Blasphemy - a calm analysis

A buzurg of the family for whom I have a lot of respect both as a scholar and an intellectual recently published a book. It provides the moderate Muslim with the information required to deal with bombardment of contradicting extreme views both from the liberal West and the hard-line religious fanatics. Without a doubt, it will provide the reader with a more balanced and concrete understanding of both Islamic ideology and history, than is possible from motor-mouthed TV evangelists. The book is called Islamic Society: Need for Revival and Development of Confidence, Creativity and Pluralism by Wajihuddin Siddiqui.

This is an excerpt from the book on how the blasphemy law should be handled:

For dealing with blasphemy cases in the Muslim world, an attempt should be made through Ijtihad to do away with the dead penalty altogether and adopt a lesser punishment, keeping in view the following considerations,

• Allah has not ordained death punishment to blasphemers. In fact He is allowing them a little time (during their life on earth) to enjoy their acts of blasphemy, as He is going to inflict severe punishment on them in the Hereafter.(39:8)

• Allah has ordained death punishment only in two cases (5:32). Blasphemy is not one of them.

• It is doubtful if the Prophet awarded death punishment to anybody solely on charges of blasphemy. Let us consider the case of Kab ibn al Ashraf who was executed on the orders of the Prophet. He was a Jew and was writing derogatory poetry about the Prophet and his family. But additionally he was also engaged in instigating people of Medina against the newly developed community of the Muslims. Hence the death punishment awarded to him cannot be attributed entirely to his blasphemous utterances. Some other people were given death penalty during the Prophet’s time were mostly poets, poetesses or reciters of disparaging poetry against the Prophet and Islam. These people were creating mischief in the society and were trying to wean away the new Muslims from their faith, especially the ones whose had not yet taken deep roots. They were thus guilty of multiple crimes, not of blasphemy alone.

• Imposition of death penalty for blasphemy is not the exclusive feature of the Islamic Society. It existed in many other societies for a long time. Jews condemned Jesus Christ to death punishment on charges of blasphemy. Christian Church has killed thousands of renegades and blasphemers in pre-modern times. But both these religions have now abandoned these practices.

The author recognizes that the death penalty in dealing with cases of blasphemy is a time-honoured tradition and to expect a complete dismissal, for now would be incorrect. The author however, proposes the following changes to the laws as they stand today,

• The blasphemers should be given an opportunity to repent and thus escape death punishment.

• The blasphemer should be given a chance to defend his position. Besides, he should not be executed instantly by any individual. The punishment should be awarded by a court after hearing the accused and taking necessary evidences. In this connection, “Every man’s fate We have fastened on his own neck: On the Day of Judgment We shall bring out for him a scroll which he will be see spread open. It will be said to him ‘Read thy own record: Sufficient is thy soul this day to make an account against thee’." (17:13). It is thus clear that even on the Day of Judgment Allah would show the record of men before imparting judgment. Thus there is no justification for killing the blasphemer on the spot.

My personal views on the subject are very close to the ones expressed above. What I find surprising, and more than a little amusing is that even after all this, I do not know what that woman Aasia-bibi allegedly said. I’m sure not many do. Her actual guilt or innocence seems so irrelevant now.

For generations in this country people have been acting and reacting impulsively to the challenges that arose and have achieved very little. Intolerance and impatience towards the views and sensitivities of others has left us incapable of resolving anything through dialogue and understanding. Almost all change, be it positive or negative has come through either political backscratching or forced down our throats by dictators. I myself have often been blamed of being intolerant and impatient to opposing view, a habit I have worked hard to curb (even though those who helped me in this regard have become both intolerant and impatient to my views :)). There is great need for dialogue, and informed discussions on sensitive subjects such as blasphemy, but not on Live Television. Not on the loudspeaker of mosques or in religious gatherings. These discussions need to be conducted between scholars of all views in a private atmosphere of tolerance and respect. I firmly believe that Qadri may have pulled the trigger, the masjid's Imam's rousing sermon may have brought him to that decision, but it was ratings-hungry TV channels and TV show hosts who milked these issues to create sensationalist viewing at the price of mutating the nation's feelings on a sensitive matter and now the whole country is burning.