Blasphemy

Naqshbandi #94: Your argument is not convincing. I asked you to supply me with your views, based on direct quotes in the Quran, which legitimizes the Blasphemy law. I also asked you to provide examples of Prophet Muhammad ever executing such an act. As well as a comment on the story about a female throwing trash on Prophet Muhammad. I will ask you once again, what punishment was given to that lady? That should answer your question on how to treat Blasphemy. Hopefully you will answer it.

Now to your argument. You have taken the line that most individuals take, who do not study the Quran themselves, and rely on, ``ulema`` as their basic form of information. The article you have quoted has taken supplementary verses, combined them in one form or another, and reached a pre-conceived conclusion. Not a single one of which directly states that anyone should be killed.

Let me provide you a counterargument based on the exact same verses. Considering the fact that this involves the death penalty, one would agree that if there is any confusion or conflict, the death penalty should not be delivered:

1. ``Allah says, ``Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.`` (33:57).``

This verse in no way states that one should kill a blasphemer. In fact, it does not even mention blasphemy, nor a punishment for it. Also, there is another translation of this, by Yusuf Ali ``Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.`` (http://simple.ishwar.com/islam/holy_quran_(yusuf)/sura033.html)

2. ``Cursed they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and all slain.`` (33: 61)

Once again, this verse does not mention blasphemy. In fact, its context is provided by its preceeding verse(s):
33:60
Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:
33:61
They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).

As you can see neither of these have anything to do with blasphemy. In fact, if you really wanted to interpret this verse, you could interpret it to mean that the death penalty should be awarded to those, ``who stir up sedition in the City.`` Something the religious parties are very good at.

3. ``That is humiliation in this world for them.`` (5:45)``

No reference to blasphemy and any punishment. In fact, these words are not even in 5:45. The real verse is:

5:45
We ordained therein for them: ``Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.`` But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

So this offers, ``retaliation by way of charitÿ." Exactly the opposite of the death penalty. And it has nothing to do with blasphemy

4. ``May the conjecturers be killed!`` (51:11)

This is not 51:11. 51:11 is, ``Those who (flounder) heedless in a flood of confusion:
and ``May Allah fight them! How they are perverted!``

Once again, nothing to do with blasphemy or killing anyone.

5. ``May Allah fight them! How they are perverted!`` (9:30)

This is only one part of the verse. It is very dangerous to quote things out of context. It is even more dangerous (and perhaps even blasphemous) to quote only half a verse. The real and complete 9:30 is:

``The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah`s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!``

Once again, nothing to do with blasphemy nor killing anyone. It just says that it is wrong to consider Christ the son of God.

6. ``O you who believe, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet and be not loud in your speech to him as you are loud to one another lest your actions fail.`` (49:3).``

your interpretation: Such an action only comes about through disbelief and the unbeliever is killed.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous interpretations of any Quranic verse I have ever heard, in my whole life. In fact, the extrapolation of the interpretation is even more ridiculous. It would be funny, if it wasn`t so dangerous.

You have, luckily, quoted the whole verse. And the translation seems accurate (i.e. in line with other translations by another translator I have seen). However, lets see what the verse states, and lets look at your conclusion. The verse simply states that people should not raise their voices louder than that of the Prophet, when he is speaking. Makes perfect sense. I don`t raise my voice louder than my fathers` when he speaks.

Your conclusion is that, ``blasphemers should be killed.`` I have no idea how you reached this conclusion from this verse. Your path of thinking is that anyone who raises his voice louder than the Prophet is an unbeliever (the verse actually doesn`t state that). And since he is an unbeliever, unbelievers should be killed. The verse does not state that either. And somehow you have concluded that anyone saying anything controversial about the Prophet, through this verse, should be killed.

Simply nonsense.

You seem to see killing in every Quranic verse :-). Much like Jerry Fallwel and Hamidm sees it in every Quranic verse.

You have not provided a single piece of information that in any way justifies your original claim, i.e. blasphemer should be killed. In fact, you have misquoted, half-quoted, misinterpreted, added meanings, etc. to Quranic verses to reach a conclusion, you wanted to reach.

This is the train of thought, applied by all such, ``ulema.`` They take a grouping of Quranic verses, add their own interpretations to them, connect them together, and then declare a judgement. If they need some holes to be filled, they rely on hadith, and judgements of other, ``ulema,`` who did the same, to begin with. If you ask me, this is the biggest blasphemy of all.

You will have to come up with a far better argument, than this, to prove your point.

re: Raw_Dust # 91

Take notice of what?

Ciao

By the looks of it, it seems that blasphemy will be passee. The weapon of choice for the future will be trumped up charges of ``treason``. So much for secularism saving the day in Pakiland...

``The plus side is that Pakistan has never had a streak of militant violence against minorities. ``#56 by Romair on April 14, 2004 6:42am PT

Just because its not reported doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist.

Did you know that MQM came into being because of the attack on the Mohajirs of Orangi Town?

Did you know that entire tribes of Baluchis were wiped out by f-86 sorties flown by Pakistani Air Force pilots ?

You probably don`t read the news about the violence in Jhang and the sectarian strife in Pakistan.Maybe this is the right time to bring up India or chechnya or palestine, right?

There aren`t any minorities left in Pakistan and the ones who do exist live in fear and in the shadows.

BTW. regarding your opinions on the secular movement. We do hold humanist ideals above all else. Please read up on the enlightenment and the rennaissance because the rights of man were written during this age and the Universal Human Rights of 1948 were based on the ideals of the Rennaissance and Enlightenment. Perhaps you should start with Islam and then make your way up to more advanced ideas ? it would help more than watching re runs of Roots.

``Arthur,
Thanks for keeping the issue alive here``-#92 by PM on April 14, 2004 9:25pm PT

No thanks to you. What have you done for your people lately? All you do is suck up to the majority Muslim population - what has that gotten you? a little more arse? I hope so and I hope it was worth it.

And don`t call me Arthur man! Are you trying to hurt my credibility amongst Muslims?

I told the Chowk editors that the name iS ATHUR Shiraz NOT BLOODY ARTHUR Shiraz! I am NOT aRthur and just because I am in support of secular , humanist, scientific ideals does not make me a Christian! though there is no shame in being an anglican

CHANGE MY NAME CHOWK EDITORS!I have been emailing you about it since the first article was posted under that name!

``The judgements concerning those who think
the Prophet imperfect or curse him
Section Two
The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who
curses the Prophet or finds fault with him ``
- #94 by Naqshbandi on April 15, 2004 5:07am PT

My dear Mr. Naqshbandi! Bravo! that took a lot of courage!

Pakistani Muslims who know little about Islam make all sorts of claims about Islam like ``It is unIslamic to kill a blasphemer``. They don`t have the courage or the mental aptitude to read and understand the Quran and the Ahadith.

They attack you for telling them that Islam calls for death of the blasphemer and they attack everyone else - whoever offers an alternative like freedom of expression and speech.

They keep parrotting ``But you don`t understand Islam! Islam is nice! How can Islam call for such things?``

They keep saying things like ``The Taliban were not Muslims`` but the Taliban were better Muslims than these IGNORANT , NON PRACTISING Muslims ever will be. The same goes for all the Muslims from the other Mujahideen groups throughout the world.

Who will enlighten these Muslims who have put their hands on their ears and refuse to see their own religion AND refuse to look at other alternatives (because they feel that their deficient understanding of the religion is best).

I pity the Mujahideen - they are atleast true to their faith or atleast they try to be true and honest. What troubles me are the ``moderate`` (non practising, ignorant) Muslims who think they know everything about Islam. If the ``terrorist`` is living in a world of the Prophet`s creation the non-practising and ignorant Muslim is living in a world of their own delusions about Islam.

I am so incensed that I want to write something condemning these people for the crimes they commit against their own. If anyone is interested in exposing the hypocrisy and the dream world of the ``moderate`` Muslim email me.

The non practising, ignorant Muslim is in DENIAL! as long as they do not recognize the TRUE religion their parents and their friends are following how can they become better ? If you want to join the modern and civilized world you have to first recognize what you actually believe in THEN you can change.

If you want an Islamic Khilafat you have to recognize what Islam is and what it asks for. If you want to live as a Muslim you have to understand what Islam is NOT what your parents are feeding you or what your friends are telling you. Go read the books yourself! Find out for yourself. Go talk to the ``terrorists`` you hate so much and ask for their reasons. I am certain they will give you a more accurate and scripturally sound reasoning than any of these non practising Muslims.

Take a look at this lady Bina Sarwar. She has the weirdest ideas about Islam (it is a combination of some Sindhi Mysticism and socialism with the ideals of the hippie culture thrown in). She thinks cutting women`s genitalia is UN Islamic for medical reasons but its OK to cut up men`s genitals for medical reasons. This is tyranny and hypocrisy!

Farzana Versey is so obsessed with hating Hindus she cannot even recognize she is a Muslim. Instead of looking inside yourself you point fingers at everyone else! that is the non-practising, ignorant Muslim`s way! You point a finger at the hindus and the ``terrorists`` and the ``fundamentalists``!

Atleast KNOW what Islam is before you defend it. Once you know you can choose what you would prefer : Islam or the ideals that the western and developed world has adopted?

Don`t be half assed and apologetic and try to squirm like a weasel out of things. Be true! true to yourself!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: Romair

Where do you find the time to write these thesis lenght posts? :)

Unless you are living in the Arctic regions of Canada surrounded by Polar bears and Harp Seals, I really cannot understand how you can afford to spend so much time on Chowk! :)

Yaar, I know that Chowk can be an obession, but I never realized that it could be a profession also! Seriously, did you sign up for one of those contracts where you get to spend some time with some Ounga-Bunga Inuit tribe on Baffin Island teaching them for a couple of years? You are not going through some sort of a ``northern exposure`` experience, are you? :)

Ciao

ferozek #104: Actually, my contracts work in cycles. I work a few days, and then get a day or a week off. Even when I work now, I am usually co-ordinating things, not actually doing them. This involves attending a lot of lunches, breakfasts and dinners with clients, or potential clients, or talking to them on the phone. I end up eating five to six or so times a day. So most of my day is spent, eating, on the phone, or with nothing else to do. This leave plenty of time to write posts and browse the Internet.

As for the posts, I write them in one go, based mostly on information in my head. Usually doesn`t take more than a few minutes. Just requires a bit of fast typing skills. You post 104 probably took four or five minutes. My long post took maybe 10-13 minutes or so. Only a difference of five minutes to eight minutes.

Not working with the Inuits yet. Maybe I should arrange a lunch with them.......:-) Any relations you may have with them, that you can point me to, will be greatly appreciated........

P.S. A good debate is the best way to expand one`s knowledge, about areas one does not know. Very useful in business dealings. What if my client tomorrow is a Naqshbandi, or a Hamidm, or a Jay, or a dost-mittar clone? I know which buttons to push with them now. So the fifteen minues before and after work in spent on Chowk, along with the ten minutes during lunch break, will pay back many times over (hopefully).....

solitude:

in your response to PM you said:

``No thanks to you. What have you done for your people lately? All you do is suck up to the majority Muslim population - what has that gotten you? a little more arse? I hope so and I hope it was worth it.``

first of all where or how do you get off making a statement and a judgment like that? what do you know about patrick`s life beyond chowk? probably diddly squat.

ahhhh our muslim brothers and sisters. .either you tell us that the fight against blasphemy or discrimination is not our fight as the good cemendtaur did, or you complain that we don`t fight enough. which is it going to be?

next time you should ask patrick or myself or any other christian or any `minority` group what have we done for our people lately, i hope you shall also be able to answer what muslims have done for each other (and to each other) lately as well.

should it not suffice to say that practices that one thinks are bad are bad rather than they being un-islamic and therefore bad? seems so simple.

#94 by Naqshbandi

Naqshbandi! Hate to say this but your post makes it look like that the prophet was running some underground enterprise rather than promoting a religion.

Here are some quotes from your post# above:

``Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him.``[7]

“In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka`b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, ``Who will deal with Ka`b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger.``

“Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.”

“In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, ``Who will save me from my enemy?`` Khalid said, ``I will,`` so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.”

“`Abdu`r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, ``Who will save me from my enemy?`` Az-Zubayr said, ``I will.`` He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.”
****
In fact, your whole post is full of either prophet ordering people to kill or somebody else killing on behalf of the Prophet.

You never quoted one Hadith or Quranic verse from Prophet’s days in Makkah. It seems to me that there was a big difference in what Prophet said in Makkah than what he said once he got power in Medina.

I think you represent a face of Islam that is brutal and repressive and the same face is represented in the Blasphemy and Huddood Laws in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.


#97 by Romair

These appear to be verses before Hijrat to Medina

``May Allah fight them! How they are perverted!`` (9:30)
``That is humiliation in this world for them.`` (5:45)``
``Allah says, ``Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.`` (33:57).``

Do you see the change in tone from the ones in Naqshbandi’s post?

NHK#80
``You may like to begin with Pak Army to change its Motto from ``Jihad for God`` to ``Defence of Pakistan borders``.

nazar saheb:
Here is a little incident that I found revealing. As you know, I stayed in Islamabad at the Embassy Lodge Hotel (and thanks again for recommending it!). I like to take a long morning walk whereever I am staying. Next to Embassy Lodge is a road called Shaker Parian which is ideal for a morning walk. Looks like the Pak army thinks so too and some of its platoons use it for the morning double-march. To my surprise these soldiers no longer quick-march to the beat of left-right but to ``haque-hoo, allah-hoo``. I wondered if the non-muslim recruits were exempted from shouting allah-hoo.

MaheshG#84:
[Jinnah would have hanged Modi, by his (Modi`s) balls.

Romair Sahib, Jinnah was Modi. So, Jinnah hanging himself by the balls is not a very likely scenario. ]
Not true! Jinnah believed that the partition was a solution to the problem of the communal divide in India (although some revisionists doubt even that!) but he was no religious bigot. Unlike Modi, when communal riots flared up on both sides of the border he did not justify them by quoting Newton`s third law.
That said, Romair is also not quite correct in saying that Jinnah would have hanged Modi. I am not aware of even a single Thanedar being demoted in Panjab let alone the Chief Minister being ``hanged by the balls`` as that province witnessed probably the most complete ethnic cleansing in the world history under Jinnah`s watch.

Hamidm2#88
[............. it is the use of the word ``i``......... i did this and i did that, i know imran khan and i support the archangle gabriel, i don`t accept this and i think that , i, i, i ,i...........this is a typical fauji trait - the obsession with i..........i am indispensable, i know everything, the whole world is a fool and, let me tell you, i will redefine secular humanism because i am smarter than kant .............oh, please !..........stop it! ]
In this case (post#87), at least, this was justified as Romair was responding to a request to give his opinion on Solitude`s postulates on secularism.

Romair#87
Thanks for the clarification and for most part I do not have any problem with your response. Some comments:
-I dont see any problem with the use of the expression secular humanist as not every secular person is a humanist. Both Stalin and Sadam were secular.
``In fact, there is no govt. in the world that completely separtes church from state. To give one example, in Canada, marriage laws and vacation laws are defined by Christian traditions.``
There is a difference between religion and religious traditions. The Americans launch big events by breaking a champagne bottle and the hindus by breaking a coconut. Both are cultural traditions based on religion. Even some muslim marriage customs in Pakistan are indeed based on cultural practices which might be traced to another religion.
But conflicts do arise between religious beliefs and politics and it is important to know which one gets precedence when such a conflict arises. Let me give you an example from today`s news from Ottawa. Do you remember the Aahrar case? The real hero of the case was his wife, Monica Mazigh, who persevered in her fight to release her husband from the Syrian jail and succeeded against all odds. Last night, she won the nomination to contest the Ottawa South Parliament seat in the coming federal elections (it can only happen in Canada:-)). She was asked how would she reconcile her religious beliefs with the NDP stand in favour of gay marriages and abortion. She had no hesitation in responding that her religious beliefs -and she is a hijabi immigrant from Tunisia- will not stand in the way of following the party line in voting on these issues in the Parliament. She clearly decided to put her politics above her religious beliefs.

ahmadzai#93
``The term ``opportunist`` can be applied while describing a character showing this trait at a personal level.``
And that`s the sense in which I meant. I do not regard the about turn on Afghanistan as opportunistic in a personal sense. But the rigging of the referendum and alliance with MMA against secular parties was another matter; here what`s at stake was not the interests of Pakistan but that of Musharraf.
[I am an Indo-Canadian who was born in Pakistan but had to leave during the Partition].