiqh e Hanfi? You need to first learn about the Umhat ul Kutb of Fiqh e Hanfi and how the saying of Imam Abu Hanifa are ascertained and verified by Hanfis.

Secondly, and most importantly, exceptions can not be quoted to deny the rule. The rule is quite clear and unambiguous across all Madhahib that punishment of irtidad and Sabb is death. I dont know how this exception is supporting your claim that blasphemy laws are not Islamic. Moreover, how this saying of Abu Hanifa is supporting your claim that Fiqh e Hanfi grants capital punishment to only those people who also commit treason apart from blasphemy?

Thirdly, even a student of Fiqh e Hanfi knows that Hanfis reject a lot of sayings of Imam Abu Hanifa concerning Masail because they dont follow him in Masail, instead they follow him in Usul. Sometimes rulings of Sheikheen are preferred over Abu Hanifa, while on other instances ruling of Abu Hanifa is preferred. Even on some instances, ruling of Imam Zufar is preferred over Ashab e Salasa. Books of fiqh e hanfi are filled with such examples.

Abu al-Husayn Ahmad al-Quduri (a famous Islamic jurist) is reported in Al-Tajrid:

‘"Non-Muslims insult Allah and say that He has a son and the Zoroastrians say He has an “opposite.” This does not break their covenant of security, therefore the same applies to insult of the prophet PBUH."

Nothing of that sort is mentioned in Mukhtasir ul Qadoori. Matn will always be preferred upon Sharah or Fatawa. Again you need to learn Tabqat ul Kutab of Fiqh e Hanfi. My objection stand as it is.

Moreover, Imam Ibn e Humam Hanfi Said, "According to me, if a Zimmi (Non Muslim under the protection of Islamic state) abuses Prophet A.S, he will be killed and his covenant with Islamic state will be considered broken". (Fath ul Qadeer Vol 5, Page 303)

You were claiming that there is a consensus in Fiqh about punishment of non Muslims for blasphemy. There goes your claim of consensus. Even there is a difference of opinion in Fiqh e Hanfi and you were claiming absolute consensus.

Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Marghinani (You know, the guy taught all over Pakistan as one of the foremost Islamic jurists?) in Al Hidaya:

"Insulting the prophet is kufr/disbelief. Since the non-Muslims are not killed for their disbelief, they will not be killed for any addition in their disbelief."


Al-Tahawi is one of the strict ones on the matter. He states in Mukhtasar al Tahawi:

"If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, he will be given a verbal warning. If he repeats the offense, he will be punished but not killed."


Fatawa-e-Alamigiriyah (The most consulted source of fatwas in the subcontinent) notes:

"If a Dhimmi (Non-Muslim) refuses to pay Jizyah, or kills a Muslim, or commits Zinnah with a Muslim Woman, or disrespects the Prophet (S.A.W) then his 'Covenant of the Dhimmi' on the State's behalf will not be considered null or void, i.e. he will remain a protected person. If he refuses to pay Jiziyah then he has broken the covenant on his behalf."

In fact, the Hanafi Fiqh is virtually unanimous in prohibiting capital punishment for non-Muslims for blasphemy. I'm surprised that as the foremost self-acclaimed defender and mujahid of Islam you had no clue about this. The only exception given is for repeated offenders who are then considered as inciting discord/mischief in the society which is then considered treason and are therefore considered liable but still only at the discretion of the ruler who can then prescribe any punishment, including death.

Its a fact that Fiqh e Hanfi is not unanimous about prohibition of capital punishment for non Muslim blasphemer. Let us see.

1. Imam Ibn e Humam Hanfi Said, "According to me, if a Zimmi (Non Muslim under the protection of Islamic state) abuses Prophet A.S, he will be killed and his covenant with Islamic state will be considered broken". (Fath ul Qadeer Vol 5, Page 303)

Now have some shame! please. Moreover, why you always forget to mention the unanimous ruling of Fiqh regarding capital punishment for a Muslim blasphemer?

2. It is accepted rule among hanfis that Sharuh will be preferred over Fatawa, therefore, the rulings of Fatawa e Aalamgeria will not be relied upon when ruling of Sharah, in this case, Fath ul Qadeer is present.



3. Imam Ibn e Humam Hanfi further said, " Shatim will be killed as Hadd and his repentance will not be accepted". (Tafseer Mazhri Vol7, Page 381) (Tanqeeh ul Fatwa)

Imam Ibn e Abdeen Shami, Imam Haskafi, and Imam ibn e bazaz hanfi also gave the simillar fatwa that blasphemer will be killed as hadd. (Radul Mukhtar 4:232)

Ruler has no discretion in case of Hudood and as mentioned by Ibn e Humam capital punishment of blasphemer will be granted as Hadd. Moreover, their is no sign of treason in these quotations.


4. Imam Burhan uddin Hanfi said, " there is a consensus among Mutakhreen Mujtahideen about capital punishment of Shatim and absolute majority of Mutaqadmeen are also in favour of capital punishment". (Khulasat ul Fatawa Page 386)

5. Imam Ibn e Abdeen Shami recorded consensus about capital punishment of blasphemer and that his repentance will not be accepted. (Fatawa e Hamdia)

6. Imam Khair ud din Ramli Hanfi said, "ordinary murtad will be granted time for repentance, however, shatim e Rasool will not be allowed to repent, he will be killed. This is the Madhab of Abu Bakar Siddiq R.A, Abu Hanifa, Ahl e Kofa and Imam Malik". Fatawa e Kheria Vol1, Page 170)


7. Imam Tahawi said, " a person who abuses Prophet A.S is murtad and his ruling is like common apostates. (Bahr ur Raiq 5: 125)

Are you ready to accept this ruling of tahawi?

8. Fiqh e Hanfi even awarded capital punishment for blasphemer of Abu Bakar Siddiq and Umr e Farooq R.A. (Bahr ur Raiq 5:135)

Only hiding place left for you to bury your head is under the feet of Ghamdi, as every other scholar is negating your claims.

I don't understand how a population of 220 million, whose entire narrative on state's role in religion is built on the demand that the former be governed word for word by the later and that too according to the Hanafi Fiqh, can so deliberately go against such an explicit ruling by virtually all the scholars of the Fiqh. Heck, you didn't even know the most abundant ruling on the matter and were standing there, with that inflated chest, so assured that you had it right.

Dont you think that your claim of 220 million people wanting to impose Fiqh e Hanfi in Pakistan is exaggerated? There is a considerable majority of Muslims in Pakistan who dont follow Fiqh e Hanfi and still they support blasphemy laws. Secondly, no one claimed that Pakistan should be governed according to Hanfi laws and that too word by word. You dont have to create a straw man to defend your twisted ideology.

Explicit ruling about what? You are promoting your claim like there is consensus among Fuqaha on the prohibition of capital punishment for blasphemer. In reality, there is just a difference of opinion in Fiqh e Hanfi regarding the punishment of non Muslim blasphemer. Some prohibited it on the grounds that the non Muslim's covenant with the state will not be broken if he commits blasphemy, while others rejected it. On the other side, there is consensus between fuqaha on the punishment of a Muslim blasphemer. You conveniently forget to mention that fact and picked up an exception to support your disgusting claim that blasphemy laws are introduced as the result of British imperialism. Their is no need to beat that drum of consensus as its already busted.

Most abundant rulings of Fuqaha of all school of thoughts and most importantly, numerous Ahadith are supporting my claim that Islam grants capital punishment to blasphemer of Prophet A.S. That's the reason of my inflated chest. Unlike you, I am not hiding behind an exception in Hanfi law.

Oh I know, it's because you and your lot are not actually governed by your supposed love for the religion or the Prophet (S.A.W) but instead by the gratification of your own pathetic egos and emotions which you disguise as love for the Prophet (S.A.W).

What you know is not relevant. What is written in Pakistani law is important. You should make efforts to change that law by confronting the Muslims of Pakistan, instead of hiding under the protection of Kufaar.

Two better men had this to say on the matter,


Ashraf Ali Thanawi, arguably the most popular 20th century jurist from South Asia remarks:

"A feeling of dishonour ('bey-gharati') is natural when I think of Hanafi tradition on non-Muslim blasphemers i.e. they will not be killed for it. Then God puts in my heart the thought that Abu Hanifa (who prohibited the death penalty for non-Muslim offenders) has more honour/ghairat than us." - [Malfoozat e Hakeem ul Ummat, Vol. 26]

And how that quote is supporting your claim? Did Imam Abu Hanifa said that their is no capital punishment for blasphemer, at all? Or did he claimed that blasphemy laws are enacted under the influence of Kufaar? Or did he claimed that there was no blasphemy laws at the time of Prophet A.S? Its amusing for me that how a person can close his eyes from numerous Ahadith, the sayings of Prophet A.S, acts of Sahaba and sayings of absolute majority of scholars, and starting to beat the drum of single exception in Hanfi law. You need a treatment.

Since Hanafism categorically forbids the death punishment for non-Muslims we Pakistanis had to build our entire legal and religious narrative on the matter by purposefully and disingenuously distorting the rulings and teachings of massive Hanafi Scholars just to justify the capital punishment for non-Muslims.

Hanafism doesn't categorically forbids the death punishment for non Muslims. The quotes of Hanfi Scholars are provided, now stop beating that drum. My argument doesn't rely solely on Fiqh e Hanfi. Instead it relies on numerous traditions of Prophet A.S and rulings of absolute majority of scholars.

Why you are shedding tears on the conditions of Hanfis, when you purposefully neglected numerous Ahadith and found an exceptiion in Hanfi law. I am sure Hanfi's will be forgiven in afterlife by not enacting few rulings considered by Imam Abu Hanifa.

The federal Shariat Court deliberately misquoted Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Razi to justify the capital punishment. The man however said the opposite in Sharh Mukhtasar al Tahawi:

"Whoever insults the Prophet, non-Muslims will not be given a death punishment."

Did you notice who Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Razi is using as his source for the ruling?

Oh, woww, federal Shariat court misquoted Abu Bakar Jassas al Razi. That is a revelation, and I am much impressed. Did FSC solely relied on Abu Bakar Jassas Al Razi for granting their verdict? What about those numerous traditions of Prophet A.S which were quoted? What about long list of scholars including Hanfis who gave fatawa against punishments for non Muslims?

Moreover, as far as Abu Bakr Jassas is concerened, he said in his Ahkam ul Quran, "there is no difference of opinion among Muslims on the matter concerning a person who abuses Prophet, even if he call himself Muslim, he is an apostate and will be killed. (Ahkam ul Quran 3:102)

Are you ready to accept this ruling of Abu Bakar Jassas Al Razi? Or you just quoted him for your own purpose and to defend Shatmeen?

This is just one example. Would you like to get educated further on this as well? I can walk you through exactly how your lot did it. Doubt it will help though. Like I said, you don't care for the religion or the Prophet (S.A.W), or even the truth. You want your itty bitty little emotions satisfied.

You can start your long walk by negating numerous traditions of Prophet A.S about Riddah and Sabb. If you had cared for religion then your course of action must have been different. Instead, you tried to defend the lives of Shatmeen e Rasool. It is a pitty, may God show you the right path.

So, no. While you might think that just by attacking Ghamidi you can justify your embarrassing emotional needs and reject his arguments without ever actually addressing or even understanding them, I doubt you'll have the gall to do it to the above quoted men.

I dont know what is the problem with your lot. You cant tolerate attacks on Ghamdi, but you are ready to tolerate attacks on Prophet A.S by non Muslims. What can I say more than that.

Ps: The case of Muslim blasphemers is even more interesting but you and your lot don't really care about them. You only want to kill non-Muslims. As evident from Junaid Jamshed's blasphemy case.

Let me make it more interesting for you.

1. Abu Bakar Farsi Shafai said, "if any person accuses any Prophet A.S of wrongful act then he will be killed because accusation on Prophet A.S is liable to death". He recorded Ijma regarding it. (Raoz ut Talib Vol4, P-122)

2. From Sahaba to this era there is Ijma on the matter that blasphemer of Prophet is liable to death. (Shifa 933)

3. "Any person who abuses Prophet A.S, whether he is a Muslim or a non Muslim, is liable to death" Ibn e Taimiah claimed Ijma on that matter. Moreover, he also claimed Ijma of Sahaba and Qaroon e Oola on that matter. (As Sarim ul Maslool 565,3)

You conveniently forgot to mention this claim of ibn e taimiah while quoting an excerpt from his book. Or he was working for Britishers, that's why you neglected his whole book and picked one statement? You must have learnt this trick from Ghamdi.

4. Imam Abu yousaf hanfi gave fatwa of of Capital Punishment for blasphemer of Prophet A.s. (Rooh ul Bayan 3:394)

5. Repentance will be accepted from Murtad in all cases except from blasphemer of Prophet. He will be killed as Hadd. (Rad ul Mukhtar 4:231, Tanweer ul absaar)

6. Imam ibn e Sakhnoon Malki said, " there is consensus among Muslims that blasphemer is Kafir and is liable to death. (Rad ul Mukhtar 4:232)

7. "In essence, there is no difference of opinion regarding the Kufr and capital punishment of blasphemer of Prophet A.S and this is narrated from four Imams "(Imam Ibn e Abdeen Shami)

9. "Repentance of blasphemer after arest will not be accepted as per Ijma, he will be killed" (Abu Saood Hanfi)


10. Hanfi scholars who gave fatwa of death for blasphemer: Imam Haskafi, Ibn e Hummam, Ibn e Abdeen, Qazi Sana Ullah, Abu Bakar Jassas, Imam Burhan ud deen Sahib e Muheet, ibne nujeem Hanfi, ibn e bazaz, Imam Abu Yousaf, Imam Tahawi, abu saood hanfi, Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdullah

Names of Scholars who recorded Ijma regarding capital punishment of blasphemer:

Ibn e Munzar Neshapori, Abu bakar Farsi, Qazi Ayaz, Ibn e Taimiyah, Imam khatabi, Imam Ishaq bin Rahwae, Imam Abu Bakar Jassas, Ibn e Abdin Shami, Imam ibne Sakhnon Malki, Imam Ibn e Atab Malki.

Names of Scholars who gave the fatwa of Capital Punishment for blasphemer of Rasool Allah A.S:

Allama Ismail Haqqi Sahib e Rohul Bayan, Imam Ibne qayam, Imam Ibne taimiayah, Imam Ibn e Munzar, imam malik, imam lais bin saad, imam ahmad bin Hanbal, imam ishaq bin rahwae, imam shafai, imam abubakar farsi shafai, Qazi Ayaz Malki, imam khatabi, Hazrat Umar bin abdul aziz, imam khalal, Ibn e Aqeel Abul Khatab, Imam Halwani, Qazi Abul Hussain, Ibne Munir, allama Ibn e Kasir, Sana Ullah Pani Pati, Hafiz Saadi, Imam Darqutni, allama waqdi, sheikh muhammad bin abdullah altamartashi, Abu saod hanfi, imam Abdullah bin alhakam, imam abu yousaf, imam tahawi, , Imam usman bin kanana malki, imam azbakh malki, abu lais samrqandi, imam abu nasar adabusi, imam ibn e bazaz hanafi, imam khair udin ramli hanfi, imam ibn e najim hanfi, abu lais samrqandi, abu nasar adabusi, imam burhan udin mahmud, imam abu ali bin albana, , qazi abu yala, abul mawahib al akbari, qazi abu ali bin abi musa, imam haskafi, , imam abul hassan qabsi, imam muhammad bin abi zaid, imam ahmad bin sulaiman, imam abdullah bin atab, Maulana Hussain ahmad madni, Imam Subki Shafai

As a rule of thumb, one should refrain from making claims so arrogantly in matters one clearly has no knowledge of. Because when they get negated, it only leaves you embarrassed. Provided that you have the integrity to feel shame or acknowledge the truth.

You haven't felt shame while defending the right of life for Shatmeen e Rasool A.S and here you are giving lectures to others. I dont want to use strong words against a fellow Muslim, otherwise, I dont have any respect for a person who tries to defend blasphemers.

No. The Prophet not only forgave but never even made the blasphemy a point of discussion on every single confirmed occasion.

Please refer to above mentioned traditions of Prophet A.S.

It was and still is only his and his Lord's prerogative. You are no one, no body. Your emotions count for nothing. How can you even use them as an excuse? You have been explicitly told by God to keep within your limits and not take upon yourself that which is His (S.W.T) right.

I am acting on verified traditions of Prophet A.S, ashab e Rasool and Mujtahideen which grant capital punishment to Murtadeen and Shatmeen. Evidence of which is quoted above.

You mean the only two very contested instances? Against the hundreds if not thousands of unanimously accepted ones? Or do you have more?

Actually, in Deen e Ghamdi every other tradition which doesn't fit in his ideas is contested. I am fully aware of that fact. If you ever tried to negate those traditions, which are not just two, we will see reflections of that fact. Traditions of Bukhari, Nisai, Tirmazi, Abu Daood with different chain of narrators are all contested, however, deen e Ghamdi is absolute, free from error and can be accepted with absolute certainty. How convenient!

Hundred and even thousands of which instances? Who unanimously accepted the claim that there were no blasphemy laws in the era of Prophet A.S? Who claimed that punishment of Murtad is not death? Who said that blasphemy laws are a product of British imperialism?

The sea doesn't get any "wider" than virtually the entire school of Hanafism over the course of 1300 years.

That sea of Hanfism is awarding death punishment, with an exception of non Muslims and women. That too is not unaniomous, in fact that Qol is Marjoh and Muftis give their fatwa on Qol e Rajeh, which is stated above.

Why are you not including other scholars in that sea beyond hanfis? I have quoted sayings of those scholars and also provided a list. Jo chahe Apka Husn e Karishma Saaz Kare!

Shall I keep adding to the names above? Or can you for once get off your uneducated self-serving narrative and actually learn the religion that you are the self-acclaimed protector of? One would think that that is in fact your religious responsibility.

Please add names of those scholars who absolutely rejected capital punishment of blasphemers in all cases including Muslim men. Or all those scholars who gave absolute Fatawas for blasphemers were also uneducated, following their self serving narratives for 1400 years? Or all of them were lying and only truthful person in entire Ummat e Muhammadia A.S is Ghamdi?

As I have said earlier, I am not protector of Islam, nor does I claim any such thing. In fact, protector of Islam is God Himself, he doesn't need protection of anyone. Lets say for instance that I am defending Islam, however, for whom you are writing all these words? For blasphemers of Prophet A.S?

Actually, who the hell are you to take upon yourself a transgression committed against the Prophet (S.A.W)? Literally, no one. You are a nobody. No one gave you the right to.

Prophet A.S gave that right to His Khulafa R.A and then onward to all Muslim rulers to punish His blasphemers in this world so that peace and tranquility can be maintained in Muslim society.

Yeah, only the largest one with the most followers in the world and Pakistan.

Go and read Fatawa of Hanfis and consider yourself educated. Although, defenders of blasphemers are beyond reproach or education.

Given the extent of your knowledge on the matter and the religion, I'd say your interactions, just as yourself, are biased, uneducated, based on lies, and devoid of any truth and are only fueled by an intense sense of insecurity in your belief which you resort to hiding/placating through an over-expression of emotion. Unless, you're claiming that Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa was also blinded by the love of his liberal masters one thousand three hundred and twenty two years ago.

Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa gave Fatwa of death for Murtadeen including Muslim blasphemers, one thousand three hundred and twenty two years ago. And here you are, arguing for all blasphemers. See, there is a difference.

Never have I ever heard anyone demand the murder of someone because they insulted their mother.

You not only do not understand the consequences of Bidah, you also have no care for the fact that the Prophet (S.A.W) himself promised to testify against any and every Muslim who commits injustice against a Dhimmi.

People dont demand death for a person who insulted their mother. However, Muslims demand death for blasphemers because they love and respect Prophet A.S more than their mothers.

As far as Zimmis are concerned, their protection is the duty of Islamic state. For that protection, they have to submit to Islamic state and accept its authority. However, the case of non Muslim minorities living inside Pakistan is different. They are not Zimmis, they didn't submitted themselves to Islamic state, they were not conquered and they dont pay any Jizya to Pakistan. Therefore, they are not Zimmis and Hanfi law of Zimmis is not applicable on them. For application of Hanfi law the existence of covenant with Islamic state is mandatory.

You keep over estimating and over stating your place and position in Islam. So much so that you are ripping apart the Divine Covenant given to the 'protected' by the Prophet (S.A.W) himself. You are no one to forgive or not forgive any insults against God, His religion, or His Prophet (S.A.W). You have no authority, you are nothing

That authority belongs to Islamic state, I am not claiming any authority over blasphemers.

Cannot commit an act which stands so juxtaposed against the entire life of the Prophet (S.A.W), everything that the Quran says, and the 1300 years of scholastic decrees by many of the most revered scholars in the Deen, scholars that you follow. If you do then you are a hypocrite.

I have quoted traditions of Prophet A.S and Fatawa of Sahaba and Mujtahideen. Read them and try to throw these insults on them, as well. As they are also not agreeing with deen e Ghamdi.

Since you put it that way.

"I spent my entire life trying to educate those who willfully went against everything that you (S.A.W) have said and stood for, every assurance of security you (S.A.W) and Islam have provided the "protected (Dhimmi)". Oh Prophet (S.A.W), when you stand witness infront of Allah against those who breached the Divine Covenant you gave to these 'protected', as is your promise, please note that I tried, whatever little I could, to stand against them."

Lets pray that your defense (mine too) will be accepted.

What do you expect to be done to you when you openly ridicule a Hindu God?

If someone ridicule Hindu God then the publishing of blasphemous content against Prophet A.S is justified? No one should be allowed to ridicule religious figures of all religions.

Takes a grown man to do it.

Only a disgusting, miserable soul can do this. Lanat bar Shatmeen wa Awanehi.

One who actually wants to protect his religion and country from the corruption of those who only seek to use the religion as a crutch to further their own sacrilegious and sinful agendas. Also one who has enough spine to call out injustice no matter how rabid the opposition may be. One who has enough character to place what is right before his infantile emotions. And the one who has enough integrity to educate himself on the matter before running his insolent mouth off.

Are you protecting your religion by hiding under the cloaks of Kufaar? Maybe its allowed in Deen e Ghamdi. Why you left your country while you knew that it was threatened by corrupt people? Why are you not relying on your spine to oppose blasphemy laws publicly? Why are you not showing your character in front of your fellow Muslims? Grow up! and stop hiding behind protection of Kufaar.

Actually, insolent mouths of some miserable souls starts churning out filth when they leave the jurisdiction of Pakistani state. We have seen many such examples like guraya and gul bukhari, in the past.

You mean only the 6 or so Muslim countries out of a total of 50? Do you know which ones? At least one of them has never executed anyone for the offense.

No I mean those scholars who gave fatawas of death against your beloved blasphemers. Go, check out their name and start targeting them.

Go ahead, prove it.

Proved. Now, negate them.

Lol....you are using 'appeal to popularity' as a defense?

Why shouldn't I. Majority has the right to enact laws for themselves, dont you believe in democracy? Or you only believe in the democratic right of French people?

That too in a country which is one of the most dishonest and corrupt in the world?

You are following the path of goraya. Are your parents from Pakistan? It seems to me that you are the only soul who is honest, everyone else in Pakistan is dishonest and corrupt, thats why you left Pakistan.

A country where people use religion to openly further their personal, political, and even militant agendas? You know the good stuff is haram, right?

At least, we are not defending blasphemers.

There it is. That desperation born from helplessness against the truth and what is right. That absolute desperation which in the end can only resort to threats and ad hominem.

Helplessness against Deen e Ghamdi? Helplessness against those miserable souls who seek protection of Kufaar to spit filth against their fellow Muslims? Its just amusing.

The exact same desperation which overwhelmed the Quraish. The same one again which the Prophet (S.A.W) foretold for his people (Can you imagine? He literally warned us against you).

Us? You mean yourself, followers of Ghamdi and Ghamdi himself? Prophet A.S foretold us about Ahl ul Biddah, many have emerged and disappeared, never to rise again. Khwarij, Muatazila, Jabrya, Qadrya and Qadianis. You are just like them, in fact worse than them and your lot will also disappear. The Name and Deen of Muhammad e Arbi A.S will always remain.

The one that opposed the Quaid and declared Iqbal a blasphemer.

My grandparents supported Quaid, we left our homes and properties and moved to a new land to support his cause and have suffered atrocities of Hindus to establish an Islamic state. We gave our toil and blood for this state. Your attacks are misdirected.

Don't blame you, though. You have nothing else; no knowledge of the religion you pretend to follow, no knowledge of the Man (S.A.W) you pretend to love, no knowledge of the law you support.

You need to learn few things from Ghamdi including humility, respect and good manners. As far as knowledge and arguments are concerned, I dont need to brag about anything.

Just an overwhelming sense of helplessness and insecurity. Pretty sure you would have threatened Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa as well.

Are you a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa? Or just taking his name to beat your drum in support of blasphemers?

All the more reason for you to take your place in that small corner and let God handle his business.

I am still better then you at this small place. At least, I am not under the protection of Kufaar.

Let's have it. Let's have you put your money where your uneducated mouth is. Let's have you copy paste all those distorted and corrupted sources.

Quoted few of them, not all. Now please negate them, one by one. This time around, dont hide behind exceptions of law. Lets see, how knowledgeable defenders of blasphemers are.

ps: My religion? Elaborate on this please.

Deen e ghamdi.

Ruling of the largest Fiqh? You mean the Hanafi Fiqh? The same one I quoted above?

Yes.

You have no clue what you are saying. You are not only shamelessly dishonest enough to concoct false religious decrees but then you also go ahead and pin them on some of the greatest scholars Islam has ever seen. Scholar's whose teachings can be read on google from thousands of sources in seconds.

I have quoted the Fatwas of scholars, negate them, instead of bragging about how mighty you are.

PS: I can school you on the Hanafi ruling on Irtadiat as well. See, I educate myself before opening my mouth.

Again, more and more chest thumping.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Life of Shatmeen and Murtadeen is not protected under Islamic law. For Muslims, words of Prophet A.S are more sacred than lives of Kufar and Murtadeen. Before moving towards four school of thoughts lets see what Prophet A.S said about Murtadeen and whether their life is protected or not. Moreover, whether death penalty is granted based on liability to treason or is their any restriction of treason in case of blasphemy or apostasy? Lets see!

1. Ibn e Abbas R.A narrated, The Apostle said: Kill those who change their religion. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4351)

There is no mention of treason in this narration. The Hukm e Sharai derived from this ruling is Aam e Mutlaq and it can not be restricted unless a stronger Nas is available, according to Hanfis. (Usool e Shashi). Imam Shafai also argued on the basis of this narration that this hukm is Mutlaq and will not be restricted.

As this Nas is derived from Mutafaq Alaih Ahadith, therefore, to restrict this hukm e Sharai, Nas e Qatai is required. You haven't provided any Nass e Qatai, instead you relied on childish claim of consensus ("every school of thought in Islam") without any evidence.

2. Abd Allah (b. Mas`ud) reported the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah should not be lawfully shed but only for one of three reasons: married fornicator, soul for soul, and one who deserts his religion separating himself from the community. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4352)

Although, separation from the community is mentioned in this narration but this is not the condition of Irtidad, nor it was understood as such by four school of thoughts, as we will see. Moreover, Laws of Muharba and treason are mentioned in separate chapters in books of Hadith and Fiqh and for 1400 years Ummah is treating them as separate issues. Moreover, Imam Bukhari and Imam Abu Daood treated both cases separately.

3. Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: AbuMusa said: Mu'adh came to me when I was in the Yemen. A man who was Jew embraced Islam and then retreated from Islam. When Mu'adh came, he said: I will not come down from my mount until he is killed. He was then killed. One of them said: He was asked to repent before that. ( Sunan Abi Dawud 4355)


4. Abu Burdah said: A man who turned back from Islam was brought to Abu Musa. He invited him to repent for twenty days or about so. Muadh then came and invited him (to embrace Islam) but he refused. So he was beheaded. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4356)

5. Narrated `Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

(Chapter: Al-Murtad and Al-Murtaddah, Sahih al-Bukhari 6922)

Imam Ibn e Hajar Asqalani while interpreting this Hadith didn't mentioned any condition of treason. Moreover, those people were the citizens of Islamic state and were not involved in any treason except the fact that they changed their religion.

Ibn e Hajar Asqalani while interpreting one of the traditions in this chapter quoted Imam Ibn e Munzar, “a person who abuses Prophet A.S in explicit terms must be killed. Furthermore, Imam Abubakr Farsi Shafai said that a person who abuses prophet must be killed and his repentance will not be accepted.


6. Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (ﷺ) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4361)

That women didn't rebelled, nor she committed any treason. She was punished by the Companion of Prophet for blasphemy and Prophet A.S later sanctified that action. This Hadith is enough for a straightforward Muslim to acknowledge the truth, however, those who are blinded by the love of blasphemers will try to hide behind exceptions of law.

7. AbuBarzah said: I was with AbuBakr. He became angry at a man and uttered hot words. I said: Do you permit me, Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), that I cut off his neck? These words of mine removed his anger; he stood and went in. He then sent for me and said: What did you say just now? I said: (I had said Permit me that I cut off his neck. He said: Would you do it if I ordered you? I said: Yes. He said: No, I swear by Allah, this is not allowed for any man after Muhammad (ﷺ).

Abu Dawud said: This is Yazid's version. Ahmad bin Hanbal said: That is, Abu Bakr has no powers to slay a man except for three reasons which the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had mentioned: disbelief after belief, fornication after marriage, or killing a man without (murdering) any man by him. The Prophet (ﷺ) had powers to kill.
(Sunan Abi Dawud 4363)

Again, even not a hint of treason. To qualify a Hukm e Aam there needs to be a ruling more stronger than that hukm , its a basic principle of Usul ul Fiqh and you havent provided any evidence of explicit ruling.

Imam Abu Daood wrote a whole chapter in his sunan about a person who reviles Prophet A.S. "Chapter: The ruling regarding one who reviles the prophet (pbuh)". Moreover, he didn't restricted the capital punishment to treason. It's just your invention.

8. Imam Tahawi Hanfi narrated in his book:

View attachment 733165

Those people were spreading religion of Musailma and didnt committed any treason, in fact they were residing inside Islamic state. They were killed on the orders of Usman bin Affan R.A, due to the fact that they changed their religion.

Now lets move to four school of thoughts and find out whether they restrict capital punishment of Riddah or Sabb to treason or not. Or in other words whether they advise it base on liability to treason or whether a shatim or Murtad can be killed just because of his act of Riddah or Shatm, without any treasonous act.

1. Imam Qadoori in his Mukhtasir ul Qadoori the foundational text of Fiqh e Hanfi said, " And if a Muslim turned back from Islam then he will be convinced to revert back and his objections will be clarified. He will be imprisoned for three days and if he didn't revert back then he will be killed. (Mukhtasir ul Qadoori, Bab ul Riddah) (Fatawa e Aalamgeeri)

Again, no mention of treason and Muharbah, in fact I have read the whole chapter and didn't found anything. Therefore, according to Fiqh e Hanfi, this ruling is explicit and is applicable to all Muslims residing in Darul Islam.

He further said, "If someone killed him before presenting Islam, then its a Makroh act and the killer will not be liable to Qisas". (Qadoori, Aalamgeeri, Fathul Qadeer)

I dont know how you managed to quote Fiqh e Hanfi to support your claim, when according to its rulings the killer of Murtad will not be killed. Should we apply this ruling in Pakistan? Will you support it? Or your sole purpose is to defend shatmeen by picking statements from here and there?

Another important thing to note in Mukhtasir ul Qadoori is the fact that the rulings concerning treason and rebellion are mentioned just below the Ahkam of Riddah and Imam Qadoori didn't mentioned the condition of treason or liability to treason in apostasy.

2. Imam Tahawi Hanfi said, "the ruling of Murtad is like a non Muslim fighter and he will be killed". (Faiz ul Bari, Ibn e Hajr)

The important thing to note here is that the ruling or punishment of Murtad is like a non Muslim fighter, or in other words he will be killed just like a person who is non Muslim and fighting Islamic state. The punishments of Harbi Kafir and Murtad are similar and treason is not the condition of irtidad, there is a clear difference. His life will not be protected, unlike your claim.

3. Murtad women are to be subjected to physical punishment with an interval of three days till they repent. (Qadoori, Fatwa e Alamgeeri, Jamae Sagheer)

However, Murtad women will be killed acording to Ibn e Umar R.A, Imam Zuhri and Ibrahim Nakhai.

I am not sure, which punishment is more severe for Murtad women, capital punishment or physical punishment with an interval of three days. Should we implement this law in Pakistan? Or you just want to pick and choose Hanfi laws, according to your own liking?

It is clear from above mentioned narrations and sayings of Mujtahideen that lives of Murtadeen and shatmeen will not be protected and they will be killed. Moreover, the Hukm of death for Murtadeen and Shatmeen is Aam e Mutlaq and will not be restricted. Moreover all the above mentioned punishments were awarded due to change of religion or blasphemy, not due to treason. Countless other narrations of Prophet A.S and sayings of Mujtahideen can be quoted regarding irtadad and blasphemy but for a sane minded person these evidences will suffice.



Unfortunately for you, my sentiments are supported by Ahadith and by absolute majority of Muhadiseen and Mujtahideen. Moreover, my sentiments are reflected in Pakistan's law and people like you cant do anything about it, besides whining on an online forum.



As I have said earlier, the love for blasphemers of Prophet A.S has blinded your eyes and clogged your mind to an extent that you even cant recognize the fact that your are claiming one thing and providing evidence of another. What you have written is reflection of your twisted mentality. Read your statement again.

You claimed that, " Had you had any education on the matter you would have known that there is a sea of scholars opposing these punishments ever since they were brought about. In fact, the majority of today's blasphemy laws were imported in Muslim countries through British Imperialism. Regardless, there are more than 50 verses in the Quran directly advising on what to do when faced with ridicule against Islam, Allah (S.W.T), or the Prophet (S.A.W). You can easily google them."

"And don't kid yourself, these laws are not about the "respect of Prophet P.B.U.H." They exist to protect the fragile egos and insecurities of corrupt "Musalmans". The same Musalmans who proudly give the examples of the Prophet's (S.A.W) mercy as proof of themselves being 'peaceful'. There is literally nothing anyone can ever say or do to malign Him (S.A.W). Except when "Musalmans" commit heinous acts in His (S.A.W) name."

"Refer to the above, or the fact that neither during the time of the Prophet (S.A.W) or the Rashidun was there any law of the sort ever enacted. In fact, it wasn't enacted until hundreds of years after the death of the Prophet (S.A.W). When it was, it was enacted upon Muslims and not non-Muslims. That too with a fair few caveats. The largest fiqh, for example, only allows capital punishment if the offender also commits treason after committing blasphemy. If he does not, he goes free. Consider yourself enlightened."

You claimed that Islam doesn't grant capital punishment to blasphemers of Prophet A.S and blasphemy laws are not Islamic, in fact they are enacted as a result of British imperialism. Moreover, you also claimed that blasphemy laws were not enacted during the time of Prophet A.S or Sahaba R.A. When I confronted you and demanded evidence, you came up with an exception in Hanfi law. You need to enlighten me again that how an exception can render the rule void? You also didn't bothered to look at numerous narrations of Prophet A.S, acts and Fatawa of Sahaba R.A. Are you not aware of Sahih Ahadith about about that matter? Or you just ignored them because they doesn't suit your twisted and disgusting ideology?

Secondly, does Madhab e Hanfia denied the capital punishment of Murtad? Or did they absolutely denied the capital punishment for Shatim? Everyone know that some Hanfis create an exception in case of women and some hanfis also make an exception in case of Zimmis. There is also a clear difference of opinion, in Fiqh e Hanfi itself, regarding capital punishment of women and Zimmis, as some Aima awarded capital punishment to them while other denied it. However, their is a consensus about capital punishment of a Muslim male blasphemer in the school of Imam Abu Hanifa. According to jamhoor, the capital punishment for shatim is absolute and they dont make any exception in cases of women and Zimmis, as well. You just picked a Qol e Marjoh and rejected the overall ruling based on an exception, which is also not Mufta beha anymore.

Thirdly, how about you accept the ruling of largest Fiqh in Islam and the very school that is the primary reference for all official Islamic jurisprudence in Pakistan? Their ruling regarding a male Muslim blasphemer is absolute. Are you ready to accept that ruling?

Finally, their is no consensus in Fiqh about the ruling that capital punishment shouldn't be awarded to Zimmis. Just a group in Hanfis granted that exception with clear difference of opinion. That difference of opinion will be highlighted later. While other three school of thoughts are quite clear about the ruling with absolutely no difference of opinion that shatim will be awarded capital punishment irrespective of gender or religion.



What is the status of Saif ul Maslool in Fiqh e Hanfi? You need to first learn about the Umhat ul Kutb of Fiqh e Hanfi and how the saying of Imam Abu Hanifa are ascertained and verified by Hanfis.

Secondly, and most importantly, exceptions can not be quoted to deny the rule. The rule is quite clear and unambiguous across all Madhahib that punishment of irtidad and Sabb is death. I dont know how this exception is supporting your claim that blasphemy laws are not Islamic. Moreover, how this saying of Abu Hanifa is supporting your claim that Fiqh e Hanfi grants capital punishment to only those people who also commit treason apart from blasphemy?

Thirdly, even a student of Fiqh e Hanfi knows that Hanfis reject a lot of sayings of Imam Abu Hanifa concerning Masail because they dont follow him in Masail, instead they follow him in Usul. Sometimes rulings of Sheikheen are preferred over Abu Hanifa, while on other instances ruling of Abu Hanifa is preferred. Even on some instances, ruling of Imam Zufar is preferred over Ashab e Salasa. Books of fiqh e hanfi are filled with such examples.




Nothing of that sort is mentioned in Mukhtasir ul Qadoori. Matn will always be preferred upon Sharah or Fatawa. Again you need to learn Tabqat ul Kutab of Fiqh e Hanfi. My objection stand as it is.

Moreover, Imam Ibn e Humam Hanfi Said, "According to me, if a Zimmi (Non Muslim under the protection of Islamic state) abuses Prophet A.S, he will be killed and his covenant with Islamic state will be considered broken". (Fath ul Qadeer Vol 5, Page 303)

You were claiming that there is a consensus in Fiqh about punishment of non Muslims for blasphemy. There goes your claim of consensus. Even there is a difference of opinion in Fiqh e Hanfi and you were claiming absolute consensus.



Its a fact that Fiqh e Hanfi is not unanimous about prohibition of capital punishment for non Muslim blasphemer. Let us see.

1. Imam Ibn e Humam Hanfi Said, "According to me, if a Zimmi (Non Muslim under the protection of Islamic state) abuses Prophet A.S, he will be killed and his covenant with Islamic state will be considered broken". (Fath ul Qadeer Vol 5, Page 303)

Now have some shame! please. Moreover, why you always forget to mention the unanimous ruling of Fiqh regarding capital punishment for a Muslim blasphemer?

2. It is accepted rule among hanfis that Sharuh will be preferred over Fatawa, therefore, the rulings of Fatawa e Aalamgeria will not be relied upon when ruling of Sharah, in this case, Fath ul Qadeer is present.



3. Imam Ibn e Humam Hanfi further said, " Shatim will be killed as Hadd and his repentance will not be accepted". (Tafseer Mazhri Vol7, Page 381) (Tanqeeh ul Fatwa)

Imam Ibn e Abdeen Shami, Imam Haskafi, and Imam ibn e bazaz hanfi also gave the simillar fatwa that blasphemer will be killed as hadd. (Radul Mukhtar 4:232)

Ruler has no discretion in case of Hudood and as mentioned by Ibn e Humam capital punishment of blasphemer will be granted as Hadd. Moreover, their is no sign of treason in these quotations.


4. Imam Burhan uddin Hanfi said, " there is a consensus among Mutakhreen Mujtahideen about capital punishment of Shatim and absolute majority of Mutaqadmeen are also in favour of capital punishment". (Khulasat ul Fatawa Page 386)

5. Imam Ibn e Abdeen Shami recorded consensus about capital punishment of blasphemer and that his repentance will not be accepted. (Fatawa e Hamdia)

6. Imam Khair ud din Ramli Hanfi said, "ordinary murtad will be granted time for repentance, however, shatim e Rasool will not be allowed to repent, he will be killed. This is the Madhab of Abu Bakar Siddiq R.A, Abu Hanifa, Ahl e Kofa and Imam Malik". Fatawa e Kheria Vol1, Page 170)


7. Imam Tahawi said, " a person who abuses Prophet A.S is murtad and his ruling is like common apostates. (Bahr ur Raiq 5: 125)

Are you ready to accept this ruling of tahawi?

8. Fiqh e Hanfi even awarded capital punishment for blasphemer of Abu Bakar Siddiq and Umr e Farooq R.A. (Bahr ur Raiq 5:135)

Only hiding place left for you to bury your head is under the feet of Ghamdi, as every other scholar is negating your claims.




Dont you think that your claim of 220 million people wanting to impose Fiqh e Hanfi in Pakistan is exaggerated? There is a considerable majority of Muslims in Pakistan who dont follow Fiqh e Hanfi and still they support blasphemy laws. Secondly, no one claimed that Pakistan should be governed according to Hanfi laws and that too word by word. You dont have to create a straw man to defend your twisted ideology.

Explicit ruling about what? You are promoting your claim like there is consensus among Fuqaha on the prohibition of capital punishment for blasphemer. In reality, there is just a difference of opinion in Fiqh e Hanfi regarding the punishment of non Muslim blasphemer. Some prohibited it on the grounds that the non Muslim's covenant with the state will not be broken if he commits blasphemy, while others rejected it. On the other side, there is consensus between fuqaha on the punishment of a Muslim blasphemer. You conveniently forget to mention that fact and picked up an exception to support your disgusting claim that blasphemy laws are introduced as the result of British imperialism. Their is no need to beat that drum of consensus as its already busted.

Most abundant rulings of Fuqaha of all school of thoughts and most importantly, numerous Ahadith are supporting my claim that Islam grants capital punishment to blasphemer of Prophet A.S. That's the reason of my inflated chest. Unlike you, I am not hiding behind an exception in Hanfi law.



What you know is not relevant. What is written in Pakistani law is important. You should make efforts to change that law by confronting the Muslims of Pakistan, instead of hiding under the protection of Kufaar.



And how that quote is supporting your claim? Did Imam Abu Hanifa said that their is no capital punishment for blasphemer, at all? Or did he claimed that blasphemy laws are enacted under the influence of Kufaar? Or did he claimed that there was no blasphemy laws at the time of Prophet A.S? Its amusing for me that how a person can close his eyes from numerous Ahadith, the sayings of Prophet A.S, acts of Sahaba and sayings of absolute majority of scholars, and starting to beat the drum of single exception in Hanfi law. You need a treatment.



Hanafism doesn't categorically forbids the death punishment for non Muslims. The quotes of Hanfi Scholars are provided, now stop beating that drum. My argument doesn't rely solely on Fiqh e Hanfi. Instead it relies on numerous traditions of Prophet A.S and rulings of absolute majority of scholars.

Why you are shedding tears on the conditions of Hanfis, when you purposefully neglected numerous Ahadith and found an exceptiion in Hanfi law. I am sure Hanfi's will be forgiven in afterlife by not enacting few rulings considered by Imam Abu Hanifa.



Oh, woww, federal Shariat court misquoted Abu Bakar Jassas al Razi. That is a revelation, and I am much impressed. Did FSC solely relied on Abu Bakar Jassas Al Razi for granting their verdict? What about those numerous traditions of Prophet A.S which were quoted? What about long list of scholars including Hanfis who gave fatawa against punishments for non Muslims?

Moreover, as far as Abu Bakr Jassas is concerened, he said in his Ahkam ul Quran, "there is no difference of opinion among Muslims on the matter concerning a person who abuses Prophet, even if he call himself Muslim, he is an apostate and will be killed. (Ahkam ul Quran 3:102)

Are you ready to accept this ruling of Abu Bakar Jassas Al Razi? Or you just quoted him for your own purpose and to defend Shatmeen?



You can start your long walk by negating numerous traditions of Prophet A.S about Riddah and Sabb. If you had cared for religion then your course of action must have been different. Instead, you tried to defend the lives of Shatmeen e Rasool. It is a pitty, may God show you the right path.



I dont know what is the problem with your lot. You cant tolerate attacks on Ghamdi, but you are ready to tolerate attacks on Prophet A.S by non Muslims. What can I say more than that.



Let me make it more interesting for you.

1. Abu Bakar Farsi Shafai said, "if any person accuses any Prophet A.S of wrongful act then he will be killed because accusation on Prophet A.S is liable to death". He recorded Ijma regarding it. (Raoz ut Talib Vol4, P-122)

2. From Sahaba to this era there is Ijma on the matter that blasphemer of Prophet is liable to death. (Shifa 933)

3. "Any person who abuses Prophet A.S, whether he is a Muslim or a non Muslim, is liable to death" Ibn e Taimiah claimed Ijma on that matter. Moreover, he also claimed Ijma of Sahaba and Qaroon e Oola on that matter. (As Sarim ul Maslool 565,3)

You conveniently forgot to mention this claim of ibn e taimiah while quoting an excerpt from his book. Or he was working for Britishers, that's why you neglected his whole book and picked one statement? You must have learnt this trick from Ghamdi.

4. Imam Abu yousaf hanfi gave fatwa of of Capital Punishment for blasphemer of Prophet A.s. (Rooh ul Bayan 3:394)

5. Repentance will be accepted from Murtad in all cases except from blasphemer of Prophet. He will be killed as Hadd. (Rad ul Mukhtar 4:231, Tanweer ul absaar)

6. Imam ibn e Sakhnoon Malki said, " there is consensus among Muslims that blasphemer is Kafir and is liable to death. (Rad ul Mukhtar 4:232)

7. "In essence, there is no difference of opinion regarding the Kufr and capital punishment of blasphemer of Prophet A.S and this is narrated from four Imams "(Imam Ibn e Abdeen Shami)

9. "Repentance of blasphemer after arest will not be accepted as per Ijma, he will be killed" (Abu Saood Hanfi)


10. Hanfi scholars who gave fatwa of death for blasphemer: Imam Haskafi, Ibn e Hummam, Ibn e Abdeen, Qazi Sana Ullah, Abu Bakar Jassas, Imam Burhan ud deen Sahib e Muheet, ibne nujeem Hanfi, ibn e bazaz, Imam Abu Yousaf, Imam Tahawi, abu saood hanfi, Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdullah

Names of Scholars who recorded Ijma regarding capital punishment of blasphemer:

Ibn e Munzar Neshapori, Abu bakar Farsi, Qazi Ayaz, Ibn e Taimiyah, Imam khatabi, Imam Ishaq bin Rahwae, Imam Abu Bakar Jassas, Ibn e Abdin Shami, Imam ibne Sakhnon Malki, Imam Ibn e Atab Malki.

Names of Scholars who gave the fatwa of Capital Punishment for blasphemer of Rasool Allah A.S:

Allama Ismail Haqqi Sahib e Rohul Bayan, Imam Ibne qayam, Imam Ibne taimiayah, Imam Ibn e Munzar, imam malik, imam lais bin saad, imam ahmad bin Hanbal, imam ishaq bin rahwae, imam shafai, imam abubakar farsi shafai, Qazi Ayaz Malki, imam khatabi, Hazrat Umar bin abdul aziz, imam khalal, Ibn e Aqeel Abul Khatab, Imam Halwani, Qazi Abul Hussain, Ibne Munir, allama Ibn e Kasir, Sana Ullah Pani Pati, Hafiz Saadi, Imam Darqutni, allama waqdi, sheikh muhammad bin abdullah altamartashi, Abu saod hanfi, imam Abdullah bin alhakam, imam abu yousaf, imam tahawi, , Imam usman bin kanana malki, imam azbakh malki, abu lais samrqandi, imam abu nasar adabusi, imam ibn e bazaz hanafi, imam khair udin ramli hanfi, imam ibn e najim hanfi, abu lais samrqandi, abu nasar adabusi, imam burhan udin mahmud, imam abu ali bin albana, , qazi abu yala, abul mawahib al akbari, qazi abu ali bin abi musa, imam haskafi, , imam abul hassan qabsi, imam muhammad bin abi zaid, imam ahmad bin sulaiman, imam abdullah bin atab, Maulana Hussain ahmad madni, Imam Subki Shafai



You haven't felt shame while defending the right of life for Shatmeen e Rasool A.S and here you are giving lectures to others. I dont want to use strong words against a fellow Muslim, otherwise, I dont have any respect for a person who tries to defend blasphemers.



Please refer to above mentioned traditions of Prophet A.S.



I am acting on verified traditions of Prophet A.S, ashab e Rasool and Mujtahideen which grant capital punishment to Murtadeen and Shatmeen. Evidence of which is quoted above.



Actually, in Deen e Ghamdi every other tradition which doesn't fit in his ideas is contested. I am fully aware of that fact. If you ever tried to negate those traditions, which are not just two, we will see reflections of that fact. Traditions of Bukhari, Nisai, Tirmazi, Abu Daood with different chain of narrators are all contested, however, deen e Ghamdi is absolute, free from error and can be accepted with absolute certainty. How convenient!

Hundred and even thousands of which instances? Who unanimously accepted the claim that there were no blasphemy laws in the era of Prophet A.S? Who claimed that punishment of Murtad is not death? Who said that blasphemy laws are a product of British imperialism?



That sea of Hanfism is awarding death punishment, with an exception of non Muslims and women. That too is not unaniomous, in fact that Qol is Marjoh and Muftis give their fatwa on Qol e Rajeh, which is stated above.

Why are you not including other scholars in that sea beyond hanfis? I have quoted sayings of those scholars and also provided a list. Jo chahe Apka Husn e Karishma Saaz Kare!



Please add names of those scholars who absolutely rejected capital punishment of blasphemers in all cases including Muslim men. Or all those scholars who gave absolute Fatawas for blasphemers were also uneducated, following their self serving narratives for 1400 years? Or all of them were lying and only truthful person in entire Ummat e Muhammadia A.S is Ghamdi?

As I have said earlier, I am not protector of Islam, nor does I claim any such thing. In fact, protector of Islam is God Himself, he doesn't need protection of anyone. Lets say for instance that I am defending Islam, however, for whom you are writing all these words? For blasphemers of Prophet A.S?



Prophet A.S gave that right to His Khulafa R.A and then onward to all Muslim rulers to punish His blasphemers in this world so that peace and tranquility can be maintained in Muslim society.



Go and read Fatawa of Hanfis and consider yourself educated. Although, defenders of blasphemers are beyond reproach or education.



Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa gave Fatwa of death for Murtadeen including Muslim blasphemers, one thousand three hundred and twenty two years ago. And here you are, arguing for all blasphemers. See, there is a difference.



People dont demand death for a person who insulted their mother. However, Muslims demand death for blasphemers because they love and respect Prophet A.S more than their mothers.

As far as Zimmis are concerned, their protection is the duty of Islamic state. For that protection, they have to submit to Islamic state and accept its authority. However, the case of non Muslim minorities living inside Pakistan is different. They are not Zimmis, they didn't submitted themselves to Islamic state, they were not conquered and they dont pay any Jizya to Pakistan. Therefore, they are not Zimmis and Hanfi law of Zimmis is not applicable on them. For application of Hanfi law the existence of covenant with Islamic state is mandatory.



That authority belongs to Islamic state, I am not claiming any authority over blasphemers.



I have quoted traditions of Prophet A.S and Fatawa of Sahaba and Mujtahideen. Read them and try to throw these insults on them, as well. As they are also not agreeing with deen e Ghamdi.



Lets pray that your defense (mine too) will be accepted.



If someone ridicule Hindu God then the publishing of blasphemous content against Prophet A.S is justified? No one should be allowed to ridicule religious figures of all religions.



Only a disgusting, miserable soul can do this. Lanat bar Shatmeen wa Awanehi.



Are you protecting your religion by hiding under the cloaks of Kufaar? Maybe its allowed in Deen e Ghamdi. Why you left your country while you knew that it was threatened by corrupt people? Why are you not relying on your spine to oppose blasphemy laws publicly? Why are you not showing your character in front of your fellow Muslims? Grow up! and stop hiding behind protection of Kufaar.

Actually, insolent mouths of some miserable souls starts churning out filth when they leave the jurisdiction of Pakistani state. We have seen many such examples like guraya and gul bukhari, in the past.



No I mean those scholars who gave fatawas of death against your beloved blasphemers. Go, check out their name and start targeting them.



Proved. Now, negate them.



Why shouldn't I. Majority has the right to enact laws for themselves, dont you believe in democracy? Or you only believe in the democratic right of French people?



You are following the path of goraya. Are your parents from Pakistan? It seems to me that you are the only soul who is honest, everyone else in Pakistan is dishonest and corrupt, thats why you left Pakistan.



At least, we are not defending blasphemers.



Helplessness against Deen e Ghamdi? Helplessness against those miserable souls who seek protection of Kufaar to spit filth against their fellow Muslims? Its just amusing.




Us? You mean yourself, followers of Ghamdi and Ghamdi himself? Prophet A.S foretold us about Ahl ul Biddah, many have emerged and disappeared, never to rise again. Khwarij, Muatazila, Jabrya, Qadrya and Qadianis. You are just like them, in fact worse than them and your lot will also disappear. The Name and Deen of Muhammad e Arbi A.S will always remain.



My grandparents supported Quaid, we left our homes and properties and moved to a new land to support his cause and have suffered atrocities of Hindus to establish an Islamic state. We gave our toil and blood for this state. Your attacks are misdirected.



You need to learn few things from Ghamdi including humility, respect and good manners. As far as knowledge and arguments are concerned, I dont need to brag about anything.



Are you a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa? Or just taking his name to beat your drum in support of blasphemers?



I am still better then you at this small place. At least, I am not under the protection of Kufaar.



Quoted few of them, not all. Now please negate them, one by one. This time around, dont hide behind exceptions of law. Lets see, how knowledgeable defenders of blasphemers are.



Deen e ghamdi.



Yes.



I have quoted the Fatwas of scholars, negate them, instead of bragging about how mighty you are.



Again, more and more chest thumping.

@krash is absolutely right. Pakistan's current blasphemy laws are not inline with Hanafi Fiqh (not even with Shafii, Maliki or Jafari jurisprudence as well, only Hanbali Fiqh may be an exception). While arguing in favour of mandatory death penalty for all blasphemers (regardless of what religion or gender they are) in Federal Shariat Court, Imam Abu Hanifa was misquoted. It's all part of the record. Even the lawyer who argued in favour of "mandatory death penalty for blasphemy" himself accepted that he had made a mistake.

Many of us oppose and criticise 295 PPC not because this law is Islamic but because this (extension of) colonial law is in direct contradiction with clear Quranic injunctions

 

[Mutakalim]

@krash is absolutely right. Pakistan's current blasphemy laws are not inline with Hanafi Fiqh (not even with Shafii, Maliki or Jafari jurisprudence as well, only Hanbali Fiqh may be an exception).

Qol e Marjoh in Fiqh e Hanfi can be replaced with Qol e Rajeh. Hanfis are doing this thing for hundred of years. Hanfis do not follow every ruling of Imam Abu Hanifa in Masail, that is one of the basic principle of Fiqh e Hanfi. Moreover, Islamic state can choose one ruling over another, remaining inside the principles set by Shariah.

Secondly, you can not achieve your target of discrediting or attacking Islamic laws unless you focus your attention on those sources from which these laws have emerged. Beating the drum of an exception in Hanfi law is not enough to tear down the whole argument which is being presented in favour of blasphemy laws. Our argument does not rely on Zaniyaat of Fiqh e Hanfia, instead it is based on Sahih and verified narrations of Prophet A.S, Fatawa of Sahaba and Jamhoor Muhadiseen o Mujtahideen.

While arguing in favour of mandatory death penalty for all blasphemers (regardless of what religion or gender they are) in Federal Shariat Court, Imam Abu Hanifa was misquoted.

Does that instance have any effect on Hukm e Sharai? I dont know how is it relevant? Does FSC accept Fiqh e Hanfi as a fundamental source of law? Or the whole argument built by FSC was entirely based on one Qol of Imam Abu Hanifa?

Many of us oppose and criticise 295 PPC not because this law is Islamic but because this (extension of) colonial law is in direct contradiction with clear Quranic injunctions

Article 295 PPC is in direct contradiction with your thought and ideas. Dont try to present your opinions as injunctions of Quran.