I don't know much about Islamic teachings for blasphemy law, but this is what all our senses suggest: law should be implemented by the state.

“Will it not instil fear in the society if everybody starts taking the law in their own hands and dealing with sensitive matters such as blasphemy on their own rather than going to the courts,” Justice Asif Saeed Khosa had later asked.

excellent arguments from Monk. This punishment authority rests with state,no body is to decide himself. Every one is quoting a incident after conquest of Mecca in which there were few people,i think more than ten,who were ordered to be killed by Holy Prophet pbuh,they were very threat to state and peace. They could spoil the peace of state thats why Holy Prophet ordered them to be killed. He even avoid to curse a person who attacked or mocked at Him, How He could order to kill a person on personal attack??

__________________
Give Light,and the Darkness will Disappear of itself.
DESIDERIOUS ERASMUS

And when it is said to them, “Spend from that which Allah has provided for you,” those who disbelieve say to those who believe, “Should we feed one whom, if Allah had willed, He would have fed? You are not but in clear error.” [The Holy Qur'an, 36:47]

The death punishment assigned for blasphemy is agreed by all Islamic scholars and is normally covered in Kitabul Hudud in Islamic juridical texts. Because of the evidence for blasphemy punishment being based on Ahadith, certain reported incidents during the lifetime of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and unanimous agreement of all Islamic scholars in all the ages (Ijma), many Islamic countries of the world have legislated death punishment for blasphemy. It is only Qadianis, a community regarded infidels by Muslims across the world, who support no-punishment for blasphemy. How can you stay blind to Ahadith and Ijma upon which thousands of Islamic injunctions are based. Don’t you consider ijma as collectivity here?


I agree it is responsibility of state to provide justice to people. Under no circumstances can a Muslim take matters in his own hands. Muslim individuals are not allowed to punish the blasphemer, but they should demand their governments in a constitutional manner to punish the perpetrator and ban blasphemy under blasphemy act 295 (c) of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Problem arises when state fails to provide timely justice. By Article 33, it is the country's duty to discourage parochial, racial, tribal, sectarian, and provincial prejudices among the citizens.[10] Under Article 10A of constitution it is also the state's duty to provide for the right of fair tria. This a very sensitive matter. Much more than matter of law, it is matter of emotions and ishq e Rasool (S.A.W.)...... True Muslims love Almighty Allah and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) more than anything else. It is very natural that when a true muslim become hopeless from state system of justice he decides to do something on his own. Much more than debate of law or justice, i consider it as a matter of "aqal" and "ishq"

Ilm o Hikmat ka jinhen shoq ho ayen na idhar
Koocha-e-ISHQ men kuch bhee nahi herat k siwa...

__________________
"And whoever puts all his trust in ALLAH, He will be enough for him" (Al-Quran 65:1)

What is the relevance of this Ayyah here?

The Holy Qur’an mentions many blasphemous utterances by non-believers and hypocrites against the Holy Prophet Muhammad(saw) without sanctioning any physical punishment for the perpetrators:

Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger—Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them an abasing punishment. And those who malign believing men and believing women for what they have not earned shall bear the guilt of calumny and a manifest sin. (Ch.33:Vs.58-59)

Do you really think that the so called Scholars are above the teachings of Quran?


But there are also Numerous Ahdith in which Prophet PBUH categorically announces Pardon. What about those?

There isn't any consensus among scholars on death penalty as your sweeping and ill informed statement suggests.

Even Hanfi School of Law allows paradon for blasphemy, Read here:

http://www.dawn.com/news/1149558



You don't have any other option.



Emotions should be utilised in positive way. Did Qadri build the image of Islam or destroyed it? Love of Prophet demands furthering His cause which is to spread the message of Islam not to kill the humankind whom He loved very much.

Very well said. I have reproduced Ahadith from Sahih Bukhari that say the punishment of blasphemy is plain death, and in the Article 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, it is clearly mentioned that all laws be brought in conformity with the Islamic provisions (Shar'iah) but a self-blindfolded eye can never see the light. Ghazi Mumtaz Qadri only acted when the government instead of punishing the convicted Asia Bibi, to please the Jews and mostly the West and contrary to natural justice, was dismissing the criminal without due punishment.

And I reproduce A Quranic Ayyah which category absolves Blasphemer from physical punishment in this world

That is your interpretation of it, because those verses are open to interpretation, while the Ahadith I reproduced on your own demand are explicitly proving that the punishment of blasphemy is mere death. Since the Ayyah don't, at all, mention anything about blasphemy or its punishment, you desperately added your own versions/stories to form an interpretation that is worth two-penny not, in my humblest opinion.


The Punishment of Blasphemy is Death and Only Death



"Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab and perish he" Chapter 111, v. 1 - Holy Quran


Context of Revelation

Abu Lahab (Father of Flame) was the nickname of ‘Abd Al-’Uzza, the Holy Prophet’s uncle and his inveterate enemy and persecutor. He was so called either because his complexion and hair were ruddy or also because he had a fiery temper. The Surah recalls an incident during the early preaching of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W). On being commanded by Allah (S.W.T) to call together his relatives and to deliver to them the Divine Message, the Holy Prophet, one day, stood on mount Safa and called the different Meccan (Makkah’s) tribes by name, the tribes of Luwayy, Murrah, Kilab and Qusayy and his near relatives, and told them that he is God’s Messenger, and that if they did not accept his Message and did not give up their evil ways, Divine punishment would overtake them. The Holy Prophet had hardly his speech, when Abu Lahab stood up and said, ‘Ruin seize thee, is it for this that thou hast called us together’ (Bukhari).

See above, my context is directly extracted from the most authentic of books after Holy Quran, the Holy Bukhari.


I positively request you not to engage me in, I have ceased arguing with you as I earlier declared. My time is precious and only for those who wish to see the light.


Thank you.

It indeed was natural justice based upon purely humanitarian grounds. The process through which Asia BB was convicted was flawed, There was no concrete evidence and Shahdats were fabricated by religious lobbies. Moreover judges were forced to convict.


Since you refused to engage with me further therefore i rest my case!

What are the matters in which "Only state can decide"...Muslim Nation is divided on them..Even e.g Jihad...Kashmir Jihad if we take example from Pakistan...According to some sects only state can conduct Jihad in organized way...

According to Barelvis, which exists in majority in Pakistan, this matter must be handled by state...

Mumtaz Qadri too belongs to this sect so he has violated the law even according to his very sect.

He must be hanged immediately to avoid further anarchy on such matters.

__________________
If I am what I have and if I lose what I have, who then am I?

First off, the principled consensus view of the Barelvi/Sufi sect (the majority sect in Pakistan) is that Mumtaz Hussain Qadri did the right act and he is not punishable at all and must be freed with honor and dignity immediately, as his case is an exception to the rule of states awarding punishment for the crime rather than an individual.

Now let's discuss why the principle/provision of Shar'iah that only the state shall administer the punishment of blasphemy is not duly applicable, effective and practical in the case of Ghazi Mumtaz Qadri.

Since it has been proven now, through Holy Quran and Ahadith, that the punishment of blasphemy is plain, immediate death, with no if and but or this and that, the question that remains unaddressed is who or what authority will award the punishment, whether an individual or the state. The answer is: as the call of Combative Jihad is the duty of the Hakim-ul-Waqt (the ruler of the time of the state i.e. the state governnment) and not some individual or group within a state (like Taliban and the proscribed organizations), similarly, to subject the blasphemer to punishment is solely the responsibility of the state government. But what if it is the ruler himself who has committed the blasphemy in his capacity as the head of government? What makes sense to the mind is, of course, the state government will and shall punish such a person no matter if he is the prime authority (as law is blind to the powerful and has to strictly observe objectivity), as is agreed upon by all including the Barelvi sect, but this was not the case in the case of Ghazi Mumtaz Qadri.

In the case of Ghazi Mumtaz Qadri, the punishing hands of the state were shackled by sub-article 2 of the article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 which is "no criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office". In simple words, in the case of Ghazi Mumtaz Qadri, the Government of Pakistan or the state government couldn't initiate legal proceedings against its own governor Salman Taseer due to the legal bar, hence he was immune from his incurred punishment. So, we had a little clash here of Shar'iah provisions and the Constitutional provision in article 248 inserted for political motives and in any such conflicting circumstance the provisions of Shar'iah are always victorious and only they shall exist; there is a whole procedure to this through the Council of Islamic Ideology (which is not so effective though, no wonder a Mumtaz Qadri had to rise from amongst the Muslim population/majority) under article 230 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. So, when there was no provision of law in the state at work to book a blaspheming governor known as Salman Taseer, how could his trial or legal proceedings against him have taken place? How could have the state of Pakistan punished Salman Taseer when he enjoyed blanket immunity in the Constitution of Pakistan? Writ petitions were filed in Rawalpindi against Salman Taseer, the state was indeed given the due precedence to institute proceedings against Salman Taseer in this case but they were turned down, since Salman Taseer enjoyed the infamous indemnity under the Constitution. Furthermore, in the renowned case "Zaheeruddin vs. the State", the SC had already upheld that the Shar'iah law is the real and effective law. It was all in this backdrop that when blasphemer Salman Taseer had committed blasphemies and fatwas by many a famous Islamic jurists were issued vindicating the death of Salman Taseer as due punishment for his serious offense that a true custodian of the glory of Islam Ghazi Mumtaz Qadri stood up to serve the Shar'iah, uphold the sacred blasphemy law and take down a blasphemer (Salman Taseer).