Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Pakistan: Not so Islamic
Pakistan: Not so Islamic
By Salma B Ahmad
Recently another person has become a victim of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. This time the victim is Asia bibi, a Christian woman who allegedly got into a confrontation with Muslim women over the offering of water and then matters got worse. Who knew she would end up facing death charges for the crime of blasphemy? But why not, Bibi should have known. After all she has been living in an ‘Islamic Republic’ which has a track record for persecuting members of the Ahmadiyya Community and other minorities.
Pakistan can hardly be called a true Islamic state. It is the only state to implement laws on blasphemy so rigorously and to have very proudly come up with the definition of a Muslim. Those poor souls who fail to meet this criterion and satisfy dogma are persecuted in the name of Namoos-e-Risalat. Even more ridiculous is the fact that the original Pakistani Constitution is in contradiction with the current blasphemy laws. On one hand, the constitution grants fundamental rights to all and on the other it imposes punishment on people expressing their minds.
The life of the Holy Prophet (SAW) is exemplary for the Muslims. The Holy Prophet (SAW) suffered intense persecution for two decades with steadfastness. At the conquest of Makkah, when he had the power to punish his enemies, he unconditionally pardoned them despite their mischief and blasphemy. If the Holy Prophet (SAW) could forgive then why is his Sunnah being disregarded so blatantly? In my opinion, these Mullahs should be tried for blasphemy!
While my words may have little effect, I feel like venting my spleen. Even as I write I know that I cannot expect anything from the government in terms of really protecting vulnerable groups like Christians, Hindus and Ahmadis etc. It appears that moral corruption has become so widespread that no one is strong enough to make a difference.
None of the governments have had the nerve or courage to separate religion from politics. Each government has supported bigoted Mullahs for their own vested interests and of course to save our country from anarchy. The question is: Has the inclusion of Mullah’s brand of Islam in Pakistani politics even helped Pakistan in its progress? The answer is a big no.
The English press will continue to publish liberal and positive articles while our mainstream Urdu newspapers will continue to publish false rants and sensational stories.
People in general will continue with their own lives. Some will express sympathy when something unjust happens while others will just ignore it. What are the blasphemy laws to them? Our society knows only how to point fingers at others and protest about almost everything except homegrown bigots. Alas, these bigots will continue to preach their false version of Islam because it helps them win votes and maintain their supremacy
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: Islamic, laws, Pakistan, Prophet
50 Responses to "Pakistan: Not so Islamic"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said reverse is ture,bjp and congress lost power in up... - tajender said what i wrote about kayasth is right they have brhm...
- RajTOO
said tajender,
you're more of a cartoon than a serious... - no-communal
said BM,
.
I read parts of your debate on slavery. I... - tajender said Fingolfin
kayasth are illegetimate off spring...
- tajender said Fingolfin
kaysth are not bania.they are not tra...
- RajTOO said Fingolfin,
tajender knows nothing. He just copy p...
- Fingolfin
said Tajender
you poor soul Amitabh is not a Brahmin... - tajender said ahem,truth is this that,
Corruption dents India...
- tajender said It is the mainstay of islam. Islam was, is and alw...
the administrators of PTH should take notice that the sharing facilities of pth’s blog( email,facebook,twitter) are not present on this new site.this is preventing sharing any interesting article with friends.
additionally PTH’S facebook page has stopped functioning ( the new articles aren’t being uploaded in the newsfeed section).kindly use tribune’s or dawn’s facebook feature where all articles are seperately visible in the newsfeed section rather than the network blog thing showing 1 article & in the fine print below a line saying 2,3,4 more articles avialable.
‘If the Holy Prophet (SAW) could forgive then why is his Sunnah being disregarded so blatantly? ‘
Precisely the reason why Mullahs are the worst creatures under the skies.
Only by blatantly disregarding the Sunnah can they maintain their control over the ignorant masses.
In my opinion, these Mullahs should be tried for blasphemy!
Loved it. Really, why not. After all they should realize what they have gotten the country into. And to be honest, they are the ones who have blasphemed the name of Holy Prophet (saw) more than Abu Jehl even. They are the ones who have associated violent dogmas to him. Consequently, non Muslims are bound to see him as a merciless person.
Thank you Salma for sharing the examples from the very life of the Holy Prophet (sa) that are a slap on the face of Mullah.
Ms. Salma, I must say you’ve hit the nail on its head. Till Pakistan doesn’t understand that there are other faiths, belief systems, etc. it will not progress. The main issue here is education, the educated aren’t really interested in religion they’re out there just to make money. They tend to listen to what the so called Mullah’s say and take it as God’s word. The Mullah’s continue to make religion out to be what they require to gain the “power” they need. Bottom line create chaos and do what you want.
I think Pakistani’s should step up and just ignore the Mullah’s the world is better without the so called righteous or self proclaimed pious folks. Lets use common sense, and move forward.
Let’s look at Pakistan’s neighbor granted they have issues as well, but they are moving forward. The end goal is to think of nation building, and progress based on the principles that were put forth in the constitution. Look at North Korea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and many other countries who have surpassed us only because they look at the citizens of the country as just that. They give them the basic rights, and fulfill the needs of their citizens. They also don’t form government based on who has more money, who owes what to whom, but allow people to move into position based on merit.
Would anyone even fathom that now in Pakistan? The answer is a simple “NO.” Pakistan as a nation needs to step up. Stop killing in the name of Allah, stop listening to the Mullah’s. For God’s sake we’re all human first. Muslim’s lived side by side with non-muslims in the glory days of Islam. Non-Muslims were allowed to practice freely. Why should that change now? Why must we be hypocrites?
WE NOW WELL COME A NEW MEMBER TO CLUB OF VICTIM OF THE BLASPHEMY LAWS IN PAKISTANI —- THE NEW MEMBERS TO THIS CLUB ARE ISMAILIS. A CASE OF BLASPHEMY IS REGISTERED AGAINST ISMAILI PHYSICIAN IN PROVINCE OF SINDH.
(BBC report).
Our mulla has portrayed Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) in the worst form any prophet could be
-isn’t it a blasphemy to flog innocent women without giving free trial in the name of Islam and Holy Prohpeht (P.B.U.H.)
-isn’t it blasphemy to exhume bodies of rivals from graves and hang them in the name of Islam and Holy Prohpeht (P.B.U.H.)
-isn’t it blasphemy to kidnap foreigners and then behead them because ransom wasn’t paid in the name of Islam and Holy Prohpeht (P.B.U.H.)
Our mullas have either supported all above heinous acts or came up with criminal silence. That is why I fully agree with the author that all mullas should be charged with blasphemy and should be trialed in a court.
@Salma B Ahmad
“…..Alas, these bigots will continue to preach their false version of Islam because it helps them…..”
Very well said and a true-to-the-core article. You’re absolutely right about these bigots. Forgive me for being so blunt, but the word “bigot” is much too polite an expression for these creatures.
With reference to the issues you’ve touched upon, may I add:
1. Any state can call itself anything it likes – “Islamic Republic, “Holy Republic” or “Divine Republic” – but these prefixes have little relevance if there is nothing Islamic, Holy or Divine about the state. Narcissism has no bounds. Can a state that is incapable of honouring the contract of citizenship it has with its citizens, truly be called “Islamic”? Can a state that contravenes the fundamental Islamic principle of “Musawaat” or Equality truly be termed “Islamic”. Can a state that has legislated laws that promote oppression of its own citizens rightfully be called Islamic?
2. If there is one person guilty of ultimate blasphemy, in the history of Muslims, it’s Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Sulool. So stark was his hypocrisy, that he was known in Madina as “Raees-ul Munafiqeen” or the Chief of the Hypocrites. He called himself a Muslim, prayed with the Muslims and simultaneously reviled the Holy Prophet. He used to call himself the most honourable person in Madina and the Holy Prophet the most ignoble. He joined the Prophet at the occasion of the Battle of Uhud, bringing alongwith him 300 men, thus adding to the 700 men accompanying the Prophet. Just before commencement of actual combat, he deserted alongwith his contingent, leaving the Prophet again with his 700 men against the Meccan force of 3000. This unfortunate man’s life was drenched in blasphemy and he showed no signs of remorse or reform until he finally died. On his death, the Prophet proceeded to attend Abdullah bin Ubayy’s funeral prayers. On the way, Omar bin Khattab reminded the Prophet of a verse in the Quran which says that even if you pray seventy times for the hypocrites, the prayer will not be accepted. Muhammad replied, “Omar, by God, I have prayed for this man more than seventy times.” When Abdullah was being buried, the Holy Prophet took off his own shirt and shrouded Abdullah’s body with it, so that Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Sulool, the greatest of all blasphemous people, was buried wearing the shirt of Muhammad the Messenger of God.
3. Prophets leave behind them a glorious legacy of forgiveness, mercy and compassion. Blessed are the souls who live this legacy and unfortunate are those who oppose it.
Sorry for bearing bad news, but the AFP reports:
KARACHI — A doctor has been arrested for insulting the Prophet Mohammed in Pakistan, police said on Sunday, in a second high profile case throwing the spotlight on the country’s controversial anti-blasphemy laws.
Naushad Valiyani was detained on Friday following a complaint by a medical representative who visited the doctor in the city of Hyderabad.
“The arrest was made after the complainant told the police that Valiyani threw his business card, which had his full name, Muhammad Faizan, in a dustbin during a visit to his clinic,” regional police chief Mushtaq Shah told AFP.
“Faizan accused Valiyani of committing blasphemy and asked police to register a case against the doctor.”
Shah said the issue had been resolved after Valiyani, a member of Pakistan’s Ismaili community, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, apologised but local religious leaders intervened and pressed for action.
“Valiyani had assured Faizan that he did not mean to insult the Prophet Mohammed by throwing the visiting card in the dustbin,” Shah said, adding that the police had registered a case under the Blasphemy Act.
—–
So when we argue about Jinnah here, we are treading on the edge of blasphemy, after all, he was Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
From 1927 to 1986 there were only about a dozen cases of blasphemy. Ever since Zia amended the law that number has nearly increased by a hundred times. Can we draw the conclusion that ‘Islamization’ of Pakistani society is making it a society of blasphemers?
Actually Pakistan is getting more Islamic by the day…
@amaar:
“Can we draw the conclusion that ‘Islamization’ of Pakistani society is making it a society of blasphemers?”
I think ‘Islamization’ of Pakistan is changing country to ‘KAFIR-ISTAN’ (land of non-muslims) and ‘QATIL-ISTAN’ (land of murderes).
@amaar (December 12, 2010 at 9:24 pm)
“…..Can we draw the conclusion that ‘Islamization’ of Pakistani society is making it a society of blasphemers?…..”
That’s a very valid question. Dragging Islam into politics, specially into dirty politics, amounts to dragging Islam into profanity. This is what is being done today.
Pakistan is fast loosing its Indianness, the same way Iran lost its Persianness…The aftereffects will be suffered by generations to come…Pakistan’s real problems have just begun…
‘So when we argue about Jinnah here, we are treading on the edge of blasphemy, after all, he was Muhammad Ali Jinnah.’
Brilliant.
The mullahs are the not the problem in the misrepresentation of Islam and Islamic values in Pakistan. Blaming the mullah will not solve anything because it is the ordinary people of Pakistan who are the real culprits in the rise of mullocracy in Pakistan and who gave respect, power, and authority to the mullah to speak for them on matters of religion in Pakistan.
You do not like what the mullah is preaching; don’t go to the mosque and instead pray in your own home. The reason the mullah’s intolerance is powerful in Pakistan, because the people of Pakistan willingly tolerate his intolerance. My advice is stop blaming the mullah and start blaming yourself for what is happening in Pakistan, because it is all happening in your name and you allowed it to happen, when you prefered your own comfort and interests and craved a privelieged exception for yourself and ignored what was happening all around you.
Let me share a small story with y0u. In the days, when I was living in Karachi, the government mullah of the neighborhood mosque gave a sermon, which was sectarian and the next thing that the mullah knew, he was removed from the mosque and was never allowed to give a sermon again in the mosque.
The neighbors collected donations and hired another mullah and paid his salary and made sure no government appointed mullah would preach in the mosque again.
My advice is privatize the mosques and start to hire your own mullahs to preach in the mosques and when he is dependent upon you for his salary and that salary is performance based, he will more accountible for what he says or preaches or if you are the daring sort, challenge the mullah in his sermons when he says some thing wrong and prove him wrong in front of everyone.
Once in a while, as a matter of principle and a silent protest don’t go to the mosque for Friday prayers and generally, when ever you see a mullah, politely remind him that he is a washer of dead bodies and don’t give him respect until he has earned your respect.
If you think, the mullah is supporting militants and you know the police is corrupt, send an email to the American embassy and tell them what is going on and that you contacted the police but they did nothing; make sure your documentation is perfect and then sit back, and watch the fun.
Your silence is the mullah’s greatest weapon in spreading intolerance. Put a loud speaker on the roof of your house and broadcast your version of Islam and justify it as your constitutional right to express yourself.
When you see a mullah wearing a gold watch, ask where in Islam is it allowed for men to wear a gold watch and when the mullah uses a loud speaker, politely remind him that loudspeakers are unIslamic and he should use the strenght of his own voice to call the faithful to the prayers.
Or, if you have a sense of humor, you and your friends can go to your local mosque dressed as your local mullah for Friday prayers, but do not in your dislike of the mullah become intolerant like him, because your intolerance of the mullah justifies the mullah’s own intolerance.
Ask the mullah what is the topic of his next sermon and if you think it will be sectarian or hate filled, make sure go to that sermon and take some sweets with you to offer the mullah before the sermon, but make sure the sweets are dusted with a good dose of laxative and then see how the mullah was able to deliver the sermon.
Ask the mullah, why Muslims can make fun of God, but not Muhammad? Ask the mullah where you can find some halal salt to sprinkle on y0ur halal chicken? Ask the mullah, specially if he is fat, that if the cannibals ate him, how long will they have to work out in the gym to burn off the calories gained from eating him? Ask the mullah that if you got him an autographed picture of his favorite actress, how many of your sins will be forgiven according to his religious slide ruler of measuring deeds and forgiveness?
The point of this post is that if you do not like what the mullah is doing with your religion; take your religion away from him because when you don’t stand up for your own religion, then you are as guilty as the mullah in discrediting it. The choice is yours. If the mullah is against Islam as many claim – are you for Islam or for the Mullah and if you remain silent, are you not condoning what the mullah is doing and does that not also make you an accomplice of the mullah?
ciao
Hmmnnnn!!!!
Not a single truly believing blasphemer killer muslim is here to comment.
thats unusual.
I guess I’ll fill in the void.
Ms Salma and all those who have commented in favour of her views have commited blasphemy and I hereby declare them WajibulQatl.
O! believers it is bound upon u to kill them whereever u find them.
LOL!!!!!
@BA
Very well said.
We need to highlight the blasphemy of the Mullahs who are the true enemies of Islam.
Discard the idea that blasphemy should be a legal offence.
Make it just as easy to leave Islam as it is to enter it. Then most of the not-worthy Muslims will leave; the remaining will add lustre to the faith. Otherwise the detritus will keep piling up.
@Samachar
Apostasy per se is not a capital offense in Islam and neither is blasphemy.
Apostasy per se is not a capital offense in Islam and neither is blasphemy.
I’m unable to parse this sentence. For instance, Shafi, Hanbali, Hanafi and Maliki law required adult male apostates to be executed. So they’re not Islam?
Lots of Muslim cultures over the ages found penalties for blasphemy and apostasy in the ur-texts of Islam. Modern interpreters may not find it. So who is correct? How to decide?
To claim religious authority for the reasoning of some particular person or school of thought makes the answer as ad hoc as the answer of the medieval jurists’ is claimed to be.
‘For instance, Shafi, Hanbali, Hanafi and Maliki law required adult male apostates to be executed. So they’re not Islam? ‘
1. Islamic jurisprudence is based on Quran and Prophet Muhamad’s conduct (Sunnah). Opinion of scholars has to be based on this.
2. I have not read any such a law anywhere. What is the reference?
In any case if such jurists agreed to such a ‘law’ that their rulings conflict with the conduct of Prophet Muhammad and thus become null and void.
3. The Prophet forgave all manners of blasphemers. Read Bin Ismail’s comment above on a very significant incident when a so-called Muslim (a hypocrite) insulted him but was forgiven by him despite objections from his sincere companions.
4. If the Prophet insisted on forgiveness what right does some one have to insist on punishment? Isn’t that a disrespect to the Prophet in itself!?
Sometimes people come up with amazing arguments. The other day, a cleric was arguing on television that prophets had the right to forgive – ordinary people did not. Needless to add, this gem of wisdom left me quite confounded and I kept wondering that if ordinary people do not have the right to forgive, they obviously do not have the right to punish either.
Amaar, in “Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam”, Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed write: “In pre-modern Islamic law, there is general agreement among the jurists that the punishment for apostasy is death (qatl) and that the implementation of this penalty is obligatory on Muslims.”
Of course, they also say “In Islamic law, almost all early jurists took a hard line, believing that apostasy was to be punished by death. Indeed, a surface reading of some of the verses of the Quran and of hadith texts could lead to the conclusions that anyone who turns away from the faith should be punished in this world. Close reading, however, reveals that there is no temporal punishment specified in the Quran. …”
We are told Abdulla Saeed is Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and Hassan Saeed is the Attorney-General of Maldives.
But before you declare pre-modern Islamic jurists as disrespecting the Prophet (your point 4.) think a little. I think the problem lies in how the issue is being framed, namely that there is one true interpretation of the Quran and hadith, and that there is no ambiguity, no alternative consistent interpretation. This framework is simply not tenable.
Like it or not, your interpretation of the Quran is colored by social and scientific knowledge that did not exist say, in 767, when Abu Hanifa ,imam of the Hanafi school of law was tortured and died in custody (ironically, we are told, for apostasy). Like it or not, you are interpreting the Quran with the French Revolution and the UN declaration of human rights in your consciousness. You are interpreting the Quran in the light of forms of political organization that did not exist in premodern times.
There certainly may be an interpretation of the Quran consistent with the UN declaration of human rights (or conversely, an interpretation of the UN declaration of human rights consistent with the Quran), but to imagine that Abu Hanifa or Ahmad Hanbal had that intellectual view available to them is delusional.
Then how to proceed? IMO, use reason the best you can, and count on God to be merciful.
What has Religion done to the sub-continent. It has divided brothers into Muslim punjabi vs Sikh punjabi, Hindu Sindhi vs Muslim Sindhi, Bengali Muslim vs Bengali hindu. It is sad.
Sir,
You state ‘Indeed, a surface reading of some of the verses of the Quran and of hadith texts could lead to the conclusions that anyone who turns away from the faith should be punished in this world. ‘ and provide references to a couple of intellectuals to make the point.
My point is that two said gentlemen have provided absolutely no proof from the writings of Imam Abu Hanifa etc. to back this up this claim.
I would further argue that even surface readings from Quran cannot provide a sufficient evidence: Apostasy per se and which is not aggravated by war, rebellion, murder or incitement to violence is not a corporal offense. If you do come across any such verses or Hadith you would find contextual evidence that the said incidences were during a war or against criminals who also incidentally happened to blaspheme.
‘You declare pre-modern Islamic jurists as disrespecting the Prophet’
I dont. I am simply saying that in principle any opinion of a scholar or Islamic intellectual has to be deemed null and void if the Prophet’s actions clearly and categorically negate it. And I dont think that the great jurists made such a fatwa. I am willing to change my opinion of the Islamic jurists if there is evidence to the contrary. But it would not change my understanding from the conduct of the Prophet that he never punished any one for either apostasy and blasphemy per se.
I cannot emphasize the ‘per se’ part because inevitably you would find references to apostates and blasphemers who had committed murders and incited rebellion – crimes that even a secular society would punish.
@Samachar (December 14, 2010 at 1:58 am)
“…..Like it or not, your interpretation of the Quran is colored by social and scientific knowledge that did not exist say, in 767…..”
If you interpret the Quran by the Quran, if you interpret the Quran by the Sunnah or conduct of Muhammad the Messenger of God, if you interpret the Quran by the Hadith or authentic words of the Prophet and if you interpret the Quran by simple commonsense, you will appreciate that not only is there no corporal punishment for apostasy and blasphemy, there is simply no room for any such penalty.
Regards.
An excellent article again. It is sad that even to this date, there is no sign of awakening in the Urdu media of Pakistan.
Keep up the good work.
Regards,
-Naveed
@everyone with the point of view that Islam doesn’t suggest death for blasphemy
It is very easy for you to say that in your “opinion” Islam doesn’t suggest death for blasphemy, what can you practically do about lets say the long list of hadiths collected by Abu Dawood that confirm the death penalty for blasphemy ? Or any of the number of other references that the proponents of the death penalty use ?
It doesn’t serve any purpose when well-intentioned Muslims like you argue for a case on such weak grounds as your “personal opinion”, when the ones who you are arguing against have documentary evidences to support their points of view.
Please don’t just make Islam “look” good.. Please don’t make Islam “look” as if it is compatible with 21st century human rights ..
You need to prove that all the documentary evidence is factually wrong. (Which in 1400 years has never been done !!)
I just don’t see how all your efforts at denial of the mullahs helps the cause you apparently want to address..
It’s an accurate observation and I hope this isn’t true. At least, we still have Muslims in India who retain their beautiful synthesis of culture and faith as it was pre-Partition.
@Salman
I have read those Ahadith. They dont suggest that the Prophet was pleased with the conduct of those men. In fact the Prophet mentioned that Diyaat (or blood money) cannot be paid for the blood of those killed for blaspheming. FYI: Diyat or Qisas apply only as a punishment for a murder. By saying that, this suggests that even the Prophet treated these murders as crimes which cannot be compensated by Diyaat (since one of the men were the guardian of the woman). Why mention Diyaat if this was not a crime? The Prophet should have blessed those men with paradise for showing Ishq-i-Rasool. He did’nt. Clearly, the men had made their statements but had furnished no proof for the alleged blasphemy of their victims.
Contrast this with another more reliable Hadith: Do you also know the incident of the mother of Abu Haraira, who abused the Prophet immensely but instead of punishing her, the Prophet prayed for her and that miraculously turned her heart to Islam?
@Salman Arshad
The list of incidents when the Prophet forgave the blasphemers is so long and so manifest that these few incidents have to be treated as either falsely recorded or where critical information about the incidents is lost. Why make laws based on Ahadith where there is doubt and uncertainty?
It appears that the very valid point made earlier by Amaar, in relation to “apostasy per se” and “blasphemy per se” is somehow being missed. People who were guilty of “High Treason” and “Conspiring against the State of Madina”, during the Prophet’s lifetime, achieved this level of animosity, only after having harboured hatred towards the Prophet and Islam. This hatred and animosity, in many cases had manifested itself as blasphemy too. But the allegation against these individuals was neither “apostasy” nor “blasphemy” – it was armed aggression against the state and militant rebellion. Never was anybody punished for “blasphemy” or “apostasy”.
The fact that there is absolutely no mention of any corporal punishment for either apostasy or blasphemy, also deserves greater attention. It is inconceivable that the Prophet’s words and conduct could ever have contravened the Quran. Hence, to argue that while the Quran does not prescribe any penalty for blasphemy or apostasy, and while the Sunnah of the Prophet too, conforms completely to the Quran, the Prophet could ever have said anything supporting such penalties, is blasphemy itself.
Amaar: I must say that was a very valid point and legalistic too. You’re absolutely right about “Diyat”. By saying that Diyat would not be accepted on behalf of someone responsible for killing a blasphemer, the Holy Prophet has actually categorized the murder of a blasphemer as any other 1st degree murder, and as unforgivable.
@Amaar:
For a hadith to be considered fabrication, it needs to be proved that the chain of narration contains weakness of some kind..
being “against the Quran and sunnah” is no criteria.. that is a very subjective stance.. being “against the Quran and sunnah” may be an inference based on objective proofs, but not proof in itself.
Had your argument about the number of events where blasphemers were forgiven vs when they were murdered been plausible, we wouldn’t have been arguing over this today. You are still using an ineffective approach. Should be great for your personal beliefs, but has no academic standing that you can take into court or a legislative assembly.
About the argument you gave for that blind man’s murder event, the opposite argument is equally valid, that the Diyat was mentioned so that people know that the woman was rightfully killed for a crime and has the sanction of the Prophet. Doesn’t help anyone.
My point is there is very weak, almost entirely emotional, opposition to academically strong theses in Islam having the support of the most “learned” and “certified” people in the Islamic world.
When can we have a clear verdict from Al Azhar university, or Deoband about there being no concept of blasphemy in Islam ?
Or if thats never possible, how many hundreds of years it will take before we have an institution of that stature that gives fatwas that resonate with people like you ?
Anyway, please go through this link for an extensive “explanation” about the reasons for the punishment for blasphemy, contains a lot of events:
http://www.ahlehadith.com/mazameendetailcfc0.php?mid=184&cid=38
It is inconceivable that the Prophet’s words and conduct could ever have contravened the Quran.
He married more than four women at a time, which apparently contravenes the Quranic limit. This is already acceptable in Islam. The Prophet did have special status, and could go against the Quran.
What contravenes the Quran and what doesn’t is your subjective understanding.
According to Dr. Israr, the punishment for apostasy was not mentioned in the Quran, because it was already mentioned in the Bible !!
And all Muslims are bound to obey the commandments in the Bible that were not abrogated by the Quran. This is substantiated by some verse in the Quran (which I don’t remember yet), so Dr. Israr has an extremely strong argument.
@ Amaar and Bin Ismail
CORRECTION:
the part of my last post after the link was addressed to Bin Ismail.
@Salman Arshad wrote “He married more than four women at a time, which apparently contravenes the Quranic limit. This is already acceptable in Islam. The Prophet did have special status, and could go against the Quran.”
a. Salman Arshad’s statement is an utter disrespect against the Holy Prophent (saw) and the Holy Quran. The life of Holy Prophet was a personification of the Qur’an. To claim that the Messenger of God contradicted the Quranic guidance in any way shows lack of respect and a misguided faith. The Qur’an categorically allowed ONLY the Holy Prophet to keep more than four wives.
b. There are numerous biblical commandment that were not abrogated by the Quran. Muslims also believe Torah and Bible to have been polluted with word of man, the New Testament complied 300 years after Jesus Christ. So according to Dr. Israr, Muslims are bound to derive their guidance, from the 1) Holy Quran, 2) the Bible, when necessary according to Dr. Asrar, 3) the Sunnah (which could be contradictory to the Quran, according to Mr. Arshad), and the Hadith (which, according to Mr. Arshad, can overrule the Qur’an and Sunnah, if necessary, ).
As a Muslim, my feelings are deeply hurt by the disrespectful, shameless nonsense uttered by by Mr. Arshad. His is false propaganda against Islam through concoction of a hodge podge matrix of sources of Islamic guidance, which is totally disrespectful of the Holy Quran and Mohammad (saw), the Holy Messenger of God.
It is Allah’s mercy that Mr. Arshad can not be punished according to the Quran and the Sunnah for his lack of understanding and because of his feeble mind. Charging him with death penalty would a crime against Islam, the religion of peace and love.
The blasphemy law is a blasphemy against Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem. Only Allah, as the absolute Master of Day of Judgment knows Mr. Arshad’s intentions. Allah has granted Mr. Arshad free will like every one else. The matter is between Mr. Arshad and Allah (swt). Allah (swt) knows best whether to forgive Mr. Arshad or to punish Mr. Arshad. There is no room for a third entity to interfere in the matters of disrespect for Allah and His Prophets. My hurt feels, though bothersome, are totally irrelevant because I am a third entity in this matter. However, I do believe Allah (swt) to be sufficient in all matters and I have unshakable in His justice, which He dispenses in mysterious ways.
The inference to be drawn from Mr. Arshad’s arrogant, yet ignorant belief is that people twist and convolute the truth to suit their agenda only to satisfy their narcissist egos. They, and the deity they worship, are blood thirsty, control freaks, Islam being their apolitical tool and weapon of oppression. No wonder the society is so utterly decayed and has regressed back to the pre-Islamic practices.
There is no doubt that guidance and understanding of the straight path is a gift that God chooses to bestow upon whomsoever He pleases. People who believe in a living, merciful, and a forgiving God seek His guidance through humility. People who believe the door of Allah’s guidance is closed, are bound to live in darkness and be deprived of His light.
May God guide us all!
@Salman Arshad (December 18, 2010 at 8:26 pm)
“…..For a hadith to be considered fabrication, it needs to be proved that the chain of narration contains weakness of some kind..being “against the Quran and sunnah” is no criteria.. that is a very subjective stance…..”
Well, I can see that we are clearly not the same page, regarding the criteria for judging Ahadith. But that’s no problem. At least an exchange of thoughts and ideas has taken place, with courtesy.
“…..He married more than four women at a time, which apparently contravenes the Quranic limit…..”
As you know, this exemption for the Holy Prophet, too, appears in the Quran and therefore does not contravene the Quran.
@Salman Arshad
1. ‘Had your argument about the number of events where blasphemers were forgiven vs when they were murdered been plausible, we wouldn’t have been arguing over this today.’
Distortion of history is a common cause of false historians, irreligious scholars and pseudo-intellectuals. Forgiveness at Taif, conquest of Mecca, for the incident of abdallah bin abi salool etc. etc. versus some incomplete incidents! The conduct of the Prophet is manifest like the sun. Get into this light Salman Arshad!
2. ‘About the argument you gave for that blind man’s murder event, the opposite argument is equally valid, that the Diyat was mentioned so that people know that the woman was rightfully killed for a crime and has the sanction of the Prophet. Doesn’t help anyone.’
Nonsense! I am dumbfounded as to how can you even make such a silly argument? Diyat is the alternative to Qisas – for the murder of the woman. Clearly, the blind man either had to pay Diyat or face Qisas. The Prophet ruled out Diyat. The rest is obvious. And you conjure that the blasphemy laws can be made on the basis of the incomplete details of this and similar cases. Doesn’t help anyone.
3. ‘My point is there is very weak, almost entirely emotional, opposition to academically strong theses in Islam having the support of the most “learned” and “certified” people in the Islamic world. When can we have a clear verdict from Al Azhar university, or Deoband about there being no concept of blasphemy in Islam ?’
We are hardly making an emotional argument. Consider the facts: Overwhelming evidence that the Prophet forgave his opponents/ blasphemers versus a handful of incomplete incidents which show that some Muslims put blasphemers to death and that the Prophet ruled out their Diyat. What conclusions do you sensibly draw?
If Al-Azhar and Deoband make arguments which are at variance with Sunnah and Quran then we would fault them and we do. The world of Islam is in trouble in this age precisely because of the rot in these institutions. That the overwhelming majority of Ulema/scholars have lost touch with the core of Islamic ethics is manifestly clear. These same type of scholars declared Imam Hussain wajib-ul-qatal, Imam Abu Hanifa an apostate and Mansur (‘ana-ul-Haq’) a heretic!
@Salman Arshad
‘According to Dr. Israr, the punishment for apostasy was not mentioned in the Quran, because it was already mentioned in the Bible !!
And all Muslims are bound to obey the commandments in the Bible that were not abrogated by the Quran. This is substantiated by some verse in the Quran (which I don’t remember yet), so Dr. Israr has an extremely strong argument.’
So now according to Dr Israr and you the Bible has a superiority over Quran over matters of life and death! Why don’t you accept the Bible as the final word of God? However, we believe that the Quran supersedes EVERYTHING in the Bible and which has to be re-interpreted in the light of Quran – not the other way around. I don’t know of any such verse of Quran which asks a believer to examine the Bible first and neither can you remember one. In any case the Bible is so replete with factually incorrect and incoherent details that it can barely even be used as a reliable history reference – much less as a standard for interpreting Quran.
In any case, the Quran has numerous verses dealing with apostasy (see 2:217, 3:86-90, 3:144, 4:137, 16:106 etc. ) but which don’t point to any corporal/humanly-administered punishment for apostasy. Allah had ample opportunity to proscribe such a punishment in these verses. He did not. Dr Israr’s arguments are bogus.
@ Salman Arshad
I don’t think that people like Dr.Israr, or similar are open to a counterview. Islam is much more than about legislative certainty based on literal interpretations of reported events that often contradict other events tackling similar ground. It is a system or moral and ethics too. Morality and ethics understood differently by Amaar and Bin Ismail (and which I share based on their comments) to that of a high priest who sets the boundary according to his worldview for his flock. If we build morality of a certain type in society the laws and religious interpretation will reflect that morality. For me the issue for Muslims is about morality and ethics.
@Salman Arshad
You claim that “…..For a hadith to be considered fabrication, it needs to be proved that the chain of narration contains weakness of some kind..being “against the Quran and sunnah” is no criteria.. that is a very subjective stance…..”
Once the sources have passed away anyone can fabricate the chain of references by the same token they fabricate a Hadith. No Muslim or Non-Muslim historian/scholar can doubt the historical superiority of Quran over Hadith insofar as reliability and correct recording is concerned.
Consequence: Quran, because of its significance, has to be used to analyze Hadith literature.
If a Hadith apparently contradicts a Quranic injunction, either the Hadith was incorrectly narrated/recorded or if it were correct then we have to apply a new interpretation to understand in a way more consistent with the Quran. While an interpretation may be subjective but still there is no other way around this principle. Otherwise we are guilty of ignoring a most reliable source – Quran – and making judgements on a *relatively* less reliable source -Hadith-.
Common sense and Islamic sensibilities both suggest such a course of action.
Using the Bible and it Judeo-Christian interpretations to aid or assist in this process is absolutely out of question.
@Humanity:
We have different perspectives, and different ways of interpreting what we read.
I would however ask you to apologize to me at least for throwing an allegation of blasphemy on me.
When I said the Prophet had sanction to commit acts contrary to the Quran, the assumption was that this was sanctioned by God, not out of free will. I wanted to highlight the sanction he had, not on the details of it. There are different verses in the Quran, for example, that the Prophet does not speak anything on his own, or another one that says take whatever the Prophet gives you, and leave whatever he forbids you from, that are held against those who doubt hadiths and laws and acts that were not mentioned in the Quran specifically. I take those verses rather seriously.
I had specifically used the word “apparently” for him contravening the Quran, to state that seen from another perspective, he did not.
But just for argument’s sake, regarding the reference to Quran making an exemption of the limit, I would not really agree since how I understand it, there is no mention of any limit in the Quran, so one can ONLY “interpret” another verse as an “exemption” on the limit, specifically if you are talking about 33.50-53. The reference (4.3) considered as the pronouncement of the limit, mainly in the Indian subcontinent in my observation, is actually talking about something else, which is explained by a hadith of Ayesha regarding that particular verse (about a man wanting to marry an orphan). I have read only translations though, and since I can’t understand Arabic, I might have lost something, which I think constituted of the blasphemy you pointed out. Please feel free to explain your point of view, without the emotions or the allegations.
I think I used the wrong example, I did not actually expect that I would be trying to counter allegations of blasphemy on this forum. My bad.
I could have used other examples, allowance of the mutah marriage could be one. Or handing out punishment for drinking alcohol when there was no such punishment in the Quran. Or the punishment of stoning for adultery.
I still stand by my argument, which I will rephrase. There are events in the life of the Prophet that are apparently contrary to Quranic principles, but they cannot be held against him because they only appear contrary, in fact he had sanction for all his actions because all his actions were from God, and not out of his free will.
Such events don’t require any defense since God already has asked believers to obey the Prophet, in several different verses, using several different words each time. It is already understood that the Prophet acted only according to the will of God.
Based on this, the punishment for blasphemy cannot be refuted over the simplistic argument that it is not mentioned in the Quran, or goes against the Quran.
What can be possible is, that these specific events never took place, and that the hadiths are false/fabricated.
@Bin Ismail:
Fair enough. You can judge the hadiths on different criteria.
The only problem I have with your approach is that if you ignore the criteria of the “bigoted” groups, you deprive yourself of the opportunity to engage with them, and solve the numerous problems they have created in the garb of hadith/narrations/fiqh.
The argument on limit of four was out of topic, but I’ve tried to explain my point of in the reply to Humanity.
@Amaar:
I would first want to clear my own position, just to re-iterate it so there is no confusion:
I am not arguing for or against the blasphemy law itself.
I am arguing that the arguments FOR the blasphemy law are based on hadith literature and are academically strong, while those against it are purely stated as logical conclusions, and help is taken by SELECTIVELY picking and choosing hadith that support the conclusions, and rejecting those that are against the conclusions.
And I think that this approach will not work.
Now to your reply:
… The conduct of the Prophet …
When explaining the logic of the punishment for blasphemy, this aspect of the Prophet’s life is not ignored.
In fact it is accepted, that there were times when the Prophet forgave people guilty of blasphemy, and there were times when he did not forgive them.
And this argument thus becomes more strong since it takes both kinds of cases into consideration.
It is also mentioned by the proponents of the law, that this was put to rest by a saying attributed to Abu Bakr, about how killing someone for bad mouthing yourself was allowed only in the Prophet’s case.
… Diyat is the alternative to Qisas …
I did not contest the fact that Diyat was an alternative to Qisas. I also did not understand how this statement of yours was a counter argument to mine.
My argument was that the Prophet spared Diyat because the man did not commit a crime. This argument exploits the fact that the hadith is incomplete. We don’t know what was being discussed on the case during the trial and how the case of Diyat came up that the Prophet had to clarify.
Whether its your argument, or mine, both are based on an incomplete hadith, and hence none of them is “stronger” than the other. That is why I said, these arguments won’t help anyone.
The case for the blasphemy law is based on a number of hadiths supporting each other, not on just one narration.
a handful of incomplete incidents which show that some Muslims put blasphemers to death and that the Prophet ruled out their Diyat. What conclusions do you sensibly draw?
Not all the quoted hadiths are vague like the blind man’s one. So really this is not a simple thing to tackle. And they are not just a handful.
I would request you to go through them all at least to judge the intensity of the problem.
I have come across over a dozen unique hadiths, and my conclusion is that the case for the blasphemy law is far stronger than the opposite argument, unless all such hadith are proven weak.
… Al-Azhar and Deoband … the rot in these institutions.
the rot in these institutions is of a fundamental level. No one anytime soon is going to be able to challenge the fundamentals successfully. It could be another hundred or so years before research and knowledge thrives in the Muslim world at the level that is needed to challenge the fundamentals.
The only possible way these institutions can be tackled today is on a case by case basis, giving them a taste of their own medicine, simply exploiting their own false instruments.
So now according to Dr Israr and you the Bible has a superiority over Quran over matters of life and death!
NO. WRONG.
The Bible (and ALL previous books for that matter!) is only to be followed where the Quran is silent or has not abrogated the previous commandment, according to the Quran itself, according to Dr. Israr.
This is not such a unique concept. The prayer, fasting, zakat, hajj, all of these had been practiced previously, and continued in Islam as well. The Quran hardly explains how to do any of them.
I don’t remember the exact verse, but rest assured, his argument was logically very strong.
Once the sources have passed away anyone can fabricate the chain of references by the same token they fabricate a Hadith.
The chain of narrations is not available as “written” as part of the narration. Its not something that could be fabricated. For a hadith to be strong, the narrations by different narrators are matched up and then each narrator is weighed according to his character traits, as cross-narrated by other narrators.
Your argument can be held for certain hadiths that really are not reliable, but not for all.
The issue is that the case of reliability has to be well presented, on a case by case basis. Hadiths are NOT simply unreliable. This can be proved in a way that is scientifically recognized.
@ Tilsim:
I understand what you mean. But morality and ethics are very much tied to the economic and social reality of a society. The kind of morality and ethics that allow concepts like blasphemy and apostasy to exist, is currently compatible with our extremely defensive and economically weak society, and Muslims in general all over. The kind of change you envision is not something to be expected in our life times at least.
My real concern is about today, and while I do not disagree with what you meant, I repeatedly feel that certain realities are being ignored by well-intentioned people actually trying to steer things in a positive way.
@Salman Arshad
I understand that you are trying to understand from an intellectual perspective as to what to make of some Ahadith which apparently indicate that Muslims had killed blasphemers during the time of the Prophet. In the interest of academic discussion I would ask you to at least reference all such Ahadith that we can then deal on a case-by-case basis. My own understanding of the limited number of such Ahadith that I have come across is that even these incomplete incidents cannot justify blasphemy punishment but I await your response…
Clearly, as you would also acknowledge that there are numerous other Ahadith which mention that the Prophet forgave blasphemers. What do we then make of this inconsistency? Was the Prophet inconsistent-God forbid- or were the narratives inconclusively recorded? What does the overwhelming evidence of Ahadith suggest?
In principle, I would say that blasphemers/apostates who had not aggravated their spiritual errors with violence, murder or rebellion were forgiven by the Prophet. What I gather from Hadith is that almost all the corporally punished blasphemers had committed grave crimes against peace or humanity and hence were due a severe punishment. Even then the Prophet forgave many such offenders (such as Hinda, Ikrama, Abdallah bin aby Salool).
@Salman Arshad
1. ‘In fact it is accepted, that there were times when the Prophet forgave people guilty of blasphemy, and there were times when he did not forgive them….It is also mentioned by the proponents of the law, that this was put to rest by a saying attributed to Abu Bakr, about how killing someone for bad mouthing yourself was allowed only in the Prophet’s case.’
We need to be clear. Was the corporal punishment for blasphemy *per se*
or did the blasphemers also commit other crimes? I think that the punished did commit some serious crimes that would be offensive even in a purely secular environment. We also need to be absolutely clear what Abu Bakr said or did not say – how his words were narrated or recoded later. But in principle the blasphemy laws have to be based on Quran or Sunnah. Do we know of an instance where the Prophet had himself someone killed just because they had committed blasphemy?
2. ‘My argument was that the Prophet spared Diyat because the man did not commit a crime. This argument exploits the fact that the hadith is incomplete. ‘
Right. So how can we make a law based on an incomplete Hadith?
But even if we make a judgement based on what we have in the Hadith it would be: Why did not the Prophet spare Qisas *explicitly* just as spared Diyat? He should have mentioned that there is neither Diyat nor Qisas for this blood. But apparently he only mentions Diyat. Mind you, Diyat is a punishment, less than Qisas, but punishment nonetheless. So when the Prophet mentions Diyat only he probably considered a punishment for the blind man. But then we dont have reference in the Hadith as to what followed. So we cannot make any conclusion other than a punishment was considered for the man.
In any case, it cannot be argued that Pakistan should have a blasphemy law based on such a Hadith.
@Salman Arshad
‘The Bible (and ALL previous books for that matter!) is only to be followed where the Quran is silent or has not abrogated the previous commandment, according to the Quran itself, according to Dr. Israr. This is not such a unique concept. The prayer, fasting, zakat, hajj, all of these had been practiced previously, and continued in Islam as well. The Quran hardly explains how to do any of them. ‘
We do not belong to Dr Israr’s school of thought so clearly we dont believe in using Biblical references to aid in understanding Quran. That would be equivalent to using Bible as a source of Islamic knowledge – which I think even Dr Israr would not be totally comfortable with. But while in principle earlier religions did have Salat or Zakat, Islam prescribed new approaches to such old religious practises – Islamic fast is different from Jewish/Christian fast, Islamic Salat is different from theirs etc.
You say that the Quran hardly explains how to do them. And yes because of that we use the Sunnah or Haidth to follow such practises rather than Jewish/Christian scholars on telling us about what to do.
But unless a Biblical practise was explicitly continued by the Prophet we are not obliged to use Bible as a source of guidance in Islamic practises especially when God Himself has ‘perfected for us our religion’.
@Salman Arshad wrote “We have different perspectives, and different ways of interpreting what we read.
I would however ask you to apologize to me at least for throwing an allegation of blasphemy on me.
When I said the Prophet had sanction to commit acts contrary to the Quran, the assumption was that this was sanctioned by God, not out of free will.”
It does hurt, when the shoe falls on ones own head, doesn’t it? And the offensive tactics is a rather easy weapon. However, let me state upfront and clearly that my comment was an attempt to make a case against the blasphemy law. My comment was NOT an allegation against you, because I categorically condemn this law as against my belief. The honor and stature of the Holy Prophet (saw) is safe guarded by Allah(swt) and it does not need any blasphemy law. Through the mercy and wisdom of Allah(swt), the status all holy figures, symbols, and books is beyond the reach of lowly humans like you and I.
You seem to be staunch supporter of the blasphemy law and yet consider yourself above it, because only you assume your interpretation to be perfect. I apologize that through no fault of mine, I was incapable of reading the underlying, unstated assumption that was in your mind that I have referenced above. By asking for an apology and then including an unstated assumption to the previous statements, you only proved my point. The problem with the blasphemy law is fully exposed, if you can see the point. It is obvious that the wide room to misuse the law has dangerous potential of great injustice being carried out in the name of religion. Hence, the un-Islamic practice of punishing other because of hurt Muslim feeling can not possibly be legalized under the name of Islam.
You may be absolutely sure without a shadow of doubt that your interpretation is not flawed that the Holy Prophet(saw) acted contrary to the Quranic guidance, though not through his free will. I, however, believe that the Quran sheds light that the life of the Holy Prophet(saw) was a pure reflection of the guidance of Qur’an. His Sunnah was the Quranic message in action. With such a wide difference of understanding, it is easy to consider the other person crossing the blasphemy divide and get into emotionally charged, nasty and unjust feuds. Islam can not permit loop holes that only cause mayhem and jeopardize the harmony of a society.
Unless we are tolerant to allow others the freedom to interpret and believe according to their own logic and rational, and unless we leave judgment of divine matters to Allah, the menace of the blasphemy law will continue to be a source of injustice and will surely create painful fissures. Hopefully, you now understand the reason and rational behind why the blasphemy law is huge disservice to Islam.
Peace!