Mother of 4 arrested on Blasphemy Charges in Lahore

[Username]

Are you a scholar man ?? ...Then why you acting like a dumbass ?? ...We have all the proof thats why their is a LAW ...Here Have fun :

The following Reference of Holy Quran Chapter 4 V 65 was revealed when a man was beheaded by the Hazrat Umar (R.A) due to non compliance of judgment given by Holy prophet Mohammad (S.A.W).

Context of Revelation (Chapter 4, V 65):
Al-Hafiz Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin `Abdur-Rahman bin Ibrahim bin Duhaym recorded that Damrah narrated that two men took their dispute to the Prophet , and he gave a judgment to the benefit of whoever among them had the right. The person who lost the dispute said, “I do not agree.” The other person asked him, “What do you want then” He said, “Let us go to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq.” They went to Abu Bakr and the person who won the dispute said, “We went to the Prophet with our dispute and he issued a decision in my favor.” Abu Bakr said, “Then the decision is that which the Messenger of Allah issued.” The person who lost the dispute still rejected the decision and said, “Let us go to `Umar bin Al-Khattab.” When they went to `Umar, the person who won the dispute said, “We took our dispute to the Prophet and he decided in my favor, but this man refused to submit to the decision.” `Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the second man and he concurred. `Umar went to his house and emerged from it holding aloft his sword. He struck the head of the man who rejected the Prophet’s decision with the sword and killed him. Consequently, Allah revealed, the aforementioned verse.[Context taken from Tafseer Ibn-e-Kathir]

My brother, how do you infer from this verse that if somebody claims to be a prophet should be beheaded?


Kash tum ne khud iss narration ko ghaur se parha hota Phil post ki hoti Hamare liye. That was a case of two men who SELECTED Prophet Mohammad SAW as a moderator so it was by choice and will.
Still when they didn't admit the decision and went to hazrat Abu Bakar, he didn't kill them. He was a patient and wise man and he said that whatever Prophet said was right. Hazrat Umar was known for their strict and hard nature not only before Islam but also after Islam. That is why when he was selected by hazrat Abu Bakar as next Khalifa people made objections on his strictness, this whole can be read in Bukhari and Muslim, both Sahih books. Anyway when they didn't admit the decision Prophet SAW didn't kill them. After that Abu Bakar didn't kill them. But the second man kept questioning and was finally killed by Umar. If we just take your argument, question arises why Prophet SAW Himself and Abu Bakar who was not less than Umar in love for Prophet SAW didn't kill that man.
Moreover, all Big life taking Crimes are either explained in hadood-e-Allah or simply in Quran or/and through Sunat. How could God miss such an important issue in Quran which we believe is the ultimate and most COMPREHENSIVE book of Allah.


In addition there're numerous Sahih Ahadees where Prophet SAW was physically abused and he did not issue and order to kill neither did God bestowed such a verse in Quran. For example, when a badhu peed in mosque or when a bhadu put his blanket in Prophet SAW neck and abused Him SAW or when people used to put trash on Him SAW or when He SAW was stoned so much that His shoes filled with blood or when in the evenings and nights of Hijrat everyone swore to kill Him SAW or that guy who was thought of being ****** misbehaved with the Prophet SAW when Umar was present, or when in Sheb-Abi-Talib He SAW was forced to eat grass and leather, my Prophet never ordered to kill them. God never issued a verdict to kill them and this is the true Sunnat of Our Beloved Prophet Mohammad Sallalahu Alihe Wassalam.


You can not come up with a single direct reference from the book of God or from the whole life of Mohammad SAW, telling that Capital Punishment is the punish of Islam in the cases of blasphemy.


Another perspective is the sanctity of human and all living beings on earth.


(The arguments go on and on, but I rather stop it here, gotta go now)

 

[modern.fakir]

The Quran has mentioned everything but your brain cannot comprehend it just like you cannot comprehend the sheer veracity of your "Hajj in a Temple" statement [hilar][hilar].

- Whatever the woman is doing is yet to be decided BUT you seemed to have acquitted her even without a trial. Is that Fair in your Secular Court ?? . NO one is implicating her BUT do keep in mind that if she is wrongly charged then all this is because of SECULAR RULERS and their incompetence in building a fair society and judiciary. They are to be blamed for all this ...

- Like i said lurker, LET the judge settle the case ??...why are you pleading innocence on the basis of emotions ?? ...since when did emotions become part of your legal system ?? [hilar][hilar][hilar]

- Abu Lahab had his head removed and you say his sentence wasnt carried out ?? ...Lurker, i think you need an appointment with a psychologist !

Their is no cure for not accepting that you lost an argument and that you cant bear the humiliation [hilar][hilar][hilar]

I don't think you have been even reading what I wrote.
1. The Quran does not even mention Blasphemy. Let alone prescribe a punishment for it.
2. The Woman is not waging a war.
3. She is not striving or even capable of causing "Mischief" in the Lands.
4. Abu Lahab's sentence was NOT carried out Even though it was mentioned by His Name In the Quran.

Your Islamic scholars have dropped the ball here, yet again. They messed up. Made a Law that was not in the Quran and put the stamp of "Shariah" on it. What an atrocity.

 

[lurker]

- Whatever the woman is doing is yet to be decided BUT you seemed to have acquitted her even without a trial. Is that Fair in your Secular Court ?? . NO one is implicating her BUT do keep in mind that if she is wrongly charged then all this is because of SECULAR RULERS and their incompetence in building a fair society and judiciary. They are to be blamed for all this ...

I have not pronounced the woman to be innocent. I am saying there is NO Punishment or Mention of the offense in the Pakistani constitution of Blasphemy in the Islamic Holy Book of the Quran. And the Surah Maida you quoted also does not apply on this woman. There are 2 things wrong here. 1.) The Blasphemy Law is NOT Quranic in origin. 2.) The Woman does not Fit the prerequisites of Surah that you quoted.

- Like i said lurker, LET the judge settle the case ??...why are you pleading innocence on the basis of emotions ?? ...since when did emotions become part of your legal system ?? [hilar][hilar][hilar]

The Judge is NOT going to apply Shariah Law is what I am saying. He is applying some convoluted Imaam Law. I am not pleading innocence of the woman here, I am just saying don't call it Shariah OR Secular. Because it's neither. If it was supposed to be Shariah, it would be wrong. If it was Secular, It would not have anything to do with a religion.

- Abu Lahab had his head removed and you say his sentence wasnt carried out ?? ...Lurker, i think you need an appointment with a psychologist !

Abu Lahab's head was NOT removed. He suffered a mortal wound and died 7 days later due to infection. Show me a man living with his head removed for 7 days. More over if you read about the event that led up to that blow on the head, you will see it had nothing to do with the Quranic sentence at all. The Woman was sitting their sharpening His arrows. It's only when he got pissed and starting beating up Abu Rafi did she land a blow on his head. You think she read the Quran and then got up and struck his head? Please. Reality is I know, incredibly boring; but it is reality.

Which leads me again to the same question; Why wasn't Abu Lahab's quranic sentence carried out? If a Quranic injunction was not being carried out at the time of the Prophet(saw) by whoever; why all of a sudden this made up Blasphemy Law's enforcement becomes so paramount?


I think religion is one area where you (modern.fakir) abandon all logical and analytical thought. Ibn Rushd once said that the ONLY real way to approach Islam is to be logical and analytical about it. Especially when it comes to the Quran. This is your deficiency in your Imaan and Intelligence. You should give more sadqah.

 

[pakistani24]

Islamic Law? The Quran does not stipulate any punishment for Blasphemy. Correct me if I am wrong.

Even if it is then too without prove you can not probe anyone or punish them just because they are accused by some idiot who himself knows nothing about the law he is trying to use for his own good.

 

[pakistani24]

The Quran has mentioned everything but your brain cannot comprehend it just like you cannot comprehend the sheer veracity of your "Hajj in a Temple" statement [hilar][hilar].

- Whatever the woman is doing is yet to be decided BUT you seemed to have acquitted her even without a trial. Is that Fair in your Secular Court ?? . NO one is implicating her BUT do keep in mind that if she is wrongly charged then all this is because of SECULAR RULERS and their incompetence in building a fair society and judiciary. They are to be blamed for all this ...

- Like i said lurker, LET the judge settle the case ??...why are you pleading innocence on the basis of emotions ?? ...since when did emotions become part of your legal system ?? [hilar][hilar][hilar]

- Abu Lahab had his head removed and you say his sentence wasnt carried out ?? ...Lurker, i think you need an appointment with a psychologist !

Their is no cure for not accepting that you lost an argument and that you cant bear the humiliation [hilar][hilar][hilar]

I say one thing.. how can somebody make a case against that woman when he clearly says that there isn't enough prove according to the pamphlet? This raises question without any doubt the as per other 99.9% false cases this one goes in the same basket .. just for their own personal use. Let's wait for a couple days for story to unfold and you will see there must be some sort of money, relationship or property involved in it.

 

[lurker]

Even if it is then too without prove you can not probe anyone or punish them just because they are accused by some idiot who himself knows nothing about the law he is trying to use for his own good.

That is the weakness of the Pakistani system and of the Pakistani society. The system, because 1) The Law is No Islamic. 2) People are arrested just based on allegation. The Society because Pakistani society will always stigmatize you even if you are proven to be innocent.

 

[modern.fakir]

Lurker, if someone takes a dagger and strikes it hard on your head that you skull cracks then is it a head severing injury or not ??

Like have you given up all logical inclination in your love for this fake secularism which is dieing its natural death ???

More blabbering ??...You need to read that ayat many times for it to sink in your brain.:lol: You have just lost that argument "provide one proof" ..and when the proof is slapped on your face ..Then it is "not blasphemy" ...[hilar][hilar][hilar]...as if you are the head of the Combined Islamic Scholars association.

You have NO knowledge concerning this matter so you can keep on yapping as much as you want. I know reality has really punched you hard. Next time dont take on challenges you cant defend [hilar][hilar][hilar]

And for some more HUmiliation here are some more irrefutable evidences for insulting the Prophet pbuh or shall i say BLASPHEMY ..but wait according to you this is something else [hilar][hilar][hilar]...What a CLOWN !!

At the conquest of Makkah:
Holy prophet Mohammad (S.A.W) announced general amnesty to all except those who were guilty of blasphemous acts and sacrilegious statements, Ibn e Khatal was one of the convict (Tareekh-e-Tabari Page 104 / History written by Al Tabari) This is evident from the following Hadith.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 582:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
On the day of the Conquest, the Prophet entered Mecca, wearing a helmet on his head. When he took it off, a man came and said, “Ibn e Khatal is clinging to the curtain of the Ka’ba.” The Prophet said, “Kill him.”

Sahih Bukahri Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.”
(Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you. “Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as ‘Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. “have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”

Punishment in Bible for blasphemy:
The punishment for blasphemy in most of the major religions is death. It is stated in the Old Testament of the Bible, which is the authority for both the Jews and the Christians:
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: [Book of Leviticus 24:16]

A reference from Hindu Scripture:
“If a man born of a lower class intentionally bothers a priest, the king should punish him physically with various forms of corporal and capital punishment that make men shudder.” [Manusmriti 9:248]

Conclusion:

It is evident from the above references that the punishment for the act of blasphemy in any religion or any form is very severe. Hence, people who are waging a campaign against the article 295 (c) of the constitution to repeal the said law, is not aligned with Islamic, Christianity and Hinduism religious law. The current law is compliant with the ethical and moral values of society Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
In a nutshell, this law should stay in place to prevent blasphemous acts. But by no means,anyone should be allowed to use this law for personal vendetta or misuse it. Procedural changes should be made with the consent of Ulema to prevent the misuse of the underlying law.
I know that even after reading all this your going to interpret it your own way because of your LIMITED "Hajj in a temple" understanding :lol: If you want to argue in Sharia bring the opinions of qualified scholars who are experts in this matter. Just like you would leave the matter of judicial interpretation to an expert then so is the case here as well.

Dont give me your personal opinions because they are WRONG and dont matter. ONLY Expert opinions from a Renounced scholar in Islam are acceptable, not some idiots commentary (bigsmile)

I have not pronounced the woman to be innocent. I am saying there is NO Punishment or Mention of the offense in the Pakistani constitution of Blasphemy in the Islamic Holy Book of the Quran. And the Surah Maida you quoted also does not apply on this woman. There are 2 things wrong here. 1.) The Blasphemy Law is NOT Quranic in origin. 2.) The Woman does not Fit the prerequisites of Surah that you quoted.


The Judge is NOT going to apply Shariah Law is what I am saying. He is applying some convoluted Imaam Law. I am not pleading innocence of the woman here, I am just saying don't call it Shariah OR Secular. Because it's neither. If it was supposed to be Shariah, it would be wrong. If it was Secular, It would not have anything to do with a religion.


Abu Lahab's head was NOT removed. He suffered a mortal wound and died 7 days later due to infection. Show me a man living with his head removed for 7 days. More over if you read about the event that led up to that blow on the head, you will see it had nothing to do with the Quranic sentence at all. The Woman was sitting their sharpening His arrows. It's only when he got pissed and starting beating up Abu Rafi did she land a blow on his head. You think she read the Quran and then got up and struck his head? Please. Reality is I know, incredibly boring; but it is reality.

Which leads me again to the same question; Why wasn't Abu Lahab's quranic sentence carried out? If a Quranic injunction was not being carried out at the time of the Prophet(saw) by whoever; why all of a sudden this made up Blasphemy Law's enforcement becomes so paramount?


I think religion is one area where you (modern.fakir) abandon all logical and analytical thought. Ibn Rushd once said that the ONLY real way to approach Islam is to be logical and analytical about it. Especially when it comes to the Quran. This is your deficiency in your Imaan and Intelligence. You should give more sadqah.

 

[modern.fakir]

Your bang on target with that ONE ...the Pakistani system is a piece of crap because it is SECULAR and RUN by the corrupt SECULAR RULERS !!...People are arrested because of the years of neglect by the SECULAR RULERS and now they complain ONLY about Blasphemy as if NO Other law is abused in Pakistan [hilar][hilar][hilar]

Jokers...as if the only thing stopping Pakistan from being utopia is a Blasphemy Law, why dont you first fix the damn country after repeated tries and failing miserable [hilar][hilar][hilar][hilar]...No dont talk about that because that exposes the filth of this secular system [hilar][hilar][hilar]

That is the weakness of the Pakistani system and of the Pakistani society. The system, because 1) The Law is No Islamic. 2) People are arrested just based on allegation. The Society because Pakistani society will always stigmatize you even if you are proven to be innocent.

 

[lurker]

Lurker, if someone takes a dagger and strikes it hard on your head that you skull cracks then is it a head severing injury or not ??

I don't think you are understanding what I am pointing at. His death was NOT in response to the Quranic Ayah. His death infact had nothing to do with the Ayah. And *THAT* is the problem. It's like The Quran said to Perish his hands - Which were not done. The Quran said to Perish him. It was NOT done with that niyyah. That's two violations of the Quran IN the Prophet's(saw) time. Pay attention. Someone dropped the ball that time OR someone didn't want to execute on the Quran's commandment. The Point I am driving home is that Abu Lahab was not executed based on the Quran. Which is a LOT higher authority than some hadith or Imaam or some Gun ho Scholar. So on whose authority do you prescribe punishment for Blasphemy In Islam?

Let me ask your version of the story. How and why did Abu Lahab die?

More blabbering ??...You need to read that ayat many times for it to sink in your brain.:lol: You have just lost that argument "provide one proof" ..and when the proof is slapped on your face ..Then it is "not blasphemy" ...[hilar][hilar][hilar]...as if you are the head of the Combined Islamic Scholars association.

You have NO knowledge concerning this matter so you can keep on yapping as much as you want. I know reality has really punched you hard. Next time dont take on challenges you cant defend [hilar][hilar][hilar]

The Ayah speaks for itself. There is nothing complicated in it. Doesn't mention the word Blasphemy. Dunno where you pulled that out of, but it wasn't the Quran.

And for some more HUmiliation here are some more irrefutable evidences for insulting the Prophet pbuh or shall i say BLASPHEMY ..but wait according to you this is something else [hilar][hilar][hilar]...What a CLOWN !!

Sorry, I don't buy "he said, she said" anecdotes. Especially when it concerns a life or death scenario. It's only common sense. If it has to do with something that serious, I only listen to the most serious authority - The Quran.

Dont give me your personal opinions because they are WRONG and dont matter. ONLY Expert opinions from a Renounced scholar in Islam are acceptable, not some idiots commentary (bigsmile)

I dunno what the Jurists were attempting to do when they came up with that Law but it is NOT part of the Quran. And it is akin to a Jurist enacting a Law that is an amendment to the Shariah, but Not in the Shariah itself. Use your own brain. Don't dance to some Imam's tune.

The Legal aspect is pretty much the same, You can use this Blasphemy Law and in the legal sense it has no issue; however you cannot say it is part of Shariah. And That is my entire argument with you.

 

[modern.fakir]

Lurker, did you bother reading the supporting ahadith or you conveniently bypassed them since you have no suitable answer ?? [hilar][hilar][hilar]


You sound like an old timer stuck with an event stuck in his memory like an old alarm clock that you rattle every now and then in an effort to prove some point [hilar][hilar][hilar]

Thats OK lurker, it happens. :lol::lol:...See you gotta understand, that YOU JUST DONT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE so its OK dont be hard on yourself.

Use your brain in complex matters of Islamic Law based on shariah is not the Sunnah YOU Hajj in a Temple Idiot :lol::lol: The Sunnah is defined here ..but again your igonorance is the reason for your humiliation :

In complex matters ONLY scholars decide because they have a complete base of KNowledge to deduce a ruling ...You can repeat this a 1000 times BUT you have learned your lesson already (bigsmile)

The Prophet sallallaahu 'alalyhi wa sallam said:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="class: hadithquote, width: 95%"]"The superiority of the scholar over the worshipper is like that of the full moon on a clear night over the rest of the stars. Indeed the scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets and the Prophets do not leave behind them the deenaar nor the dirham as inheritance, they leave only knowledge behind as inheritance. So whosoever aquires it, aquires a huge fortune.


[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I don't think you are understanding what I am pointing at. His death was NOT in response to the Quranic Ayah. His death infact had nothing to do with the Ayah. And *THAT* is the problem. It's like The Quran said to Perish his hands - Which were not done. The Quran said to Perish him. It was NOT done with that niyyah. That's two violations of the Quran IN the Prophet's(saw) time. Pay attention. Someone dropped the ball that time OR someone didn't want to execute on the Quran's commandment. The Point I am driving home is that Abu Lahab was not executed based on the Quran. Which is a LOT higher authority than some hadith or Imaam or some Gun ho Scholar. So on whose authority do you prescribe punishment for Blasphemy In Islam?

Let me ask your version of the story. How and why did Abu Lahab die?


The Ayah speaks for itself. There is nothing complicated in it. Doesn't mention the word Blasphemy. Dunno where you pulled that out of, but it wasn't the Quran.


Sorry, I don't buy "he said, she said" anecdotes. Especially when it concerns a life or death scenario. It's only common sense. If it has to do with something that serious, I only listen to the most serious authority - The Quran.

I dunno what the Jurists were attempting to do when they came up with that Law but it is NOT part of the Quran. And it is akin to a Jurist enacting a Law that is an amendment to the Shariah, but Not in the Shariah itself. Use your own brain. Don't dance to some Imam's tune.

The Legal aspect is pretty much the same, You can use this Blasphemy Law and in the legal sense it has no issue; however you cannot say it is part of Shariah. And That is my entire argument with you.

 

[lurker]

The Orthodoxy in Islam has made many mistakes in the past. As I have pointed out their fallacy right here with their "addition" of a Blasphemy Law to the Shariah. It would appear they were trying to quell and control public backlash in their time. People like you mistook their efforts and think its ALL part of Shariah. Like I said, you wanna use a Blasphemy Law; use it. Just don't lie and tell us its Shariah. Because the Book of Allah does not have it. The Book of some Imaams has it. Who would you rather follow? Allah's Book or some Imaam's? Whose has God guaranteed? The Quran's authenticity or some Imaams'?

I have provided you very sound reasoning using YOUR provided Surah Maida AND logical deductions of Abu Lahab's death, which you don't want to get into the details of because you know it will expose your lack of understanding of Islamic Law. It really doesn't matter much to me if you run away from the questions. It simply exposes your deficiency in intelligence and independent thought. You want to be a drone, then be a drone.