Pakistan’s care taker Prime Minister Anwaar ul-Haq Kakar condemned the vandalism and warned of stern action against those who violate law and target the Christian minority. The National Commission for Human Rights, a government body in Pakistan described the violence as “sad and shameful”. The heinous act on the part of Muslim religious extremist vandalising the churches and homes of poor, marginalised, helpless and innocent Christians must be condemned in strongest words by all right thinking and law-abiding persons.

Not just Christians, but many Muslims also have been accused of blasphemy and lynched to death. Governor of Punjab – Salman Taseer was killed by his body guard after he called for release of Asiya Bibi, a Christian farm worker who was acquitted of the charges of blasphemy by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and spared from the noose. There was a global campaign for release of Asiya Bibi, who refused to drink water offered by two Muslim women. Days later she was accused of blasphemy. Mashail Khan, a student, was lynched to death for being an atheist. 74 people have been killed by mobs since the year 1990. From 1967 to 2014, over 1,300 people have been accused of blasphemy, with Muslims constituting most of those accused.

Through the 1980 amendment to the Pakistani Penal Code, section 298-A was introduced, which made it a punishable offence to defile “by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly”, the sacred name of any wife of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), or his companions or the rightly guided Caliphs.

The 1984 amendment targeted the Ahmadi community and criminalised the acts of them referring to any other person except Prophet Muhammad and his companions as Ameer-ul-Mumineen or Khilafat-ul-Mumineen or any other person other than a wife of Prophet Muhammad as Ummul-Mumineen, and any person other than family members of Prophet Muhammad as Ahle-bait.

In other words, no other person can be revered and accorded same degree of sacredness and status as Prophet Muhammad and his family members by the Ahmadi community. This provision directly obstructed the freedom of the Ahmadi community to believe that the founder of their community Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) is the Mahdi (Guided One) and the Messiah expected by Muslims to come at the end of times and bring about the final triumph of Islam.

The blasphemy law was made even more stringent in 1986 by introducing Section 295-C which makes defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) punishable by death. Death is a minimum and the only punishment and the trial should be conducted only by a Muslim Judge.

The definition of defiling was not provided for such a severe punishment and the act of defiling was made very inclusive, “by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly”.

The more that the law was made stringent, more accusations were levelled. At least 1,855 people have been charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws between 1987 and February 2021.

Though there have been no judicial executions under the blasphemy provisions of the Pakistani Penal Code, stringent provisions encourage the religious extremists to carry out extra-judicial executions through street vigilante acts and lynchings, with the vigilantes acting as the judge, jury, and prosecutor. Between 1947 to 2021, (74 years) vigilantes have killed 89 people, including the Governor of Punjab Province – Salman Taseer, the Minister of Minorities – Shahbaz Bhatti, a High Court judge – Arif Iqbal Bhatti – in his chambers.

The blasphemy laws have enabled the rise of right-wing Islamist parties which compete with each other to defend the stringent provisions and they grow in strength with every frivolous accusation of blasphemy, particularly targeting the Christians, Ahmadis and other minorities that are often levelled out of personal vendetta.

To revive the fear of God, affection to the Islamic Prophet Mohammed and service to people with particular emphasis on government officials and cabinet members was one of the 15 points in the manifesto of the Muttahida Majili-e-Amal party. The Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), a far-right organisation, calls for blasphemers to be beheaded. The rise of TLP has seen an increase in filing of blasphemy cases.

Religion in South Asia has served as a far stronger mobilisation tool in the long run rather than any other cultural unifying factor like ethnicity, language, civic nationalism, or race. During anti-colonial struggle, the idea of freedom and the need to unify people of diverse religions, linguistic groups, and castes, the idea of inclusive civic nationalism and the promise of rights to the marginalised sections of the society had a greater appeal drawing all peoples into the freedom movement.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah succeeded in instilling fear among the Muslim minority of getting overwhelmed by the Hindu majority and that Muslims would be forced to live a subjugated life. Jinnah succeeded in using religion as a unifier.

Language proved to be a unifying factor for the Bengali speaking in the then East Pakistan as they were discriminated. Tamil language served as a rallying force in Sri Lanka against the Sinhala hegemony in the North Eastern region of the country. Language unified the Tamil people to resist the hegemony of Hindi speaking North in India.

With these exceptions, the idea of religion based ethno-nationalism has proved to be a more potent tool. Religion based ethno-nationalism is on the rise in India, and indeed in South Asia. Religion is deeply rooted in the psyche of South Asians and religious establishments are a powerful influence in politics.

Religion is salient in everyday life bringing people together; for some followers, it explains the purpose of life and other existential queries; it is a source of social norms of behaviour, responsibilities, duties and entitlements; it is one of the sources of laws; festivals bring people together for enjoyment and celebrations; parables, epics, narration of stories and shared memories convey the social behavioural norms and ideals of life; it standardises the life cycle rituals from birth to death; it inspires some to render selfless service to the needy; and finally it instils fear of God for deviant behaviour, and expectation of rewards for good behaviour. Religion to some helps overcome alienation by enlarging the notion of self as a social self and defines relations between self and others – often hierarchical relations.

The most important reason for salience of religion in everyday life is that an army of religious preachers have a platform to preach, be in regular touch with large number of followers and interpret the text, converse with them in a language they understand using metaphors that make sense to the people and convince them that their way of life, culture and beliefs are natural and best.

The army of religious preachers standardise the way of life, furnishing some stability and certainty. Existential anxieties and fear of God is a weapon in the hands of the preachers to standardise behaviour of those belonging to the community.

The community must also stand up for those who are in unfortunate circumstances like natural disasters, manmade disasters or economic conditions, despite their conformity with the believers.

The army of gatekeepers of religion make followers of the religion comfortable with their status-quo and their “here and now” existence. The aura of sacredness is essential part of religion to legitimise beliefs. Attack on sacred threatens the whole social existence and can inspire some to sacrifice their life, liberty and property in order to restore the sacred or deter further attacks on the sacred, and to ensure the normal continuity in life.

The deeper the notion of sacred, stronger the sacrifice one can make and more violent the community can become. Laws that seek to “protect” the sacred give legitimacy and a stamp of the ultimate, final and universal truth to the beliefs, beyond any critical examination. It raises the expectation of believers that even non-believers and believers of other religions must accept the sacred nature of their beliefs.

Finally, it legitimises violence on those who do not accept the “universal” idea of sacred. The blasphemy laws become a tool in the hands of the army of preachers and the self-appointed gatekeepers of the religion to establish their hegemony socially and culturally. The blasphemy laws seeking to protect a particular belief ends up privileging one sect or denomination’s beliefs over the others.

Materialism, acquisition of knowledge from multiple secular sources, and pursuit of selfish interests loosens the community bonds and the will to sacrifice for the notion of sacred reduces. In other words, materialism, selfish interests and knowledge from multiple sources increases the levels of tolerance. Materialism in the South Asian societies hasn’t developed as in the global north.

Protection of beliefs does not necessarily protect religion. It may even cause disservice to the religion sought to be protected. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and indeed all religions have evolved to serve the people and meet the challenges of the time.

There is humongous diversity of faith and practices within each religion, leading to many denominations, sects and sub-sects. This diversity emerged as the societies developed technologically, gained new knowledge and new ideas emerged.

Some religious establishments adopted and accommodated to the changes, while others resisted. For example, when the telescope of Galileo proved that the earth is moving round the sun rather than the other way round, the beliefs and dogmas preached by the church had to be reconsidered.

If the beliefs and dogmas were protected, there would be no further development of knowledge. It would have been impossible to stop research and development of knowledge in order to protect beliefs and dogmas.

Doors of other religions would open up that did not impede research and knowledge, leading to migration of the believers. When developments in medical science made organ transplantation possible, religious beliefs were confronted with a now problem – were such procedures in consonance with religious beliefs.

If religious beliefs opposed abortions, women needing abortions would migrate out or force a reconsideration of such beliefs. At times religion is protected when beliefs that are not in consonance with the times are revised and reconsidered. Religious beliefs have to march along with the new developments in knowledge.

Blasphemy laws therefore may not be in the interest of religion. Law should not protect beliefs or religion, it should rather protect the right of every person to believe. The former privileges the religious establishment, while the later protects an individual’s right to believe, and therefore strikes a balance between protecting beliefs and evolution of religious ideas, theology and knowledge.

A committed believer does not and must not get disturbed when religious beliefs are attacked or what they hold sacred is violated. They would rely on God to take care of such behaviour.

When a Jewish woman threw dirt at Prophet Mohammed, neither the Holy Prophet nor his companions or believers wanted her to be punished. On the contrary, when one day she did not throw dirt at the Holy Prophet, he inquired about her and found that she was sick. He prayed for her good health.

Similarly, Jesus prayed for forgiving those who crucified him saying they did not know what they were doing. Gandhiji said that he would not kill anyone to save a cow which was sacred for him. He said that he would rather sacrifice his own life to save a cow. Respect for what is sacred to one’s religion by the followers of other religions should come from within and from appreciation of what it means and signifies rather than out of fear of law.

Response to attack on what one holds sacred should be dialogue, and explaining the meaning of what it stands for. Ideas should be fought with ideas and not violence – either by the non-state actors, or even the state. However, any instigation and incitement of violence should be punished in accordance with the law.

Violence by the non-state actors who act on their “hurt sentiments” when what they hold sacred is being attacked, do not defend the religion. They defend their hegemony over the weaker and marginalised sections. They enjoy their power and control over the helpless people. They do not want to instil fear of God, but want the already weaker people to fear them.

Related:

Indian Ulema Must Oppose Anti-Blasphemy Laws

Corporal Punishment for Blasphemy or Apostasy not in line with Quranic Ethos?

The post Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 17, Jamia Al-Azhar strongly condemned the attacks on several churches in East Pakistan and outrightly rejected the religious legitimacy for such acts in its statement. It reads: The Holy Quran, which is attacked by some extremists under the protection of some governments, is the same book that commands that the places of worship of Muslims and non-Muslims alike should be protected. And there should be no abuse or violence in these places of worship. It added: The attackers did to the churches exactly what those who desecrated the Holy Quran did, because both are henious crimes that violate the sanctity of religions, holy books and human and moral standards. Condemning these criminal and barbaric actions, Al-Azhar stressed the need to prosecute all extremists in different territories across the world who attack other religions and their adherents in their nefarious anti-blasphemy acts, be it an attack on Holy Quran, churches or any other religious places.

Al Azhar concluded: “This religious and educational body emphasize all legal procedures to protect the sanctity of religion and it demands that legal action be taken to ensure that this type of act never happens again, and that these actions are based on prejudice, hatred and dissent”.

Church attacks are not new in Pakistan. Neither are the anti-blasphemy acts and attacks an isolated phenomenon. A pervasive, prejudiced and clearly selective application of blasphemy laws gives rise to these incidents in Pakistan. Discrimination based on religion and belief is the fate of religious minorities and heterodox sects in the self-styled Islamic nation. Human rights bodies and activists both domestically and internationally have highlighted the fact that Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy laws are discriminatory and brazenly violative of the human rights guaranteed by international treaties. However, the radical Islamist organizations and individuals who believe the blasphemy laws are part of their faith, vehemently disregard all the international treaties.

Since the creation of Pakistan, minorities have been repressed, discriminated and religiously persecuted by the state in the name of several Shariah laws. But the blasphemy law has undoubtedly been the worst of all. It has affected all minority communities in Pakistan to a greater or lesser extent, Hindus, Christians, Ahmadiya community and Shia Hazaras. Since the 1990s, the minority Christians, who make up just 1.6% of the population, have been systematically targeted in numerous anti-blasphemy attacks. As the second largest minority, Christians and their sacred places are most affected by the brutal blasphemy laws juxtaposed with the Sunni theological underpinnings. Thus, the Pakistan-centric radicalisation in the name of blasphemy is a lived experience in the daily life of the religious minorities. A sword of blasphemy law is always hanging on their heads, not just in the courts but also on streets and public places.

But what is more worrying is that the Pakistan-centric anti-blasphemy radicalism is no more confined within the walls of the so-called ‘Islamic’ nation. It has rather snowballed, catapulting itself to the democratic polity of India, exploiting the internal security threats, various social and current communal challenges as well as the community grievances, to further the nefarious ends. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, radical organizations tried to indoctrinate youths into an anti-blasphemy extremist ideology to spread communal disharmony in the country. Remember the Nupur Sharma episode! It was a trying time which candidly exposed the extent of insanity behind the extremist anti-blasphemy theology that was on the rampage not in Pakistan, but in India with the likes of TLP’s radical Sunni-Barelvi Islamists having complete temerity to kill Kanhaiya Lal Teli, an Udaipur tailor, for supporting Nupur Sharma’s blasphemous statement.

Mohammad Riyaz Ansari and Ghous Mohammad, the two terrorists who beheaded Kanhaiya Lal clearly asserted their theological underpinnings before the gruesome slaughter. They told us in a pre-recorded video that they were going to avenge the denigration of the Prophet by killing one of the thousands of supporters of Nupur Sharma, the original blasphemer. Now don’t try to argue that the two anti-blasphemy murderers were a miniscule minority within a subgroup of Sunni-Barelvis. Let’s not forget that Mumtaz Qadri, the terrorist and assassin of Governor Salman Taseer, was also seen as an individual and not a representative of the faction he belonged to. Even the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan mistook him and his ilk as a “small segment”. But we all know the truth and the sorry state of affairs that the minorities and their places of worship face there at the hands of anti-blasphemy radicals. The death penalty sentenced to Qadri caused more uproar in Pakistan than what we saw with horror in the wake of Asia Bibi’s acquittal by the Apex Court. The consequent protests by the Sunni Islamist hardliners across the country were much less now than the turmoil which was created to “exonerate” Qadri as “Ghazi” (man of religious valour) and “Shaheed e Millat” (the one who was ‘martyred’ for the sake of community).

Do we think this correlation is just incidental? Being episodic in our condemnation of the anti-blasphemy acts and attacks won’t serve the purpose. If we really want to seek the solution, we need to take this intricate issue with more caution, curiosity and carefulness. Let’s try to understand one thing, in an honest way: Anti-blasphemy extremists are headed for a death row not just for themselves but also for the whole community. In India, they are hellbent to hurt the peaceful image of the whole Muslim community, which is otherwise seen as sane and non-violent. Thus, if we don’t stem the tide of theological underpinnings for anti-blasphemy violence and its roots, they will henceforth be considered as extremist as their Pakistani counterparts. Then, I regret, the difference between Indian and Pakistani Muslim community will be erased. All the praise and appreciation that Indian Muslims have drawn worldwide for their patience and stoicism with which they have faced daily provocations for years, and have thus protected their life and limb, will vanish.

This is the grim situation which requires from us to make it patently clear that any theological support for the anti-blasphemy acts is dangerous for us and our survival and reputation as the moderate Muslim community. Therefore, ulema of all hues and the theologians of both classical and modern Islamic studies must call for repealing not just the draconian blasphemy laws from the Islamic countries but also removing the anti-blasphemy content from the madrasas and the Islamic textbooks. Therefore, Indian Muslims should demand and support the enactment of a law against the anti-blasphemy acts. In fact, an Act by the Parliament should be passed to prevent this mindless violence in India and thus save the Indian Muslims from becoming as notorious as their Pakistani counterparts for terrorism and violence. Punishments to the anti-blasphemy supporters with a view to minimising their public support and influence, will augur well as measures for mitigation.

But the most gigantic and urgent task is for the Indian ulema. In Pakistan, Islamic theological bodies extend the applicability of blasphemy laws to non-Muslims living in Muslim countries. Not to speak of radical Barelvi organisation ‘Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’ (TLP) or the Deobandi ‘Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’ (TTP), even the well-known Barelvi and Deobandi theologians, Muftis and Qazis (Islamic jurists) and more scandalously, even the so-called Sufi-Sunni clerics are openly or tacitly supportive. They aver that it is incumbent upon an Islamic government to execute all blasphemers, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. On the pretext of protecting the Prophet’s dignity called Tahaffuz-e-Namus-e-Risalat, the Islamic postulate of Prophetology has always been misused by the hardcore Islamists in Pakistan. But in reality, the holy Prophet (pbuh), whose sanctity the extremists claim to defend never sentenced to death the Meccan pagans, who cursed, ridiculed and plotted to kill him. Even when the pagans desecrated the Prophet’s sanctity accusing him of ‘forging’ the Qur’an, he acted upon the divine instruction indicating that only Allah can decide the punishment for even as grievous a sin as ‘fabricating’ and ‘concocting’ the Qur’an. Allah says in the Qur’an:

“Do they claim that the Messenger himself has fabricated it? (If so), tell them: “If I have fabricated it, then you have no power to protect me from Allah’s chastisement. He knows well the idle talk in which you indulge. He suffices as a witness between me and you. (46:8)

Deplorably for the Indian Muslim community, our Ulema and Madrasas never quote the above verse from the Qur’an in their Khutbas (sermons) and provocative public speeches in which they embolden their audience to take revenge on the issue of blasphemy. As the most responsible community leaders, their job was to dissuade Muslims from this dastardly, inhuman, un-Islamic, anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim act. But in place of the Qur’an, what they preach on the issues of blasphemy are dangerous texts (Matan) and their commentaries (Sharah) which they themselves have studied in their respective madrasas, either Barelvi, Deobandi or Ahl-e-Hadith. Motivated by a distorted and twisted sectarian Islamic theology, they call for beheading blasphemers, apostates, and even Muslims who deviate even slightly from the views of the founder of their sect (Maslak).

——

A Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is an Indo-Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Sufi Islamic seminary in India, and acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and a Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. He has also participated in the 3-year “Madrasa Discourses” program initiated by the University of Notre Dame, USA.

Courtesy: The New Age Islam

The post Indian Ulema Must Oppose Anti-Blasphemy Laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, Said Djabelkhir, An Algerian Professor, Was Sentenced To Three Years In Jail For Committing Blasphemy. His ‘Crime’ Was That He Wrote What He Believed To Be True

Main Points:

1.    Professor Said is a well-recognized authority on North African Sufism and through his writings, he has been warning against the excesses of Salafis in that region.

2.    He has written against a literal reading of the Quran and asked Muslims to distinguish between history and myth.

3.    The politics of blasphemy does not serve God in any way but is designed to maintain orthodox medievalist ideas. It is this orthodoxy that is being challenged by Professor Said and many others like him throughout the Muslim world.

4.    Under the garb of protecting the honor of Islam, the orthodoxy is robbing Muslims of their true potentials.

Said Djabelkhir, an Algerian academic and activist was handed down a prison sentence of three years after being found guilty of blasphemy. In Algeria, blasphemy is a crime which is punishable by imprisonment up to five years and hefty fine. The term is defined as the insult of ‘Prophet Muhammad or the rest of the Prophets, or ridiculing the basics of Islam or any of its rituals either in writing, drawing, expression or any other manner’. One can see that the scope of this definition is so wide that any form of inquiry into Islam can be construed as blasphemy. Indeed, in Algeria, people have been accused of blasphemy simply because they were playing cards in Ramzan or in one instance because the person had accidently dropped the Quran into a bucket of water!

But Said Djabelkhir ‘crimes’ are more fundamental in nature. Said is a well-recognized authority on North African Sufi traditions and has published widely in the field. Through his writings, he has been warning against the excesses of Salafis who, he argued, have taken over Algeria. However, his worry is not about the linkages between Salafism and terrorism; on the contrary he argues that the majority of the Salafis are quietists. What worries him is the social impact of Salafism: increasing conservatism and a reliance on the literal understanding of the Quran.

Said has been writing and speaking against such a literal reading of the Quran which according to him does not help Muslims and their many modern predicaments. As part of his endeavor to humanize and therefore historicize the Quran and Islam, he suggested that parts of the Quran, such as that containing the story of Noah’s Ark, should not be taken as literal truths. He urges Muslims to make a distinction between history and myth. What landed him in trouble was his assertion that Islamic rituals like the Hajj and animal sacrifice associated with it had its roots in pre-Islamic Arabia. Moreover, he was highly critical of the practice of marrying pre-pubescent girls and appealed that Muslims should put an end to it.

In any sane society, these points would have been debated and thrashed out, first within the intellectual community and then perhaps by the public at large. But this is not the case in many Muslim countries which have blasphemy laws on their statutes. What is astonishing in the Algerian case against Professor Said is that he was dragged to court by a fellow academic. The judge agreed and handed down a three-year sentence. Although Said is out on bail and has vowed to continue the fight for ‘speaking his conscience’, his life is clearly in danger as he has received multiple death threats. Many Muslims think that killing a blasphemer is obligatory and it will assure them a place in heaven. In the coming days, the professor not just has to contend with the courts but also with the larger society which is now baying for his blood.

Is there anything wrong in what Said Djabelkhir has argued? Contrary to what many Muslims believe, Islam did not appear from a void. Pre-Islamic rituals similar to that of Hajj and animal sacrifice has been recorded by historians and it is certainly not a crime to argue that Islam appropriated some of these traditions and gave it a new name and purpose. Historians have even argued that the month of fasting and its culmination with Eid is also a tradition which predates Islam.

How is it problematic to argue that the practice of marrying pre-pubescent girls within many parts of the Muslim world should be stopped? There was a time when such marriages were common in all religious communities. But over time, other communities were able to bring their religious mores in tune with the demands of modernity. Why is it so hard for Muslims to do so?

Part of the problem is that the Quran sanctions such marriages. Again, this problem is not specific to the Quran alone. It is found in almost all religious texts. But other communities have moved on; they do not regard their holy texts as the divine utterance of Almighty. The trouble with Muslims is that they have invested the Quran with divinity and at times regard the text as the uncreated word of God. It is therefore nearly impossible for a Muslim to go against what is written in the Quran and in this sense the majority of Muslims are literalists. Till the time this peculiar relationship between Muslims and Quran is not reworked, they would continue to believe in antediluvian notions like blasphemy.

Normally, blasphemy is considered as an affront to God. But then, we know that in all such cases, God is never a party in the court. Muslims have arrogated to themselves the power of God; they represent Him in courts of law. Nothing could be more blasphemous than representing God Herself. In order to get around this problem, Muslims have expanded the definition of blasphemy to include affront to Prophets and even the rituals associated with religion. Thus, the whole idea behind invoking blasphemy is deeply political and it exists not because any God wants it to but simply because powerful people within the Muslim community want to perpetuate their hegemony of outmoded ideas. It is this orthodoxy that is threatened by Professor Said and many others like him throughout the Muslim world. They are being punished because they want to change the system; they are being punished because they have the courage to speak their minds.

Imagine a Muslim scholar who through her research comes to the conclusion similar to the one reached by Professor Said. Now as a researcher, she is obligated to publish and disseminate her findings. But the moment she does so, she will land in deep trouble because anyone can accuse her of blasphemy. What should she do? Should she change her conclusion so as to make it palatable to the normative structures of Islamic orthodoxy and in the process become dishonest? Perhaps that is the only way out for her for the other path is full of danger many would not like to tread on. It is not surprising therefore that the Muslim world is hardly known for original research in any field of inquiry. All Muslims, who have made fundamental contributions, are located outside the Muslim world’s sphere of blasphemy. 

Islam prides itself that it teaches Muslims to be honest and truthful. But it appears that the obverse is true. Till the time blasphemy is on statutes, truth, honest and originality will continue to be replaced by a servile pastiche. In the name of protecting the honor of Allah, the orthodox are robbing His devotees of their full potential.

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com    

This article was first published in New Age Islam and may be read here

The post Banish the Law of Blasphemy; It is Crippling the Muslim World appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As an observant Muslim, I am offended by the mockery of any faith or religious figure including my Prophet. In addition, 1.6 billion Muslims are also offended and being offended is our right. I respect their freedom to be offended.

However, taking the liberty of drawing offensive cartoons is also the right of those who reside in the free world. I respect this freedom to offend…

Read the full report here. http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/raheel-raza/blasphemy-law-practiced-in-pakistan-is-evil,-obsolete-and-a-way-of-victimizing-its-minority-communities/d/116278
 

The post Blasphemy Law Practiced In Pakistan Is Evil, Obsolete and A Way of Victimizing Its Minority Communities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is a widespread notion that in Islam, the punishment for someone who says or writes something considered blasphemous of the Prophet Muhammad is death. A majority of the Fuqaha or scholars of Muslim jurisprudence of the later period are of this opinion. They say that a blasphemer (Shatim) must be given capital punishment.

Now, announcing capital punishment for something is a very serious matter. Mere Qiyas (speculative reasoning) or Ijtihad (an opinion of a scholar or group of scholars) is not enough to come to this conclusion. For this, one needs to provide a Nass—a direct reference in the Islamic texts. The text of Islam is preserved in its original form in the Quran and Sunnah, and so for making any such claim, one has to provide a clear reference from the Quran or Hadith. But as far as the claim that a person who blasphemes the Prophet must be killed is concerned, there is no clear reference in either the Quran or the Hadith. By ‘clear reference’ I mean there must be a sentence in words like these: ‘One who blasphemes the Prophet must be killed.’ There is no such sentence in the Quran or in the Hadith. So, this claim that a person who blasphemes the Prophet should be killed is based entirely on Qiyas or Ijtihad. But, as pointed out earlier, in this matter, Qiyas and Ijtihad are not enough.

For such a claim there must be a Nass, a textual reference in the Quran or Hadith, to support it, but since there is no such clear Nassin either of these two sources, it is completely wrong to say that in Islam blasphemy is a crime that merits capital punishment. The claim that blasphemy is a crime that merits capital punishment is the opinion of some Fuqaha or scholars of Muslim jurisprudence, but the mere opinion of these scholars is not enough to validate this claim of theirs.

In Islam, there are two kinds of issues—basics, and non-basics. With regard to the basics, you need to provide some reference from the basic sources of Islam, the Quran and Hadith. Unlike non-basic issues, in the matter of basic issues you cannot rely on your own interpretive judgment or Ijtihad.

And who were these Fuqaha who claimed that blasphemers should be killed? They were from the period of the Abbasid Empire. Fiqh or Muslim jurisprudence was compiled in the Abbasid period, and these Fuqaha were born in that period.

Now, in Islam, only three periods are considered to be authentic as models. According to a Hadith:

“The best of my community would be those of my generation, then those who come after my generation and, then those who come after this generation.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 2533)

So, there are only three periods that are authentic in Islam.

The first is the Prophetic period. The second is the period of the Sahaba, the Prophet’s Companions. And the third is the period of the Tabayeen, the Companions of the Companions of the Prophet.

So, according to the above-cited Hadith, only these periods are authentic periods as sources of reference for following Islam. After these three periods there is no authentic period in Islam. And these Fuqaha who are of the opinion that the punishment for blasphemy is death were not born in these three periods. They were born after this—that is, in the Abbasid period. So, I can say that when the opinion that someone who is considered to have blasphemed the Prophet should be killed was not found in the three authentic periods of Islam but emerged only later, in the period of the Abbasid Empire, it gives us a clue as to why these Fuqaha developed this opinion. It was due to the then prevailing empirical situation—that of Empire.

Islam began in 610 CE. At that time, there was no empire. But in the later period, there was an expansion, and by the time of the Abbasids, Muslims had established a vast empire. Later, many more Muslim empires emerged, such as the Mughal Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Now, it was during this period when Muslims were living in empires that these kinds of opinions evolved. There were many other such opinions that were evolved in this period. For example, the Fuqaha of this period divided the political geography of the earth into three parts, which they named Dar Al-Islam (the abode of Islam), Dar Al-Harb (the abode of war) and Dar al-Kufr (the abode of disbelief). There was a consensus among these Fuqaha that where Muslims were in a ruling position, that would be Dar Al-Islam, that where non-Muslim people were in a ruling position would be Dar Al-Kufr, and a place with which Muslims were potentially at war would be called Dar Al-Harb.

So, These Fuqaha Categorized The World In These Three Parts. But This Was Wrong.
How can anyone have the right to categorize humanity in this way when there is no such categorization in the Quran and Hadith? You cannot find a single verse in the Quran or a single Hadith that categorizes the world in this way. So, it is completely wrong and unfounded. No one has the right to categorize humankind in three parts like this when there is no such categorization in the Quran and Hadith.

This is one example of how these Fuqaha formed such opinions that are not found in the Quran and Hadith. So is the case with Shatm-e Rasul or blasphemy. There is no Quranic verse or Hadith in this regard but the Fuqaha, through their own Qiyas and Ijtihad, formed this opinion and declared that one who is involved in blasphemy should be killed. It was completely wrong! Totally wrong!

I think this statement itself—that one who is engaged in blasphemy should be killed—is itself a derogatory remark against the Prophet of Islam. This kind of law is itself a derogatory law. Why? Because the Prophet of Islam was a Dai, or the preacher of the truth. And who is a Dai? A Dai is one who is a well-wisher (Nasih) for humanity (Quran 7:68).Nasih means well-wisher. Every prophet was a Nasih. That is, every prophet was a well-wisher for all of humankind. The greatest concern for the Prophet of Islam was to inculcate truth in every human being. He was a well-wisher for all humans. His mission was not to kill others. Rather, it was to embrace all of humanity and bring them within the fold of Divine Mercy.

There are many verses in the Quran that tell us that the Prophet of Islam was completely a well-wisher for all humanity. So, how would it be possible for the Prophet to say that someone who said something derogatory about him should be killed? If someone were to say, ‘If a person says something bad about me, you should kill him’, it would be the saying not of a prophet, not of a well-wisher for humankind, but of a king. Only an emperor would say something like that, and not the Prophet of Islam, who was, in the words of the Quran, Rahmat un lil Alameen, that is, “a mercy to all mankind” (21:107).

According to this Quranic verse, the Prophet was a mercy to all mankind, a blessing to all mankind. And so, a saying to the effect ‘If a person says something bad about me, you should kill him’ could be attributed to a tyrannical king but never to the Prophet.

There are many other references in the Quran and Hadith that prove that the Fuqaha’s opinion on the law of blasphemy is wrong. For example, in the Madinan phase of the Prophet’s life, it so happened that one day there was a heated exchange between a Jew and a Muslim. The Jew who had been slapped in the face by the Muslim came to the Prophet and said, “O Muhammad! A man from your Ansari Companions has slapped me.” The Prophet said, “Call him.” The person was called and when he came before the Prophet, he asked, “Why did you slap him?” He replied, “O Prophet of God, while I was passing by the Jew, I heard him say, ‘By Him Who chose Moses above all the human beings.’ So I said, ‘Even above Muhammad?’ So I became furious and slapped him.” The Prophet did not say a word to the Jew. He addressed only the Muslim. It is very important to know this. Now, when the Jew had said that the Prophet Moses was the superior prophet, it was a kind of derogatory remark against the Prophet Muhammad, because it implied that the Prophet Muhammad was inferior and the Prophet Moses was superior. So, clearly it was derogatory, but yet the Prophet Muhammad said nothing to the Jew. He addressed only the Muslim. He said:

 “Do not give me preference over other prophets. On the Day of Judgment all people will be struck unconscious and I will be the first to regain consciousness. Behold! There I will see Moses [already] holding on to one of the pillars of God’s throne. I will wonder whether he became conscious before me, or if he was exempted altogether [from becoming unconscious], because of his becoming unconscious [previously] at the Mount Tur [on the earth].” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith no. 6917)

So, this Hadith is a clear example that tells us that if anyone passes a remark that is derogatory of the Prophet, one has no right to kill him. Instead, we have to advise Muslims not to react negatively. This Hadith is very clear in this regard. The Prophet never said anything negative to that Jewish person. He only advised the Muslim not to indulge in such discussions and not to react negatively.

This is a clear Hadith, and on the basis of this I can say that the current notion that Shatm-e Rasul is a cognizable offence that is liable to death is wrong: it is not based on the Quran and Hadith, but on Qiyas.

There is another important point to consider here. And that is, that Islam is a Dawah movement. Dawah means to call people to God and to inform them about His Creation Plan. Islam requires Dawah. Islam is a religion of Dawah. The Prophet of Islam and also all his followers are dais. It is their duty to communicate the message of Islam to all humankind. This is the most important duty of all Muslims. Now, this kind of mission requires normal and peaceful relations between Dais and Madus, between Muslims and others. Muslims cannot afford any behaviour that would disrupt these normal relations. To demand that a writer be killed because he has written a book which according to some Muslims contains some derogatory remarks is bound to produce hate and enmity and disrupt the relations that should prevail between Dais and Madus. But this is what has happened many times, as when Muslim scholars demanded death for Salman Rushdie after he came out with his ‘Satanic Verses’. Similarly with Taslima Nasreen and some others. Because some of their writings contained some remarks which Muslims felt were abusive of the Prophet or blasphemous, some Muslim scholars demanded that they should be killed. They issued Fatwas calling for their death.

But what actually happened to these writers? Salman Rushdie is still alive. Taslima Nasreen is still alive. So, what was the result of those Fatwas? They only caused vast numbers of people to turn against Islam throughout the world. Because today we are living in the age of the mass media, when these Muslim scholars issued their Fatwas, it was almost instantly broadcast on the media and people all over came to know about it. And this made them believe that Islam is against freedom of opinion that in Islam there is no freedom of expression.
In our age, many people, throughout the world, believe that freedom is the greatest good. And so, when these Muslim scholars issued these Fatwas, which were broadcast throughout the world through the media, people were led to believe that Islam was against the present notion of freedom as the greatest good. Freedom has become a religion in itself for many people today, and so these Fatwas were seen as directed not only against the particular writers who were said to have committed blasphemy but as also against this present religion of freedom itself, against the present dominant thought system. So, it was a very serious issue. Because of this, people everywhere became furious. They became very negative about Islam and Muslims. And what happened as a result? Although despite those Fatwas, those writers who were accused of blasphemy were not killed, the Dawah opportunities for Islam were killed. Those Muslim scholars who issued fatwa failed to kill those writers, but they killed the Dawah opportunities.

This is a very important issue. Islam requires normalcy. It requires normal relations between Dais and Madus, between Muslims and others, but because of these Fatwas and death threats, this normal atmosphere was completely jeopardized. So, these Fatwas just weren’t against some writers. They were against Islam, against Dawah.

So, It Is Very Important To Reassess The Whole Matter.
For the sake of argument I’d like to say that even if it is a commandment in Islam that one who commits blasphemy should be killed, even then you have to stop this commandment. Why? Because this kind of fatwa is bound to become counter-productive. You have to see the result of this kind of fatwa. It is an Islamic teaching that if the result of an action is negative, you must abandon it. The Prophet has said: “Among the excellence of a person’s faith is that he leaves that which is result-less.” (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith no. 2317).This means that you have to keep yourself away from all things that are going to be counter-productive.

So, I’m saying that, first of all, this kind of fatwa—calling for death to people accused of blasphemy—is completely un-Islamic. This kind of fatwa has no basis in Islam, in the Quran and Hadith. It is based completely on Qiyas. And even if someone sincerely believes that it is indeed an Islamic fatwa, he must refrain from issuing it because it is certain that this kind of fatwa is counter-productive. A sincere person must refrain from all these kinds of negative practices.

If you read the Quran and Hadith, you will find that in the early period of Islam there were some people, in Makkah and in Madinah, men and women, who engaged in such kind of derogatory activities against the Prophet. And what happened? The Quran, the Prophet and the Prophet’s Companions answered them in a positive manner. They refuted those kinds of derogatory sayings about the Prophet on a rational basis, on a logical basis. They used logic and reason, not the sword. So, in line with the example of the early period of Islam, this sort of act must be taken as a challenge and not as a crime.

There is a difference between this sort of challenge and a crime. A crime is something that merits punishment, while this sort of challenge is something that one needs to meet on a rational basis. So, if someone is engaged in blasphemous activities, if someone issues a remark derogatory of the Prophet of Islam, it should not be taken as a crime but a challenge. So, Shatm-e Rasul is a challenge, and not a crime. Crime is a matter of the judiciary. Where there is a crime, there is punishment. And where there is a challenge, you have to meet it on a rational basis, on a logical basis.

If someone publishes a book against Islam or against the Prophet of Islam, you have to take it as a challenge—as an intellectual challenge—and you have to prepare another book to rebut it.

So, we have to note this difference between a challenge and a crime. If someone publishes a book that is derogatory of the Prophet or the Islamic religion, you have to take it as a challenge, and not as a crime. A criminal is liable to punishment, but where there is a challenge, you have to meet it on the intellectual level.  For example, if someone writes a book that is derogatory of the Prophet, you should study it and write another book in which you must refute, at the intellectual level, all the wrong arguments of the writer. This is the correct Islamic way. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim must follow this method. According to my study, it is completely wrong to take such a challenge as a crime.

What happened in the early period of Islam? The Prophet became the head of the city-state of Madinah. Then, the whole of Arabia was Islamized, so he became the head of whole Arabia. Even then he did not issue an order requiring the Muslims to kill one who blasphemed him. Some non-Muslims, who were poets, made some derogatory remarks about him, but what happened? The Prophet never ordered that they should be killed. What the Prophet did was that he told a Companion of his, Hassan ibn Thabit, who was himself a poet that he must meet this challenge. Hassan composed some poems in which he appropriately responded to those non-Muslim poets.

This was the way that the Prophet of Islam adopted. He took the poems that were very derogatory of him as a challenge, never as a crime, and instructed Hassan ibn Thabitto meet the challenge at the intellectual level. This clearly shows us what the way of Islam is in such situations.
So, the crux of the matter is that one has to differentiate between a crime and a challenge. If there is a specified crime, then of course one must take it as a crime. But when there is a challenge, one must take it as a challenge and not as a crime. And the response to a challenge is not punishment. Rather, a challenge must be dealt with at the intellectual level.

Those who respond to acts that are said to be blasphemous with Fatwas of death fail to know this difference between a crime and a challenge.

In the early period of Islam, there are several examples of people who were against Islam and the Prophet and were engaged in derogatory and blasphemous activities, but when they were addressed in the right manner, when they heard the Quran, their minds changed completely and they embraced Islam. Among the many examples of this was Umar ibn al-Khattab, who went on to become the second Muslim Caliph. Initially, Umar was against the Prophet. He was involved in defaming him and his mission. But when he studied the Quran—his sister Fatima gave him some parts of it—he was completely changed and accepted Islam.

So, This Is The Right Way Of Handling These Issues.
There is another very important point to bear in mind with regard to this discussion. And that is, in Islam we have a complete model. The Prophet of Islam is that model. The Quran is a book of ideology, and the Prophet of Islam is the practical model of that ideology. The Quran gives us the ideology of Islam, and the Prophet of Islam gives us the practical model of Islam. This is very important. From this it follows that in Islam, you cannot make any claims through your own Qiyas. You have to see what the Quran says and what the Sunnah of the Prophet says. You have to see what the model of the Prophet teaches.

In the light of this, the fact that there is no commandment about killing blasphemers either in the Quran or in the Hadith means that a commandment of this sort is not valid.

Once, when the Prophet was in Mecca, somebody directly addressed him as Muzammam. This person said this to the Prophet face-to-face. Muhammad means ‘praiseworthy’, while Muzammam means the ‘condemned one’. Now, this was a completely derogatory remark, a blasphemous remark, but what was the Prophet’s response? The Prophet simply smiled and said nothing to that person because he knew that these kinds of words were not going to become history; these were simply some words, which cannot produce any kind of negative results. So, he simply smiled. It means, he avoided and ignored the person who referred to him with these words.

The Best Reaction To All Such Things Is To Simply Ignore Them.
At the time on the Danish cartoon controversy—when a Danish paper had published cartoons that in the eyes of Muslims were derogatory of the Prophet—there was a big hue and cry. At that time, I published an article on the subject, titled ‘Ignore Cartoons’. This was based on this Sunnah or practice of the Prophet referred to above – when he heard some derogatory remarks about himself, some abusive remarks, some blasphemous remarks, he simply smiled. That means he ignored such issues.

This is, then, the Sunnah of the Prophet. You have to ignore all the Taslima Nasreens, all the cartoons, all the Salman Rushdies. This is the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam.

The title of my article was ‘Ignore Cartoons’. It wasn’t simply a title, though. It was a reflection of the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam. When the above person made that derogatory remark to the Prophet, the Prophet simply smiled, which means he ignored his words. According to the teachings of Islam, you must ignore all these negative things. You must respond positively. Positivity is a great teaching of Islam. We have to respond positively even in negative situations. This is an Islamic teaching. What is the positive response in a situation when someone says or writes something derogatory? It is to ignore the matter. You have to ignore all these things. You have to avoid all these things. You have to forget all these things. You have to engage yourself completely in Dawah work, calling people to God. It is our most important work. We have to spend all our time and resources in this work. We cannot afford these kinds of Fatwas and other negative activities that kill Dawah opportunities and that are counter to the Islamic spirit.

(The article is a modified transcript of a lecture delivered by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan on 14 December 2007.)

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Islam does not prescribe capital punishment for blasphemy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

(Oral statement by Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam, on behalf of: Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum on  9 March 2017)

The post “If not the UN Charter, Muslim countries should at least follow the Quran”, Sultan Shahin tells UNHRC at Geneva appeared first on SabrangIndia.