Pak Tea House » Islam, Islamism, Pakistan, Religion, Society » Discoursing Blasphemy (I): Deconstructing the Contemporary Authoritarian Context
Discoursing Blasphemy (I): Deconstructing the Contemporary Authoritarian Context
The materials could be used to construct either the authoritative or the authoritarian. If the authoritarian is constructed, the text is rendered subservient and submerged into its representer and reader. If authoritative is constructed, the text survives unencumbered and unlimited by its representer and reader. – Khaled Abou El Fadl in Conference of the Books
Imagine your were born into a middle or lower-middle class Christian family in Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This ironic accident of nature would automatically grant you the deplorable status among approximately one percent ignorant, disbelieving and impure inhabitants of the otherwise land of the pure. Stretch your imagination a little further and assume being grown up to become an individual with religious conviction in line with any of the mainstream Christian denominations. Needless to add that you would strongly believe in fundamentals of your religion; fundamentals, which unlike Islam, do not necessitate belief in other Prophets and the truthfulness of their message. Obviously, you would not have a smidge of reverence for Prophet Muhammad or Quran in your heart.
At this point, a number of hypothesis can be proffered; however, among worst-case scenarios, lets just assume that you truly happen to doubt the historicity of Islam and its venerated Prophet, who erroneously – or with the sheer intent of deceit – pretended to be the last Messenger of God [1]. With truthful compassion and deep sincerity, you do not, for a moment, regard Quran as a piece of literature on which “a society can be safely of sensibly based”. Furthermore, you might consider it a “crude, endless iteration” faked as God’s word, and whose reading, would be a “toilsome experience” [2].
Now, would you reckon pronouncing your belief publicly in a decent, truthful and academic manner without facing charges for the crime of blasphemy and instigating Islamist upheavals demanding your death? And if the sheer simplicity of this hypothetical proposition is not enough to demonstrate the hidden strata of ironies, lets put it this way: the accident of your birth (and what you come to believe subsequently) might leave you with a strict binary choice in the land of the pure, i.e., live dishonorably as an infidel hypocrite or die ignominiously as a profane blasphemer.
There has been plenty of discussion in print and electronic media regarding the infamous blasphemy law of Pakistan. A common supporting argument, usually initiated to evade the real question regarding the actual religious basis of the law, goes like this: there is nothing wrong with the law itself, and therefore the soundness of religious injunctive value attached to it; however, there may be flaws in its procedural implementations – as there in almost all other clauses of Pakistan Penal Code – which can be exploited to prosecute people unjustly.
I want to argue here that the above proposition is flawed for two distinct but often interactive reasons: 1) it overlooks an important lingual nuance in the framing of the law itself and 2) it supplies us with a presumably monolithic, homogeneous and historically connected Islamic definition and character of blasphemy.
Coming first to textual ambiguity in framing the language of the law (295-C), which is hard to miss even by a careless reader. It is not too difficult to understand that terms like “derogatory remarks, etc.”, “imputation”, “innuendo”, “insinuation” and “defiles the sacred name” can be misconstrued and misused easily. In fact it is so easy that a mere refusal to insert the common salutations after the name of the Prophet due to simple academic and publishing requirements can be easily misconstrued as blasphemy and can be portrayed socially to incite dangerous reactions. This mostly ignorant and reactive social milieu is tragically ironic to an extent that prestigious publishers in Pakistan, e.g., Oxford University Press, insert ‘PBUH’ after the name of the Prophet as an ‘in-house policy’ to avoid unnecessary hue and cry [3].
What is more troubling, however, is the ease with which the question regarding real definition and character of blasphemy is circumvented by the street mullahs, facebook zealots and common people who enthusiastically – and at times, inadvertently – support murderers.
Starting from the time of Greek Sophists, blasphemy has a long and vicious history in all canonical religions, especially Christianity [4]. In more than one way, Islam emphatically redefined the sacred in relation to an individual and society and placed it in its correct metaphysical and eschatological perspective. While the divine message was repetitively explained with exceptional clarity and forceful persuasion (3:85; 4:125), submission of an individual was eventually came about in Islamic theology as a matter of personal preference without any compulsions (2:256) by the society or Muslim polity; and as a human psychological condition which may have immediate and distant repercussions in this world but will be judged ultimately in hereafter. Moreover, the assertive statement in Quran (18:29) that
Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)…
tends to establish a clear contrast with the Christian dogma that thoughts can blaspheme too and therefore subject to confession [5]. Ultimately, in Islamic theological doctrine, sacredness and sanctity of the symbols of God is contingent upon submission of the individual in first place (5:2).
In this backdrop, classical Islamic jurists always considered an individual’s personal religious conviction to be a matter between him and his Creator (baynahu wa bayna rabbiy). Some of them theorized further, discussing extensively the underlying theological intricacies, and argued that the Islamic doctrine of kufr simply means non-belief in the truthfulness of the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) – a psychological condition which should not be considered immoral for all worldly purposes [6]. Thus, regardless of its rare practical implementation, the classical advocacy of capital punishment for apostasy is not because of a Muslim’s intellectual subjection to a false doctrine but due to its direct and indirect sociopolitical consequences – a sense which is more in line with the modern concept of high treason against one’s government.
It is also pertinent to note that all convictions of presumed blasphemy – or heresy which is an often interrelated and sometimes indistinguishable thread – recorded in classical as well as modern Islamic heresiography had always been nuanced sociopolitically; some examples are Ibn Taymiah’s trials for his alleged anthropomorphic views [7], Ahmed Bin Hanbal’s condemnation for his views on nature of Quran [8], conviction of Mansoor Al-Hallaj for his claims of extreme mystical universalism, Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid’s exile from Egypt to Netherlands in 1994, and Hashem Aghajari’s trial and subsequent conviction in Iran in 2003.
It can be ultimately contended that the contemporary debate of blasphemy (as seen in Pakistan these days) thrives upon postmodern sensibilities of the sacred which are theologically inaccurate as well as morally ambiguous. While successfully carrying the burden of far-right Islamist politics, these sensibilities also appeal to the popular, mostly apolitical and semi-religious mindset which is easily provoked by complexity and naturally adores a simple and perfect causality. However, what still remains to be shown is that this dangerously simplistic discourse is based upon strictly radical and authoritarian readings of the scripture (both Quran and Hadith). __________________________________________
- The aim is not to instigate the expected emotional response but just to bring about the moral ambiguity of the popular religious discourse insinuating complete homogeneity. For specific remarks see various publications by Ibn Warraq and Patricia Crone, for instance.
- For first remark see Sacred Cows by Britain’s foremost feminist Fay Weldon; for second see On Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History by Thomas Carlyle.
- For the description of actual event see Riaz Hassan, Expressions of Religiosity and Blasphemy in Modern Societies, Asian Journal of Social Science, 2007 – Springer.
- Two very important texts in this regard are A Brief History of Blasphemy by Richard Webster and Genealogies of Religion by Talal Asad.
- For details and discussion on related issues see Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion and his essay Reflections on Blasphemy and Secular Criticism in Religion: Beyond a Concept.
- Sherman Jackson, On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al Ghazali’s Faysal al Tafriqa.
- Sherman Jackson, Ibn Taymiyyah on Trial in Damascus, Journal of Semitic Studies, 1994.
- See for instance, Abu Zuhra’s work on Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal’s life, work and fiqh.
Filed under: Islam, Islamism, Pakistan, Religion, Society · Tags: Blasphemy, Islamic, Religion, religious
23 Responses to "Discoursing Blasphemy (I): Deconstructing the Contemporary Authoritarian Context"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said rex an interesting intructions from london to brit... - Satbir Singh Bedi
said Will the new Pakistan Govt. enforce the following... - tajender
said Rex Minor says:
May 8, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Imran Kh... - sex on webcam
said An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded thi... - MilesToGo
said http://youtu.be/WxBfcusJRP0 - Rex Minor
said Tajender,
Your name is getting very popular. I sho... - tajender said rex i cannot awnser u last 2 posts are not mine.
- LV Outlet Paris Address
said Louis Vuitton Outlet Replica - Do Louis Vuitton Have Outlet Stores said Fake LV Outlet Online
- Maggu
said REXIE, so when are you moving to Afghanistan to be...
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Swat Crisis, GPS Pakistan. GPS Pakistan said: Discoursing Blasphemy (I): Deconstructing the Contemporary Authoritarian Context http://bit.ly/fYf7uG #Pakistan [...]
I, for one, use the simple logic that my Allah being sufficient and absolutely independent is fully capable of safeguarding His honor and that of His beloved Prophet (SAW). He does not need me to protect Him. I need Him to protect me.
All the citations in support of a man made blasphemy law in any shape or form are simply tantamount to blasphemy. Oppression and murder in the disguise of blasphemy are crimes against Allah.
The solutions to the problems of humanity are much simpler than they are made out to be. Just live and let live.
Need of the hour! Its not only time to get the discourse started, but also to rationalize it and rescue it from being dangerously simplistic or from being used to manipulate emotions and feelings that later propel human beings to commit illegal, immoral and utterly sinful acts in the name of Islam (or any religion, for that matter).
Solution for the problems are even more complicated then the problem itself and most of the times the solutions and punishments are used for one’s own revenge.
Thanks, this is a useful article and bibiliography. I would like to present another idea to complement it (though you may know of it already).
Javed Ghamidi’s theory on itmaal al hujjah – the idea that the death penalty for irtidaa/apostasy (itself the basis of the ruling for the death penalty for blasphemy) was only to be implemented while the prophet SAWS was alive and the Qur’an was being revealed. A time when the ‘proof of God was conclusively apparent’ (itmaam al hujjah).
I pray God guides all those concerned to greater knowledge on the matter and enables them to challenge some of those who seem to hold this cruel law to be more sacred than God’s holy Self.
@aadil_w
February 2, 2011 at 1:27 am
“Thanks, this is a useful article and bibliography. I would like to present another idea to complement it (though you may know of it already).
Javed Ghamidi’s theory on itmaal al hujjah – the idea that the death penalty for irtidaa/apostasy (itself the basis of the ruling for the death penalty for blasphemy) was only to be implemented while the prophet SAWS was alive and the Qur’an was being revealed. A time when the ‘proof of God was conclusively apparent’ (itmaam al hujjah).”
A good write-up indeed, but unfortunately of no avail in stopping vigilantist murderers who are impervious to any reason. This was why the prophet had to run for his life from Makka and so has done Ghamidi in migrating to Malaysia. In fact we are standing verily today at the edge of an inferno and can only pray to God to save us Pakies as He had saved Mushrikin-e-Markka from the fire which is going to engulph us any time.
Humanity has the right response.
Anyway, article is written with right intentions but upholding the greatness of Islam viz a viz other faiths is conspicuous making this whole exercise if not futile but certainly with very little impact.
A few questions:
When Allah himself took the responsibility of protecting the content of Quran from any change then why he forgot to take the responsibility (considering he is all powerful omni…etc etc.) of ensuring correct interpretation too? He could have easily asked Gibreel to reveal ayats with paraphrased interpretation.
Why there is need to compare writing in Quran with what is written in other books of other faiths when followers of other books are not going around ‘At Present’ interpreting the messages contained in their books and asking those messages to be applied in the social political set-up of their lives and societies? They have just moved on.
Why it is difficult to follow the same examples and say unconditionally that all this may be there in the book or not there but it is totally irrelevant at present and followers should simply ignore these irrelevant instructions and consult/follow book for their spiritual advancement primarily and for the betterment of societies wherever it is found appropriate?
P.S. Let me also state that I am not a follower of The True Religion and don’t believe in Muhammad being last prophet and judgement day etc. Still, I admire Muhammad for lots of initiatives he took during his time.
Paradox is: the phrase peace be upon him (PBUH) is actually meant and understood to be for someone who dies having done something criminal. It is an attempt to bring the world back into a state of forgivance and hope and go on.
If you read the kuran without letting yourselves be dazed, dazzled or frightened by its self-glorifications and pre-mortem and post-mortem threats then you have no difficulty recognizing that it is a book to manipulate simple-minded human beings into submission under some kind of a primitive fascism in the name of an arab god.
A book with so many controversial results and interpretations cannot be from a genuine god.
In case any one wishes to start a new religion here are some tips:
1. Tell your followers “GOD” has revealed divine message to you which should be spread to entire humanity. You heard those divine words while meditating. You should also preach there is only one GOD and you are his messenger.
2. Look around and see how many religions exist and accept most of the prophets as messenger of god. Discredit those who are absolutely foolish and revere 1 million gods in every form possible (from a stone to snake)
3. Then you should be smart enough to say you are the LAST prophet and not other prophet will come to enlighten this world or someone else might use your own trick
4. If you see some one cvhallenges you with critical comments on your prophethood, declare him a blasphemer and worthy of being killed
5. Here goes the last but not the least, anyone who has accepted your religion and later on realizes his mistake and wants to convert to a religion of his choice is also worthy of being killed. So anyone who comes in your fold can not go out in fear of being killed. No one can challenge your hypothesis in fear of being killed.
Now let your followers loose and ask them to spread this divine word to as many as possible. Bingo, you have done it.
@IK
If I’m not mistaken several people have followed your 5 steps. I wonder why they failed…
When Allah himself took the responsibility of protecting the content of Quran from any change then why he forgot to take the responsibility (considering he is all powerful omni…etc etc.) of ensuring correct interpretation too? He could have easily asked Gibreel to reveal ayats with paraphrased interpretation.
The problem here is more within the mind of the human psyche. The evil mind will find the evil interpretation. As far a correct interpretations, many reformers have passed throughout history reviving spirituality and understanding of the Quran. Dare I say the latest one was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
Why there is need to compare writing in Quran with what is written in other books of other faiths when followers of other books are not going around ‘At Present’ interpreting the messages contained in their books and asking those messages to be applied in the social political set-up of their lives and societies? They have just moved on.
Islamic jurisprudence I believe has evolved quite a bit through time. As far as the Quran is concerned, as far as I’m aware, general principles regarding responsibilities of a government are mentioned, everything else is left to the people. No one has right to enforce “shariat” on anyone.
Why it is difficult to follow the same examples and say unconditionally that all this may be there in the book or not there but it is totally irrelevant at present and followers should simply ignore these irrelevant instructions and consult/follow book for their spiritual advancement primarily and for the betterment of societies wherever it is found appropriate?
What irrelevant things are you referring to, one follows a commandment in an area that is relevant to that commandment, I’m not sure i understand the question.
Let me also state that I am not a follower of The True Religion
I wouldn’t say Islam is “The True Religion” rather a “religion of truth”. Salvation is not monopolized and hell is not eternal.
@Mubarak
Can you name them? Anyway there is always a survivorship bias to all these theories. You can do it if you sincerely follow these five steps.
Mubarak asks: “If I’m not mistaken several people have followed your 5 steps. I wonder why they failed…”
This question can be answered easily. IK missed out one more crucial ingredient. It is the promise of sexual exhilaration with many umpteen young women on the earth and if not here then in heaven. If such a promise is made then the worst and most tribalist and machoist among the men will join hands with you to fight kill and even die for you. That was the secret of islam’s “success”.
In order for a fascist imperialist ideology/religion to “succeed” this sex promise, especially even after death, can be crucial, especially in tribal machoist societies.
Mubarak
Not intending to go on endless discussion but just a few points on your reply posted above:-
my first question was about FROZEN correct interpretation as content in Quran is FROZEN by Allah. So, if all powerful was/is all powerful and all knowing then he should have taken care of this.
I have read Quran translated in the language I understand,
and I know it goes much much beyond general governing principles. Actually, it goes right into ones bedrooms and bathrooms too.
What I meant was that commandment in respect of all those calls about killings and getting killed in the way of Allah and other similar pronouncements should be ignored while messages about remembering/praising Allah, helping poor etc may be followed for pesonal spiritual development/growth.
@amar
One often hears about what the Muslim men can expect to find in Jannat. I wonder what Muslim women are promised. And, are they admitted there?
to wanderer
basically muslims are not allowed to think, and if they do then only to glorify the same old rut. The question that you posed is too complicated for the muslim mind and he will react by crying blasphemy and inviting muslim gangsters (of which the streets in muslim areas are full) to attack you.
Thanks “amar”, But I shall wait for a Muslim friend to respond.
Aasem
“If the authoritarian is constructed, the text is rendered subservient and submerged into its representer and reader.”
I was particularly struck by your deconstruction of this issue into its components: that a text is a representation. In terms of semiotics, we must examine a text in terms of its various functions:
* In terms of Semantics, the relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata, or meaning
* Of syntactics: Relations among signs in a formal structure such as a text
* Of pragmatics: Relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them
If thought of in this way (which is exactly what you mean in the quote above, but that no comments have thus far addressed,) in terms of semantics, any text is indeed a construction, a system of ‘signs’ that represents a system of meaning in the mind of its author and how that author interprets the ‘signs’ represented and what they stand for.
Any text must be looked at for the relationships between those signs (and their implied meanings) in terms of the syntax of their interrelationships, how they fit together to provide meaning.
Now we come to pragmatics – and here is the real issue – “The relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them.” A text, because its business is to denote ‘signs’, must be interpreted by its users. (When the issue of an ancient text in a foreign ancient language is under examination, and the relationship between intended embedded signs and the interpretation of them can only be achieved by means of translation, the deconstruction of meaning becomes problematic.) The ‘users’ of such a text – when it is not a mathematical equation or something that can be defined by a set of fixed parameters – bring to its reading the element of subjectivity. Here we embark on the issue that ‘users’ of a given text will be using it towards some ultimate end. When ‘readers’ cannot deconstruct the text for themselves, and rely on another subjectivity for interpretation, there are multiple distortions of meaning involved and in being dependent on that interpretation-by-others, the reader is liable to be subjected to the aims of the interpreter (which may be as simple as personal or group empowerment.) What I understood in you saying that the text is made subservient to its interpreters.
Ultimately, to my mind, I find it problematic to consider a single text as an overarching narrative that encompasses all things personal, interpersonal, social, legal and political.
@wonderer
(February 2, 2011 at 7:04 pm )
“Thanks “amar”, But I shall wait for a Muslim friend to respond to my question:
“One often hears about what the Muslim men can expect to find in Jannat. I wonder what Muslim women are promised. And, are they admitted there?”
.”But, in first place, who is a ‘muslim’ in the pakiland? I was a muslim as of right when I was an Indian and till 1974 but became a ‘Halfy-Muslim’, by believing only in ‘Khatme Nabuwwat’ (termination of nabuwwat) afterwards by submitting (to God knows whom to accept) a mandatory declaration as a Muslim.
As regards your question I relate an anecdote:
A village mullah who was proceeding on hajj told a water-carrier of the mosque to act as mullah in his place during his absence. “But how would I reply to questions about religion raised by the people?” said the w.c. “To all questions you should simply reply as ‘controversial”’, advised the mullah. The w.c. followed the advice but people got annoyed by his stereotype answer to every question. So one day a man tried to put a question to which, he thought, the w.c. would not dare to repeat his stereotype answer. He simply asked the acting mullah whether God exists. But he replied with even greater force,”This is also controversial my dear.”
یہ توہم کا کارخانہ ہے
یاں وہ ہی ہے جو اعتبار کیا
@Talat
Thanks!
@Maryanne Khan
Thank you for your thought provoking comments, especially your observation towards the end. I am looking forward to share my views on this in my next post.
regards
Aasem
I’ll be looking forward to it!
I’d also like to talk to you about your cobbler friend, there’s something not quite ‘revealed’ in that post of yours, I sense an irony there.
I’m a writer, and maybe I see hidden dimensions to things . . .
m
To be human, the response to the Holy One, Creator, Heavenly Father by faith must be free, and therefore, NOBODY is to be forced to embrace the faith against their will. The act of faith is of it’s very nature a free act, bound to the Lord in conscience, but not coerced….. The authoritative truth comes from the one and true Authoritarian, He is not man, He is the One, and no other.