Blasphemers are terrorists, says IHC judge

[VCheng]

Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He is a judge that sits in Hon'ble High Court of Islamabad and authority that promoted him, appointed him cannot be judged like this. Hope you understand.

Of course. But the Honorable Judge must keep his personal beliefs private, since he is required to be totally impartial while judging cases equally for all citizens, as a matter of sworn duty.

 

[The Eagle]

Of course. But the Honorable Judge must keep his personal beliefs private, since he is required to be totally impartial while judging cases equally for all citizens, as a matter of sworn duty.

There is a solemn affirmation as well being a Muslim that what is described in Article. Whatever he stated will only be viewed once the judgment is being shared with public and the context in which he stated as such. I repeat, Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Islamic belief is in the name as well as with Muslims. The tile said, blasphemers are terrorists and indeed they are that sought chaos and unrest in society by doing so whereby same applies for any blasphemer either against Islam or any other religion which causes anarchy in society.

 

[VCheng]

There is a solemn affirmation as well being a Muslim that what is described in Article. Whatever he stated will only be viewed once the judgment is being shared with public and the context in which he stated as such. I repeat, Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Islamic belief is in the name as well as with Muslims. The tile said, blasphemers are terrorists and indeed they are that sought chaos and unrest in society by doing so whereby same applies for any blasphemer either against Islam or any other religion which causes anarchy in society.

Fair enough. Pakistan has the right to impose any laws within its jurisdiction as it chooses to, but how does the Honorable Judge plan to control content present on the social media? What steps can the government realistically take up? Both blasphemers and terrorists are liable for the death penalty under existing laws, so perhaps the distinction is moot from this point of view.

 

[The Eagle]

Fair enough. Pakistan has the right to impose any laws within its jurisdiction as it chooses to, but how does the Honorable Judge plan to control content present on the social media? What steps can the government realistically take up? Both blasphemers and terrorists are liable for the death penalty under existing laws, so perhaps the distinction is moot from this point of view.

Did you read what he say in details of judgment so there is fair conclusion that as the Article stated, he called Interior Minister in Person then Court knows what Law to follow hence, this is just a start. The moot point is mere reading of a mindset that doesn't know the Law so no need to go in circles as the understanding is simple, Court says means Court knows which law to be followed and called respective minister as well.

 

[VCheng]

Did you read what he say in details of judgment so there is fair conclusion that as the Article stated, he called Interior Minister in Person then Court knows what Law to follow hence, this is just a start. The moot point is mere reading of a mindset that doesn't know the Law so no need to go in circles as the understanding is simple, Court says means Court knows which law to be followed and called respective minister as well.

What judgement are you referring to Sir? The OP has no mention of this.

 

[The Eagle]

What judgement are you referring to Sir? The OP has no mention of this.

What do you think how he declared Blasphemers as terrorists? like in a TV interview or there was a Court proceeding that he made a statement in one of the cases about what, the article misses the same or not?

 

[VCheng]

What do you think how he declared Blasphemers as terrorists? like in a TV interview or there was a Court proceeding that he made a statement in one of the cases about what, the article misses the same or not?

Did he make that declaration as part of a legal judgement, or as an expression of his personal views? That is all I am trying to determine.

 

[haviZsultan]

I think we are too sensitive to blasphemy. Those in the best position to represent Islam are those who can tolerate. Furthermore what is blasphemy. According to some a Hindu reciting Quran is blasphemy. And don't even let me begin what blasphemy law causes and the 1000+ innocent people framed on false charges of blasphemy. I think our priorities are not right. We are focused on imposing Islam forcefully rather than attempting to attract people to it through love and respect. A person who tolerates is the one in the best position to serve Islam. Instead we are an emotional people always baying for blood when blasphemy is even mentioned.

 

[The Eagle]

Did he make that declaration as part of a legal judgement, or as an expression of his personal views? That is all I am trying to determine.

I don't think so it was a try to determine but was a direct statement from you.... That was a judgmental call. I ask you that do you know that was an expression or the part of any proceeding?

He is clearly unfit to serve as a judge, letting his personal beliefs reign supreme over his duties to be impartial.

 

[VCheng]

I don't think so it was a try to determine but was a direct statement from you.... That was a judgmental call. I ask you that do you know that was an expression or the part of any proceeding?

I made that call based on the wording attributed to the Honorable Judge, which is highly personal, and therefore has no valid place in an impartial process.

 

[The Eagle]

I made that call based on the wording attributed to the Honorable Judge, which is highly personal, and therefore has no valid place in an impartial process.

There is a clear reading that if a judge made a statement then obviously it is in the Court with reference to any proceeding that we don't know yet or otherwise, could be a chat outside of the Court but latter is not the case so it is obvious and he cannot be personal while in the Court that too being Justice of Hon'ble High Court. Also, people can attribute the wording and there is no clear statement that what exactly happened and what was the context that such statement is made so we cannot be conclusive without details.

Carry on with discussion.

 

[Musafir117]

Blasphemer are terrorists but bloody terrorists are ghazi. What a helpless nation.

 

[Rusty]

Try to abuse someone in Canada and taste the dust when he or she sues you.

it happens all the time.
People in Canada are not made from sugar so that if you insult them, they melt.

 

[RoadRunner401]

Pakistani laws fall under Quran and Sunnah and what he said is totally according to law of Islamic Republic Pakistan.

Really, name some laws that follow The Noble Qur'an

i am glad you living in US so keep your personal belief seprate Disrespecting of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is not allowed and will never allow in this land, people who doesnt want to follow the law of Islamic Republic of Pakistan are welcome to leave.

What exactly is Islamic about Pakistan before we even discuss Islam or Prophet Muhammad.

 

[Hrk19]

Its not his personal beliefs idiot, its the belief of the pakistani nation according to the constitution of pakistan and its law, its leeches like u who belittle law of the land at every turn that are unfit for opening thier mouth..

dont worry,hopefully now the islamabad high court might force the govt to get rid of the likes of him from social media
and hopefully it would reach a point in the future that they are tracked online so that they are arrested and punished under the law