Baigsaab's Blog

Blasphemy Law and The Dilemma of the Apologists!

Posted in Islam, protest by baigsaab on December 8, 2010

A few years back there was a huge uproar in the Muslim communities around the world over the Danish cartoon controversy. Protests in some parts such as Pakistan turned violent and angry mobs damaged private property apart from burning effigies of the culprits. This scribe had written a piece- in fact a series of articles– back then urging people to just ignore these insults as, in my opinion back then, that’s the only suitable reply. Apart from that, the series also tried to prove from the Seerah of RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) and Sahaba (r.a.) that they always dealt with blasphemous behavior in the same way.

Well, I have to confess, I was ignorant of our history and I was foolishly wrong!

I guess now that I’ve read and heard a bit of our history (still not all of it obviously), I can tell you that there’s overwhelming evidence that the only suitable punishment against blasphemy to RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) and all the prophets of ALLAH (s.w.t.) is death, and a swift one at that! Not only there’re instances that Sahaba (r.a.) killed blasphemers but they did so with the approval, and in some cases orders, of RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.).

Ka’b ibn Ashraf, Abu Rafay, Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls, a jewish woman in Medina and lots of others are such criminals that were slain by Sahaba (r.a.) and, as is reported in numerous Hadith, with orders or approvals of RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.). Some were set up, some ambushed, some immediately killed, some properly executed.

The fact that such an important part of Seerat un Nabi (s.a.w.) is one of the most obscure ones is a mind-boggling phenomenon. We’ve been taught in our schools and colleges and higher levels that Islam is a religion of tolerance, that RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) always fought when war was thrust upon Muslims and that RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) pardoned each and every one of his enemies – even the killers of Hadhrat Hamza (r.a.)- on the day of Fath Makka,.

It turns out that we’ve been told only partial truths!

The history that we have been studying in our course book has been contorted; the Truth has been misconstrued. The roots of the current science-centric education system that we are following in Pakistan, can be traced back to two major movements historically: a) Malthusianism[1] and b) the Ali Garh movement[2]. It was with the efforts of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan that Muslims started studying the sciences and English language and his services can’t be denied. Yet, it was also largely due to his influence that Muslims, early after, adopted the already corrupt and infected education system set by British East India Company.

The advent of this modern education in Muslims became the main cause of promotion of a more docile version of Islam. A docile, rather toothless, version of Islam that practices non-violence to the core and goes to war only when war is thrust upon it. While that’s not entirely untrue, it’s not the whole truth either. There are countless examples when the offensive was taken by Muslims and took the Kuffar by surprise. Ghazwa Badr was well and truly the first proper battle between Muslims and Kuffar but what’s not told to us is that there were as many as eight military expeditions sent or led by RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) before the battle of Badr. Each of those expeditions paid dividends and a large area in Hijaz which was earlier under allegiance with Quraish either became a Muslim ally or became neutral. Also, there’re a lot of examples of preemptive strikes out of which the famous battle of Khyber and the battle of Bani Al-Mustaliq are famous. Reading our history in this way casts a totally different light altogether to how we should go about our religious duties. But by and large, these incidents have been obscured by our education system and either inadvertently or intentionally created breeds after breeds of apologists whose life’s work is to deny such important elements of our history.

Some glaring examples can be found in response to the recent case of Aasia Maseeh, the woman convicted of blasphemy against RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.). While there are liberal fascist making raucous noises to repeal the blasphemy law altogether, there are also some apologists, senior opinion-makers in the print and electronic media, who are trying to remind us of the tolerance in our religion, that a mother of 5 children – one of which is disabled- should be pardoned, especially after she says she’s sorry. There are also such daft columnists who see Salman Taseer’s hasty visit with his family to the convicted woman in prison and conducting a press conference there as an act out of empathy. It’s beyond words how disgusted the people of Pakistan are with the efforts of the ruling class to have a convict of blasphemy pardoned, that too on the orders of Pope Benedict, while the same ruling elite is tightlipped over the abduction and illegitimate trial of Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

But even if we assume that the government will go the whole nine yards to get Aasia removed to some western country, it seems appropriate at this point to see if pardoning Aasia Maseeh is within the power of the government or not.

Apologists claim that RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) pardoned everyone who ever said anything foul to him. They give the examples of the women who threw garbage on RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) daily, whom he (s.a.w.) had visited when she’d fallen ill. They also give the examples of conquest of Makka (Fath Makka) when he (s.a.w.) pardoned everyone in Makka. They also claim Aasia Maseeh said she’s sorry and has hence repented. They also say that Aasia is a non Muslim and Muslim capital punishment is not applicable to her. They say she’s a women and she’s poor so she should be pardoned. That we should pardon her to show goodwill towards west and thus pave the way to Islam’s preaching.

First of all, the amnesty on the day of the Fath Makka was for everyone, except there was a black list. A list of those who were to be slain even if they were found hanging with the curtains of Kabba, the most sacred of sacred places on earth. Ibn Khatal, as it goes, was found exactly in this situation and still was executed. There were two slavegirls of Ibn Khatal who used to sing absurdities against RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) and they were also in that list. It’s important to note that they were also women like Aasia, they were also non-muslims like her, they probably were also poor, in fact they were slaves and hence had no free will, still they were executed. Ibn Taimiyah says that it shows that blasphemy against RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) is an even greater crime than murder.

Secondly, even if we agree that RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) pardoned some when he found it appropriate, it should stand as his prerogative and that’s it. Now we can’t pardon anyone on his behalf. Neither the government, nor the complainant.

Thirdly, even if she’s sorry for what she did doesn’t make her crime any milder. It’s similar if a murderer on the death row says he’s sorry, doesn’t absolve him of his crime. After all we’ve just seen that the crime that was perpetrated here was bigger than murder. It’s the verdict of scholars new and old, that the perpetrator of blasphemy should be killed immediately and not to be given a chance.

Lastly, we shouldn’t pardon her to just show our goodwill towards the west. Just to show how tolerant we are. That’s the most absurd excuse to do something equally absurd. If we had dealt with blasphemers in the way of Sahaba (r.a.) lately, our outlook would be a lot more different from it is today. It’s because of this tolerant behavior that any tom, harry or dick could say or write what he likes about our sacred personalities. If Salman Rushdi had been slain back then in the eighties, or Tasleema Nasreen back in the nineties, or the perpetrators of the European newspapers controversy had been killed back then, we would be a lot better off than we are today. Every time something like this happens, our response has grown weaker. And now it has come down to the point where our government is trying to dodge its public to provide safe passage to a convict of blasphemy. I seek refuge with ALLAH (s.w.t.) from the day when our public would be trying to save such a criminal from punishment.

As an afterthought, we probably should agree with the liberal fascists on one thing. That the blasphemy law should be repealed altogether. As it happens, having a law for a crime makes the punishment predictable. And when something is predictable it’s all the more defendable. If there’s no blasphemy law, then public would do justice on its own. The anticipation of punishment would be all the more painful for the perpetrators as the punishment itself.

There would be a Ghazi Ilm Deen Shaheed on every street, every city! 


[1] Malthusianism refers to the political/economic thought of Reverend and indirect employee of British East India Company Thomas Robert Malthus, whose ideas were first developed during the industrial revolution. It follows his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population, which had a great impact on the way British East India Company managed India; it had a great impact on economic\political\education policies of Great Britain.
[2] Aligarh Movement was the movement led by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, to educate the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent after the defeat of the rebels in the Indian rebellion of 1857.

Advertisements

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Newspaper News, baigsaab. baigsaab said: Blasphemy Law and The Dilemma of the Apologists!: http://wp.me/puzXU-1U […]

  2. Hasan said, on December 9, 2010 at 06:57

    Baig sahab,

    As I started reading your post, you seemed a knowledgeable intellectual. But as I finished it, I am in a state of grief. While you claim to know everything about Islamic history, truth is you know nothing.

    I can tell you that there’s overwhelming evidence that the only suitable punishment against blasphemy to RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) and all the prophets of ALLAH (s.w.t.) is death, and a swift one at that! Not only there’re instances that Sahaba (r.a.) killed blasphemers but they did so with the approval, and in some cases orders, of RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.).

    Ka’b ibn Ashraf, Abu Rafay, Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls, a jewish woman in Medina and lots of others are such criminals that were slain by Sahaba (r.a.) and, as is reported in numerous Hadith, with orders or approvals of RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.). Some were set up, some ambushed, some immediately killed, some properly executed.

    Blasphemy law, first surfaced in medieval Europe (Britain to be precise). It was a law that safeguarded the Church of England from criticism. When British rule came to India and the Mughul empire came to an end, Hindu rebellions started all round the sub-continent against Muslims and Islam. The British government, with minor changes to their existing law, enforced this law in their sub-continental colonies. It was for law and order purposes only. Later, General Zia, for his own pleasure enacted this law into the constitution of Pakistan with minor changes.

    http://dinopak.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/the-blasphemy-law-of-pakistan/

    This article discusses the complete history of blasphemy law.

    On to the victory of Mecca, Islamic historians have distorted history to their own accord. I have discussed the events and executions on that day here:

    http://dinopak.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/why-blasphemy-law-is-not-islamic/

    What is baffling is the fact that you can easily swallow the fact that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) executed anyone just due to the fact that the other person called him names?

    Doesn’t that fall in the category of ‘violent revenge’. Aren’t you alleging here that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) did indeed took revenge for his mockery? Why don’t you re-call the event of Ta’if, or the lady that threw trash on the Prophet on his way to the mosque?

    The ‘military’ expeditions you are talking about, were due to the fact that the tribes around Medina (who were involved in the pact of Medina) started meddling around and broke the pact. Not even then the Prophet took to the sword, but when it went so far as to hurting a Muslim woman on her way to the city, only then was the time that the Prophet picked his sword up.

    Tell me sir, in all the history of religions, which Prophet is there who wasn’t ridiculed, who wasn’t mocked, who wasn’t trialed. Attempts were made to kill the Holy men of Allah but they didn’t succeed. Think about what you are trying to say about the person for which Allah says “And we sent you as a blessing for all worlds”. A blessing for the worlds, takes revenge if someone mocks him?

    The Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) was a far greater man than you think sir, I will have to ask you to re-study and research the facts, upon which you are backing a man made law, which wasn’t even remotely related to Islam in the first place.

    • baigsaab said, on December 9, 2010 at 22:54

      Assalamoallaikum Hasan,

      If you’ve read it till the very end, you’d have found out my actual feelings about the blasphemy law. It’s strange though that you believe medieval european history but not Muslim history. Even stranger is the notion that any person who behaves apathetically may be a knoweldgeable individual but who doesn’t, isn’t!

      I don’t say or think, and no one ever does, that the punishment that RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) gave to Ka’b ibn Ashraf, Abu Rafay, Ibn Khatal and others was something to do with personal revenge. That would be most inappropriate to assume that RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) ever punished anyone for personal revenge. RasooluLLAH’s (s.a.w.) actions are with orders from ALLAH (s.w.t.). So if he ordered those criminals to be killed, it was with the orders or approval of ALLAH (s.w.t.), not “violent personal revenge”.

      Narrated ‘Aisha: Whenever Allah’s Apostle was given the choice of one of two matters, he would choose the easier of the two, as long as it was not sinful to do so, but if it was sinful to do so, he would not approach it. Allah’s Apostle never took revenge (over anybody) for his own sake but (he did) only when Allah’s Legal Bindings were outraged in which case he would take revenge for Allah’s Sake. (Sahih Bukhari, Book #56, Hadith #760)

      Blasphemy against RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) isn’t a simple act of ridiculing an individual. As it is stated in the Quran in part of Ayat 6 of Surah Ahzab…

      “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. “

      And as is stated in a sahih hadith:

      Narrated Anas: The Prophet said “None of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind.” (Sahih Bukhari, Book #2, Hadith #14)

      So it’s not an act against one individual, it’s an act against the entire Muslim Ummah. RasooluLLAH(s.a.w.) is our connection to ALLAH (s.w.t.) The Quran was revealed upon him. He told us about the hereafter. He told us about the existence of the One true Rabb. Ridiculing him is to ridicule the Quran brought by him, the news of the hereafter he brought, and to ridicule the facts that he told us. So It’s not against a person, it’s against our theology, against everything sacred to us.

      http://kashifiat.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-western-double-standards-on-the-blasphemy-law/

      Secondly, it’s important to note that all these punishments were carried out after the hijrah, when Muslims were in power. The incidents of Taif and Makkah happened when Muslims weren’t in power and it wasn’t possible to execute these criminals. And if you are aware, Nazar ibn Harith and Aqba Ibn Abi Muaeet were two leaders of Quraish who were taken prisoners in the battle of Badr but were executed en route Madina.

      In the history of religions, prophets were mocked, correct! But there was always another prophet to come after him who’d tell people the truth. RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) is the last and final messenger of ALLAH (s.w.t.) and it’s perfectly logical that such a punishment be given to the perpetrators of blasphemy against him.

      ALLAH knows best.

      Assalamoallaikum

  3. Hasan said, on December 10, 2010 at 06:12

    It’s strange though that you believe medieval european history but not Muslim history.

    I have studied Muslim history, and I am sorry to disappoint you, there are no cases of ‘execution’ on blasphemy. Infact, during the Rashidah Khilafat, the law doesn’t even exists.

    RasooluLLAH’s (s.a.w.) actions are with orders from ALLAH (s.w.t.). So if he ordered those criminals to be killed, it was with the orders or approval of ALLAH (s.w.t.), not “violent personal revenge”.

    While you have quoted the Hadiths and the verses of Qura’an, I fail to see where it is ‘ordered’ to kill someone on blasphemy.

    Even the authors of the blasphemy law acknowledge that the punishment is unIslamic. The senior advocate of the Supreme Court Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, the chief architect of Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) writes on pages 336-7 of the fourth edition (2010) of his book titled Namoos-i-Rasool (SAS) aur Qanoon-i-Tauhin-i-Risalat, he proposes an amendment to Section 295-C to make it less stringent.

    He acknowledges that the present Section 295-C of the PPC is not in accordance with the Holy Quran and Sunnah and is indiscriminate as regards intentional and unintentional (bil irada and bila irada) offences of blasphemy in respect of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)

    Ridiculing him is to ridicule the Quran brought by him, the news of the hereafter he brought, and to ridicule the facts that he told us. So It’s not against a person, it’s against our theology, against everything sacred to us.

    Alright, I agree we get emotional when someone ridicules our Prophet (pbuh), but I fail to understand that in a country where polytheism is allowed, we chop off heads of those who is mocking the Prophet of Islam (pbuh)? We allow blasphemy towards Allah the King of Kings, but we will not tolerate blasphemy towards his Holy servant (pbuh)?

    Ultimately the question becomes, who sir is higher in rank for you. Is it God or the Prophet of God (pbuh)?

    • baigsaab said, on December 10, 2010 at 08:15

      Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who would kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf as he has harmed Allah and His Apostle ?” Muhammad bin Maslama (got up and) said, “I will kill him.” So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, “I want a loan of one or two Wasqs of food grains.” Ka’b said, “Mortgage your women to me.” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “How can we mortgage our women, and you are the most handsome among the Arabs?” He said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” Muhammad said, “How can we mortgage our sons, as the people will abuse them for being mortgaged for one or two Wasqs of food grains? It is shameful for us. But we will mortgage our arms to you.” So, Muhammad bin Maslama promised him that he would come to him next time. They (Muhammad bin Maslama and his companions came to him as promised and murdered him. Then they went to the Prophet and told him about it. (Book #45, Hadith #687)

      Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib: Allah’s Apostle sent a group of Ansari men to kill abu-rafi. One of them set out and entered their (i.e. the enemies) fort. That man said, “I hid myself in a stable for their animals. They closed the fort gate. Later they lost a donkey of theirs, so they went out in its search. I, too, went out along with them, pretending to look for it. They found the donkey and entered their fort. And I, too, entered along with them. They closed the gate of the fort at night, and kept its keys in a small window where I could see them. When those people slept, I took the keys and opened the gate of the fort and came upon abu rafi and said, ‘O abu rafi. When he replied me, I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He shouted and I came out to come back, pretending to be a helper. I said, ‘O abu rafi, changing the tone of my voice. He asked me, ‘What do you want; woe to your mother?’ I asked him, ‘What has happened to you?’ He said, ‘I don’t know who came to me and hit me.’ Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. Then I came out, filled with puzzlement and went towards a ladder of theirs in order to get down but I fell down and sprained my foot. I came to my companions and said, ‘I will not leave till I hear the wailing of the women.’ So, I did not leave till I heard the women bewailing abu rafi, the merchant pf Hijaz. Then I got up, feeling no ailment, (and we proceeded) till we came upon the Prophet and informed him.” (Book #52, Hadith #264)

      Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, “ibn khatal is holding the covering of the Ka’ba (taking refuge in the Ka’ba).” The Prophet said, “Kill him.” (Book #29, Hadith #72)

      These narratives are all from Sahih Bukhari, which is a 100 times more authentic than a history book. For further reading it is recommended to read Ar Raheeq ul Makhtoom (Safi ur Rehman Mubarak puri) and As Saarim ul Maslool (Ibn Taimiyah) (The second one i haven’t read myself but have heard of a lot)…

      Only ALLAH knows the precise reason why it is so that a person creating partners with ALLAH is allowed to live and practice his religion but a person ridiculing RasooluLLAH (s.a.w.) is executed. Our job is to understand the religion as it was given to us by ALLAH’s messenger (s.a.w.), if that seems wrong to some then it’s a problem in their understanding not ours.

      • Hasan said, on December 10, 2010 at 09:18

        Dear Baig Sahab,

        The execution of Ka’b bin Ashraf wasn’t due to blasphemy at all. The reason Ka’b bin Ashraf was executed is that he had gone to Mecca after Badr and provoked Quraysh to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him). He later devised a song mocking a Muslim woman in a Jews market which lead to a conflict in the market.

        Though these reasons may not be enough but one must remember that Ka’b bin Ashraf was the head of Banu Nadir, and Banu Nadir was one of the tribes that was included in the pact of Medina. Hence, bin Ashraf’s act of provoking the enemy falls into the category of treason NOT blasphemy. Same for Abu-Rafi as he was doing exactly the same as Ka’b bin Ashraf did.

        I have covered in detail the events of the Conquest of Mecca in my post which can be read here: http://dinopak.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/why-blasphemy-law-is-not-islamic/

        Please take your time and assess the situation and then come to your conclusions. As this is a matter of beliefs not just history.

        WaSalam,

  4. Fundamentalist said, on December 10, 2010 at 12:34

    Great piece of writing…a calculated persuasive and powerful discourse…

  5. Ahmed Abdullah said, on December 10, 2010 at 19:18

    I read your writeup! it doesn’t qoute sources from where you got the things you said there…. please do qoute your sources here as well as there

    Regarding your objection on this Blasphemy law being unislamic, please advise me regarding the following:

    Speaking ill of Allah/Muhammad/Islam/Ahle Bayt/Sahaba in public, in the jurisdiction of a Islamic State, is challenging the writ of an Islamic state; it actually calls for remedial actions, and as Quran says, Fitnah is greater than Murder…… under the light of the above, I think the best of the remedy for such people is to kill the person, since if forgiven, the people would commit this crime and then say sorry, and others would follow the suit; it would provide a way for people to keep mocking the writ of the Islamic State

    Furthermore, When you qoute that everyone of the people who were killed on the orders of Mohammad Sallallahu Elaihe Wasallam at the time of Fatahe Makkah, would you please explain why were Hind and Akrama pardoned, while others were killed? they had committed Murders, and arranged for them? was this injustice?

    …. please comment

    Baig Sahab;

    A. Where did you get you history from? please keep quoting the books and websites from where the materials are collected

  6. baigsaab said, on December 10, 2010 at 22:26

    @ Hasan

    If Ka’b ibn ashraf and abu rafay were slain due to treason why was it carried out in such secretive manner? shouldn’t it have been an open assault like against Banu Nadeer and Banu Qainuqaw?
    And what about Ibn Khatal?

  7. baigsaab said, on December 10, 2010 at 22:50

  8. Hasan said, on December 11, 2010 at 05:22

    @ Hasan

    If Ka’b ibn ashraf and abu rafay were slain due to treason why was it carried out in such secretive manner? shouldn’t it have been an open assault like against Banu Nadeer and Banu Qainuqaw?

    When the Holy Prophet was convinced of these various offenses of Kaab, he determined that Kaab had earned the ultimate penalty several times over. In the atmosphere that prevailed in Medina at the time, any disciplinary action against Kaab was bound to start a dangerous civil war in Medina; and the Holy Prophet was anxious to avoid such a contingency at all costs. He, therefore, decided that Kaab would not be executed publicly, but silently without any fuss.

    And what about Ibn Khatal?

    Regarding Ibn Khatal, I have asked you to read my article. http://dinopak.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/why-blasphemy-law-is-not-islamic/

    Let me quote the case of Ibn Khatal from my article for you.

    Abdullah ibn Khatal:

    Abdullah ibn Khatal, who had previously accepted Islam and been sent by the Prophet to collect alms tax. A slave and one of the Ansar (dweller of Medina) went along with him. Coming to a halt in their journey, Abdullah ibn Khatal told the slave to prepare a chicken for a meal, but the slave went to sleep instead, and was unable to prepare the food in time. Abdullah ibn Khatal became angry and killed the slave. Fearing that if he returned to Medina, the Prophet would exact retribution for the slave’s death, he reneged and joined the infidels. On the day Mecca was conquered, he was executed upon orders of the Prophet (peace be upon him), not for apostasy, not for blasphemy, but for the killing of the slave.

    • baigsaab said, on December 12, 2010 at 16:21

      “he was executed upon orders of the Prophet (peace be upon him), not for apostasy, not for blasphemy, but for the killing of the slave. ”

      You’re speculating… And the discussion so far has only vindicated my point that i made in my post.

    • Ahmed Abdullah said, on December 14, 2010 at 16:48

      @ Hasan

      Could you kindly reply?

  9. Ahmed Abdullah said, on December 11, 2010 at 12:31

    my comment was mainly for Hasan

  10. Hasan said, on December 15, 2010 at 06:06

    Speaking ill of Allah/Muhammad/Islam/Ahle Bayt/Sahaba in public, in the jurisdiction of a Islamic State, is challenging the writ of an Islamic state; it actually calls for remedial actions, and as Quran says, Fitnah is greater than Murder…… under the light of the above, I think the best of the remedy for such people is to kill the person, since if forgiven, the people would commit this crime and then say sorry, and others would follow the suit; it would provide a way for people to keep mocking the writ of the Islamic State

    Furthermore, When you qoute that everyone of the people who were killed on the orders of Mohammad Sallallahu Elaihe Wasallam at the time of Fatahe Makkah, would you please explain why were Hind and Akrama pardoned, while others were killed? they had committed Murders, and arranged for them? was this injustice?

    First of all due apologies for writing in late, my first reaction to your question will be a counter question. How can you not tolerate if someone speaks ill of the ‘personalities’ in a country, but within the same country someone can worship multiple Gods. Isn’t polytheism blasphemy towards God? Fitnah my friend, is another thing to be understood. Fitnah can be anything from stealing someone’s goat to pinching someone.

    Logical definition of the fitnah punishable by death would be, if someone causes two people or groups of people to fight and shed blood. The case of Ka’b bin Ashraf for instance, he inticed the Quraish to come and fight the Muslims in Medina. In the case of blasphemy, though we love and respect the name of the Prophet peace be upon him, but the biggest lesson we have learnt from his life is patience. Trust me, killing in the name of the Prophet isn’t going to get your more Muslims, and this will enrage more non-Muslims.

    Besides I have already put out details to the Origins of the blasphemy law and the killings on Mecca conquest

    Read it here:
    http://dinopak.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/the-blasphemy-law-of-pakistan/
    http://dinopak.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/why-blasphemy-law-is-not-islamic/

    Akrama’s pardon is there but I should quote it to you here.

    Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl:

    Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl who, following in his father’s footsteps, was an uncompromising opponent of Islam. Seeing that he was sure to meet his end in Mecca, he fled to the Yemen. His wife, Umm Hakim bint Harith, who had accepted Islam, appealed to the Prophet for asylum on behalf of her husband. Her request was granted, and she went to the Yemen to collect Ikrimah. He returned with her and became Muslim at the hand of the Prophet.

    Hind’s pardon was a grace from the Prophet peace be upon him, Hind wasn’t a killer she was merely a mad woman overwhelmed with emotion. The Prophet peace be upon him showed is greatness by pardoning him, that marks a standard for us followers of that great man peace be upon him to walk in his footsteps, though I sadly say, none of us Muslims have patience and control over our emotions. None of us can even come close to the caliber of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, don’t you think we should atleast try?

  11. Umm said, on January 1, 2012 at 19:31

    Sadly, many people today base their understanding of Islam on conjecture but present their argument in a manner that makes it seem like one based on daleel, while such is not the case.

    E.g the reader’s “daleel” that the penalty for blasphemy is not death by presenting the case of the woman who threw trash, or the event of Taif. But the fault is not entirely theirs, for so-called scholars today are propagating such notions. They pick and choose any part of Islamic history to support their version of Islam, one that appeases the Kuffar and does not put their life and interests at stake.

    Areas such as blasphemy and Jihad fall under categories with clear rulings e.g prayers and fasting. E.g you will not hear anyone quote the case of Makkah and say “Well prayers were not 5 at that point and fasting in Ramadan was not compulsory, so today if we you have a difficult time doing all 5 prayers and fasting, you may reduce your prayers as Muslims did in Makkah”

    Similarly, blasphemy and Jihad are not grey areas as scholars (for dollars) today present them to be. In Makkah, Muslims were told to hold back their hands from war, and ruling on blasphemy was different. But once Allah s.w.t completed the Deen in Medina, these rulings were changed. Muslims were allowed to fight those who fought them, and also those Kuffar who refused to become Zimmis and chose to confront the Islamic State.

    Just as we apply those rulings regarding prayers and fasting that were exercised in Medina, we are to follow those rulings regarding blasphemy and Jihad that were applied in Medina and those prior to completion of Deen (in Makkah) become inapplicable.

    So by quoting such examples (as in a comment above), Muslims are misled regarding some of the foundational principles of Islam – the concept of love and disavowal ( al wala wal baraa) and consequently misunderstanding blasphemy and Jihad.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: