Tahir ul-Qadri is a Pakistani Barlevi (and, therefore, Sufi) jurist who founded and heads the Minhaj ul Quran Foundation which has a minor following and some dozen mosques in the UK. Last year, I noted he had issued issuing a fatwa against such suicide terrorism, and was vaguely pleased.

Although I had not then heard of him, the idea of any Islamic jurist with Government approval and support (which he does have) promoting an argument against such murderous violence seemed welcome. What sticks in my craw about the official initiatives over the past decade and a half to open lines of communication with observant Muslims is a mixture of ignorance of and wilful blindness to statements and beliefs which are wholly incompatible with life in an inclusive, liberal democracy.

TWTWTW: In your article you weren’t suggesting ul Qadri believes blasphemy should be punished with execution (which clearly wouldn’t be true), but are you doing that now.

TWTWTW, on first read, I felt that your complete and utter misunderstanding of Qadri’s position could have been due to Alec not setting out in full some of the incriminating paragraphs that he linked to in the above article. However, having read this:

Given his opposition to the use of the law, I’d have to say his position on it is relatively benign, and that he’s very much a positive force.

I can see that you’re simply a prat.

Perhaps you didn’t read the comments that I posted following Hasan Afzal’s original article (although you did comment on that thread, I notice, praising Qadri). Perhaps you didn’t click on the Google cache link that Alec provided above. Perhaps you did both these things, but still think that Tahir-ul-Qadri should be given a free pass, because he’s a Muslim cleric who saying what the West wants to hear? Who knows?

But to call his position relatively benign is ludicrous. For your information, then, I repost the evidence against Qadri in full.

The following quoted paragraphs previously appeared on the website of Tahir-ul-Qadri’s own organisation, Minhaj-ul-Quran (The Way of the Koran) International, on a page praising his contributions to Islamic jurisprudence. I say previously appeared, as the page disappeared after I publicised it last year on HP. It still exists, however, in cached form on Google. So, let’s have a look at truth behind this benign and positive force, shall we?

In his native Pakistan, during the mid 1980s, Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri acted as Juris-Consult (legal advisor) to the Federal Sharia Court of Pakistan. During his tenure, he gave religious sanction to a number of rulings that are still having a disastrous effect on religious minorities in Pakistan to this day.

Remember, all of these facts appeared on his own organisation’s website. They are considered to be his finest accomplishments. First in the good doctor’s sights were the Ahmadis:

In the same way, he defended the Government of Pakistan when the Qadianis [ Ahmadis] filed a writ against its decision in July-August 1984. His precedence-loaded and reference-padded intellectual defense of the rights and religious liberties of non-Muslim minorities in Islamic state, carries a historic significance on the basis of his convincing arguments. The Federal Sharia Court rejected the petition of the Qadianis on 20th July, 1984 by furnishing a legal justification on the philosophy of finality of Prophethood, They were disallowed to use for them Islamic terminology and call their worship places as mosques.

Understand that? In April 1984, Pakistan President General Zia, in an attempt to appease Islamic fundamentalists, issued a public ordinance criminalising the religious practices of the long-persecuted Ahmadiyya sect. They were banned, on pain of imprisonment, from describing themselves as Muslims or from using Islamic terminology. Representatives of the Ahmadiyya filed a legal writ against this ordinance. Qadri, as Juris-Consult, argued in supported of the government and the ordinance was made law, as sections 298B and 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code.

So much for Qadri’s benignity. But he went even further. The Ahmadis do not believe that Mohammed was the final prophet of Islam. For Qadri, this was clearly unacceptable, as his followers proudly boasted:

For three days from November 14 to 17, 1985 Dr Qadri presented his arguments continuously before the Federal Sharia Court of Pakistan to determine the quantum of punishment to be awarded to a person guilty of contempt of the finality of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), an extremely delicate legal matter.

He established, on evidence from the Quran and Sunna, that a person guilty of contempt of the finality of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) deserved death sentence and the punishment will be imposed as Hadd.

The act of contempt of the finality of the Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) is a crime, which cannot be tolerated whether its commission is direct or indirect, intentional or un-intentional.The crime is so sanguine that even his repentance cannot exempt him from the penalty of death

Dr Qadri placed a massive array of arguments before the learned Court and particularly stressed the point that no lacuna should be allowed in the legal structure of an Islamic state to encourage this form of sacrilege.The chambers of the Court will continue to reverberate with the passion and eloquence with which Dr Qadri conducted his defense of the sanctity and dignity of the the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him).

Is that clear enough for you? Qadri argued for three days that anybody, such as followers of the Ahmadiyya sect, who denied that Mohammed was the final prophet of Islam should not merely be imprisoned – they should be put to death. It is there, clearly, and cannot be if-or-butted away.

But just in case it’s still not clear enough for you, and you’re still willing to deny the facts, here it is again in black and white:

In another case the Blasphemy Law protecting the esteemed station and reverence of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) was also passed for the first time in the history of Pakistan after Shaykh-ul-Islam [Tahir-ul-Qadri] presented his arguments to the court, over a period of three days, culminating in an Act of Parliament. Shaykh-ul-Islam presented his arguments to the federal Sharia Court for long 18 hours which culminated into formulation of section 295-C

Follow all that? Qadri‘s lengthy arguments led, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, to a specific blasphemy law being formulated into the Pakistan Penal Code, in the shape of Section 295-C. What is 295-C? Well, it’s as follows:

295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet:

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

So, as you can see, there is no ambiguity over Qadri’s views. No possibility of misunderstanding his position.

Contrary to your statement that “there’s not a great deal against him”, it is a fact that Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri not only believes that blasphemers should face the death penalty, but that his legal arguments in its favour helped to formulate this belief into Pakistani law.

As a small side note, when he wasn’t helping to criminalise minority religious belief, or to bring about the death penalty for blasphemy, the good doctor found time to have stoning to death restored as a punishment:

When the Federal Sharia Court of Pakistan gave its verdict against “Rajm” (stoning to death) as Hadd, the Government of Pakistan filed a review petition against the decision of the court. In his capacity as Juris Consult, Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri came to the help of the Government at this crucial juncture, and through cogent reasoning and profuse illustration spread over four days from 20th to 23rd June, 1982, forced the Federal Sharia Court to reverse its decision and uphold Rajm as Hadd.

So, TW, you can see that your statements defending Qadri were incorrect.

It is not:

a bit ambiguous as to whether he actually believes blasphemy should or shouldn’t be a crime

because he helped to formulate the Pakistani law that makes it a crime.

He does not:

Oppose[s] the punishments

because he argued in their favour and helped to bring them into law.

A man who acts to criminalise religious belief can in no way be considered “relatively benign”.

A man who believes that heresy and blasphemy should be punishable by death is in no way a “positive force”.

The fact that such a man can still be fawned over by Western governments and liberals alike is truly obscene.