Sad part is that people like Ansar Abbasi try to be the Super Muslims, and yet have no qualms in telling lies when it comes to supporting Taliban agenda.
both. and in this case add privacy rights.
I agree with you on the selective implementation part however I donot understand you about privacy laws. How can privacy laws possibly protect some one who is breaking the national laws? No criminal could be apprehended in that manner.
As for the blasphemy law .What is the islamic stance on the person who is blasphemous?
I agree with you on the selective implementation part however I donot understand you about privacy laws. How can privacy laws possibly protect some one who is breaking the national laws? No criminal could be apprehended in that manner.
Not true. Concievably if the government knew what everyone was doing all the time crime wouldnt exist. Concerns of privacy restrict law enforcement from many measures that can prevent crime.
[quote]
As for the blasphemy law .What is the islamic stance on the person who is blasphemous?
[/QUOTE]
I believe you and I would have a different opinion on this, so its a moot point. I would point to the Prophet bearing with ridicule and stones from random kuffar, someone opposed to me would point to the poet being killed for blasphemy. Doesnt matter. The ruling orthodoxy deems the punishment to be death, and I disagree with it.
I will grant you that the Islamic ruling according to the majority fiqh is killing the guy. I ask you then what credibility do Pakistanies have to expect freedom of speech abroad?
ignoring, reporting, choosing, its up to the recipient. Like I said, most muslims wont stay quiet if someone sends them emails insulting the Prophet pbuh, and quite rightly so.
Also, dont you think that stupid zero taalerance policy here on GS (which disapeared 
) was violating the basic norms freedom of speech.
whether or not they stay quiet is their right. whether they get him killed is stupid.
private organizations have every right in deciding what views they give a platform to. the zero tolerance policy however did not extend to tracing the IPs of offending posters and giving their names to Canadian/British/Pakistani anti-terrorism authorities. nor should it have, even though, like you say, it was upto the recipient to decide what to do.
Sad part is that people like Ansar Abbasi try to be the Super Muslims, and yet have no qualms in telling lies when it comes to supporting Taliban agenda.
If Altaf bhai or Farooq Bhai would have reported this email, you wouldnt be complaining and the streets of Karachi would be chalked and this guy beheaded in a min (if he was in karachi). Ansar is by far the best investigative journalist and has humiliated all the top croonies, be it politicians or dictators.
whether or not they stay quiet is their right. whether they get him killed is stupid.
private organizations have every right in deciding what views they give a platform to. the zero tolerance policy did not extend to tracing the IPs of offending posters and giving their names to Canadian/British/Pakistani anti-terrorism authorities. nor should it have, even though, like you say, it was upto the recipient to decide what to do.
hahahahha naturally if it suits ur (and khoji et al)'s agenda, its all halaal :)
Re: FIA arrests person for expressing blasphemous thoughts to Ansar Abbasi
whats halal?
Not true. Concievably if the government knew what everyone was doing all the time crime wouldnt exist. Concerns of privacy restrict law enforcement from many measures that can prevent crime.
I still think this is a moot point. In this case the email was sent to a person who then made the choice of reporting it to authorities, its not like govt and authorities were seeking his inbox to find material. So what were authorities supposed to do when someone brings correspondance that shows violation of national laws? You can search the legal opinion on it but to me it appears anything less of an action would be ignoring the law itself.
I believe you and I would have a different opinion on this, so its a moot point. I would point to the Prophet bearing with ridicule and stones from random kuffar, someone opposed to me would point to the poet being killed for blasphemy. Doesnt matter. The ruling orthodoxy deems the punishment to be death, and I disagree with it.
I will grant you that the Islamic ruling according to the majority fiqh is killing the guy. I ask you then what credibility do Pakistanies have to expect freedom of speech abroad?
I appreciate your honesty in distinguishing between your personal opinion and the religious ruling on the matter.I am therefore taking the liberty of exlpaining my understanding on teh matter.Can you show me one instant where after establishing an islamic state a muslim was not apprehended for projecting blashemy? There is a reason why islamic ruling is what it is on the matter. Can you honestly imagine that munafiqs (difference between non muslim and munafiq) wouldnot be apprehended under islamic law in an islamic state? Spirituality is one thing and shariah another. What is the concept of jihad against non muslims by those standarads? Why not just preach?
True, which is why the choice of tracing the person who sent the email and giving it to authorities is the stupid one.
The FIA is definitely not the blame here. The laws are, and the journalist/news org is.
My knowledge of history is not that deep. I am aware of traditions in certain hadith books regarding the poet who was killed. That aside I am not even aware of anyone else who was killed for blaspheming the Prophet in the Islamic state. Here I am considering the early rule of Islam only.
And there are reasons for my disagreement with it.
Yes I can. Infact if you recall the mosque of Dhu Awaan that the Prophet had burned because it was where Munafiqeen (who are mentioned in the Quran too) congregated to hatch their plans, the munafiqs themselves were not killed.
*A group of munafiqun built a mosque at Dhu Awan, an hour’s ride from Madinah, wherein to meet to concoct and plan their divisive strategy and misinterpret and misrepresent the words of God to the people. Before he left for the campaign of Tabuk, the Prophet was even asked by them to dedicate their mosque. The time, however, was pressing and the Prophet asked to be excused. After his return, the Prophet learned more about this group and their purposes, and hence ordered their mosque assigned to the flames. The munafiqun shook with fear and went into hiding. Henceforth, there remained only their elder, `Abdullah ibn Ubayy, to lead and protect them.
Abdullah, however, did not live long after Tabuk. He fell ill two months later and died. **To the knowledge of everyone, Abdullah nursed the strongest hatred and resentment for the Prophet ever since the Hijrah. This notwithstanding, Muhammad was careful enough to let no Muslim inflict any harm upon him. Indeed, more. When he learned of Abdullah's death, Muhammad was quick to conduct a funeral service for him, to pray for him, and to see to it that he was given proper burial.** With Abdullah’s passing, however, the munafiqun lost their strongest pillar, and most of them hurried thereafter to repentance and genuine faith.*
Campaign of Tabuk and the Death of Ibrahim
Absolutely, why not! Jihad is not applicable in every situation, and more often than not the appropriate reaction is infact preaching.
You did not answer my question. What right do Muslims have to ask for any freedom abroad if they behave like this in their own country?
Thankyou. Thats what i thought your main concern is the blashpemy law itself.
I dont mean to offend you but dont you think that with your lack of knowledge about history and the shariah makes your disagreement and opinion less informed than those ulemas who have invested years in studying history and shariah? I think that one can clearly say they donot understand a ruling but before agreeing or disagreeing they should take the trouble of researching the matter in depth?
once again you are forming your opinion on one instant from history and ulemas are forming their ruling based on the religion that was completed and the event of entire history. Many rulings and punishments changed during Prophet pbuh’s life. For isntance Abdullah bin obayi and his namaz e jinaza. Prophet pbuh went and did imamat for it and Allah tallah forbade it later on. Similarily after Badr Prophet pbuh and Hazrat Abu Bakr selected to forgive certain people and Hazrat Umer advocated capital punihsment. Allah later on preferred the capital punishment. Similarily the jihad agaisnt Mulimah Kazab because he claimed to be a prophet, by your understanding muslims should have just preached against him but a jihad was carried out.This is the early period of islam. Many things appear unpleasant to our sensibilities but when there is a religious decree we cannot give precedence to our preferences. Maybe the question you should ask is why ulemas are pro capital punishment? read up on their reasons before disagreeing yea?
i didnt answer your question because i didnt read it before. There is a difference between a secular state and theocratic state, yes? The choice muslims need to perhaps make is worry about here or hereafter. Surely you cannot suggest that islamic ruling should be adjusted to appease foreign idealogy in order to preserve the interests of abroad pakistanis. Saying we should for go our religion and its idealogy to preserve the interests of few pakistanis abroad is not a pragmatic suggestion because you lay open your own population for foreign influences and gradually lose your own identity.
Jihad is not the only solution fair enough but nor is it to be totally put in a box either.
Thankyou. Thats what i thought your main concern is the blashpemy law itself.
That is one of my concerns, yes. In addition the ethics of privacy breach.
[quote]
I dont mean to offend you but dont you think that with your lack of knowledge about history and the shariah makes your disagreement and opinion less informed than those ulemas who have invested years in studying history and shariah?
[/quote]
It may make my opinion less informed. Prior to my last post, none of my objections had a religious basis at all.
[quote]
once again you are forming your opinion on one instant from history and ulemas are forming their ruling based on the religion that was completed and the event of entire history.
[/quote]
You asked for a single instance, I gave you it.
[quote]
Many rulings and punishments changed during Prophet pbuh's life.
[/quote]
I do not believe the principle behind the rulings and punishments ever changed.
[quote]
For isntance Abdullah bin obayi and his namaz e jinaza. Prophet pbuh went and did imamat for it and Allah tallah forbade it later on.
[/quote]
Basis? I believe we are talking with different historical basis. At any rate, the namaz e janaza is not the issue. The fact that he wasnt killed, despite his mosque being burned and him being known for who he was, is.
[quote]
Similarily after Badr Prophet pbuh and Hazrat Abu Bakr selected to forgive certain people and Hazrat Umer advocated capital punihsment. Allah later on preferred the capital punishment. Similarily the jihad agaisnt Mulimah Kazab because he claimed to be a prophet, by your understanding muslims should have just preached against him but a jihad was carried out.
[/quote]
Again, different basis. Being shia, these persons do not represent valid Islamic evidence for me. Furthermore, none of these pertains to blaspheming the Prophet, esp in a private conversation.
[quote]
This is the early period of islam. Many things appear unpleasant to our sensibilities but when there is a religious decree we cannot give precedence to our preferences. Maybe the question you should ask is why ulemas are pro capital punishment? read up on their reasons before disagreeing yea?
[/quote]
Please do not assume I do not know their reasons. Having said this, what you are saying is sounding awfully like an 'aalim knows best' argument.
[quote]
i didnt answer your question because i didnt read it before. There is a difference between a secular state and theocratic state, yes? The choice muslims need to perhaps make is worry about here or hereafter. Surely you cannot suggest that islamic ruling should be adjusted to appease foreign idealogy in order to preserve the interests of abroad pakistanis. Saying we should for go our religion and its idealogy to preserve the interests of few pakistanis abroad is not a pragmatic suggestion because you lay open your own population for foreign influences and gradually lose your own identity.
[/quote]
a) There are not a 'few' pakistanies abroad.
b) Do you feel Pakistanies abroad should not expect freedom of thought and speech? If so then we have no argument, you are consistent, and even though I do not agree with you I cant prove you wrong.
I believe these two points are connected. The breach of privacy issue is not applicable. If authorities have a clear evidence of someone breaking a law they are authorised to ascertain further evidence. In either we donot know whether or not the authorities went through regular channel to pursue the identity of a the blasphemer. You are objecting to a religious law so inavriably religion forms the basis of argument.
no actually the two incidents are quite different in nature. Since we donot know the entire content of the email the comparison would be futile.
But the punishment in itself changed so we are arguing how should blasphemous acts should be tackled with .
I brought this one up to show that punishment and conducts towards munafiqeen has chagned. Not as an example of uniform nature of crime or punishment.
Actually shia religion also has very strict ruling about blasphemy. Khomeinin infamous fatwa about rushdi in 1989 and recent confirmation of its validity Death fatwa against Rushdie still valid, says Iran. So being a shia doesnot change the nature of punishment in regards to blasphemy. How you conclude it to be a private conversation is beyond me. The email was written to a journalist, the journalist in question found something breaching the pakistanis law, he then took it upon himself to report it. Nothing can reasonable provide legal grounds to ignore it. How can you possibly ascertain that the authorities involved didnot get a legal go ahead to pursue the identity of blasphmer?
i didnt assume , you yourself said that i donot know much about history. In any case can you give the background religious information to condemn a law that has its basis in religion. Until then i am afraid i will continue with my aalim knows the best approach.
a)Regardless of the population abroad a coutnry forms its consitution to serve the interests and represent the populaiton in it. I donot see saudis hiding for cover and they are governed by much more stricter laws then Pakistanis.
b) Pakistanis abroad have every right to expect to be treated as per the law of the country they are residing in. I doubt any country changes their laws and rules to better accomodates pakistanis. So i would expect a secular govt to treat me by its standarads. In any case i wouldnot redicule the prophets of christianity since that is blasphemy as per my believes regardless of the law of land. So yes i donot mind if western govt enforce a law where disrespecting their reliigous icons is a punishable offence.
I am not talking about the legal aspect of privacy. the authorities did not breach privacy, because they didnt tap the email, it was given to them along with the person’s location.
The person who made a private correspondence public committed the privacy breach.
You asked me for an instance where munafiqeen were not punished (in the manner this guy is threatened with) once the Islamic state was established. dont move the goalposts.
Show me where the punishment changed wrt the Abdullah ibn Ubayy case. That guy died a year before the Prophet did, this is not some early years of Islam case.
Because Im shia doesnt mean I am orthodox or believe in holy iran. iran has some terrible human rights abuses going on. the salman rushdie fatwa is the least of their worries.
I condemned it without invoking religion till discussing with you. And I gave you religious basis when asked.
Maybe that has to do with the saudies you meet 
And if they wish to protest any new laws that limit the free speech/thought/expression of Muslims? Do they have any grounds to ask for better treatment? Say France banning hijab, American patriot act, some law against Muslims preaching or speaking out against Israel.
You do not get to decide for other nations where free speech boundaries should be. Also this isnt about Western countries, or christianity. Say India, where the other major religion is one who’s icons we do not respect and preach against.
I am not talking about the legal aspect of privacy. the authorities did not breach privacy, because they didnt tap the email, it was given to them along with the person's location.
The person who made a private correspondence public committed the privacy breach.
you might dislike his approach but legally he didnot breach any law or else under which law do you think he should be tried? The mail was sent to him , he didnt copy the mail that was between two other people and then made it public.
[QUOTE]
You asked me for an instance where munafiqeen were not punished (in the manner this guy is threatened with) once the Islamic state was established. dont move the goalposts.
[/QUOTE]
lets not go into this. because we will be sidetracked.the instance that you gave is compounded and i already brought up the dissimilarities. my personal understanding (and i can be wrong) is this that Abdullah wasnot open in his munafiqat, that is to say there was no clear evidence of his hatred so he couldnt be punished for what wasnt proved against him. So comparing his treatment with the incident in this question is different since here you have a clear proof.
[QUOTE]
Because Im shia doesnt mean I am orthodox or believe in holy iran. iran has some terrible human rights abuses going on. the salman rushdie fatwa is the least of their worries.
[/QUOTE]
Well then i guess your bone of cotnention is with the concept of religious blasphemy laws to begin with. Not whether or not the current laws are as per islam or not?
[QUOTE]
I condemned it without invoking religion till discussing with you. And I gave you religious basis when asked.
[/QUOTE]
yes but you yourself conceded that majority alims now and through history have shown a preference for capital punihsment in this scenario
[QUOTE]
Maybe that has to do with the saudies you meet :)
[/QUOTE]
I cant understand what you mean by that.Regardless of where people migrate from (and what laws are in place in their brith countries) they are treated under the secular law in same manner because that is the nature of secular law itself. I donot think that should or would change.
[QUOTE]
And if they wish to protest any new laws that limit the free speech/thought/expression of Muslims? Do they have any grounds to ask for better treatment? Say France banning hijab, American patriot act, some law against Muslims preaching or speaking out against Israel.
[/QUOTE]
Bahi sahab freedom of speech is something and abusing and disrespecting a prophet of another religion is somethingelse. I would definitely advocate islamic law and as i said i wouldnt mind the counterpart, if it didnt suit me i wouldnt migrate to that country. Similarily what do you suggest that blasphemy shouldnt be a punishable offence in a islamic country? or that anyone who reports it should be than tried for breaching privacy?
[QUOTE]
You do not get to decide for other nations where free speech boundaries should be. Also this isnt about Western countries, or christianity. Say India, where the other major religion is one who's icons we do not respect and preach against.
[/QUOTE]
Similarily others should not decide how pakistan persecutes blasphmers.India again is a secular country, the muslims residing their can call the gov to implement their law but they cannot expect them to implement shariah on everybody else. This is islamic republuc of pakistan it shouldnt be guided with secular standarads. Why should people of pakistan have international laws imposed on them?
Ravage, just give it up, this argument is just a non0issue, Ansar Abbasi did the right thing, and those that stress over such non issues and overlook other things would go bald for no good reason.
Is this anything like the fake Ansar Abbasi news story on electricity rates in Chak Shahzad and it's relation to Musharraf?
you might dislike his approach but legally he didnot breach any law or else under which law do you think he should be tried?
I never said that he legally breached the law. Much shameful behaviour happens within the law in Pakistan, unfortunately.
[quote]
lets not go into this. because we will be sidetracked.the instance that you gave is compounded and i already brought up the dissimilarities.
[/quote]
you had not, till this point.
[quote]
my personal understanding (and i can be wrong) is this that Abdullah wasnot open in his munafiqat, that is to say there was no clear evidence of his hatred so he couldnt be punished for what wasnt proved against him.
[/quote]
And the mosque he built was burnt without evidence?
[quote]
Well then i guess your bone of cotnention is with the concept of religious blasphemy laws to begin with. Not whether or not the current laws are as per islam or not?
[/quote]
Probably.
[quote]
yes but you yourself conceded that majority alims now and through history have shown a preference for capital punihsment in this scenario
[/quote]
Not, in the early period of Islam. After that, sure.
[quote]
I cant understand what you mean by that.Regardless of where people migrate from (and what laws are in place in their brith countries) they are treated under the secular law in same manner because that is the nature of secular law itself. I donot think that should or would change.
[/quote]
Oh but it has changed since 9/11. Muslims have faced discriminatory laws, at which they have been vocally protesting for a long time, rightfully so. Without much of a moral ground though, if they support laws like this.
[quote]
Bahi sahab freedom of speech is something and abusing and disrespecting a prophet of another religion is somethingelse.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]
I would definitely advocate islamic law and as i said i wouldnt mind the counterpart, if it didnt suit me i wouldnt migrate to that country.
[/quote]
So where should Muslims in say, India, migrate to? Would you like them to be killed because say someone laughed at a cow being worshipped, or said thats not right a cow is just an animal?
[quote]
Similarily what do you suggest that blasphemy shouldnt be a punishable offence in a islamic country?
[/quote]
Yes, especially in a case like this, where the 'blasphemous thoughts' were a private conversation
[quote]
or that anyone who reports it should be than tried for breaching privacy?
[/quote]
If they did breach privacy, yes.
[quote]
Similarily others should not decide how pakistan persecutes blasphmers.India again is a secular country, the muslims residing their can call the gov to implement their law but they cannot expect them to implement shariah on everybody else. This is islamic republuc of pakistan it shouldnt be guided with secular standarads. Why should people of pakistan have international laws imposed on them?
[/QUOTE]
Once again, I am not talking about secular standards being imposed on Pakistan. If you think Muslims in minority status abroad should not demand freedom of religion, thought and expression (as they have vocally been doing for the past 9 years) we have no dispute.
We cannot have it both ways, kill people for 'blasphemous thoughts' in our own country and demand freedom of thought and association elsewhere.
I am not an MQM guy, so what you said about Altaf dictator does not hold true for me.
Secondly, Ansar Abbasi is a liar who supports Taliban’s khariji stance against Pakistan and Islam. For example, he claims that Taliban started their campaign in Pakistan only because of injustice. We know it is a lie. Taliban would have started their khariji campaign regardless of injustice because their aim is to impose their self-styled “khilafat” on the global level.
Thus Ansar lied about Taliban’s real intentions.
Look at Abbasi @ 1:08
and look at reply @ 5:10, 6:23 and 8:24 below
People like Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Gul are the reasons Pakistan is in this critical position today.
Re: FIA arrests person for expressing blasphemous thoughts to Ansar Abbasi
For all we know Ansar Ababsi made up a fake email to get some poor guy in Karachi who is against his talibanic thinking.
Re: FIA arrests person for expressing blasphemous thoughts to Ansar Abbasi
It's an offense to deny Holocaust in Britain, it'd be stupid of me to send e-mails to a journalist telling him my "offensive thoughts". (btw I do believe in Holocaust, I just gave an example)