Taseers family was not interested in accepting blood money nor was it willing to forgive (in my view correctly). In addition, Qadri's actions were correctly determined to be terrorism by the courts, whereas neither Raymond Davis not the deaths of PIA workers fall under that category.
Where in the Quran does Allah order the killing of those criticising or degrading the prophet?
A Hindu saying he was true follower of Islam
Diya law is anti poor
Apparently he is coming to Qadri Janaza with madaras student from across Islamabad. You can it directly to him.
Yeah hamaray se tor kay bhe jayein gay
This might be your personal assessment based on your observation but few years ago I happened to come across official FBI document meant for military and other law enforcement agencies. According to it, Salafis are the red zone group followed by Wahabis (alah-hadith) and so, Sufi's being in the green zone. Deobandis fall somewhere in between. Idk about UK but Tabligi jamat works quite openly in America and is welcomed by Mosque run by both ICNA and Arabis from Egyptian and Saudi school of thought ( which ever imam they follow).
Exactly, you can't draw a comparison here cuz all these groups are offshoot of each other and are not supported by mainstream ulama of either Deoband or Alh-Hadith. while on the contrary, Mumtaz Qadari action is supported by mainstream Berlavi ulmma.
Poor families are far less likely to be able to afford legal counsel, let alone arrange for a sufficient amount of 'blood money' to pay to the family of the victim. Wealthy individuals/families are far more likely to be able to arrange sufficient amounts of 'blood money' to sway the families of victims. The law is therefore prejudiced against poor people.
Piece by piece this edifice of bigotry, intolerance and hatred constructed in the name of 'Islam' in Pakistan by the Mullah Raj and their apologists shall be chipped away at until it stands no longer.
bro thats a classic case of state vs religion.you can either implement modern law and completely remove the concept of diya(most probably it will be thrown out of supreme court because it will declare it unislamic) or you keep this law.
I gave you a rational argument on why the diya law is prejudiced against poor people and puts broader society in danger when criminals who have committed heinous crimes are allowed to go free because of 'blood money'. What's your response to that, or is Islam prejudiced against poor people and does not care that a criminal will commit more heinous crimes against others when allowed to go free because of blood money?
separation of state and religion so we can implement modern day laws.
Sure, that would be ideal, but my point is that the laws can be changed and reformed even while retaining the 'Islamic nature' of the State in the short to medium term IF the Mullahs are asked to justify their interpretations in court.
