Punjab: Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy

[The Clarifier]

What if someone questioned?Take this blasphemy law for example.Death sentence to blasphemy is a ruling by islam and have been done during the time of prophet muhammed.Even prophet muhammed ordered killing of a lady-asmat binth marwan who wrote disrespectful songs about him.Does that mean we shouldn't question that law?

Where do you learn abt Prophet Muhammad? From your parents? You are not questioning the law- we are questioning your knowledge about Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad used to walk past a woman's house everyday, and that same woman always threw rubbish at him. He did not order her death. Instead, he visited her when she was sick. The Prophet Muhammad went to a nearby village to preach Islam. He came back with his sandals clogged in blood when the villagers threw rocks at him. He did not order them to be hurt.

The Qur'an CLEARLY states that Prophet Muhammad was a slave of Allah LIKE ALL OF US.

He did not order punishments for those who offended him, nor those who spoke ill of him. I do not see your argument. If you have a problem with laws, than so be it.

It is also ironic that you are using Pakistan as an example of Shariah Law. This case of the woman was clearly illegal in Islam.

End of.

 

[s90]

Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan 'for blasphemy' - Telegraph

 

[gambit]

Ahmed, nice name u have, i believe in every miracle of those Prophet's thats part of my faith, without that iam not a muslim. And sorry everything cannot be justified by logic alone, YOU NEED FAITH for that.

You have to believe in GOD blindly, he does not need to give u video evidence for everything, if GOD does that, than there is no place for FAITH in religion.

Faith is necessary in religion, but not necessary for belief. Evidences and logic can form an excellent foundation for a belief system. The most obvious is the belief in the laws of nature whose behavior and results are consistent enough that our faith in them are automatic and equally consistent in response. On the other hand, one can say that this is an inappropriate argument solely because of the fact that there is no allowance for an alternative should a person chose not to believe in the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, for example. In other words, in order for us to truly be free to exercise our faith into and within a belief system, there must be an option where refusal to believe does not incur a punishment. And the laws of nature will punish.

God, therefore, is quite problematic for a rational existence. Religion compound this confusion. Why is it that, throughout religious history, God revealed Himself only to a select few? And often cryptically like burning bushes, golden plates, visions, stone tablets, and the likes? Why not make it unequivocally clear, like a hostile alien invasion in popular entertainment, that He exists, to everyone everywhere at once? He is the Creator of the laws of nature that punishes everyone anywhere anytime. He is supposed to transcend those laws and that mean He is not bound to respond the same ways they do to their disobedience. That mean He can present Himself as is, like when the Bible recorded He said to Moses: 'I Am', and let people chose to accept or not to accept what He claim to be. Rewards for moral obedience and punishments for moral trespass, and God is a moral being, can be deferred until the afterlife. Let the person decide to be a bank robber or a charity worker. Let society rewards or punishes in this life then heap the same infinitely in the afterlife.

The elimination of faith in religion, if God chose to be clear about Himself the way His laws of nature are clear about themselves, would make the human society far less prone to religious warfare and personal persecution like this sad story. Blasphemy is not about God but about the person who chose to exercise a faith in a god and the offense this person felt when it is implied that he could be wrong about his exercise of faith.

 

[unicorn]

Faith is necessary in religion, but not necessary for belief. Evidences and logic can form an excellent foundation for a belief system. The most obvious is the belief in the laws of nature whose behavior and results are consistent enough that our faith in them are automatic and equally consistent in response. On the other hand, one can say that this is an inappropriate argument solely because of the fact that there is no allowance for an alternative should a person chose not to believe in the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, for example. In other words, in order for us to truly be free to exercise our faith into and within a belief system, there must be an option where refusal to believe does not incur a punishment. And the laws of nature will punish.

God, therefore, is quite problematic for a rational existence. Religion compound this confusion. Why is it that, throughout religious history, God revealed Himself only to a select few? And often cryptically like burning bushes, golden plates, visions, stone tablets, and the likes? Why not make it unequivocally clear, like a hostile alien invasion in popular entertainment, that He exists, to everyone everywhere at once? He is the Creator of the laws of nature that punishes everyone anywhere anytime. He is supposed to transcend those laws and that mean He is not bound to respond the same ways they do to their disobedience. That mean He can present Himself as is, like when the Bible recorded He said to Moses: 'I Am', and let people chose to accept or not to accept what He claim to be. Rewards for moral obedience and punishments for moral trespass, and God is a moral being, can be deferred until the afterlife. Let the person decide to be a bank robber or a charity worker. Let society rewards or punishes in this life then heap the same infinitely in the afterlife.

The elimination of faith in religion, if God chose to be clear about Himself the way His laws of nature are clear about themselves, would make the human society far less prone to religious warfare and personal persecution like this sad story. Blasphemy is not about God but about the person who chose to exercise a faith in a god and the offense this person felt when it is implied that he could be wrong about his exercise of faith.

Young man—Young man—Your arm's too short to box with God.

 

[Sliver]

Yes. Why would you resist in the first place? Because you feel that what is presented to you is inadequate or perhaps even inferior to your current belief. And that is an unacceptable insult. If Islam is presented to you in a peaceful manner and you resist conversion, the insult justified death or forced conversion.

this has got to be the epitome of intolerance - so that means if you come to convert me, and i resist, its an insult to islam - which makes me blasphemous- so u hv a right to kill me!

and you are wat here? elite member?

 

[mehru]

Yes u have every right to discuss religion BUT, if u r a true muslima do not question anything that has been revealed to us through Quran and Sunnah, no compromise on that period.

Discuss invented rituals which tarnish our religion over the year's.

Do not question the rulings of QURAN, HADEES or SUNNAH of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W ).

I hope u got my point.

Relax. I was not about to question Quran, Hadees or Sunnah because i didn't mention either of these. However it is interesting that if you exclude all these then there is nothing pretty much left to discuss. However let's avoid this discussion.

Let's discuss the topic. Do you think that blasphemy law is justified? Or can you suggest some way to save this woman's life?

PS. Sorry if i offended you in some way. That was not my intention.

 

[Xeeshan]

All proponents for the repeal of Hudood and Blasphemy laws are labeled nonbelievers. No one would therefore dare to try to repeal these inhuman laws.

With all due respect sir, it needs to be realized that whereas the laws ordained by Allah and His Prophet are sacred, and there is no room for doubts about it, when these laws are codified, that code of law represents human effort, which is not infallible, but susceptible to mistake. The drafting of any law is a very delicate undertaking. All possible situations have to be kept in mind and provided for in words. Since human intelligence, being limited, cannot visualize all kinds of circumstances in advance, there is always a possibility of flaws and weaknesses in any piece of law. The Hudud Ordinances are no exception. They might suffer from weak drafting. They might contain some aspects that are in need of review and improvement. The process of change and improvement in its implementation can theoretically go on forever, as indeed it should. Of course, this process should be guided by objective critique and not hostility.

Hadd can only be applied upon statement of 4 eye witnesses. We see only women punished because they get pregnant but men go free. This is clearly unjust and no divine law can be unjust.

Sir, there is a law of 'Qazf' as well. The intent of the law is that if one is accused falsely of committing a crime liable to hadd, one can seek punishment from the court against the false accuser. But, since the Ordinance has to be condemned as anti-women, its opponents pick the issue that it allows only men to file complaints.


It is unfortunate that polarization has kept the doors shut for an objective approach. Whenever a proposal concerning some issue is raised at the political level, people get divided into two camps: while one fails to see any good in it and calls for its total repeal, the other fails to notice any flaw in it and deems it heretical to even think about amending it.

Regards

 

[The Clarifier]

I think these verses are important to this debate:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)]

"To you be your religion, and to me my religion." (Qur'an 109:6)

In Pakistan, some mullahs in tribal areas are known to pass fatwas and do many acts without realizing it is against the essence of Islam itself.

 

[T-Faz]

PS. Sorry if i offended you in some way. That was not my intention.

No need to apologise, your statement was perfectly clear and logical.

If some religious individual feels insulted by even a slight enquiry about religion, then it's their lack of faith and understanding that fails them. Making them unable to take criticism and pleasantly defend their religious dogma.

 

[T-Faz]

“There shall be no compulsion in religion for guidance and error have been clearly distinguished”. (2:257)

“Whoever chooses to believe let him believe and whoever chooses to disbelieve let him disbelieve” (18:29)

It would be good to actually follow Islam, not some hardline ideology promoted by certain groups.

We fail because we lack understanding and knowledge of our own religion, there are mullahs around only because we let them gain ground.

There is no concept of a such Mullahs in Islam, they did however came about and poisoned everything around them.

 

[EgO Boy]

What if someone questioned?Take this blasphemy law for example.Death sentence to blasphemy is a ruling by islam and have been done during the time of prophet muhammed.Even prophet muhammed ordered killing of a lady-asmat binth marwan who wrote disrespectful songs about him.Does that mean we shouldn't question that law?

Yes you can Question this law but not me, if it is without dought from my Prophet, i have to impliment it, even if i am the last person on earth to believe in it.

 

[EgO Boy]

Relax. I was not about to question Quran, Hadees or Sunnah because i didn't mention either of these. However it is interesting that if you exclude all these then there is nothing pretty much left to discuss. However let's avoid this discussion.

Let's discuss the topic. Do you think that blasphemy law is justified? Or can you suggest some way to save this woman's life?

PS. Sorry if i offended you in some way. That was not my intention.

Dear sister Mehru, by the way my mother inlaw's name is same, dont get me wrong, i understand ur point.

In my opinion blasphemy laws r ok BUT there implementation is not right, people's r useing it for personal vandata.

In think this women should be given full protection in jail, untill its proven that she did it or not, if she was forced to say something wrong she should be sevearly warned and released to settle some where else for her own protection.

But if she is found guilty of blasphemy on purpose than law should take its course.

I again say law is ok but implementation is problem.

 

[WHF]

For the first time, a woman is sentenced to death in Pakistan for this kind of “offence”. The blasphemy law was introduced in 1986 by then Pakistani dictator Zia-ul Haq and since then it has become a tool for discrimination and violence. Part of the Pakistan Penal Code, the law imposes life in prison for defiling the Qur’an and death for insulting Muhammad.

Islamabad (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Pakistan has “crossed a line” in sentencing a Christian woman to death for blasphemy. Asia Bibi, a 37-year-old farm worker mother of two, was convicted of committing blasphemy before her fellow workers during a heated discussion about religion in the village of Ittanwali in June last year.

Some of the women workers had reportedly been pressuring Bibi to renounce her Christian faith and accept Islam. During one discussion, Bibi responded by speaking of how Jesus had died on the cross for the sins of humanity and asking the Muslim women what Muhammad had done for them.

The Muslim women took offence and began beating Bibi. Afterwards she was locked in a room. According to Release International, a mob reportedly formed and “violently abused” her and her children.

The charity, which supports persecuted Christians, said that blasphemy charges were brought against Bibi because of pressure from local Muslim leaders.

Release International’s chief executive, Andy Dipper, expressed his shock at Sunday’s ruling.

“Pakistan has crossed a line in passing the death sentence on a woman for blasphemy,” he said.

In addition to the death sentence, Bibi was also fined the equivalent for an unskilled worker of two and a half years’ wages.

Another Christian woman, Martha Bibi (no relation to Asia), is also on trial in Lahore for blasphemy.

According to the National Commission on Justice and Peace (NCJP) of the Catholic Church, between 1986 and August 2009, at least 974 people have been charged for defiling the Qur’an or insulting the Prophet Muhammad. They include 479 Muslims, 340 Ahmadis, 119 Christians, 14 Hindus and 10 from other religions.

The blasphemy law has often been used as a pretext for personal attacks or vendettas as well as extra-judicial murders. Overall, 33 people have died this way at the hands of individuals or crazed mobs.

So the champion of minorities, have such wonderful laws for their well being and protection.I mean curse/pursue other religions to abandon their faith and accept islam and when the minorities defend then beat/kill them.Heck i have seen majorities commiting crimes against minorities in countries(gujrat/srilanka) but criminal activities against minorities can only be converted to rule of law in muslim countries,and then they cry over democrasy and demand secular laws and treatment when in minority

 

[wali87]

Well this is just unfortunate. Why the **** do we have blasphemy laws today?

Wht the h e ll do u mean by why do we have blasphemy law? Its an Islamic country and its laws are based on Islam! besides.. No muslim would ever tolerate a single word about against their beloved prophet. I m surprised you even put this question forward.

Whether she did or did not commit blasphemy will be decided by the courts. If she didn't she should be compensated and left alone...however if she did say those things then a death sentence is what she deserves for speaking against our prophet.

 

[wali87]

“There shall be no compulsion in religion for guidance and error have been clearly distinguished”. (2:257)

“Whoever chooses to believe let him believe and whoever chooses to disbelieve let him disbelieve” (18:29)

It would be good to actually follow Islam, not some hardline ideology promoted by certain groups.

We fail because we lack understanding and knowledge of our own religion, there are mullahs around only because we let them gain ground.

There is no concept of a such Mullahs in Islam, they did however came about and poisoned everything around them.

I agree with you on the Mullah part and what you say, however, Disbelieving and committing blasphemy are two different thing my brother. history tells us that majority of muslim rulers allowed people of other faiths to follow their own religion by simply paying Jizya.
However, here, we have a person disgracing our holy prophet.. how could any muslim tolerate that and not beat the hell out of that person.. especially in his own country.