Guardian: A lawyer representing the man who accused a Pakistani Christian girl of blasphemy has said that if she is not convicted, Muslims could “take the law into their own hands”.
Rao Abdur Raheem cited the example of Mumtaz Qadri, the man who last year shot dead a politician who had called for reform of the much-abused blasphemy law.
The apparent hijacking of the case against Rimsha Masih by organised extremists, including lawyers, could further complicate a bitterly contentious case.
The lawyer’s comments are likely to further complicate a bitterly contentious case that has caused an international outcry and embarrassed the Pakistani government. It could intimidate the court and would put her life at further risk even if she is freed.
Categories: Asia
Seems that Pakistani lawyers do not know their own laws …
Rafiq,
On the contrary they do. That is why they are defending them and by so doing make nonsense of the notion that extremists are uneducated, unemployed and misguided animals who cannot read the quran with any understanding.
Namelee: I agree that Pakistan shows that extremists are not only uneducated masses, but mis-educated ones too. Well, there is always hope with MTA – Muslim Television Ahmadiyya penetrating worldwide. Pakistan of course blocks their websites (www.mta.tv) but cannot block all satellite dishes. May Allah have mercy on that country. (Namelee: did you try to watch MTA? What are your comments?)
OP: Guardian: A lawyer representing the man who accused a Pakistani Christian girl of blasphemy has said that if she is not convicted, Muslims could “take the law into their own hands”.
That is another example of lawlessness of the maulvis. People love religion and the maulvis are taking undue advantage of that. namelee has also come forward to celebrate the cause of the ignorant lawless maulvis. namelee is supporting the threat of that lawyer as if it is in accord with Islam. It is not.
In Islam, religion has no place in politics and politics has no place in any religion.
It is always easy to criticize others. If I remember correctly, within the last few years Ahmadis also called for laws against blasphemy. They also want restrictions on free speech and honor of the Prophets enshrined in laws.
Also the concept of separation of religion and state is not accepted by Ahmadis.
CS, there should be some kind of law for blasphemy in every country so that no one is wrongly abused. But it should not be a law with death penalty.
There should be law for the respect of special and common persons and a law against abuse which could be settled in courts. And the courts should not bound (both hands) with bad laws. And the courts should not be pressurized by hooligans.
Criticism of a bad law of blasphemy should not be considered as blasphemy.
CS, you want to support the present blasphemy laws of Pakistan? What is your intention and direction? Please explain. Thank you.
When it is said that there is no politics in relgion, (Ahmadi Muslims say that and have always said that) then can you, CS, please see some separation between state and religion?
The denial of politics in religion is a positive proof that religion and state are separated, are to be kept separate. Wassalam.
Rafiq,
Sorry, I just saw the post in which you asked if I have ever tuned into the Muslim Television Ahmadiya that was why I did not respond to it. My answer is ‘no’ because I never knew of the existence of such network.
On the issue of the Ahmadiya movement in islam subscribing to the separation of politics from religion because that is islamic, I beg to differ.
The Ahmadis may have their reasons for advocating that but it is not on the basis of religion. Muhammad fused the religious and political leadership into one. He was both the highest chief imam and the head of state. His successors continued from there. His position, which has been translated from Arabic, was that ‘islam is both religion and government’. The quran says that there can be no deviation from his sunnah. There is also no cerse in the quran to support the position of the Ahmadis. The quran talks about ‘obeying your leaders’ and these combine both the spiritual and temporal.
If, as Ghulam Sarwar has suggested, every country were to enact laws against blasphemy, the quran will be among the first to be banned in some counties …
namelee, please understand that Muhammad s.a.w.s. was a prophet. All prophets were non-political persons. It was same for Abraham, Moses and Jesus a.s.
They had no political motives. It was all spiritual mission, to obey and worship One God peacefully.
Their opponents wrongly accused the prophets of having political motives. Their opponents dragged them into politics.
Moses a.s. was accused of having desire to become a ruler. he denied it. He said his mission was:
1. To make his people live respectfully in Egypt under the rule of the King Pharaoh.
2. If that was not possible, then to leave the country and go away to some other place.
Moses a.s. was forced to become a leader of his people, a peaceful leader.
Jesus a.s. was accused to become the king of the Jews. He denied it. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world….” He never raised an army or have any cache of arms. Is it not clear that Jesus a.s. was an innocent non-political person.
It is same for Muhammad s.a.w.s. and Islam. It was and it is non-political program. He wanted peace for every one and wanted to live peacefully in Makkah. The Makkan leaders of Arabia offered kingship to Muhammad s.a.w.s. He refused to accept. He said he does not want to be a king……
Please try to understand and make things easy for every one. Do not accuse the prophets of politics. The Jama’at Ahmadiyah Muslimah is preaching the same non-political program of all prophets.
And please pay attention to the words of Rafiq sahib i.e. (Namelee: did you try to watch MTA? What are your comments?)
Ghulam Sarwar,
You have not denied Muhammad’s saying that islam is both government and religion. Government, as you well know, is politics. Nobody has framed Muhammad. He is judged by his own words and actions.
Unlike Jesus, Muhammad would drive people away from their lands saying that they belonged to allah and his prophet. That is clearly stated in the opening paragraphs of Zia’s reproduction of the history of Muhammad. So it is not an invention by detractors. Muhammad used ‘religion’ to impose his will on those who accepted him.
I still have not watched the Ahmadiyya channel because my service provider does not include it in the bouquet. But I have no reason to expect anything from it which is different from what other muhammadan channels broadcast. It will be the same propaganda.