How Islamic Are ‘Islamic’ Blasphemy Laws?

• How Islamic Are ‘Islamic’ Blasphemy Laws?

  Sultan Shahin

  Published on January 25, 2017

  January 4 has become an iconic day for moderate Muslims in the Indian subcontinent,

  reminding us every year that the battle for the soul of Islam has not even begun properly.

  Moderate, progressive, liberal Muslims are being killed in the name of blasphemy, but they

  are not able to defend themselves even with a coherent ideological counternarrative.

  On this day in 2011, Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Pakistani Punjab, had been murdered by

  his own body guard for having shown compassion for a Christian lady Asia Bibi, falsely

  accused of blasphemy. This despicable murderer Mumtaz Quadri has now been executed on

  orders of Pakistan judiciary, but has acquired the status of a saint and martyr in the eyes of

  millions in South Asia, particularly ulema of most schools of thought.

  Asia Bibi is known to have been falsely implicated, as most victims of Pakistan’s Black

  Blasphemy laws are. Pakistan Press has reported that all cases of blasphemy against Islam are

  actually to settle personal scores or to acquire a non-Muslim’s property. But Pakistan and

  South Asian Muslims are not alone in misusing the concept of blasphemy. A celebrated case

  going on in Indonesia now is against Governor Ahok, a Christian who is supposed to have

  quoted, just quoted, some verses from Quran and thus angered many Muslims enough to slap

  a case of blasphemy against him. How can a Christian quote scripture, the only true

  scripture? (Do Christians represent the Devil for these Indonesian Muslims?)

  Apart from the criminality, and totally anti-Islamic nature of such devious thinking, the

  stupidity of it all takes the breath away. And this in Indonesia which we progressive Muslims

  used to cite as an example of moderation in Islam. Should we be at all discussing such inanity

  in the 21st century? But this is a very popular blasphemy charge and millions of people

  cannot be imprisoned; we can only argue with them hoping to instil some sense in their

  minds.

  The Holy Quran does not prescribe absolutely any punishment for blasphemy, though

  numerous verses describe in detail how Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) was reviled

  and abused by early Meccans in prose and poetry. As Quran exegete and a columnist for

  NewAgeIslam.com, Muhammad Yunus points out: “The Meccan enemies of the Prophet

  called him impostor, a madman (Quran 30:58, 44:14, 68:51), and an insane poet (37:36) and

  ridiculed the Qur’anic revelation (18:56, 26:6, 37:14, 45:9), which they declared to be strange

  and unbelievable (38:5, 50:2), a jumble of dreams (21:5)9 and legends of the ancients (6:25,

  23:83, 25:5, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15, 83:13). They accused him of forging lies and witchcraft

  (34:43, 38:4), forging lies against God, forgery and making up tales (11:13, 32:3, 38:7, 46:8),

  witchcraft (21:3, 43:30, 74:24), obvious witchcraft that was bewildering (10:2, 37:15, 46:7),

  and of being bewitched or possessed by a Jinn (17:47, 23:70, 34:8).”

  He comments: “By definition, all these accusations were blasphemous. Nowhere in its text

  does the Qur’an prescribe any punishment for those who uttered these blasphemies.”
• Yet ulema quote a consensus of scholarly opinion (ijma) in favour of blasphemy being an

  unpardonable offence. Indeed, if somebody simply questions this ijma, he meets the same

  fate, death. Ijma is an instrument of creative rethinking of Islamic provisions (ijtihad) in the

  absence of any clear guidance in Quran. The idea is to take the religion forward, in the

  absence of a messenger of God, not to regress to Dark Ages, as ulema are using this provision

  to do. Indeed, they have made ijma such a strong instrument that the Qur’anic dictates

  themselves have to be considered abrogated if they contradict the consensus opinion of

  Muslim jurists. “It is better that the verse (from Quran) is interpreted in such a way that it

  conforms to their opinion.” [Doctrine of Ijma in Islam, by Ahmad Hussain, New Delhi, 1992,

  p.16]

  Regardless of any justification for Blasphemy laws in Muslim countries, common sense

  suggests that they can only be applied to Muslims. Otherwise, the term blasphemy can be

  stretched to mean anyone who doesn’t believe Islam to be a true religion. But anti-Blasphemy

  laws are applied to non-Muslims in every Muslim country that has such laws. So ultimately

  the question is related to whether Muslims believe in freedom of religion. Clearly many

  don’t, except when they live in non-Muslim-majority countries.

  Although Quran, Islam’s foundational text, contains hundreds of verses asserting the

  legitimacy of other religions, a consensus in Islamic theology and jurisprudence has

  somehow emerged that other religions cannot be allowed to exist. Theologians cannot

  directly contradict the Quran by saying so, but this is the obvious implication of their

  doctrines of Jihad. Mainstream Islamic Theology and jurisprudence is completely based on a

  dichotomy between Muslim and Kafir. Kafirs have to be eventually eliminated from the

  world, either by persuasion or use of force. The only other option is they accept Muslim

  domination and accept the status of dhimmis (jizya-paying second class citizens).

  Most Ulema do not even accept the religious freedom of those whom Quran gives the status

  of ahl-e-kitab, by virtue of their belief in previous prophets of God. Some of these have been

  mentioned in the Quran and many are not as they are too numerous (124,000, according to

  one Prophetic tradition). They were sent to all nations with revelations. Quran asks Muslims

  to have the best of and the most intimate including marital relations with all ahl-e-kitab. Iman

  or Faith is defined in Islam as, among other things, having faith in all previous prophets of

  God and considering them of the same status as Prophet Mohammad.’ (Quran 4:164; 2.21;

  35:24; 10:47; 21:7).

  To illustrate the point about Islamic theologians circumventing clear, unequivocal Quranic

  dictates about freedom of religions, I quote the following passage from the writings of

  Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi, an influential cleric of Hyderabad. No Indian Alim (scholar, pl.

  ulema) has disputed this widely-circulated narration so far.

  Discussing the oft-quoted Quranic verse 2: 256 “La Ikraha fid Deen” (meaning, let there be

  no compulsion in religion), the Maulana writes in his booklet, ‘Use of Force in Quran’: This

  is an established fact (that Quran gives religious freedom to all). But it is related only with

  accepting or not accepting the belief. This does not mean that ahl-e-Kufr, (infidels) should be

  left totally free on earth with their un-belief and should not be made accountable. If this were

  true, what do we mean when we say that the religion (Deen) of God has been revealed to

  dominate the world?
• "It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Prophet Mohammad pbuh) with guidance and the

  religion of truth (Islam) to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikoon

  (polytheists, idolaters, etc.) hate it." Surah at-Tawbah 9: 33. What will this verse mean then

  and what relevance will the obligation of jihad have (if we accept the Quranic decree of no

  compulsion in religion)?

  “--- It is the duty (of Muslims) to struggle for the domination of Islam over false religions and

  subdue and subjugate ahl-e-kufr-o-shirk (infidels and polytheists) in the same way as it is the

  duty of the Muslims to proselytise and invite people to Islam. The responsibility to testify to

  the Truth and pronounce the religion God has entrusted with the Muslims cannot be fulfilled

  merely by preaching and proselytising. If it were so there would be no need for the battles

  that were fought. "And fight them until there is no fitnah (mischief) and [until] the religion,

  all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do." Surah

  Anfal 8:39)

  “Jihad has been made obligatory to make the Deen (religion) dominate and to stop the centres

  of evil. Keeping in view the importance of this task, the significance of Jihad in the name of

  God has been stressed in the Quran and Hadith. That’s why clear ordainments have been

  revealed to Muslims about fighting all the Kuffar (infidels). “United, fight the polytheists as

  they fight against you.” (Surah Tauba:36)”

  There is a consensus of ulema’s opinion (ijma) around such views. Peaceful, pluralistic, early

  verses revealed in Makkah are supposed to have been abrogated by aggressive war-time

  verses that came later in Madina. Guided by ulema as they are, Muslims have come to believe

  that ijma is more important than Quran, indeed Quranic commandments of peace and

  pluralism, co-existence with other religions, patience in times of adversity, not rushing to war

  on the slightest pretext, etc., have been abrogated for over a millennium. Ulema keep quoting

  these verses to non-Muslim audiences as part of their taqaiyya (a religious instrument to

  deceive the enemy), but Muslims are supposed to know that these verses are abrogated and

  are being quoted only as a strategy of deception.

  Progressive Muslims keep quoting these peaceful verses as they are not well-versed in

  theology and jurisprudence. They still believe in Quran. Largely living in their own world,

  they have no idea what is going on in the community. They do not understand why pluralistic

  Quranic verses do not have any impact on the Muslim masses any more. No wonder they

  have not been able to come up with a cogent theological counter narrative.

  Sultan Shahin is the founder-editor of a Delhi-based progressive Islamic website

  NewAgeIslam.com. This article appeared first in The Sunday Guardian, New Delhi on 15

  January 2017.