What's new

Rimsha case: Imam masjid, Khalid Jadoon held

I am hearing much from the liberals about the blasphemy law and that it is a man made law which has no basis in Islam. This is disappointing and clearly demonstrates a poor understanding of something which they claim to know much about.

I have therefore, for the purposes of education only, listed below some evidences below on this sensitive issue. This is not exhaustive but shows that the blasphemy law is not as clear as the liberals make it out to be.


IN NO WAY AM I SAYING THAT WHAT MALIK QADRI DID IS RIGHT. THIS IS ULTIMATELY FOR THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH. IT SHOULD BE THE COURT WHICH HANDS DOWN THE PUNISHMENT AND NOT THE CITIZEN'S OF THE STATE.


THE POSITION ON BLASPHEMY

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim or a kafir who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16

This ruling is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

In the Qur’aan it says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur’aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.’

If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?’

Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed”

[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]

This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir, whether he was serious or joking.

With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas which we will quote below.

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)

It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her.

Al-Nasaa’i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, ‘Shall I kill him?’ He rebuked me and said, ‘That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .’” (Saheeh al-Nasaa’i, 3795)

It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs.

The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be accepted or not?

The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution.

Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented.

They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas said: “On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn Abi Sarh… As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, and when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of ‘Abd-Allaah.” He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said: “Was there not among you any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?” They said, “We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?” He said, “It is not befitting for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334)

This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes repentant.

‘Abd-Allaah ibn Sa’d was one of those who used to write down the Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115.

With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious, because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious, because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which still stand despite his repentance.

If it is said, “Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?” The answer is:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438

Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar’i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr.

And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions

above is another proof with more Hadees on this topic
 
. . . .
Blashmey law is law of Islam not Muslim law in the sense which you are saying this is clearly proven by Quran and Hadees Mr

The thing you should keep in mind that the very law is being abused to ad infinitum and manipulated to suit personal agendas ! :azn:

And please try to change your way of thinking , you claim to follow the religion of the person who wished well even for his enemies ! Even though I do not think you will understand ...

I applaud the people who turned the imam in.
That probably took some guts and always deserves respect!

:pakistan:

Do you know the people who turned him in ? Ironically , it was the same Ulma Council of Pakistan :) The so called Moulvi ( even though I will be insulting all others when i describe him as such ) will rot in prison now for endangering the life of countless Christians and manipulating the law to suit his personal agenda , not to mention being a blasphemer himself !

They deserve a standing ovation ! :pakistan:

this moulvi looks devil from his face.

Need you tell , bro !

The saw he spoke on the TV about how upon his orders , hundreds of Christians would have been killed spoke volumes !
 
.
Glad that because of high of visibility this case got investigated. It goes to sbow how easy it is to put blame on someone and get him jailed. What happens to others who does not have media, foreign government pressure.
 
.
To all those who have confusion about the great religion of Islam , check the promise made to the Christians by the Prophet himself which these clowns and extremist need to learn and follow !

In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1400 years under Muslim protection.
The Promise to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."


The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that Muslims are with Christians near and far straight away rejecting any future attempts to limit the promise to St. Catherine alone. By ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges. These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with violating God’s covenant.
 
.
To all those who have confusion about the great religion of Islam , check the promise made to the Christians by the Prophet himself which these clowns and extremist need to learn and follow !

In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1400 years under Muslim protection.
The Promise to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."


The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that Muslims are with Christians near and far straight away rejecting any future attempts to limit the promise to St. Catherine alone. By ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges. These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with violating God’s covenant.

Stirring words!
 
. . .
Maulana Tahir Ashrafi at its best once again - watch from 08:30 to 15 minutes

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Does our blasphemy laws include punishment for insulting the family members of the prophet (PBUH) and Abu Baker, Umar, Usman and Ali and all other companions of the Prophet (PBUH)?

420 Amir Liaqat and many others also reportedly insulted the companion/s of the prophet (PBUH) was he charged? He still shows up on TV showing his disgusting face.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Either it is just that the blasphemy laws don't include the wives and companions of the prophet (PBUH) or the law is used only against the poor for personal gains and interests only.

In both cases blasphemy law is a silly law unless implemented completely in the right way.
 
.
Blasphemy case: Ulema council chief demands bail for Rimsha
By Peer Muhammad
Published: September 4, 2012
ISLAMABAD:
Even vociferous supporters of the blasphemy law have come out in support of Rimsha Masih, the 11-year-old girl allegedly suffering from Down’s Syndrome, who was accused of burning pages inscribed with Quranic verses last month.
At a packed press conference, All Pakistan Ulema Council Chairperson Allama Tahir Ashrafi demanded bail for Rimsha and the trial under the blasphemy act of Khalid Jadoon Chishti, who is accused of planting evidence against the minor and has also been booked under the blasphemy law for allegedly desecrating the Holy Quran.
Accompanied by representatives of the Pakistan Interfaith League, Ashrafi said in a fiery speech that the council itself would provide protection to the girl if the government was scared of a reaction from extremist elements.
Ironically, Ashrafi’s support for Rimsha stems from his concern for the blasphemy law.
“There is a conspiracy to abolish the blasphemy law and investigators (of Rimsha’s case) should expose elements behind this act,” Ashrafi said. “We condemn the reports about the interior ministry’s request to the court to deny bail to Rimsha due to security threats. We are ready to take the responsibility of protecting Rimsha and the court should release her immediately,” he maintained.
The ulema council also sought the formation of a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the case against Chishti and seriously investigate the conspiracy behind registering an FIR against Rimsha under pressure from the local community.
Implementation of law
Commenting on the blasphemy law, Ashrafi insisted that there was no flaw in the law itself and rather, the problems arose out of its implementation. “Under the law, an FIR in such cases should be registered after a thorough investigation by a Superintendent Police (SP)-level officer, but in most cases, FIRs are registered by SHOs without investigation,” Ashrafi said.
The council chairman also urged that a comprehensive mechanism be put in place to strengthen the implementation process for the blasphemy law.
“The law is being misused due to loopholes in the implementation process. Making a mockery of this important law should end once and for all,” Ashrafi said. “We are treating this case as a test case and it will help discourage the misuse of the blasphemy law,” he added.
Ashrafi noted that Rimsha’s case had tarnished Pakistan’s international image further, and blamed this on the weakness of the government and the inefficiency of law enforcement agencies.
Pakistan Interfaith League Chairperson Sajid Ishaq said evidence proved that Chishti himself disrespected the Holy Quran. He demanded protection not only for her and her family but also for the rest of the Christian community in Pakistan.
Ishaq informed the media that two committees were formed under the supervision of Supreme Court Advocate Gabrial Francis and President of the Tehreek-e-Tahafuz-e-Madaris Maulana Zahid Mehmood Qasmi. One committee is to investigate the Rimsha case and another committee has been given the responsibility of rehabilitating the displaced families of Meherabadi.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 4th, 2012.
 
. .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom