Another Point of View about blasphemy laws.
Anyone can differ.

Sulman Taseer was not a person to be memorized by Pakistanis. We should not make him hero as he was going to announce amendments in blasphemy laws. By doing so he intended to make his grand father happy.
Although we did not have capacity to face the threats being imposed upon us by western world and our enemies nations yet we have right to take care these issues in our dear homeland. We proud of being Muslim and Pakistani!!

__________________
“Minds like parachutes, only function when open"

may ALLAH(T.T) show us the right path.

__________________
You've got to get the stage in life where GOING for it is more important than WINNIG or LOSING.

But we do not have any right to kill anyone extra-judiciously.Remember,if you are proud of being a Muslim and Pakistani,Then you should know that Islam's prime law is that penalty on any individual can only be exercised by the state,and only state retains the right to impose capital punishment.We,as individuals,are 'nobodies' to 'take care' of these issues.I am sorry,but a nation which calls itself Islamic and yet breaks the most basic of Islamic Laws should not be proud,rather ashamed.Islam tw law of the land negate kurne ki ijaazat nahy deyta,ye tw phir ek Islamic country ka islamic law tha.

__________________
I shall either find a way,or make one
'Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa'

Late Salman Taseer was a brave man and ready to die. He was a major tax payer of Pakistan. He had no fear and was famous for his openness.
he had given his views about the misuse of blasphemy law.

If he had commited a crime then what was that? can anybody tell me?
can anybody tell me the exact wording of Taseer about blasphemy law?

We have Quran and Hadith to look these laws. and if these laws differ from Quran and Hadith then these should be amended according to Sahria'

In my opinion we should not comment against anybody without knowing the fact properly, or by listening the comments of others.

__________________
Success is never achieved by the size of our brain but it is always achieved by the quality of our thoughts.

Do you know his actual stance or did you just hear him giving that "kala qanoon" statement? Because those who dislike him usually have a problem with his personal life or this particular statement. Isnt it unjust that you cherr-pick one statement, totally overlooking what a man has been iterating time and again?

One thing, he was always against the blasphemy law incorporated by Zia ul Haq in 1986. The amendment Sherry wanted to introduce was to include the elemt of mens read (guilty intention) in addition to actus reus (or actual act).(Yes, its the only section in PPC that does not consider your guilty intention) So have we forgotten the Hadith of Prophet (P.B.U.H) that "acts are judged according to their intentions."? Blasphemy law is a law derived by jurists. The same jurists have different methodologies when doing ijtihad. One of these methodologies is Maslahah Mursalah (or public interest). British gave us blasphemy law in 1927. How many FIRs were lodged from 1927 till 1986? The number was less than 30. How amazing it is that after Zia introduced this blasphemy law, till 2007 the number exceeded 1056. Laws are made and repealed on the basis of harm and good they do to the society (and this is the reason why Islamic punishments present an amalgam of every theory of punishment like preventive, retributive etc.

When people use (or you can say abuse) laws to get those they abhor behind the bars, when people use laws to satisfy their anguish for someone by accusing him of blasphemy or something, how good that law is, we all can decide. Ever thought about the pressures the judges have to face when they have to decree something? Ever though about the threats they and their families have to face? Yes, we have not forgotten that judge of LHC who was killed right in his chamber just because he found someone, accused of blasphemy, innocent and acquitted him. Thanks to a religious political party who eulogized the killer.

This is what Salman Taseer pointed again and again in his interviews. He used to quote example of Italy (when there are some terrorism or other high profile cases, the judges and prosecutors show up in garbs and their names are not disclosed). He was actually against the blasphemy law incorporated by Zia ul Haqq. He was actually against the court proceedings while dealing with blasphemy and terrorism cases. He was of the view that if the person accused of blasphemy if found innocent, the one who accused him should also be hanged. Whats bad in all this?

Last but not the least, like Hamza said above, its duty of the state to penalize people. The same Islamic law that gives us blasphemy laws, also gives us the relationship of an individual with other individuals and relationship of an individual with state.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Just for my knowledge.Please can anyone quote clear references from Quran and Hadith which cleanly outline the blasphemy law.

Here is an article I happened to read,and for me,its very compelling:

Blasphemy Laws: What Does the Qur’an Say? By Dr Mohammad Taqi (Florida)
It is a travesty of justice that a verse dealing with war, sedition and rebellion is invoked to punish what may not even qualify as theocratic or religious dissent. In fact, Article 295 is not just a travesty of justice, it is an iftira (slander) against the Almighty and Prophet (PBUH) as it attributes to them what they never mandated.Haq jalwagar ze tarz-e-bayan-e-Mohammad [PBUH] hast,Aaray kalam-e-Haq ba zuba-e-Mohammad [PBUH] hast,Ghalib sana-e-Khwaja ba Yazdan guzashtaim,K’aan zaat-e-Paak martaba-daan-e-Mohammad [PBUH] hast — Ghalib.The Truth expresses its grace through Mohammad’s [PBUH] expression,Indeed the Truth speaks through Mohammad’s [PBUH] word,Ghalib, therefore, I leave Mohammad’s [PBUH] praise to God,Almighty alone can understand the exalted status of Mohammad [PBUH].While the Lahore High Court (LHC) is restraining the president from pardoning Aasia Bibi in a blasphemy case and a federal minister has vowed to not allow any change in the blasphemy laws, why do I quote Ghalib’s praise for the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)? For starters, Ghalib remains one of the foremost secularists that the Indian subcontinent has ever produced and this na’at (hymn) — perhaps amongst the finest written in any language — goes to show that it is perfectly alright for the secularists to occasionally talk about matters of faith, including their own faith. In fact, it is imperative to do so when a fog of confusion is deliberately created around faith by bigots of all shades.Moreover, the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah, ostensibly, form the premise of Article 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and, without revisiting what they actually say about blasphemy, the only challenge that might be successful against this law would be to have its procedural aspects modified. The Qur’an and Sunnah indeed are the two material sources of the shariah law, but were eventually supplemented by a corpus of interpretation largely agreed upon by a majority of Muslim scholars (ijma) and deductive analogy (qiyas) to form the basis of Islamic jurisprudence.In the first quoted verse, Ghalib is referring to the Holy Qur’an, which states: “That this (Qur’an) is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger” (69:40). Ghalib’s last verse, of course, is the crux of a Sufi’s faith and, once again, alludes to the passages in the Qur’an where the Almighty showers praise on Mohammad (PBUH). I would point to one such verse: “Verily! We have seen the turning of your (Mohammad’s) face towards the heaven. Surely, We shall turn you to a Qiblah (prayer direction) that shall please you, so turn your face in the direction of Al-Masjid-al-Haram” (2:144). This is a unique verse; while the Qur’an and other holy books speak to what humans, including the prophets, must do to earn the pleasure (raza) of the Almighty, here Allah is doing something purely to earn the pleasure or raza of His Prophet (PBUH).So is it possible then, that the Almighty, who has thus exalted the status of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), left us without any guidance on how to deal with speech or actions that attempt to disparage him? Could the Qur’an be silent on a matter of such grave importance? Have we been left to rely on the ijma and qiyas of the clerics who came some two centuries after the Prophet (PBUH)? Indeed not, but that is something that the ones after a poor woman’s scalp would have us believe. Let us consider Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 57:“Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.”The Qur’an also mentions the most important case of blasphemy ever committed against Mohammad (PBUH). The Qur’an says in Surah Al-Massad:“The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and gains will not exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming fire. And his wife, the wood-carrier, will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fiber.”The common theme between the verses noted above is that, while the highest condemnation has been heaped on anyone reviling or attempting to revile the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and eternal damnation promised for the perpetrator, neither a direct order (amr) has been given to impart a punishment nor a set punishment prescribed — not even for Abu Lahab!Let us also consider the Arabic terms used to describe blasphemy against God and the Prophet (PBUH). The Arabic words sabba (abuse, insult) and shatm (vilification) denote blasphemy and have been adopted in Persian and Urdu as well. It must be stated that the word shatm does not occur in the Qur’an at all while a derivative of sabba is used only in one verse and that too to proscribe the Muslims from hurling sabba on other people’s gods and deities (Chapter 6:108).So where then are punishments like death or chopping limbs for blasphemy coming from? Usually, anecdotal reports are cited from the Hadith where the Prophet (PBUH) allegedly condoned the death or punishing of a blasphemer. However, for each such incident — usually reported on weak authority — there are two others where the Prophet (PBUH) tolerated and indeed pardoned insults against him. Not a single incident can be cited from the Sirah traditions where charges of blasphemy were filed, a trial held and the punishment meted out. Almost all proponents of severe or capital punishment for blasphemy, therefore, quote verse 33 of Surah Al-Maidah, in support of their argument:“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”It is a travesty of justice that a verse dealing with war, sedition and rebellion is invoked to punish what may not even qualify as theocratic or religious dissent. In fact, Article 295 is not just a travesty of justice, it is an iftira (slander) against the Almighty and Prophet (PBUH) as it attributes to them what they never mandated. The presidential pardon is most commendable in the current case and procedural changes to the blasphemy laws would be welcome.However, Article 295 is repugnant to the Qur’an and Sunnah and, as long as it remains on the books, it will be a direct negation of the verse “Wama arsalnaka illa Rehmatan-lil-alameen” (We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures — 21:107). By not prescribing harsh penalties, the Almighty prevented this exalted status of Mohammad (PBUH) from being undermined; Ghalib was spot-on.

Makes me think..Is it right to hang people in the name of that person whom Allah himself has called 'Rehmat ul il Alameen'(SAW)?

__________________
I shall either find a way,or make one
'Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa'

I agree with few points raised by the author, but at the same time he has been wrong quite a few times.

Imam Abu Hanifa was born in 80 A.H and died in 150 A.H. His father met Ali (R.A) who invoked his blessings on him and his chidren. He was one of the follower of Successors. So the author is wrong where he says that those clerics came some two centuries later after Prophet (P.B.U.H)
Plus, if we rely on the traditions that reached us through those clerics, why do we have a problem in considering their ijma or qiyas? (I know 200 centuries is not an issue here but since I found him wrong so I thought to point him out)

Surah Lahab or Al Massad was revealed in Mecca. We all know how badly Prophet (P.B.U.H) and his companions were persecuted during the Meccan period. The verses or chapters that were revealed in Mecca basically deal with Belief, punishments and the bounties to be received by infidels and believers respectively in the next world. We all know the infinite tolerance level that Prophet (P.B.U.H) and his companions had during their stay at Mecca. At the same time, we see that once Muslims got a state, even a Muslim was not allowed to slap his Muslim brother.

Having said that, let me add that Quran is not too clear while defining certain legal rulings. So if one finds something ambiguous in Quran or Sunnah, that is when mujtahids resort to ijma, qiyas or ijtihad. Didn’t our Prophet (P.B.U.H) invoked his blessings upon Hazrat Muaz when he said that if he wont find anything in Quran and Sunnah, he would do his ijtihad and treat everyone fairly? I presume Hadith-e Muaz is known to most of us. On the other hand, we all know how a whole tribe perpetrated murder of a man of another tribe. Hazrat Omer, under Maslaha Mursalah (or Public Interest) ordered to kill whole of the tribe (despite the ruling in Quran “ a life for a life”).

Again, Surah Al-Maidah is a Medinese surah and we all know Medinese surahs deals with transactions (or muamlaat). The verse is not absolute and has many probable meanings. How does the author define fitna? Because the one who commits blasphemy, to me, fall under this category (if he is a habitual offender). The same verse is often used to justify that rape comes under harabah (fasad fil ard). So, there is no point of saying that this verse only gives a ruling as regards to rebellions and wars.

Fancy statement but what I couldn’t grasp is that is the author against the blasphemy law and the punishments serived by classical scholars, or the blasphemy law incorporated by Zya ul Haqq, or the abuse of law or what (Seems he has problem with all of these)?

As far as blasphemy law is concerned, it is not repugnant to Quran and Sunnah. I myself cannot digest the Zia version of blasphemy law(which is said to be the agreed upon law)for it does not take into account the guilty intent of the blasphemer. At the same time, the public interest tells us that the law has been misused since the time of its formulation . Juristic preference or Estehsaan tells us that under these circumsyances, it would be prudent to soften the rigour of this law for both Muslims and non-Muslims have been victimized by abuse of blasphemy law (in Pakistan). Last but not the least, the blasphemer should be given the chance to repent or do tobah. The one falsely accusing someone of blasphemy should be punished with capital punishment. No one will disagree as regards to the alterations needed in the court procedure.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."