• Why did I use the term Islamist instead of Islamic?

My Response: The term Islamic is a broad, neutral adjective that refers to anything related to Islam—its religion, culture, civilization, and traditions. It applies to concepts like Islamic art (art influenced by Islamic culture) and Islamic law (Sharia, the ethical and legal framework derived from Islamic principles). This term does not carry any inherent political meaning.

Islamist, on the other hand, is a more specific term with political connotations. It refers to individuals, movements, or ideologies that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance and society, often advocating for a political order based on their interpretation of Islam. While some Islamists pursue their goals through democratic means, others adopt more radical or militant approaches. Importantly, Islamist does not equate to Islamic—not all Muslims are Islamists, and Islamism represents a distinct political ideology rather than the religion itself.

The choice of Islamist in my article was deliberate. It accurately reflects the political dimension of the subject being discussed, distinguishing it from the broader religious or cultural aspects of Islam. Precision in terminology is essential, especially when addressing political ideologies or movements within the Islamic world.

• Another criticism levelled at my work is that it merely presents others’ viewpoints without a clear, cohesive argument.

My Response: This critique misinterprets the article’s purpose. Far from lacking direction, my work deliberately highlights the diversity of perspectives on secularism and Islam—concepts that are inherently contested and open to multiple interpretations. The absence of a rigid, singular definition is not a flaw but a reflection of the discourse itself.

Contrary to the claim that my argument is unclear, I explicitly advocate for secularism as religious neutrality and Sarva Dharma Samabhava—equal respect for all religions. This framework stands in direct opposition to theocratic visions promoted by Islamist groups, which reject pluralism in favour of a monolithic religious order.

Rather than weakening my case, the inclusion of diverse perspectives strengthens it. By engaging with a spectrum of viewpoints, I demonstrate the complexity of the debate while reinforcing secularism as the most viable model for a pluralistic society like India. My article is not a passive compilation of opinions but a structured, purposeful defence of secularism—one that gains depth, not dilution, from the multiplicity of voices it engages.

• What we now call secular values—human rights, equality, compassion, and justice—are deeply rooted in religious morality. Modern secular societies did not emerge in isolation; rather, they evolved from centuries of religious teachings that laid the groundwork for these principles. Paradoxical as it may seem, secular values originate from religion itself, making secularism an inherent part of religious traditions rather than a departure from them.

My Response: I do agree. Secularism is not inherently anti-religious but can align with religious values by promoting neutrality, freedom, and equality. It ensures the state doesn’t favour any religion, protecting religious diversity and allowing all faiths to coexist peacefully. This aligns with religious principles like freedom of conscience (e.g., “no compulsion in religion” in Islam) and treating others with respect (e.g., “love thy neighbour” in Christianity). Secularism also fosters collaboration on shared goals like social justice, reflecting religious values of compassion and service. By separating religion from state power, it prevents extremism and respects moral autonomy, allowing individuals to practice their faith freely. In essence, secularism supports religious values by creating a fair, inclusive society where diverse beliefs thrive.

• The term “Islamism” originated in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Initially, it was used in European languages as a neutral synonym for Islam, much like “Christianism” for Christianity. Early Western writers, including Voltaire and Encyclopædia Britannica (first edition, 1771), used “Islamism” simply to refer to the religion of Islam.

My Response: Islamism and Islam are used interchangeably. Most Islamophobes adopts this method. This approach is wrong. This is equal to equating of Hindutva with Hinduism and Zionism with Judaism.

• Islam itself is however already an “-ism” – given this, why did European languages create “Islamism” instead of just using “Islam”?

My Response: The term “Islamism” was indeed coined in European languages to create a clear distinction between Islam as a religion and the political movements or ideologies that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance and society. While “Islam” refers to the faith, spirituality, and practices of Muslims, “Islamism” specifically denotes political ideologies that advocate for the implementation of Islamic law (Sharia) and the establishment of Islamic-based political systems. This distinction emerged in the late 20th century as a way to analyse the political dimensions of Islam separately from its spiritual and theological aspects, providing clarity in discussions about religion versus ideology.

However, the distinction between Islam and Islamism is not always clear-cut, and the term “Islamism” itself has been subject to debate. It can oversimplify the diversity of political movements within the Muslim world and may be used to stigmatize legitimate political expressions of Islamic identity.

The interpretation of Islamic values is a topic of ongoing debate, particularly between Islamists and those who prioritize Quranic values. Islamists often focus on implementing Sharia law, emphasizing legalistic interpretations over broader ethical values. In contrast, the Quran highlights values such as justice, mercy, compassion, and human dignity. One of the fundamental principles of the Quran is freedom of religion, as stated in verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion.” However, some Islamist movements have been accused of imposing religious practices, undermining this principle.

The Quran also promotes fraternity and equality, envisioning the ummah (global Muslim community) as a brotherhood of equals. Nevertheless, some Islamist regimes have faced criticism for fostering sectarianism and discrimination. Individual self-determinism is another key value in the Quran, emphasizing personal responsibility and individual accountability. In contrast, Islamist ideologies often prioritize collective identity over individual freedoms. The Quran is clear in its advocacy for justice, fairness, and human rights, including those of women and minorities. However, some Islamist policies have been criticized for being discriminatory or unjust, particularly toward women and religious minorities. In addition, the Quran encourages coexistence and dialogue among diverse groups, promoting pluralism and diversity. Unfortunately, some Islamist movements reject pluralism, seeking to establish homogeneous Islamic states. The Quran promotes peace and reconciliation, yet some Islamist groups have been linked to violent extremism, contradicting these principles.

Finally, the Quran advocates for economic justice, prohibiting usury and mandating charity (zakat). While Islamist attempts to implement Islamic economic systems have had mixed success in achieving justice, the importance of economic fairness remains a core Islamic value.

• The term “Islamist” has developed a pejorative connotation, especially in modern political discourse. While Islamic governance has existed for centuries—without the need for a distinct label—”Islamism” emerged in Western discourse to specifically refer to political movements advocating for governance based on Islamic principles, with an implicit tone of disapproval.

My Response: You are right. The term “Islamist” has become a focal point in the broader issue of Islamophobia, reflecting and reinforcing deeply ingrained biases in Western discourse. Historically, the West’s engagement with the Islamic world—from colonialism to the Cold War and the post-9/11 era—has shaped a narrative that associates Islam with backwardness, violence, and authoritarianism. This narrative has been perpetuated through the pejorative use of “Islamist,” which is often applied indiscriminately to a wide range of Islamic political movements, from moderate reformers to extremist groups. By conflating these diverse movements under a single, stigmatized label, the term contributes to a perception that Islam itself is inherently incompatible with democracy or modernity. This framing not only delegitimizes legitimate political expressions of Islam but also fuels Islamophobia by portraying Muslims as a monolithic group prone to extremism. The lack of equivalent terms for religiously motivated movements in other faiths, such as “Christian democracy” or “Hindu nationalism,” underscores the double standard at play, further entrenching stereotypes and fostering fear and mistrust of Muslim communities.

• Your article is about “Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy” is not about “making a compelling case for secularism as the best model for a pluralistic society like India.” India is not even mentioned in the article and rightly so because what has India to do with Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy? You seem to have lost track of what the article is about.

My Response: My critique presents a theoretical and theological challenge to the imposition of Sharia within political Islam, examining its far-reaching implications for societal structures, governance frameworks, and individual liberties. At its core, my argument questions whether enforcing Sharia as state law aligns with fundamental principles of legal pluralism, human rights, and the separation of religion and state.

A critical analysis reveals that such enforcement poses significant risks, including marginalizing non-Muslim communities and silencing dissenting voices within Muslim societies. It also risks clashing with universal human rights standards, particularly in areas such as gender equality, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.

From a theological perspective, my critique emphasizes that Sharia is not a monolithic entity, but rather a complex and dynamic system subject to diverse interpretations shaped by historical, cultural, and contextual factors. Rigid enforcement of Sharia within modern political systems disregards its inherent adaptability, distorting its original principles and fostering authoritarianism—where religious elites consolidate power, stifling intellectual and social progress.

Politically, my critique contests the exploitation of Sharia as a means of consolidating power and exerting control over populations, thereby exacerbating societal fractures and eroding social cohesion. A comprehensive review of historical precedents and comparative analyses demonstrates that imposing religious law often leads to the suppression of dissenting voices and the erosion of individual liberties.

Ultimately, my critique calls for a critical reassessment of Sharia’s role in modern governance. It advocates a framework that safeguards legal pluralism, human rights, and the separation of religion and state—fostering a more inclusive, tolerant, and equitable society.

• The (Iranian) regime is not corrupt; it is principled. It has prioritized principles over political compromises. It faces sanctions because it supports Palestine—ironically, as a Shia state, it is the only one backing Sunni Palestine. The suffering of its citizens is primarily due to sanctions and military spending for national defence. Iran remains the only Muslim state capable of standing up to the U.S. in conventional warfare, making it the last bastion that the U.S. and Israel seek to bring down.

My Response: While Iran adheres to a distinct ideological framework, its governance is driven by both principled and pragmatic considerations, with internal power struggles and instances of corruption undermining the system’s integrity. The significant economic influence wielded by the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and political elites has raised allegations of nepotism and financial malfeasance. Moreover, prioritizing principles over pragmatic political compromises is not inherently virtuous if it results in widespread hardship for citizens.

A balanced approach is essential—one that upholds fundamental principles while carefully considering their impact on human welfare. Iran’s troubling human rights record, as seen in the case of Mahsa Amini, highlights the urgent need for such scrutiny.

While sanctions and military expenditures contribute significantly to economic difficulties, internal economic mismanagement and political repression also play substantial roles. Many Iranians hold their government accountable for economic struggles, citing corruption, lack of transparency, and crackdowns on dissent. The government’s resource allocation, such as funding regional militias versus domestic welfare initiatives, is a contentious issue debated among Iranians themselves. Rather than being merely a victim of external pressures, the Iranian regime actively shapes its domestic and regional realities, with consequences both positive and negative.

• “The notion that Islam requires the integration of religion and state is a historical development, not a Quranic mandate.” “Fight until there is no more oppression and injustice and the Law of Allah prevails.” (Q.8:39)

My Response: This verse can be interpreted in another way. A humanistic interpretation of Q.8:39 would focus on the broader ethical and moral principles it conveys, emphasizing themes of justice, freedom, and the pursuit of a harmonious society. From this perspective, the verse could be understood as a call to resist oppression and work toward a world where human dignity, equality, and fairness are upheld. The “Law of Allah” could be interpreted symbolically as a universal moral order that aligns with humanistic values such as compassion, justice, and the common good. The emphasis on ceasing hostilities if the opposition stops (“if they desist”) could be seen as a call for reconciliation and peace, highlighting the importance of resolving conflicts through dialogue and mutual understanding rather than violence. This aligns with humanistic ideals of nonviolence and the belief in the potential for positive change in human behaviour. The reading would focus on the underlying message of striving for a just and equitable world, where all individuals are free from oppression and can live in dignity and peace. It would encourage reflection on how these principles can be applied in contemporary contexts to promote social justice and human flourishing.

• Q. 5:44 clearly affirms that governance must align with divine law.

My Response: Q.5:44 emphasizes the importance of divine guidance in governance and justice, reflecting the principle that laws should align with moral and ethical values rooted in faith. From a Quranic perspective, this verse can be understood as a call for governance that upholds justice, compassion, and the dignity of all human beings. Divine law, in this context, is not merely a rigid set of rules but a framework that seeks to promote the well-being of individuals and society. It emphasizes accountability, fairness, and the protection of human rights, which are universal values shared across cultures and faiths. I interpret divine law as a means to foster a just and equitable society where the welfare of people is prioritized. It encourages leaders to govern with wisdom, mercy, and a deep sense of responsibility toward all members of society, regardless of their faith or background. This aligns with the broader Islamic principle of Rahmah (mercy) and the concept of Maqasid al-Shariah (the higher objectives of Islamic law), which include the preservation of life, intellect, faith, lineage, and property. In essence, governance aligned with divine law, from an Islamic humanistic viewpoint, is one that serves humanity, promotes justice, and ensures the dignity and rights of all individuals are respected and protected. It is a call to integrate spiritual and ethical principles into leadership, ensuring that power is exercised with humility and a commitment to the common good.

• Islamic governance, in both theory and practice, incorporated consultation, judicial impartiality, and legal pluralism—values that align with modern democratic ideals.

My Response: My critique of contemporary political Islamists centres on their deviation from the historical and ethical principles of Islamic governance, rather than an attack on Islam itself. Many modern political Islamist movements have distorted these principles, centralizing power, side-lining diverse voices, and imposing rigid, exclusionary interpretations of Sharia. These movements often prioritize ideological purity over practical governance, using religion as a tool for political control rather than a means to promote justice and welfare. For example, the concept of hakimiyyah (sovereignty of God) has been weaponized to justify authoritarian rule, while the dynamic and adaptive spirit of early Islamic law, exemplified by ijtihad (independent reasoning), is often ignored. This rigidity leads to the suppression of dissent, the marginalization of women and minorities, and a failure to address pressing socio-economic challenges. Moreover, the politicization of religion by these groups undermines the spiritual and ethical dimensions of Islam, reducing it to a mechanism for power consolidation. By rejecting democratic principles as “Western impositions,” many political Islamists alienate broader populations, particularly the youth, who seek inclusive and pragmatic solutions to modern problems. My critique targets the authoritarian, exclusionary, and rigid practices of contemporary political Islamists, which diverge sharply from the pluralistic, consultative, and justice-oriented spirit of early Islamic governance. By reclaiming these historical principles, it is possible to envision a form of governance that is both authentically Islamic and aligned with the aspirations of modern societies for fairness, inclusivity, and good governance.

(V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The inherent problem with political Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

1. The Quranic Concept of Justice (ʿAdl)

The Quran repeatedly emphasizes the importance of justice (ʿadl) as a fundamental virtue in Islam (Q.4:135, 5:8). The Quranic notion of justice extends beyond divine law (Sharia) to include human rights, social equality, and individual freedoms (Q.5:32, 17:70). The Quran warns against favouritism (Q.4:58) and emphasizes the protection of marginalized groups (Q.4:75). Secular democracy, with its emphasis on the rule of law, equality before the law, and the separation of powers, is better equipped to ensure justice in this comprehensive sense.

2. Human Freedom and Agency (Ikhtiyar)

The Quran emphasizes human freedom and agency (Q.18:29, 76:3), affirming that “no soul is burdened with more than it can bear” (Q.2:286). The Quran’s statement that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q.2:256) reinforces the principle of voluntary belief. Secular democracy protects individual liberties and allows citizens to make choices about their own lives, in alignment with this Quranic recognition of human agency.

3. Rational Inquiry and Critical Thinking (Ijtihad)

The Quran encourages rational inquiry and critical thinking (ijtihad), urging believers to reflect on creation and investigate truth (Q.38:29, 49:6). Theocratic systems often suppress critical inquiry in favour of dogmatic adherence to religious authority. Secular democracy, with its protection of intellectual freedom and public debate, fosters the Quranic principle of reflection and investigation.

4. Separation of Powers and Prevention of Tyranny

The Quran warns against the concentration of power and the dangers of tyranny (Q.27:34). The principle of shura (mutual consultation, Q.42:38) emphasizes collective decision-making and power-sharing, essential to democratic governance. Secular democracy’s system of checks and balances is a safeguard against authoritarianism and power abuse.

5. Freedom of Religion and Conscience

The Quran unequivocally upholds religious freedom, stating “There is no compulsion in religion” (Q.2:256) and acknowledging belief and disbelief as part of human nature (Q.10:99, Q.109:6). Secular democracy, by protecting religious expression without privileging any faith, aligns closely with this Quranic vision.

6. Accountability and Moral Responsibility

The Quran emphasizes individual moral accountability (Q.6:164) and asserts that no individual can bear the burden of another’s sins (Q.17:15). Secular democracy allows individuals to exercise their moral agency freely, reflecting this Quranic principle of personal responsibility.

7. Pluralism and Social Diversity

The Quran affirms diversity as part of divine wisdom (Q.49:13) and acknowledges that God “could have made you one community” but created diversity as a test in righteousness (Q.5:48). This aligns with secular democracy’s principles of protecting minority rights and promoting inclusivity.

8. Moral and Ethical Guidance in Politics

The Quran provides a moral framework for leadership, prioritizing justice, compassion, and the protection of the vulnerable (Q.4:58, 6:165, 28:5). Secular democracy, with its emphasis on ethical leadership, reflects these Quranic values without imposing religious dogma.

9. Historical Context and Flexibility

The Quranic verses addressing governance emerged in specific historical contexts, underscoring the Quran’s adaptability to changing circumstances. The Quran encourages ijtihad (intellectual exertion) to develop context-specific solutions rooted in justice and fairness (Q.5:8, 42:38). Secular democracy’s flexibility aligns with this Quranic adaptability.

10. Critique of Authoritarianism

The Quran critiques oppressive rulers and warns against those who “divide their people into factions” (Q.28:4) and “spread corruption in the land” (Q.5:33). Secular democracy’s mechanisms for accountability and transparency provide a stronger safeguard against tyranny than theocratic systems.

11. The Real Purpose of Quranic Revelation

The Quran’s guidance encompasses social relationships, economic dealings, and personal conduct, emphasizing justice, equality, and compassion (Q.4:58, 5:8, 16:90). These values are best realized in a secular democratic system that ensures individual freedoms and impartial governance.

12. Denial of Coercion as an Ought

The Quran asserts that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q.2:256) and emphasizes human agency and free will (Q.67:2). Enforcing Sharia law compels individuals to adhere to prescribed rules, undermining the Quranic purpose of human existence as a test of free will. Secular democracy provides a framework that upholds religious freedom and individual autonomy.

Fulfilling the Quran’s Promise

The Quranic principles of consultation, justice, freedom of religion, protection of minorities, and the separation of religious and political authority provide a strong foundation for a secular polity. By promoting inclusivity, accountability, and individual agency, the Quran aligns with the core values of secularism. Secular democracy amplifies the Quranic vision of a just and equitable society, ensuring governance guided by ethical principles rather than sectarian interests. Embracing secularism allows Muslims to honour the Quran’s timeless message and contribute to a world where justice, compassion, and individual freedoms prevail.

(V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy? Part 1 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This paper argues that the Quran, the primary source of Islamic teachings, does not support the harsh and punitive blasphemy laws enacted in many Muslim nations. Instead, the Quran emphasizes patience, forgiveness, and leaving judgment to God. By taking a leaf out of the Quran’s book, this paper advocates for the abandonment of such laws in favour of a more Quranically aligned approach to addressing blasphemy.

Blasphemy Laws in Muslim-Majority Countries

As of recent data, numerous Muslim-majority countries have enacted blasphemy laws, though their enforcement and severity vary widely. Countries with blasphemy laws include Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria (in some northern states with Sharia law), Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey (though recently debated and modified), United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

Pakistan has some of the strictest blasphemy laws, with penalties including the death penalty for insulting Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. Saudi Arabia and Iran enforce harsh penalties for blasphemy under Sharia law. In countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, blasphemy laws are selectively applied, often targeting religious minorities. This patchwork of enforcement creates a legal minefield where individuals can be caught in a web of ambiguity and oppression. In Turkey, blasphemy laws were technically abolished in 1924, but restrictions on insulting religious values remain under other legal provisions. In Nigeria, blasphemy laws are primarily enforced in northern states where Sharia law is implemented.

Blasphemy laws in these countries are often rooted in Islamic jurisprudence and are used to protect religious sentiments, particularly those related to Islam. However, these laws are frequently criticized for being used to suppress freedom of expression, target religious minorities, or settle personal vendettas. Rather than upholding the sanctity of faith, such laws often become a double-edged sword, cutting deeper into the fabric of justice and fairness.

Hadiths Cited in Support of Blasphemy Laws:

Several hadiths are often cited to justify harsh punishments for blasphemy. Below are some examples:

“Whoever insults the Messenger of God, he should be killed.” (Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 83, Hadith 37; Muslim, Book 16, Hadith 4157)

“If anyone abuses God, the Exalted, or abuses the Messenger of God, or abuses the Ka’bah, or abuses the sacred months, the punishment for him is to be killed, unless he repents.” (Abu Dawud, Book 40, Hadith 4595; Ibn Majah, Book 20, Hadith 2636)

A blind man killed his slave-mother for repeatedly insulting the Prophet. When the matter was brought to the Prophet, he said, “If he had come to me, I would have given him a more severe punishment than that.” (Abu Dawud, Book 40, Hadith 4593; Ibn Majah, Book 20, Hadith 2634)

Reformed scholars question the authenticity or reliability of certain hadiths used to justify blasphemy laws. They argue that not all hadiths are of equal strength, and some may have been fabricated or misinterpreted over time. They use the science of hadith criticism (Ilm al-Rijal) to evaluate the chains of narration (isnad) and the content (matn) of hadiths. In essence, they are separating the wheat from the chaff, ensuring that only the most authentic sources inform legal and theological discourse.

Quranic Perspective on Blasphemy

The Quran does not explicitly prescribe a specific worldly punishment for blasphemy. Instead, it emphasizes patience, forgiveness, and leaving judgment to God. Several Quranic verses provide guidance on how to respond to blasphemy, emphasizing the importance of restraint, respect, and wisdom.

In the face of offensive discourse, the Quran advises believers to exercise patience and avoid conflict. As stated in Quran 6:68, “When you see those who engage in [offensive] discourse concerning Our verses, then turn away from them until they enter into another conversation. And if Satan should cause you to forget, then do not remain after the reminder with the wrongdoing people.” This verse suggests that engaging with blasphemers is like adding fuel to the fire; instead, one should walk away and let the storm pass.

The Quran also emphasizes the importance of leaving judgment to God. In Quran 42:40, it is stated, “The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof; but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is with God. Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.” This verse encourages believers to take the high road, leaving vengeance in God’s hands.

Furthermore, the Quran prohibits insulting others’ beliefs, emphasizing that respect is a two-way street. As stated in Quran 6:108, “Do not insult those they invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge.” This verse underscores the importance of treating others with dignity and respect, even if they hold different beliefs.

While the Quran does highlight the gravity of blasphemy, it emphasizes divine punishment rather than human retribution. In Quran 9:61-62, it is stated, “Among them are those who abuse the Prophet and say, ‘He is an ear.’ … Those who abuse the Messenger of God—for them is a painful punishment.” This verse reinforces the idea that ultimate justice rests with God, not humans.

Finally, the Quran provides guidance on how to engage with others in a respectful and wise manner. In Quran 16:125, it is stated, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” This verse advocates a diplomatic approach, proving that honey catches more flies than vinegar. By embracing these Quranic principles, believers can promote a culture of respect, tolerance, and wisdom.

Responsible Freedom of Expression in Islam

The Quran emphasizes the importance of responsible freedom of expression, outlining etiquette for its exercise. Believers are encouraged to engage in respectful discussions, arguing “in the best way” (29:46) and “most courteous way” (16:125). The Quran warns against making unfounded assumptions, speaking ill of others, or spreading rumours without verification (49:12). It also stresses the need to verify information before sharing it, to avoid harming others (49:6).

The Quran highlights the value of thoughtful, evidence-based opinions expressed courteously, likening them to a fruitful tree (14:24-25). Conversely, it condemns abusive language, including slander, libel, and insults, warning believers not to revile others or use offensive language (6:108, 49:11). Ultimately, the Quran establishes both legal and moral boundaries for freedom of expression, promoting responsible communication and respect for others.

However, the Quran’s moral guidelines for expression are primarily directed at believers, with no equivalent expectations placed on non-believers. This raises questions about blasphemy, a concept historically intertwined with apostasy, heresy, and rejection of God and revelation in Islamic tradition.

As Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s book ‘Freedom of Expression in Islam’ demonstrates, juristic debates on these issues are complex and often opaque (Kamali, p.218–21). Historically, public opinions were categorized into three types: praiseworthy, blame-worthy, or doubtful. Praiseworthy opinions praised the Quran and Prophet Muhammad, while blame-worthy opinions were deemed blasphemous, seditious, or heretical.

Some Muslims understand Islam as a coercive system that dictates piety by force and eradicates impiety, apostasy, or blasphemy. However, this approach is not compatible with modern liberal standards. In fact, the Quran offers a more nuanced response to blasphemy, one that prioritizes responsible expression and respect for others.

In contrast, some Islamic countries continue to impose harsh punishments for blasphemy, including death. This approach is at odds with modern human rights standards and the principles of responsible freedom of expression outlined in the Quran.

As Kamali notes, the punishment for blasphemy in Islamic law is based on certain narratives in the Hadith literature that are open to interpretation (Kamali, p. 249). These narratives can be understood in their historical context, rather than as a basis for modern laws and punishments.

In conclusion, responsible freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of Islam, one that emphasizes respect, courtesy, and thoughtful communication. While some Islamic countries continue to impose harsh punishments for blasphemy, the Quran offers a more nuanced approach that prioritizes responsible expression and respect for others.

As noted by Ziauddin Sardar, a renowned British scholar, writer, and cultural critic, the debate surrounding blasphemy laws and Islam is succinctly captured in his insightful commentary, which highlights the complexities and nuances of this critical issue:

 “Classical juristic opinion is at odds, as it frequently seems to be, with the spirit and teachings of the Quran. I find the whole idea of blasphemy irrelevant to Islam. Either you are free to believe and not believe or you are not. If there is no compulsion in religion then all opinions can be expressed feely, including those which cause offence to religious people. The believers will show respect and use respectful language toward God and His Prophet simply because they are believers. Non-believers, by definition, take a rejectionist attitude to both. We should not be too surprised if non-believers resort to the use of what the believers would regard as unbecoming language towards sacred religious notions. The Quran expects this; and this is how the real world behaves.” God, ‘the Self-Sufficient One’, in His Majesty, is hardly going to be bothered if a few insults are hurled at him. He can certainly look after himself: ‘the Most Excellent Names belong to God: use them to call on Him, and keep away from those who abuse them—they will be requited for what they do’ (7:180). In other words, punishment or reward for those who abuse God lies with God; we have nothing to do with it and are required simply to stay away from such matters. As for the Prophet himself, he was constantly abused and blasphemed, in everyday words as well as poetry, during the period of his prophethood, particularly his time in Mecca. He took no action against those who ridiculed him. If the Prophet himself did not penalise those who uttered profanities against him, who are we to act on his behalf? Of course, we, the believers, have the right to be offended. But we have no right to silence our critics. To do so would be to act against the clear injunctions of the Quran and the example set by the Prophet. In matters of blasphemy, unfair criticism or expression of serious differences, the Quran expects the believers to show moral restraint, and not to be unnecessarily oversensitive. When the differences become truly irreconcilable, the Quran asks the believers to live and let live: Say ‘O unbelievers! I do not worship what you worship; nor do you worship what I worship; nor will I ever worship what you worship; nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have mine.’ (109:1–6)” (Sardar, p.339-340).

Blasphemy: A Call for Reform and Justice

The Quranic emphasis on patience and forgiveness is unmistakable. In the face of insults or mockery, believers are encouraged to respond with restraint, avoiding conflict whenever possible. As the Quran teaches, justice must be served on a silver platter of mercy, not an iron fist of punishment.

Notably, the Quran does not prescribe specific worldly punishments for blasphemy. Instead, it emphasizes divine retribution in the afterlife, leaving humans to focus on forgiveness and compassion. This approach is in stark contrast to the harsh punishments often meted out in the name of blasphemy laws.

These laws often violate fundamental human rights, silencing dissent and stifling growth and progress. Silencing dissent is akin to caging the wind – it is a futile endeavour that ultimately undermines the very fabric of society.

Furthermore, blasphemy laws are frequently misused, twisted to serve personal grudges rather than uphold justice. A law that can be manipulated in such a way is no law at all.

Ultimately, the Quran promotes a culture of mutual respect and tolerance. Muslims are prohibited from insulting the beliefs of others (Quran 6:108), recognizing that respect is a bridge built from both sides. By embracing this ethos, we can create a more harmonious and inclusive society, where freedom of expression is cherished and human rights are protected.

Reconciling Faith and Freedom in the Muslim World

The Quranic approach to blasphemy offers a profound lesson in patience, forgiveness, and humility. By leaving judgment to God, Muslims can focus on promoting a culture of tolerance, mutual respect, and compassion. This approach not only aligns with the Quranic spirit but also protects human rights and dignity.

As Muslim nations navigate the complexities of blasphemy laws, they have an opportunity to turn over a new leaf. By embracing the Quranic values of mercy, forgiveness, and coexistence, they can create a more just and harmonious society. As the metaphor goes, true faith is like a candle—it should illuminate the path, not consume everything in its path. By choosing the path of tolerance and understanding, Muslims can create a brighter future for all.

Bibliography

Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, Freedom of Expression in Islam, Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing, 1994

Sardar, Ziauddin, Reading the Quran: The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam, New York, Oxford University Press, 2011

—

V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Why Muslim Nations Should Abandon Blasphemy Laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Every year during Hajj, Muslims commemorate Prophet Abraham’s unwavering faith through the ritual of animal sacrifice, known as Qurbani. This act symbolizes Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God’s command. However, as our understanding of faith and spirituality evolves, a critical question emerges: Does the ritual of animal slaughter on Eid Al-Adha remain the most meaningful expression of sacrifice?

Islam, through principles like Ijma (scholarly consensus) and Qiyas (analogical reasoning), provides mechanisms for contextual interpretations when faced with situations not explicitly addressed in scripture. Rituals in Islam are intended to be pathways to inner peace and societal harmony. The core of Islam lies in building cohesive communities where everyone feels safe and valued, regardless of background. It is perhaps time for Muslims to revisit the essence of sacrifice, looking beyond the physical act itself.

True sacrifice, as the story of Abraham demonstrates, transcends material possessions. It embodies selflessness and devotion, akin to a parent’s sacrifice for their child’s wellbeing. Abraham’s willingness to submit to God’s will, even if it meant sacrificing his son, exemplifies profound obedience and selflessness. The arrival of the lamb as a substitute highlights a crucial truth: sacrifice is about obedience and prioritizing the well-being of others, not mere appeasement through bloodshed.

Historically, blood sacrifices were common among pagans and Jews of the time. Islam, however, ushered in a new era, emphasizing personal sacrifice and submission as keys to God’s favour. The Quranic account (Q.37:102-107) does not explicitly command the killing of a son. Instead, it suggests that Abraham’s dream may have been misinterpreted, reinforcing the idea that God does not advocate for violence (Q.7:28, 16:90).

Both Abraham and his son’s willingness to sacrifice everything demonstrates their detachment from worldly possessions. This act unlocked God’s mercy, enlightening them with wisdom and correcting the notion of blood atonement. Understanding the historical context of these verses becomes crucial in interpreting their true message.

The underlying message of animal sacrifice in Islam is not blood atonement, but gratitude. It is about sharing our blessings and acknowledging that only God has the power to give and take life. The act of sacrifice serves as a reminder of our humility and the sanctity of life. The Quran emphasizes this essence: “It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches God: it is your piety that reaches Him” (Q.22:37). The ritual becomes a symbol of thanksgiving, where meat is shared with others in need. Invoking God’s name during the sacrifice reinforces the sacredness of life and our role as stewards of creation.

The Quranic passages reveal that animal sacrifice was tied to the socio-economic realities of Arabian society. It was a way to express gratitude and share valuable resources, such as livestock, with others. Today, our most prized possessions often come in the form of money. Therefore, Muslims can consider alternative forms of sacrifice, such as donating to empower the less fortunate. Supporting a struggling vendor or a single mother can create a lasting impact, aligning perfectly with the Quranic message of utilitarianism: “Feed yourself and feed the needy” (Q. 22:36), “eat their flesh and feed the needy” (Q.22:28).

The core principle of Islam is fostering inclusive societies. As Muslims, the focus should be on the true spirit of sacrifice: selflessness and sharing our blessings. By embracing alternative forms of sacrifice that resonate with our contemporary world, we can honour the spirit of Eid Al-Azha and the timeless teachings of Islam.

The essence of sacrifice in Islam is not confined to the ritual slaughter of animals. It encompasses a broader spectrum of selflessness, generosity, and gratitude. By interpreting and practicing these principles in ways that address modern socio-economic realities, Muslims can continue to uphold the profound values of their faith in meaningful and impactful ways.

The concept of sacrifice in Islam is deeply rooted in the principles of Maqasid Sharia, which aim to preserve faith, life, intellect, lineage, and wealth. These objectives underscore the importance of human welfare and social justice in Islamic teachings. Revisiting the essence of sacrifice in light of Maqasid Sharia encourages Muslims to reflect on the broader implications of their actions and their contributions to societal well-being.

One way to expand the concept of sacrifice is by focusing on personal and communal development. This could involve volunteering time and resources to support educational initiatives, healthcare, and social services. By prioritizing actions that uplift the community, Muslims can embody the spirit of sacrifice in ways that have a lasting and transformative impact.

In today’s context, environmental sustainability is an increasingly important consideration. The traditional practice of animal sacrifice, while symbolically significant, also has ecological implications. The mass slaughter of animals during Eid Al-Azha contributes to environmental degradation and resource depletion. As stewards of the Earth, Muslims are called to consider the environmental impact of their practices and seek sustainable alternatives that align with the principles of Islam.

Adopting more sustainable practices could include supporting eco-friendly initiatives, reducing waste, and promoting conservation efforts. These actions reflect a broader understanding of sacrifice that prioritizes the health and well-being of the planet and future generations.

Economic empowerment is another vital aspect of modern sacrifice. In a world where economic disparities are prevalent, supporting initiatives that promote financial stability and independence can be a powerful form of sacrifice. This could involve investing in small businesses, providing microloans, or supporting vocational training programs. By enabling individuals and communities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, Muslims can fulfil the spirit of sacrifice in a way that fosters long-term growth and development.

Ultimately, revisiting the essence of sacrifice in Islam involves embracing a holistic approach that integrates spiritual, social, environmental, and economic dimensions. This approach aligns with the broader objectives of Maqasid Sharia and reflects a deep commitment to the well-being of all creation. By expanding the concept of sacrifice beyond ritualistic practices, Muslims can cultivate a more profound and meaningful connection to their faith and its teachings.

By exploring alternative forms of sacrifice that address contemporary challenges and uphold the principles of Maqasid Sharia, Muslims can honour the true spirit of Eid Al-Azha and contribute to a more just, compassionate, and sustainable world.

V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is a scholar on Islam and contemporary affairs

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Muslims must rethink: Mass slaughter of animals on Bakrid and the meaning of sacrifice appeared first on SabrangIndia.