Whatever

[Tps43]

O vaahayaato kisay banday no baksh v dia kro

Sab no bakshya ja sakda ee teno nhi

 

[Hell hound]

O vaahayaato kisay banday no baksh v dia kro

banda bakshan joga wi tey huna cahida kay nahi

 

[Mentee]

banda bakshan joga wi tey huna cahida kay nahi

Sab no bakshya ja sakda ee teno nhi

Dayvta jaysay insan ko b nahi?

 

[Tps43]

Dayvta jaysay insan ko b nahi?

Boom chik chik Boom.







Nhi

 

[Valar.]

Boom chik chik Boom.







Nhi

 

[Tps43]

 

[M. Sarmad]

Well the entire controversy IS about the interpretation. I think we can boil down the dispute to this: on the one hand we have 1400 years of well understood jurisprudence that forms the basis of Islamic Shariah Law and on the other hand you have a man inspired by the likes of Aasma Jehangir.

The matter of interpretation is so sensitive, wrongful interpretation has been given its own title. Kufr is outright denial, Nifaaq is being ambivalent in the matter of core faith, Ilhaad is leaning towards materialism in interpreting and applying Shariah, and Zandiqiyat is making interpretations of Islam that go contrary to what has been classically held by Muslims.

If the state tries to impose an interpretation, there WILL be a LOT of trouble, and the state shall be responsible.

No my friend, it's not about interpretation, nor do you have 1400 years of history on your side.

Mr. Jalali claimed that by rejecting what the lower courts had accepted as "confession", the Supreme Court of Pakistan has acted against the law and constitution, as well as Sharia.

Mr. Jalali is wrong on both accounts. When you plead not guilty and file an appeal against lower court decision, the "confession", that has to be voluntary and out of free will, even if made, becomes doubtful.

As far as Islamic law is concerned, retraction of confession is permitted in Hudud cases.

So Aasiya Bibi's right to retract her confession is protected by law of the land as well as Shariah ...

But Aasiya Bibi never even made a confession, her silence was misconstrued as "confession" ...


As for witnesses, they didn't meet the criteria set forth by Islam (or law of the land). The SC has acted neither against Islam nor against the law of the land ..


If Mr. Jalali believes that Islam does not allow retraction of confession, and silence is essentially "confession", he should go to the Federal Shariat Court and Shariat Appellate Bench of the SC and challenge the Qanoon e Shahadat of 1984 for it being against Islam. Though his appeal won't be accepted for hearing even, it's his constitutional right .....


As for Islam being on your side for 1400 years, let me remind you that 295 - C mandates death penalty for all blasphemers regardless of what religion or gender they are .... This is against the Hanafi, Shaafi, Maliki and Jafari jurisprudences ... Only Hanbali jurisprudence, followed by no more than 2% of Muslims, holds similar views regarding Blasphemy punishment. But even the Saudis have pardoned blasphemers (Sabri Bogday for example) ....

 

[CriticalThought]

No my friend, it's not about interpretation, nor do you have 1400 years of history on your side.

Mr. Jalali claimed that by rejecting what the lower courts had accepted as "confession", the Supreme Court of Pakistan has acted against the law and constitution, as well as Sharia.

Mr. Jalali is wrong on both accounts. When you plead not guilty and file an appeal against lower court decision, the "confession", that has to be voluntary and out of free will, even if made, becomes susceptible.

As far as Islamic law is concerned, retraction of confession is permitted in Hudud cases.

Kindly provide references for both claims.

But Aasiya Bibi never even made a confession, her silence was misconstrued as "confession" ...

The Maulana, an expert on religious matters, has said clearly that silence is an admission of guilt.

As for witnesses, they didn't meet the criteria set forth by Islam (or law of the land). The SC has acted neither against Islam nor against the law of the land ..

And what exactly is this criteria that you think is set forth by Islam?

If Mr. Jalali believes that Islam does not allow retraction of confession, and silence is essentially "confession", he should go to the Federal Shariat Court and Shariat Appellate Bench of the SC and challenge the Qanoon e Shahadat of 1984 for it being against Islam. Though his appeal won't be accepted for hearing even, it's his constitutional right .....

I am quite sure they will follow the due process.

As for Islam being on your side for 1400 years, let me remind you that 295 - C mandates death penalty for all blasphemers regardless of what religion or gender they are .... This is against the Hanafi, Shaafi, Maliki and Jafari jurisprudences ... Only Hanbali jurisprudence, followed by no more than 2% of Muslims, holds similar views regarding Blasphemy punishment. But even the Saudis have pardoned blasphemers (Sabri Bogday for example) ....

And this is where you display your ignorance

http://www.banuri.edu.pk/readquestion/اسلام-میں-شاتم-رسول-ﷺکی-سزا/01-01-2010

 

[M. Sarmad]

And this is where you display your ignorance

http://www.banuri.edu.pk/readquestion/اسلام-میں-شاتم-رسول-ﷺکی-سزا/01-01-2010

Please read again what I had posted. There is nothing in this link to counter what has been posted.

Regards

Kindly provide references for both claims

 

[CriticalThought]

Please read again what I had posted. There is nothing in this link to counter what has been posted.

Regards

First of all, the religious reference has no bearing because none of the authors have valid training in Islamic Shariah.

Now, the court case. In the referred case, the appellant has initially denied any guilt, and only later did he make an admission

Both, the Trial Court and the learned Judges of the High Court, have heavily relied upon the so called confession of the appellant, which is not at all a confession under the law but an admission of guilt. Both the Courts conveniently ignored that the appellant, in the first instance, denied the formal charge and pleaded innocence, therefore, they should have probed into the mind of the appellant, as to what prompted him to make such an admission at a belated stage. We will discuss it in the latter part of the judgment.

In the case of Asia Mal'oona, the appellant has initially admitted guilt, and later kept silent. There is a world of difference.

Now, based on the case you have cited, the court needs to delve into the appellant's mind to see why she has decided to remain silent. And this is exactly the point hinted by the Maulana as well.

Please read again what I had posted. There is nothing in this link to counter what has been posted.

That link refutes your claim that different schools of thought hold differences regarding the punishment. It categorically states that all four schools of thought are agreed, and the agreement holds whether the person is Muslim or non-Muslim.

 

[M. Sarmad]

in
the case of Asia Mal'oona, the appellant has initially admitted guilt, and later kept silent. There is a world of difference.

.

Aasia never confessed her guilt in any Court of law...

.

Now, the court case. In the referred case, the appellant has initially denied any guilt, and only later did he make an admission

Please read full judgement. The SC has categorically stated that capital punishment cannot be awarded on basis of admission of guilt alone ... Standard confession procedure has to be followed.... In Aasia's case, there was no admission of guilt even (let alone standard confession procedure)

First of all, the religious reference has no bearing because none of the authors have valid training in Islamic Shariah.

It is an established principle of Islamic law. You can do some research on that if you want.For starters, I will give you another link:

 

[M. Sarmad]

That link refutes your claim that different schools of thought hold differences regarding the punishment. It categorically states that all four schools of thought are agreed, and the agreement holds whether the person is Muslim or non-Muslim.

The Fatwa you posted does not "refute" anything ... It just makes a vague claim, without providing any references of course ..

To understand the position held by different Islamic schools of thought regarding punishment for blasphemers, read this :

Hanafi – view blasphemy as synonymous with apostasy, and therefore, accepts the repentance
of apostates. Those who refuse to repent, their punishment is death if the blasphemer is a Muslim man, and if the blasphemer is a woman, she must be imprisoned with coercion(beating) till she repents and returns to Islam.3 If a non‐Muslim commits blasphemy, his punishment must be a tazir (discretionary, can be death, arrest, caning, etc).4,5


Maliki – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy.Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy for Muslim men, and repentance is not accepted. For women, death is not the punishment suggested, but she is arrested and punished till she repents and returns to Islam or dies in custody.6 A non‐Muslim who commits blasphemy against Islam must be punished; however, the blasphemer can escape punishment by converting and becoming a devout Muslim.7


Hanbali – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women, and repentance is not accepted.8


Shafi’i – recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is death.9,10


Ja'fari (Shia) – views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to bep unishable with death, if the blasphemer is a Muslim.11 In case the blasphemer is a non‐Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.12


2 Sahih al‐Bukhari, 3:45:687, Sahih al‐Bukhari, 5:59:369

3 Abu al‐Layth al‐Samarqandi (983), Mukhtalaf al‐Riwayah, vol. 3, pp. 1298–1299

4 Ahmad ibn Muhammad al‐Tahawi (933), Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al‐Ulama, vol. 3, p. 504

5 P Smith (2003), Speak No Evil: Apostasy, Blasphemy and Heresy in Malaysian Syariah Law, UC Davis Journal Int'l Law & Policy, 10, pp. 357‐373;

6 D Jordan (2003), Dark Ages of Islam: Ijtihad, Apostasy and Human Rights in Contemporary Jurisprudence, The.Wash. And Lee Race and Ethnic Anc. Law Journal, Vol 9, p 55‐74

7 Carl Ernst (2005), "Blasphemy: Islamic Concept", Encyclopedia of Religion (Editor: Lindsay Jones), Vol 2,Macmillan Reference, ISBN 0‐02‐865735‐7

8 Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed (2004), Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, Ashgate Publishing, ISBN978‐0754630838

9 L Wiederhold L, Blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad and his companions (sabb al‐rasul, sabb al‐sahabah): The introduction of the topic into Shafi'i legal literature, Jrnl of Sem Studies, Oxford University Press, 42(1), pp.39‐70

10 P Smith (2003), Speak No Evil: Apostasy, Blasphemy and Heresy in Malaysian Syariah Law, UC Davis Journal Int'lL aw & Policy, 10, pp. 357‐373

11 Ayatullah Abu al‐Qasim al‐Khoei (1992), Minhaj al‐Salihin, vol. 2, pp. 43‐45

12 Ali ibn al‐Hussein al‐Murtada (1044), Al‐Intisar, pp. 480‐481

 

[AHMED85]

 

[ghazi52]

Inside Sunehri Masjid, Old city

 

[Indos]

@Dubious

Congrats for becoming new Moderator here ......

PS: Do you have the power to make thread become sticky in China and Far East Section ?