[SDorothy28]

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Kuwait passes anti-Blasphemy law, Only the Shia are enraged.
All of the Rafidi Shia voted against a blasphemy law presumably since it would remove their 'constitutional' right to curse the sahaabah (ra) and accuse the mothers of the believers (ra) of fahshaa and adultery.

See image here

Kuwait's parliament on Thursday passed a bill stipulating the death penalty for Muslims who curse God, the Muslim holy book, all prophets and the wives of Islam's Prophet Mohammed.

Forty MPs, including cabinet ministers, voted for the bill in the second and final round of voting, against six opponents who included all five Shiite MPs present and liberal MP Mohammad al-Sager.

The bill introduces two new articles to the Gulf state's penal code specifically to stiffen penalties for such offences. Non-Muslims who commit the same offence face a jail term of not less than 10 years, according to the bill.

Defendants who repent in court will be spared capital punishment but will get a jail sentence for five years and a fine of $36,000 or one of them, while repentance by those who repeat the crime is not acceptable, the bill says.

"We do not want to execute people with opinions or thought because Islam respects these people... But we need this legislation because incidents of cursing God have increased. We need to deter them," opposition MP Ali al-Deqbasi said during the debate.

The bill becomes effective after the government accepts it, the emir signs it and it is published in the official gazette within one month.

Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Jamal Shehab told reporters after the vote that the government will accept and implement the law.

Shiite MPs also demanded that the bill impose the death penalty on anyone who curses their sect's 12 revered Imams, but the Sunni-dominated parliament rejected their request.

Shiite MP Abdulhameed Dashti said the bill breaches the Kuwaiti constitution and the principles of Islam.

"Why are we trying to show Islam as a religion of death and blood when it is actually the opposite of that," Dashti said.

The move to stiffen penalties for religious crimes came after authorities in March arrested a Shiite tweeter for allegedly cursing the Prophet Mohammed, his wife and some companions.

The suspect, Hamad al-Naqi, is being detained pending trial later this month.

Kuwaiti courts have in the past several months jailed activists from both sects over religious offenses.

Sectarian tensions have flared in Kuwait between the Sunni majority and Shiites, who form about a third of the native population of 1.17 million, reflecting rising regional tensions between the two Islamic sects.


LINK: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...rsing-God.aspx

[vNZsk39B]

Is there a sharia basis for this ? Death penalty for cursing the sahabah ? So killing a shia is permissible if they curse a sahabah ? I suppose Kuwait follows maliki madhab ?

[Corporal White]

It doesn't mention the Sahaba.

[insightmike]

It doesn't mention the Sahaba.

whos in ur avatar

[Corporal White]

whos in ur avatar

Salam Alaikum,

It is no more there - the mods removed it . I didn't know it was against the rules sorry .

Anyways, now that you asked let me provide brief information about him.

He is Shaheed Moulavi Musa Karampour, young Imam of 'Masjid Sheikh Faiz', Mashad, Iran. The Masjid was destroyed by the sectarian wilayat faqih regime of Iran. After demolishing the Masjid, the regime then planned to take life of this noble Imam. His life was in danger so he migrated to the city of Herat, Afghanistan. During his stay in Afghanistan, he gave important lectures exposing the regime of Iran and informing Muslims about the oppressed Sunnis of Iran. The government of Iran kills anyone who speaks against them so they planted a bomb at the entrance of a Mosque in Herat Afghanistan. When Molavi Musa Karampour was leaving the Masjid the Shia terrorists detonated the bomb and killed him and several other innocent Muslims. He is not with us anymore but his legacy remains and we will always remember him.

This is was a short information about him.

He is one of the thousands of Iranian Sunni scholars killed by the Safavid regime of Iran. Unfortunately, majority of Muslims aren't aware of the crimes of the regime of Iran.

The lectures that He gave after the martyrdom of his Masjid is available on the internet/youtube.

[xT0U3UGh]

Kuwait made a big mistake when it gave the jinsiyya to the Iranian settlers...this Dashti guy is not Arab but Irani!

[educationonlines]

Stuff like this doesn't improve Islam's image in the world. Especially since people tend to judge Islam based off of what these so-called Muslim countries do.

How can you impose capital punishment for speaking an opinion against Islam? Where is the Shari'a basis? Yes, their opinions are wrong if their opinions consist of cursing Islam, but it is up to Allah to punish in this case. The Qur'an forbids compulsion in the religion, and this counts as compulsion.

If people want to curse Islam, they'll find other ways to do it. This law just makes Muslims everywhere look bad.

[SDorothy28]

Kuwait made a big mistake when it gave the jinsiyya to the Iranian settlers...this Dashti guy is not Arab but Irani!

Salam sis,

I really don't know what the gulf countries were thinking at the time, not just Kuwait all of them, what did they want to increase the number of locals??? Why didn't they give the nationalities to poor Egyptians and Syrians and Yemenis who are Sunni? I mean when I was in Qatar for example, I knew an Iranian guy who got Qatari nationality, WHY!? Because he put pictures of prince Hamad and the royal Family all over his SUV... it's stupid, not sure if it's too late or not, but the gulf countries now know they made a big mistake by bringing in these heretics to their countries.

[SDorothy28]

Stuff like this doesn't improve Islam's image in the world. Especially since people tend to judge Islam based off of what these so-called Muslim countries do.

How can you impose capital punishment for speaking an opinion against Islam? Where is the Shari'a basis? Yes, their opinions are wrong if their opinions consist of cursing Islam, but it is up to Allah to punish in this case. The Qur'an forbids compulsion in the religion, and this counts as compulsion.

If people want to curse Islam, they'll find other ways to do it. This law just makes Muslims everywhere look bad.

Salam `Aleykum,

Did you know that `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) did not allow Christians to place their Crosses outside their houses or churches? He specifically gave orders that if any christian places a cross outside in public, then that cross is to be taken and smashed on his thick polytheist head.

^ That is NOTHING compared to cursing Allah (swt) or his book or his prophets or Ummahat al-Mu'mineen.

[w4WBthjv]

How can you impose capital punishment for speaking an opinion against Islam?

You can very well, when it's about blaspheming Allah or His Holy Prophet

Where is the Shari'a basis?

I'm sure other brothers will provide these insha'Allah.

Yes, their opinions are wrong if their opinions consist of cursing Islam, but it is up to Allah to punish in this case.

Allah Himself ordered us through His Holy Prophet that certain crimes shall be punished already in this life, other than in the Hereafter.
That's why we have punishments in this life, and also the reason why criminals are arrested, instead of being said " it is up to Allah to punish you, now you may go on keeping committing your filthy crimes, my dear".

The Qur'an forbids compulsion in the religion, and this counts as compulsion. Your understanding is wrong.
That very famous (and nowadays very misinterpreted) ayah refers to accepting Islam: it can't be forced on anyone to enter in Islam, it has to be a free choice.
But then, once in Islam, there are various instances in which one may be coerced by a Qadi to do certain things.

[vNZsk39B]

Salam `Aleykum,

Did you know that `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) did not allow Christians to place their Crosses outside their houses or churches? He specifically gave orders that if any christian places a cross outside in public, then that cross is to be taken and smashed on his thick polytheist head.

^ That is NOTHING compared to cursing Allah (swt) or his book or his prophets or Ummahat al-Mu'mineen.

Walaikum asslaam,

I have not heard about this before. Could you provide the source context and authenticity of this incident you report? And whether it is the relied upon opinion of any or all the madhabs ? In a new topic on its own would be better. Because this essentially makes Muslims shooting their own foot, when they cry against Sweden banning minarets and when muslims accusse people of being Islamophobes. Secondly, there are plenty of churches in the muslim world showing symbols. And this raises questions. And this opinion has a huge consequence on the non-muslim symbols existing throughout the muslim world from West Africa to Malaysia.

Maybe the incident you cite has to do with putting a cross on a public PROPERTY. And this is equivalent to young boys putting graffiti on a public property wall.

[www.forumsovetov.ru]

Walaikum asslaam,

I have not heard about this before. Could you provide the source context and authenticity of this incident you report? And whether it is the relied upon opinion of any or all the madhabs ? In a new topic on its own would be better. Because this essentially makes Muslims shooting their own foot, when they cry against Sweden banning minarets and when muslims accusse people of being Islamophobes. Secondly, there are plenty of churches in the muslim world showing symbols. And this raises questions. And this opinion has a huge consequence on the non-muslim symbols existing throughout the muslim world from West Africa to Malaysia.

Maybe the incident you cite has to do with putting a cross on a public PROPERTY. And this is equivalent to young boys putting graffiti on a public property wall.

How does this "[make] Muslims [shoot] their own foot"? Switzerland (not Sweden) banning minarets goes against what they claim their laws are based upon: secular democracy without pandering to any religion. Our religion is not a secular democracy and the khilafah puts Islam at the top. If Switzerland was a Christian state, then sure, it has the right to ban minarets without looking like a hypocrite but it isn't one so its banning of minarets while allowing Christian church towers and crosses is a violation of secularism.

[vNZsk39B]

How does this "[make] Muslims [shoot] their own foot"? Switzerland (not Sweden) banning minarets goes against what they claim their laws are based upon: secular democracy without pandering to any religion. Our religion is not a secular democracy and the khilafah puts Islam at the top. If Switzerland was a Christian state, then sure, it has the right to ban minarets without looking like a hypocrite but it isn't one so its banning of minarets while allowing Christian church towers and crosses is a violation of secularism.

The liberal argument would be that they are protecting the cultural identity and values. The right wing argument basically would come down to saying that muslims who don't believe in secular democracy and wants to replace secular democracy with khilafah should not get freedom in secular democracy. And this basically is the argument of right wings groups. That if they dont get rid of Muslims from Europe then soon under Islamic rule they non-muslims would be treated as rats. That none of the rights Muslims now demand from them would be given to them when muslims rule. That those non-muslims who now support Muslim rights would be treated as second class citizens when Muslims get power. And i see this argument every time you argue with islamophobes.

And I sense something wrong in supporting secular democracy in one place but considering it shirk in another place.

Anyways, these are deductive arguments. It will be better in clarifying the presuming Islamic ruling on it before trying to make a coherent understanding of this. Brother tripoly Sunni can start a new topic on shariah ruling for non-muslims displaying their religious or other symbols.

[HRS1H7gO]

For what it's worth, while Switzerland does not have a state religion, all cantons save two recognize some sort of church.

[eCw56dzY]

shia should be forbidden to practice their religion. Just like they forbade people and forced sunnis to become shia in iran, we should force them to become sunnis again.

[vNZsk39B]

shia should be forbidden to practice their religion. Just like they forbade people and forced sunnis to become shia in iran, we should force them to become sunnis again.

What shia do is not a proof in shariah.

[eCw56dzY]

What shia do is not a proof in shariah.

It would be better for them to be forbidden from their bidah

[vNZsk39B]

It would be better for them to be forbidden from their bidah

It would be better for the whole world to be forbidden from their shirk. But Islam originates from belief in the hearts and not forced.

[www.forumsovetov.ru]

The liberal argument would be that they are protecting the cultural identity and values. The right wing argument basically would come down to saying that muslims who don't believe in secular democracy and wants to replace secular democracy with khilafah should not get freedom in secular democracy. And this basically is the argument of right wings groups. That if they dont get rid of Muslims from Europe then soon under Islamic rule they non-muslims would be treated as rats. That none of the rights Muslims now demand from them would be given to them when muslims rule. That those non-muslims who now support Muslim rights would be treated as second class citizens when Muslims get power. And i see this argument every time you argue with islamophobes.

And I sense something wrong in supporting secular democracy in one place but considering it shirk in another place.

Anyways, these are deductive arguments. It will be better in clarifying the presuming Islamic ruling on it before trying to make a coherent understanding of this. Brother tripoly Sunni can start a new topic on shariah ruling for non-muslims displaying their religious or other symbols.

You'll find that there is no "liberal argument" nor is there a "right wing" argument to banning the minarets because neither of those are supposed to matter when it comes to freedom of religion in a secular society. So, it is pure hypocrisy.

You're also confusing yourself into thinking that Muslims support secular democracy when they live in the West. You're also not being coherent by applying the standards that others uphold onto Muslims - i.e. applying the idea that secular democracy is ideal, which is held by the non-Muslims in the West, onto Muslims who don't hold this view. Muslims wouldn't be making a big fuss about the minaret ban if the countries they moved to claimed to be Christian in their application of law instead of secular, but since these countries are going against secularism, then they are being hypocritical.

Secularism means separation of church and state. Defending one's culture does not play a part in secularism (and that isn't a liberal argument either, since liberal arguments tend to favour the minorities, which would be Muslims) neither does suspicion of minorities in a state where the courts are to determine innocence or guilt (and that isn't a "right wing" argument, but an extremist xenophobic argument, since majority of Muslims don't want to conquer the countries they move to and force khilafah upon these countries).

All in all, if Muslims go to a country that claims to be a secular democracy, they expect to be treated in a particular manner that is in accordance with the laws that exist in that nation. On the other hand, Muslims who want Shari'ah would rule by the Shari'ah and the Shari'ah does not grant equal rights as Muslims to the governed non-Muslims but at least there wouldn't be a bait and switch tactic at play as appears to be the case in Europe.

[eCw56dzY]

You'll find that there is no "liberal argument" nor is there a "right wing" argument to banning the minarets because neither of those are supposed to matter when it comes to freedom of religion in a secular society. So, it is pure hypocrisy.

You're also confusing yourself into thinking that Muslims support secular democracy when they live in the West. You're also not being coherent by applying the standards that others uphold onto Muslims - i.e. applying the idea that secular democracy is ideal, which is held by the non-Muslims in the West, onto Muslims who don't hold this view. Muslims wouldn't be making a big fuss about the minaret ban if the countries they moved to claimed to be Christian in their application of law instead of secular, but since these countries are going against secularism, then they are being hypocritical.

Secularism means separation of church and state. Defending one's culture does not play a part in secularism (and that isn't a liberal argument either, since liberal arguments tend to favour the minorities, which would be Muslims) neither does suspicion of minorities in a state where the courts are to determine innocence or guilt (and that isn't a "right wing" argument, but an extremist xenophobic argument, since majority of Muslims don't want to conquer the countries they move to and force khilafah upon these countries).

All in all, if Muslims go to a country that claims to be a secular democracy, they expect to be treated in a particular manner that is in accordance with the laws that exist in that nation. On the other hand, Muslims who want Shari'ah would rule by the Shari'ah and the Shari'ah does not grant equal rights as Muslims to the governed non-Muslims but at least there wouldn't be a bait and switch tactic at play as appears to be the case in Europe.

Secularism is part of european culture.