I think he was wrong in the first place to ever defend that ladies actions, and there was no reason in the slightest for his objection of the blasphemy law. I don't know what the guards intention was when he shot the governor but i think much of the Pakistani public will agree with the course of action he took against this governor for wanting to defend the women in question, Furthermore for associating with the opinions of Sheeri Rehman,that the blasphemy law was in need of rectification.

What will be interesting to see is what happens when this case eventually goes to court and what the publics reaction will be if the decision is held against the defendant. Indeed if the defendant even makes it alive to the court room, knowing Pakistan and the PPP they may beat him half to death before the initial proceedings.

26 times?!

Suhail wrote:

Indeed if the defendant even makes it alive to the court room, knowing Pakistan and the PPP they may beat him half to death before the initial proceedings.

Suhail wrote:

Can you sympathies with the publics anger or do you just think he was murdered in cold blood?

Yes I can - I think the laws there can be unfairly applied and used to target individuals.

In the recent case it looked like a case of a few women going "meow!" with their nails out.

Mob rule is not justice - in civilised society you must allow the justice to be carried out through the courts.

The murderer should be brought to justice. If he is allowed to murder someone, why can't everyone else? Society cannot function if you start to defend such actions.

Any calls asking for that woman to be lynched are unislamic too. It is just a case of extremists seeking legitimacy by "offering money" to have her killed. Where is the justice in that?

You wrote:

Suhail wrote:

Can you sympathies with the publics anger or do you just think he was murdered in cold blood?

Yes I can - I think the laws there can be unfairly applied and used to target individuals.

In the recent case it looked like a case of a few women going "meow!" with their nails out.

Mob rule is not justice - in civilised society you must allow the justice to be carried out through the courts.

The murderer should be brought to justice. If he is allowed to murder someone, why can't everyone else? SOciety cannot function if you start to defend such actions.

I agree from the legal perspective a proper court proceeding should be brought about. However when it comes to an issue of blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad PBUH even if it is alleged.

So you have this person defeding it and trying to bring about change to a law that protects against that blasphemy, then should we have to choose between what is right in terms of the current man made law or refer to what shariah says and what the punishment is for it. Indeed i don't have knowledge on sharia law or what the ruling may be but im sure that it can't be in line with allowing such acts to go unpunished...

But again from the legal perspective this man has committed murder of the first degree because i don't even think a defence of provocation would succeed here, yet it's at the discretion of the judge and the public pressure because i am certain many people if not most, agreed with the actions he took.

You wrote:

Suhail wrote:

Can you sympathies with the publics anger or do you just think he was murdered in cold blood?

The murderer should be brought to justice. If he is allowed to murder someone, why can't everyone else? Society cannot function if you start to defend such actions.

We can't say what his intention was, but maybe he didn't consider it to be murder, rather a legitimate form of jihad.

Just to add, in a former discussion, Anonymous1 (without providing a reference AFAIK) provided the following as the translation of a hadith: "the zakat and the hudood are for the Imam".

This suggests that once there is a court system, it must be used for justice and seeking other avenues is wrong.

You wrote:

Just to add, in a former discussion, Anonymous1 (without providing a reference AFAIK) provided the following as the translation of a hadith: "the zakat and the hudood are for the Imam".

This suggests that once there is a court system, it must be used for justice and seeking other avenues is wrong.

Sure, but i have no confidence in Pakistans legal system or it's so called committment to democracy.

Here's the thing though - you are suggesting that the implementation of the laws is perfect and cannot be improved on, then suggesting you have no confidence in the legal system.

you can't have it both ways.

However when it comes to an issue of blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad PBUH even if it is alleged

Think about what you are saying here please.

It seems like a defense of targeting people who have merely been accused of a crime, instead of been proven guilty.

You wrote:

Here's the thing though - you are suggesting that the implementation of the laws is perfect and cannot be improved on, then suggesting you have no confidence in the legal system.

you can't have it both ways.

However when it comes to an issue of blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad PBUH even if it is alleged

Think about what you are saying here please.

It seems like a defense of targeting people who have merely been accused of a crime, instead of been proven guilty.

If this was a simple case of high profile murder in say the UK i would naturally have full confidence and support the legal system in its findings and decisions, but it's not the UK....it's Pakistan and there are reasons why i don't have faith in both the legal and political system.

It's easy to write sensible law on a piece of paper, but implementing it is a different story, hence it will be interesting to see which way this case slides. Theres an argument whether ethics has any place in law and we will see if it has any influence in the proceedings and final decision.

If this guy hadn't opened his mouth in the first place, knowing that he would be offending most of the nation, as was visible when the country came to a standstill for nearly a whole day due to the propositions being made my politicions. Then he perhaps wouldn't have been gunned down.

Again i really want to know what the guards intentions were to gunning down this governor. Because at the moment many people are suggesting that this could have been politically motivated rather than just one mans crusade based on recent events.

You're suggesting thereg tht discussing the law is not to be done. WHat makes you think the current version of it is so good that it cannot be discussed?

It needs to be in order to get rid of the injustices from it. After that, if there is still corruption or other issues that need to be fixed too, as long as it is not enshrined in the law, it can be dealt with.

But the actual paper laws need to be correct too, and here sometimes the "scholars" of Pakistan are not always helpful, they often are reactionary and not understanding of the laws, except defending the status quo. (like the rape laws in pakistan that many "scholars" were defending a few years ago which were anything but islamic.)

The guy was right to speak up against injustice - that is what all Muslims should do, and as someone who had the power to do something about it, he was.

The minister was trying to get justice in this case and had asked for the evidence against and the conviction of the woman to be reinvestigated with preliminary finsings suggesting that the charges were trumped up.

As such, he was carrying out a religious duty to try and get justice.

His murder in the way of religius duty makes him shaheed.

You wrote:

You're suggesting thereg tht discussing the law is not to be done. WHat makes you think the current version of it is so good that it cannot be discussed?

It needs to be in order to get rid of the injustices from it. After that, if there is still corruption or other issues that need to be fixed too, as long as it is not enshrined in the law, it can be dealt with.

But the actual paper laws need to be correct too, and here sometimes the "scholars" of Pakistan are not always helpful, they often are reactionary and not understanding of the laws, except defending the status quo. (like the rape laws in pakistan that many "scholars" were defending a few years ago which were anything but islamic.)

The guy was right to speak up against injustice - that is what all Muslims should do, and as someone who had the power to do something about it, he was.

According to the law there was no injustice, the defendant was found guilty in a court of law. She had the right to appeal to the high court and if dismissed, further appeal to the supreme court.

Now under the Constitution of Pakistan, § 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad PBUH. Except this provision of 295-C, all other provision under 295 require an element of intention for the offence to be satisfied and for a punishment to be laid down. Therefore you can see the law states regardless of the intent, if blasphemy under provision 295-C occurs then the punishment under law is death with or without fine. Now looking at it from this perspective the defendant was found guilty if this is what the law says that she must be sentenced to death, whether the people agree with it or not, 'this is the law'. Obviously this law was not written by a bunch of clowns it must have been considered and drafted for a long time, regardless of the idiots that are running the country now, the people that originally drafted the law were not fools.

According to the Federal Shariah Court, in a case where the law is repugnant to Islam,

"the President in the case of a law with respect to a matter in the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List, or the Governor in the case of a law with respect to a matter not enumerated in either of those Lists, shall take steps to amend the law so as to bring such law or provision into conformity with the Injunctions of Islam" (Constitution, Article 203D).

This is not the first time this law has come under scrutiny, in 1990 the FSC ruled that 295-C was repugnant to Islam by allowing life imprisonment as an alternative to a death sentence. Furthermore the President at the time was given an opportunity to bring about action to amend the law before 30th April 1991...no further action was brought forward.

So you can see by looking at the current law under the constitution, and past case law, that the alternatives have been taken into consideration by the FSC. So law stands as it currently states death with or without fine under provision 295-C.

ok, that's the law, now IMO if this is the ruling by the FSC and it is the initial law under the constitution then there is no reason for it to be further questioned.

This governor that was shot dead, he was proposing amendments or supporting them that the law should be changed in terms of the punishment being lessened to imprisonment. Now if shariah law seems harsh to some people that doesn't mean it is wrong or should be changed as it's divine law. The people that oppose such laws in Pakistan are the secular members of society, the high class that want to live life according to their desires rather than shariah law.

I don't agree with the killing that took place now rethinking it, I changed my initial feelings towards it, as this governor should have come into a court of law and said whatever he wished to. He was warned many times to keep his mouth shut, as Pakistan has a history of mob violence and attacking those that commit a crime as stated under provision 295. Taking the law into ones own hands is perhaps not the way but again what the mans intentions were, only Allah SWT knows.

What, Suhail, did Asia Bibi say?

There can be no sitting on the fence if you cannot answer this.

"More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers of Governor Punjab Salman Taseer, nor try to lead the prayers," the group said.

"Also, there should be no expression of grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the prophet are themselves indulging in blasphemy.

?!
So he didn't havea janazah? :S If not, thats wrong isn't it :/

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

"More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers of Governor Punjab Salman Taseer, nor try to lead the prayers," the group said.

"Also, there should be no expression of grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the prophet are themselves indulging in blasphemy.

?!
So he didn't havea janazah? :S If not, thats wrong isn't it :/

I wonder how many were actually scholars and of those that were, how many were acting according to Islam.

Suhail, long post. Don't you think that intention is important in such cases?

and she had appealed her case and the prepremilinary thoughts of the investigators were that she was set up.

You wrote:

Suhail, long post. Don't you think that intention is important in such cases?

and she had appealed her case and the prepremilinary thoughts of the investigators were that she was set up.

Hmmm 'intention' ....should blasphemy against prophet pbuh even be tolerated, it's a strict liability crime at the moment and I feel that is the way to go about it, why should we have to compromise, it's not asking alot of people to keep their mouths shut. Prophet pbuh is more beloved to us than anything so to make it a strict liability crime is fine in my eyes, think about it, if this wasn't the law then it could lead to floodgates being widened to more people throwing blasphemous remarks.

Been looking on the web for the law report on this case, wonder whether Pakistan has a system of digital law reports.

Suhail wrote:

You wrote:

Suhail, long post. Don't you think that intention is important in such cases?

and she had appealed her case and the prepremilinary thoughts of the investigators were that she was set up.

Hmmm 'intention' ....should blasphemy against prophet pbuh even be tolerated, it's a strict liability crime at the moment and I feel that is the way to go about it, why should we have to compromise, it's not asking alot of people to keep their mouths shut. Prophet pbuh is more beloved to us than anything so to make it a strict liability crime is fine in my eyes, think about it, if this wasn't the law then it could lead to floodgates being widened to more people throwing blasphemous remarks.

Because it is important to know that the person intended it.

It makes all the difference in the world.

Now, if someone says something and someone else says "that sounds sutpid!" and then the first person goes, "I was paraphrasing a hadith, you have committed blasphemy" where would you stand on that?

You wrote:

Suhail wrote:

You wrote:

Suhail, long post. Don't you think that intention is important in such cases?

and she had appealed her case and the prepremilinary thoughts of the investigators were that she was set up.

Hmmm 'intention' ....should blasphemy against prophet pbuh even be tolerated, it's a strict liability crime at the moment and I feel that is the way to go about it, why should we have to compromise, it's not asking alot of people to keep their mouths shut. Prophet pbuh is more beloved to us than anything so to make it a strict liability crime is fine in my eyes, think about it, if this wasn't the law then it could lead to floodgates being widened to more people throwing blasphemous remarks.

Because it is important to know that the person intended it.

It makes all the difference in the world.

Now, if someone says something and someone else says "that sounds sutpid!" and then the first person goes, "I was paraphrasing a hadith, you have committed blasphemy" where would you stand on that?

That's not even mentioning the prophet Muhammad PBUH, and that's not the intention of the law, by it saying that intention will not be taken into account, means that the crime will not be tolerated that's what strict liability emphasizes. In the context u are posing it, I don't think that comes down to blasphemy rather lack of knowledge of Islam, and would such s case even make to a court......again I want to read the law report to see the exact course of the case and what exact words she had said.

I find it weird that people are even supporting his murder.

It was plain wrong and it wasn't a case of him blaspheming even. He just wanted justice in a specific case where it seemed that justice had not been done and he wanted to create a system where such abuses of justice wre less likely.

"The scholars" can be morons sometimes.

You wrote:

I find it weird that people are even supporting his murder.

It was plain wrong and it wasn't a case of him blaspheming even. He just wanted justice in a specific case where it seemed that justice had not been done and he wanted to create a system where such abuses of justice wre less likely.

"The scholars" can be morons sometimes.

Agreed, initially I was synphathising with the murder but then Yh it was wrong even tho I feel he should not have went public with his concerns, rather expressed his views in a court of law. This isn't the issue, it goes deeper than that, whether by changing the law, will it open up barriers to people to take advantage of this law. Concerns were expressed in 1990 and proposed reform was said to be repugnant, I still agree with the decision made then according to shariah.

For those that speak urdu... I was trying to find out what he actually said that so incited people.

I can't see anything wrong at all in the following interviews (in urdu):

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgbwAfdKE78]

(ofcourse it seems like a tribute video, so it is probably biased, but I want to hear what he said that was so bad that people thought he deserved it.)

Suited. A-thankyou.

I hear some scholars have gone to their non-commital comments phase "we cannot say if it was right or wrong because we do not know if he insulted the prophet (saw)".

AFAIK he was not killed for insulting the prophet (saw), but for this designs on amending the law on matters pertaining to such.

Fatwa of Shaykh-ul-Islam Mufti Muhammad Idris Usmani about Malik Mumtaz Qadri and his supporters

Interesting.

(the website is a pro PPP (current ruling party) site, so I am not saying the person quoting the article is unbiased.)

Ocean wrote:

When in Qur'an it says "Children of Israel" does it refer to us too? or are we suppose to just learnt from it? because it just says it was something specific for the "Children of Israel"...

If something is mentioned in the qur'an concerning a historic people of event and it is not explicitly repealed, it applies to us too as that is the reason it is mentioned.