Blasphemy and the Islamic way

[Veeru]

Blasphemy and the Islamic way

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Due to some recent events in Pakistan, the issue of blasphemy is again in the news. It is generally held that Islam prescribes capital punishment for those who commit blasphemy; that is, using abusive language against the Prophet of Islam.

But this is quite untrue. According to Islam, blasphemy is simply a misuse of freedom and not a cognisable offence; the blasphemer is not liable to incur legal punishment. This kind of law has no basis in Islamic scriptures. If someone uses abusive language against the Prophet, Muslims must take it as a case of misunderstanding, and then try to remove this misunderstanding. They are required to do so by engaging in discussion or by providing the blasphemer with Islamic literature that gives the true image of the Prophet of Islam.

To use abusive language against the Prophet or to praise him are both a matter of one's own choice. Whatever the choice, it is in God's domain to pass judgment on it. Muslims have nothing to do in this situation except try to remove the misunderstanding and then leave the rest to God.

If there is such a case - which could be called blasphemy - and in anger one tries to punish the offender, one is simply reacting negatively to the situation. And acting in this way is looked upon with extreme disfavour in Islam. Islam always tries to go to the root cause of any given problem.

When one abuses the Prophet of Islam, it is most probably due to some kind of provocation. Without provocation, this kind of negative attitude is extremely unlikely. That is why the Quran advises Muslims to get at the real reason.

The Quran points to one such root cause behind this kind of act and urges Muslims to try to come to grips with it: "But do not revile those (beings) whom they invoke instead of God, lest they, in their hostility, revile God out of ignorance." (6:108)

It is on the record that, during the Prophet's time, there were some non-believers who used to use abusive language against the Prophet of Islam. The Prophet of Islam never suggested any legal punishment for those persons. He simply directed them to one of his companions, Hassan bin Sabit al-Ansari, who would respond to their blasphemous statements and remove their misunderstanding by means of argument.

Islam suggests capital punishment for only one offence, and that is murder. Except in the case of murder, there is no such severe legal punishment in Islam. If ever there were any case of such punishment being meted out, it must have been in obedience to an executive order - an extremely rare exception - and not carried out under any general law of punishment.

Moreover, meting out punishment is the prerogative of an established court and not of any individual or non-governmental organisation. According to Islam, if anyone commits a crime, his case will be referred to a court established by law and, after completing the required judicial proceedings, the judge will give his verdict. And then it is only for the authorised police to implement the court order, not any civilian.

The whole scheme of Islam is based on the process of peaceful dialogue. In a verse of the Quran, God Almighty gives this injunction to the Prophet: "So, [O Prophet] remind them: your task is only to remind, you are not over them a warden." (88:21-22)

This is the standard Islamic response to problems, and the case of blasphemy is certainly no exception. Muslims must, therefore, exhort people in a friendly manner. They must try to change their hearts and minds. It must be borne in mind that the Quran is not a criminal code; it is a book of persuasion. So Muslims must deal with such cases by reasoning and not by meting out punishment.

It is tantamount to defamation of Islam to say that Islam cannot give a reason-based response, and that is why it endeavours to inflict physical punishment on those who make any kind of negative remark against the Prophet. Islam, after all, is a rational religion; all Islamic teachings are based on reason and argument. Islam relies on rational argument rather than on any kind of physical punishment.

In the Islamic scriptures, the Quran and the Hadith, there is no such injunction to deliver physical punishment to one who commits blasphemy. This law was only made during the Abbasid period and is an expression of the imperatives of that period. At that time, the Muslims had established their empire and were in political supremacy. Due to their sense of pride at having accomplished this, they made such a law. But it was a clear innovation. And according to the Hadith, every innovation in the religion of Islam must needs be rejected.

The writer is an Islamic scholar and founder of the Centre for Peace and Spirituality International.

Read more: Blasphemy and the Islamic way - The Times of India Blasphemy and the Islamic way - The Times of India

 

[Xestan]

Who gave him the title of "MAULANA"?

According to Qur'an and Sunnah.. the punishment for blasphemy?

FOR Muslims only - (because the thread starter will not understand it)

The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues:

1 – The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16

This ruling is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

In the Qur’aan it says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur’aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.’

If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?’

Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed”

[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]

This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir, whether he was serious or joking.

With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas which we will quote below.

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)

It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her.

Al-Nasaa’i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, ‘Shall I kill him?’ He rebuked me and said, ‘That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .’” (Saheeh al-Nasaa’i, 3795)

It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs.

The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be accepted or not?

The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution.

Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented.

They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas said: “On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn Abi Sarh… As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, and when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of ‘Abd-Allaah.” He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said: “Was there not among you any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?” They said, “We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?” He said, “It is not befitting for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334)

This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes repentant.

‘Abd-Allaah ibn Sa’d was one of those who used to write down the Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115.

With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious, because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious, because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which still stand despite his repentance.

If it is said, “Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?” The answer is:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438

Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

 

[divya]

Who gave him the title of "MAULANA"?

One simple question. Being a muslim would u like the laws of some other religion be imposed upon you when deed of yours are perfectly fine within the iota of your religon?

 

[Solomon2]

The blasphemy debate
January 10, 2011
By Ahmer Naqvi

As Mosharraf Zaidi pointed out in his excellent article, the for and against camps in the blasphemy debate are often speaking at cross currents. For many of us, the blasphemy law is abhorrent because it is frequently misused and abused. However, we cannot expect to present this argument into the general debate, because it shifts the focus away from the legitimacy of the law to a question of how it is being enforced.

For some, the blasphemy law needs to be repealed because it is a violation of freedom of speech. Unfortunately, this is the exact point where the anti-blasphemy law campaign finds itself being portrayed as a bunch of ‘liberal-extremists’ licking the soles of western boots.

Why does that happen? If we are to accept freedom of speech as a valid value to cherish, then it means that we believe that everyone has the right to say what they feel. That, in theory, is wonderful but in practice it boils down to two things.

First, it ignores the fact that in Pakistan, by and large, you do not have rights – instead, you have power. If you have power to say what you feel like, you might pretend you are exercising your rights, but in reality you are flexing your considerable muscles – which means those without power are by and large without rights.

Secondly, it implies that the only thing sacred in this debate is the right to free speech, and the sanctity of that right exists above and beyond anything else that might be sacred. For the pro-blasphemy camp, this essentially translates into saying that people ‘should’ have the right to trash all that is sacred.

Now, I might be wrong here, but I can sense that you are tensing up a bit. Fear not, for many of the ‘progressive’ crowd, words like ‘sacred’ and ‘holy’ are immediately problematic and uncomfortable.

Unfortunately, the problem is that until we can frame our debate in those very contexts of religion and things that are sacred, we are always opening up ourselves to be outflanked by claims that we are brainwashed from abroad and that we have no clue about what it means to be a Pakistani or a Muslim.

So why don’t we take this debate on in a religious context?

The reason being is that we seem to imagine that Islam like a computer which we can only be used once we have learnt C++ and Java and other complex languages.

A few weeks ago, there was this thing on Twitter where everyone was tweeting as their 16-year-old selves. My favourite tweet was by someone who wrote “One day I am going to learn Arabic, interpret the Quran the right way and then all our problems would be solved.”

Many of us can relate to the feeling that there is a truth out there that we can get to if only we are learned enough. However, we grow up and come to assume that the supremacy of Islamic knowledge lies with those whose day job it is to memorise it, and so we shirk from entering any religious debate.

Well, that is just ridiculous. If the blasphemy law debate is to be won and I am talking in pragmatic terms here, it has to be framed within the context of religion.

The problem with the idea of blasphemy law is that it implies that the Prophet (PBUH) or God or the Holy Book are extremely fragile and weak that unleashing the law to punish business-card trashing and water-bringing betrays a supreme sense of insecurity. It also implies that something as mundane as those actions would bring the whole edifice of faith and religion crashing down.

Is our faith so weak that it sentences an impoverished woman to death to save itself? Is our religion so wobbly that trashing a business card can bring it down?

Even if you do not believe in the sacred history, accepted versions of historical Islam admit that the Prophet (PBUH) suffered some brutal persecution of his people and himself without feeling the need to physically avenge them. So why is it that his followers, fourteen centuries on feel so insecure about criticism?

The blasphemy law is a blasphemy in its own self. It reduces that which is supposedly sacred into an idea so weak and powerless that only the most violent action can save it.

You might not agree with me and you might not feel that you can carry this debate with anyone armed with tafseers. Perhaps, but I honestly believe that even if this is a losing argument, it is not a futile one because it zeroes in on the realm of religion – the very realm the pro-blasphemy camp seems to believe it owns, and can thus manipulate it for its own purposes.

 

[Xestan]

One simple question. Being a muslim would u like the laws of some other religion be imposed upon you when deed of yours are perfectly fine within the iota of your religon?

Never! This is the reason we made Pakistan

 

[divya]

Never! This is the reason we made Pakistan

Exactly then why you want others who do not share your religion to be governed by laws of your religion specially minorities? Just because you are in majority. is that the justification.......

 

[Developereo]

the blasphemy law needs to be repealed because it is a violation of freedom of speech.

People who defend laws related to Holocaust and anti-Semitism in the West have no credibility to lecture anyone on freedom of speech.

Exactly then why you want others who do not share your religion to be governed by laws of your religion specially minorities? Just because you are in majority. is that the justification.......

Why do you force non-Hindus to sing vande mataraam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vande_Mataram

 

[divya]

Why do you force non-Hindus to sing vande mataraam?

Vande Mataram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sir vande matram was to be made mandatory but since it impacted muslim sentiments it is repealed. singing Vande matram is not mandatory in India. Does not matter what few nutcase political parties say in India but constitutionally one is not forced to sing it.


Secondly i was not comparing laws in India and Pakistan nor the intention of my post was to throw mud on Pakistan. it was much more on the side how much right is to govern people on such laws in which they do not belive and the end their lives out of a law which neither has anything to do with them nor they fall in that iota.

 

[Mughal1]

Dear friends blasphemy law is anti islam but pro mullahs and pro rulers.

1)If we read the quran, it is against oppression, suppression and persecuation. This shows that freedom for thought and expression is islam.

2)The quran contains hundreds of verses wherein are criticised beliefs and people who hold them and do wrong on that basis.

This is another point that proves that freedom of thought and expression is real islam.

3)If we read the quran allah expresses his severe anger against those who take other gods beside allah and also against those who take jesus as son of god yet he does not order his messenger to go ahead and kill them.

4)Allah order muslims to proptect places of worship of nonmuslims, why do that if they are supposed to be killed because they blasphem against allah?

5)Allah tells us clearly that jews abused his prophets and even killed them yet he does not tell his messenger to go ahead and finish them off.

6)The prophet himself is abused and insulted on various occasions yet he forgave the people.

All these very strong evidences tell us mullahs are absolutely wrong to say that blasphemy law is islamic.

To see what islam is really about PLEASE CLICK HERE

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Never! This is the reason we made Pakistan

Seriously you need to get better sources. I dont believe in what likes of Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool have said about this law. For me they all can burn in hell forever.

Did Mohammad set this rule to kill anyone in case of blasphemy?

 

[Vassnti]

Who gave him the title of "MAULANA"?

According to Qur'an and Sunnah.. the punishment for blasphemy?

FOR Muslims only - (because the thread starter will not understand it)

The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues:

1 – The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool2/13-16

This ruling is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

.

Seeing Asia Bibi is a christian not a Muslim then by your argument she can not have commited blasphemy, she certainly never having been a Muslim be an apostate thanks for pointing out why she should be released.

perhaps my least favorite phrase is The scholars are unanimously agreed the "scholars" cannot agree on how eggs should be served for breakfast let alone on major issues.

People who start an argument with the scholars agree mean the ones i think are right agree and every one else is wrong.

 

[ajtr]

Moral medievalism and the state —Ammar Rashid​

Mass hypocrisy is often an expression of deep-rooted societal contradictions rather than being an intrinsic or absolute condition. Situating these contradictions in their structural and historical context is vital to finding the way out of this unending morass

Many in the aftermath of the January 4 tragedy have struggled to understand the mindset of a section of supporters of Salmaan Taseer’s murderer, Mumtaz Qadri. The reaction of the religious right was, of course, all too easy to explain away for many; those who make religion an instrument of political gain will necessarily use this event to stoke religious fervour and gain the political space/popularity they so desire. But what of the reaction of our educated middle class? What of the reaction of those students, lawyers, engineers, doctors, and the rest of the internet/armchair mujahideen who have shocked many observers by condoning and celebrating this tragedy? Those whose interests, mannerisms and habits reek of globalised modernity, in all its capitalist glory, yet whose opinions seem more reflective of some despotic medieval rage? Those who consume ‘decadent’ American and Indian popular culture (the provocateur extraordinaire Lady Gaga and besmirched ‘munni’ often coming up as favourites), imbibe ‘immoral’ intoxicants, pursue ‘illicit’ sexual dalliances and concomitantly celebrate the ‘aashiq-e-rasool’, Mumtaz Qadri, without skipping a beat?

At one level, it is easy to dismiss these middle class cadres as hypocrites of the worst grade imaginable, and one would not be amiss in stating so. But, in terms of explanatory depth, this denunciation is of little value. Mass hypocrisy is often an expression of deep-rooted societal contradictions rather than being an intrinsic or absolute condition. Situating these contradictions in their structural and historical context is vital to finding the way out of this unending morass.

Many attempts have been made to explain this phenomenon by hearkening to the terrible era of Zia and the imbibing by the educated populace of the Islamist currents he unleashed in society as instruments of state policy. While definitely a factor, this remains an incomplete hypothesis that, if one may say so, overstates the influence of one particularly gruesome dictator in this country’s chequered history.

I believe that this middle class ‘morality of xenophobia’ results from a confluence of the historical memory and logic of the Pakistani state with modern, information-age capitalism. As denizens of the information age, the educated middle classes in Pakistan have been, to varying degrees, exposed to much of what may be called global popular culture in all its post-modern glory. The multiplicity of narratives on offer in this age of borderless information and entertainment has, like the rest of the world, exacerbated the erosion of traditional (in our case Islamic) conceptions of ‘individual’ morality for the middle class, which has already been set in place by the growth of urban capitalism. For them, there is now an ever-increasing access and exposure to alternative modes of rationalisation for individual behavioural choices due to the nature and proliferation of global media.

However, the internalisation of these alternative models of individual behaviour by our middle class is accompanied by a countervailing trend — the continued ideational retention of Islamic conceptions of individual morality that remain embedded in the middle class psyche because of social surroundings, education and upbringing. This ideational retention is further reinforced by the siege mentality engendered by unending informational access to the global and regional military developments of the past decade. This ideological contradiction breeds an unconsciously perceived ‘moral deficit’ within this class, which then demands fulfilment. However, as choice regarding individual moral activity remains constrained by the material realities and socio-economic compulsions of the middle class (i.e. keeping up with the Maliks and the need to stay ‘modern’), the contradiction is then sought to be resolved through another domain — the domain of public or collective morality. Which brings us to the state narrative in Pakistan.

Public morality can exist in many forms, expressions and narratives. In Pakistan, however, the very nature of the state necessitates and perpetuates a particularly exclusivist conception of public morality rooted in its history. The origin of Pakistani statehood was not based on the acceptance of a plurality of opinions and identities. It was not based on the acceptance of the existence of multiple narratives of marginalisation. It was not an origin cognisant of the possibilities of its existence, creating and perpetuating further forms of exploitation and oppression. One speech in the English language to a constituent assembly of landlords and opportunists, it must be said, does not make a movement emancipatory.

The origin of Pakistani statehood was based rather on the convoluted, albeit eloquent, articulation of the supremacy of the moral position of a particular religious identity over others. It is that logic, which has guided the statecraft of its unrepresentative office bearers, the uniformed guardians of the citadel of Islam, for over 60 years, with its results now laid bare in their entirety. It is that logic that has prevented any alternative, more inclusive narrative of public morality to take root in society’s ideational spheres.

It is this very logic of Pakistani statehood that the educated middle class, reeling from the contradictions of its perceived individual moral deficits, is now regurgitating in its support for the murderer Qadri. The supposedly benign nationalist narrative of this state’s origins has transmogrified in the information age into the rabidly exclusionary and xenophobic public morality that the educated middle classes, with their imbibed historical memory, now espouse with zeal.

There is perhaps no better historical exemplification of this contemporary dilemma of our educated classes than Jinnah himself — Jinnah, the paragon of modernity and liberal mannerisms, and concurrently the purveyor of an exclusionary, religiously inspired collectivist narrative. Jinnah, the possessor of contradictions so profound, they remain unresolved six decades after his death.

Situating the current crisis in this oft-ignored historical and structural context is vital for those who want to attempt to rescue Pakistani society from this daunting precipice. Struggling against the religious right from a position of abject weakness within the debilitating discursive parameters set by the Pakistani state is an exercise in futility. This strategy is sadly incognisant of the fact that the perpetuation of the state’s public narrative necessitates the continuation of tacit, if not outright, support for the reactionary currents that now seek to completely monopolise the public sphere.

Any struggle that aims to succeed must create an altogether new collectivist narrative of inclusion that counters the religious, ethnic and class-based exclusion that has defined the Pakistani statehood from the outset of this county’s existence. There is a need to realise that reminiscence about Jinnah’s Pakistan as a rallying cry is a complete misnomer — we are, unfortunately, smack dab in the middle of that Pakistan.

The writer is a development professional and an alumnus of LUMS working in Islamabad. He can be reached at ammar.rashid@gmail.com

 

[Ganguly]

Who gave him the title of "MAULANA"?

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438

The prophet (PBUH) is dead, but his teachings are alive. If the prophet (PBUH) can forgive, why can't believers of the same religion do so?

 

[pundit]

People like Galileo were executed by clergymen for blasphemy in 1642. We know today that this was foolish and the civilized world does not criminalize anyone for what they say.

But Pakistan seems to be still in 1600. So what if the prophet or anyone else said whatever. Can't you guys just understand that this kind of thing does not belong to this century?

Thousands of people on Facebook blaspheme about your prophet and drew during the Draw Muhammed Day. You CANNOT prevent this and the more one jumps around with a sense of victimhood, the more people are going to do this.

Also, how many people in Pakistan were prosecuted for blaspheming against the Ahmedi prophet, Jesus or Hindu gods etc. Big fat zero, right?

Respect is not a one-way street. And blasphemy belongs to 1610, not 2010.

 

[Ahmad]

The battle over blasphemy - Riz Khan - Al Jazeera English