Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION

The untold story of Pakistan‘s blasphemy law

Arafat Mazhar

A few days ago, a video of erstwhile pop icon and widely In the collective imagination of mainstream Pakistan,
heard Islamic evangelist, Junaid Jamshed went viral on blasphemy is not a pardonable offense and anyone who
the Internet, in which his remarks were perceived as believes otherwise is also committing blasphemy, and must
blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and similarly pay with their life.
his wife, Ayesha (RA).
Junaid Jamshed‘s plea for mercy has raised a question
By the time of the writing of this article, he has been about whether or not a repentant blasphemer may indeed
charged under the Blasphemy Law (clause 295-C of the be pardoned.
Pakistan Penal Code). The clause reads:
This is also not the first time the issue is coming under
295-C – Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the inspection.
Holy Prophet:
The question was asked centuries ago by Hanafi Jurists
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible such as Abu Hanifa, his student Abu Yusuf in Kitab al-
representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or Kharaj, Imam Tahawi in Mukhtasar al-Tahawi, Imam
insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name Sufyan ath-Thawri, Imam Abu Bakar Ala al-Din Kasani
of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in Bada'i as Sanai, Taqī al-Dīn al-Subki in al-Sayf al-
shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, maslūl ‗alā man sabba al-Rasūl, and a vast number of
and shall also be liable to fine. other eminent Hanafi scholars.

The law prescribes a fixed death penalty for all those who All were led to the question that Junaid Jamshed is
are found guilty. The option of life imprisonment was currently plagued by:
made defunct after a 1991 Federal Shariat Court
judgement. Is blasphemy a pardonable offense?

Junaid Jamshed has already responded with a public The answer, it is clear, was a categorical yes.
repentance, re-affirmation of his faith and a plea for
pardon. The stance that ‗blasphemers who ask for a pardon would
be spared the death penalty‘ has already been established
Unfortunately, for Junaid Jamshed, the dominant by the founder of the Hanafi school of thought, Abu
religious narrative in the country holds that blasphemy is Hanifa.
an unpardonable offence.
Within the Hanafi position, it simply does not go higher
Simply put – you blaspheme, you die. than Abu Hanifa, and it is the Hanafi school of thought
that is foremost in significance, in terms of religio-legal
No ifs, ands or buts about it. The credibility of this debates in the Supreme Court, the Federal Sharia Court
assertion is built on an apparently universal consensus and the Council of Islamic Ideology.
(ijma) on the subject across all four Sunni schools of
thought. By maintaining this front of scholarly consensus, Moreover, a long line of students and followers of Abu
the religious leadership disallows any concept of an Hanifa, legal heavyweights of their respective eras,
alternative position. further corroborated this position in many of their works.
Centuries of Hanafi scholarship have maintained the
This idea of a unanimous scholarly endorsement of an same categorical answer to our original question: Yes,
unwaivable death penalty for blasphemy has been blasphemy is a pardonable offense.
relentlessly repeated: in the Federal Sharia Court
Judgment on the blasphemy law in the ‗90s, in the Keep in mind: as per the principles (usul) of the Hanafi
Parliament, in the popular print and oral narrative on jurisprudence, a consensus of Abu Hanifa and his
television channels, and has seeped deeply into the students cannot now be challenged.
consciousness of the Pakistani population.

Page 1 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
This is one of the primary principles of taqlid in Excerpt from translated summary of Ibn Abidin‘s Radd
traditional Islamic legal thought. al-Muhtar ala al-Dur al-Mukhtar.

The letter of the law 295-C makes no mention of the

permissibility of pardoning a blasphemer.

In fact, it is a Federal Sharia Court interpretation of the

law that serves as the operational blueprint of the
application of the law, which rules out pardon.

They considered the same sources as listed above, and

somehow reached the opposite conclusion: that the
authoritative position of Imam Abu Hanifa and his
students is that blasphemy is not, in fact, a pardonable
offense.

How could this possibly have happened? How could such

a clearly stated position, maintained for centuries, be so
misinterpreted?

In my pursuit of answers, I discovered that in the 15th

century a Hanafi scholar, Al-Bazzazzi, misquoted the
Hanafi position on pardon that had been established
since the time of Abu Hanifa.
Excerpt from Ibn Abidin‘s Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Dur al-
It is important to note that he was not offering an Mukhtar in Arabic.
alternative stance; he meant to describe the original
position but erroneously ended up misrepresenting it One of the most important scholarly figures in Islamic
entirely. It is baffling to consider how he could have legal tradition, and one of the most revered figures in
strayed so far from the original position. Deobandi madrassahs across Pakistan, Imam Ibn Abidin
had the wisdom and foresight to warn that these
Imam Ibn e Abidin, one of the most revered scholars in competing narratives, if allowed to exist, would create
South Asia, chancing upon his erroneous depiction, was undue confusion and chaos. He counseled the scholars to
moved to write an impassioned critique of this divergent be meticulous in their research on the referencing of
position – not only explaining Bazzazzi‘s error as a primary resources.
'misreading of two important works' (Al Sarim-ul-Maslool
ala Shatim-ur-Rasool by Ibn Taymiyyah and Al Shifa by Where Pakistan's laws came from
Qadi Iyad), but also summarily dismissing the idea that
Advocate Ismaeel Qureshi, the architect of the blasphemy
blasphemy is unpardonable as ―ridiculous‖.
law, apparently did not get the memo.

In his best-selling book on blasphemy and his petition,

Qureshi apparently built his case of an irrevocable death
penalty, with no scope for pardon on the works of leading
Hanafi authorities, and ironically, Imam Ibn Abidin
himself.

In an a case of history repeating itself, he followed in Al-

Bazzazzi‘s footsteps in erroneously subverting the
position of Imam Ibn Abidin.

At one point, in Fatawa e Shami, Ibn Abidin takes

Bazzazzi‘s claim – ‗the punishment for blasphemy is
death, it is unpardonable and anyone who disagrees is
also guilty of blasphemy‘ – dissects it and goes on to
criticise it for the next six pages.

Advocate Ismaeel Qureshi, grasping the first thing he saw,

slaps Imam Ibn Abidin‘s name on to the very position that

Page 2 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
Abidin so passionately refuted right after quoting the Why does no credible source from the mainstream
original problematic claim. religious leadership then step forward and set the record
straight?

It seems to be of greater importance to withhold the facts

of the case, as a more open dialogue may also incidentally
amount to collusion with the secular position – surely, the
worst of crimes.

In the midst of all this chaos and misinformation, there is

still hope for the likes of Asia Bibi and Junaid Jamshed.

There is no need to change the letter of the blasphemy law

for Junaid Jamshed and Asia Bibi to get their pardon. All
that is required is to revisit the judicial interpretation, and
rectify the erroneous conclusion of the Federal Sharia
Court that was reached on the basis of dubious research.

The blasphemy law, according to the Hanafi position,

allows for pardon.

Excerpt showing Advocate Ismaeel Qureshi incorrectly That is all that Imam Ibn Abidin pointed out.
attributed Bazzazzi's position to Ibn Abidin.
Pakistan's blasphemy law continues to sustain popularity
and credence, with death being considered not only the
most appropriate retribution for offenders, but the only
one. This ideology is embraced most wholeheartedly
when it comes to non-Muslims charged with blasphemy.

In my previous article when I spoke of the

authentic Hanafi position on the permissibility of pardon
for all blasphemers (Muslims and non-Muslims), the
overwhelming response supported such a pardon for the
likes of Junaid Jamshed (a ‗fellow Muslim brother who
had offended some by mistake‘) but held that the same
principle of pardon could not be extended to non-Muslim
offenders such as Asia Bibi.

This is largely reflective of the predominant public

narrative on blasphemy.
Advocate Ismaeel Qureshi incorrectly attributed Those who dissent – who speak of pardon and of waiving
Bazzazzi's position to Ibn Abidin. the death penalty, particularly for non-Muslims – are
seen to be speaking from borrowed western ideologies or
When I learnt of this, I approached Advocate Ismaeel
from a faith deemed too weak to be seen as a credible
Qureshi with the primary text and showed him the
authority for the public. This has made it convenient for
counter-evidence to his assertions.
citizens to largely ignore those who plead for clemency,
Qureshi acknowledged that mistakes had been made in reducing these voices to a small, ineffective and irrelevant
the research upon which the judicial interpretation of force, at best.
Pakistan's blasphemy law now rests. The history and
There was a time when this was not so – in fact, at one
process of how the events transpired to produce the law in
point, the most revered ulema (religious scholars) of
its current form therefore, reads like a series of
South Asia had rallied together to defend the position that
unfortunate errors.
non-Muslims could not be awarded the death penalty for
The repercussions for those caught in the crossfire, are blaspheming.
however, far more deadly than just 'unfortunate'.
This occurred in the late 19th century, when the South
Asian ulema (the overwhelming majority of whom

Page 3 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
belonged to the Hanafi school of thought) were under
ideological attack from the Ahl-e-Hadith.

The Ahl-i-Hadith originated as a movement influenced

(and later funded) by the Wahabis of the Arabian
Peninsula. This movement challenged the
established Hanafi rulings on various issues, including
blasphemy, alleging that these were based on opinion
(ra`y) and Greek influenced analogy-driven reasoning
(Qiyas), rather than on prophetic tradition (Ahadith).

In particular, they took exception to what they perceived

as Hanafi lenience towards non-Muslims blasphemers
(i.e. not prescribing a fixed death penalty and the
provision for pardon) which they viewed as incompatible
with Ahadith.

The exact position of Abu Hanifa (the founder of Hanafi

The monumental fatwa endorsed by 450 scholars that
School) that ends up being a source of contention for the
shows that killing is not permissible unless adat
Ahl-i-Hadith.
(habituality) and kasrat (high frequency) of offenses are
These criticisms roused the Hanafi ulema to an established.
impassioned rebuttal.
The Ahl-e-Hadith, in challenging the Hanafi position on
Many of them targeted the Ahl-e-Hadith from within blasphemy presented a compilation of Ahadith which
their own framework, deconstructing several Ahadith that supposedly showed that blasphemous offenders
formed the basis of these criticisms. (including non-Muslims) were in fact killed, and that
therefore the Hanafi ruling was erroneous in this regard.
One such example is a monumental, 21-volume
commentary, the I'la al-Sunan (the exaltation of the In the rebuttal, the fatwa pointed to an important flaw in
normative practices [of the Prophet]) by Maulana Zafar the Ahle-Hadith argument — that the Ahadith thus
Ahmad ‗Uthmani, aiming to demonstrate, against the presented all pertained to cases of repeat or habitual
charges of the Ahl-i-Hadith, that the legal doctrines of offenders.
the Hanafi school were in fact solidly based in traditions
of the Prophet (PBUH). There is not a single case where a non-Muslim was ever
killed for committing a singular offense of blasphemy.
Despite monolithic individual efforts of such stature, the
most profound and relevant in terms of blasphemy, in my (Further, according to Imam Abu Hanifa, the death
view, was Fath Al Mubeen Tanbeeh Al Wahabin (an penalty is awarded in cases where it is categorised
explicit victory and a warning against the Wahabis). as siyasa (political) punishment, as opposed
to sharia (divine) punishment, against elements openly
This contains a fatwa (see below) that clearly states that a rebelling against the Islamic state, using habitual
non-Muslim blasphemer cannot be killed unless he/she blasphemy as a tool).
is habitual in the offense.
This legal position was approved and signed by no less
This last part is an important qualifier because it than 450 of the most prestigious names in the Hanafi
differentiates single acts of blasphemy from multiple and ulema, not just from South Asia, but around the world.
deliberate attempts, in fact from what is considered
politically rebellious blasphemy. It is difficult to come up with a case study of a bigger
systematic consensus (ijma) than this one. Hundreds of
leading ulema of their time from South Asia have declared
that non-Muslims cannot be killed for a single offense for

Page 4 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
blasphemy and their pardon is acceptable unless it
becomes a habitual and high frequency offense.

But to really appreciate the magnitude of this ruling for a

country like Pakistan, we must look to some of the key
signatories of this stance — one of them being Ahmed
Raza Khan Barelvi.

Many readers might know that Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi

was the founder of the Barelvi school of thought, one of
the two predominant Hanafi groups, and the religious
orientation to which groups like Sunni Tehreek subscribe.
The founder is considered a Pir, Saint and a most revered
figure, amongst his followers, and the general populace.

Ironically, four years ago this month, Punjab Governer

Salman Taseer was assassinated by Mumtaz Qadri, for
pleading for pardon for Asia Bibi.

Mumtaz Qadri, who is a devout Barelvi, would be

surprised, I am sure, to learn that the founder and most
respected figure of his sect had endorsed pardon for non-
Muslim blasphemers, and the view that non-Muslims
cannot be killed for a single offense of blasphemy.

Incidentally, the co-founder of the other of the

two Hanafi groups (Deoband), Mahmood Hassan
Deobandi – also known as the Sheikh al Hind – is also a
signatory on the above.

A partial list of signatories fath al mubeen showing the

endorsement of founder of Barelvi and Deobandi thought.

Both the founders of Deoband and Barelvi have endorsed

the position that a non-Muslim cannot be killed for a
single offense of blasphemy and therefore must be
pardoned.

It is interesting to note that as per the Hanafi thought, we

might be talking about no jail time/punishment for the
first offense.

The Hanafi position clearly stating that first time offenders

will only be warned, meaning that may not even be subjected
to jail time.

Page 5 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
Quite apart from this fatwa, there is another key scholar According to the rulings of founder of Hanafi School,
of immediate relevance in the minds and hearts of the founder of Deoband thought, founder of Barelvi thought
nation who has echoed the same position as these revered and the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, Asia Bibi should be
names. given a pardon.

Maulana Maududi is a household name across the What punishment then, would our clergy, our Mumtaz
country and is the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the Qadris, and our vigilante mobs, like to prescribe for their
main religio-political parties in Pakistan. revered religious figures, the founders of their sects and
450 of the most prestigious scholars in South Asia and
Readers might be surprised to know that Maulana around the world, for allowing pardon for non-Muslims?
Maududi has also said that an act of blasphemy does not
leave non-Muslims liable to capital punishment by the The voices of these scholars are key for the change in
state. narrative around the blasphemy law, opening space for
conversation and debate, in building tolerance, in
honouring the real voices of those who have dedicated
their lives to studying these positions.

Most importantly, referencing these scholars ensures that

no grave injustice occurs in the fair name of our Prophet
(PBUH) — an act of devotion we sorely need.

Why blasphemy remains unpardonable in Pakistan

This is a story of a group of religious and religio-political

actors who completely changed their position on the
The rights of dhimmi (non-Muslims) living in a Muslim blasphemy law for what they perceived to be the greater
state include protection of his life even in instances of good of the society.
blasphemy as per Maulana Maududi.
It was not that long ago that the Pakistani ulema were
All this nuanced handling of the issue is a far cry from the openly stating a position on the blasphemy law that said
reality of its application today, where a single blasphemy does not mandate a fixed penalty, and is a
unfortunate, ill-informed, ill-judged alleged utterance can pardonable offense.
lead to a conviction under the law, and the death penalty.
And then, something changed.
Our law in letter and in its judicial interpretation
Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer‘s assassination acted as
prescribes a hudd punishment for a single offense of
a catalyst for a rapid shift from what they originally held
blasphemy.
to be true (not only expounded by others but by their own
It makes no distinction between Muslims and non- selves) to a much more radical and populist stance.
Muslims, repeat vs single
These figures of religious authority had uncovered a
offences, siyasa vs sharia punishment.
simple code: regardless of political or religious
It goes against hundreds of top South Asian ulema and it orientation, the nation will rally together in defence of the
goes against the founders of the predominant religio- name of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).
political groups in Pakistan.
Moreover, this law and the narrative surrounding it serve
The idea that the current interpretation of this law is as a tool for the persecution of minorities. This claim is
based on a complete consensus in the religious tradition not hyperbole – it is grounded in fact.
is a myth.
The story is best told through visuals.
This is especially crucial for those currently charged
The following infographic compares the extra judicial
under the law, held in jail and fighting for their lives, as in
(vigilante) killings related to blasphemy and accusations
the case of Asia bibi.
of blasphemy before and after the passing of the
She is not guilty of multiple offences of blasphemy. blasphemy law (295-C).

She has begged for pardon multiple times. It also shows the exponential increase in blasphemy cases
over the past two decades.

Page 6 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
It is clear that either people have become a lot more
blasphemous, or there is an inherent capacity within the
law to be used as a weapon of persecution. A more in-depth look at the minorities targeted under the
law reveal what may well be specifically a method
of institutionalised persecution against the Ahmadis.

—Data from 1990-2014.

—Data from 1990-2014.

The power of the law means that it becomes important for

religo-political actors to attach their narrative to the law,
because that is where political mileage lies.

The clearest example of this was when Taseer was

assassinated for requesting a presidential pardon for a
blasphemy accused, and members of the public hailed his
killer as a hero and approved of the murder.

Those who had previously acknowledged the option of

pardon and waiver of the death penalty, recognising the
shift in the locus of power, quickly changed their position
in response to the apparent public sentiment.

The manner in which they have erased all mention of the

—Data from 1990-2014. possibility of pardon from their narrative and public
declarations — endorsing even the polar opposite of what
they have known to be true — makes for a fascinating case
study of binary before and afters. It demonstrates all too
clearly the hand of politics at work in the functioning of
the 'apolitical' religious scholarship. A few cases in point:

Jamia Binoria

Jamia Binoria in Karachi is a major madrassah and its

head, Mufti Naeem, made regular media appearances
defending the law and criticising Salman Taseer for
requesting presidential pardon for Asia Bibi. However, we
know that before the ―event‖, Jamia Binoria itself adopted
a much more lenient stance.

—Data from 1990-2014.

Page 7 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
*The conversation cited in the ―Before‖ is from the official
transcript of a Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) meeting
in 2003-2004 downloadable here.

If Sharia allows pardon in blasphemy cases, who can deny

it?

It appears that Mufti Muneeb had a sudden case of

amnesia during his debate with Ghamidi as he brushes
away the idea in the strongest of terms.

The debate between Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman and Javed

Ahmed Ghamidi

Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman has also gone on record in

conferences declaring that Ghamidi‘s insistence on
pardon is a danger to the religious authority of the ulema.

Looking at the same Mufti Muneeb in a meeting of the

Council Islamic Ideology before the issue was politicised,
it is clear that he knew of the provision of pardon in
Hanafi jurisprudence.

Note that at the time, while acknowledging the existence

of pardon, he was personally reluctant to make the
knowledge public for its 'potential harm'.

Now, of course, by hiding the truth, he has decided for the

people what they should and should not know.
Both fatwas have been taken from the official Jamia
Binoria website in 2010 and 2014 respectively. In contrast to the demand-driven about turns since
Taseer's assassination, we can look to simpler times when
Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman
the issue of pardon was raised in a relative political
Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman has been one of the most vocal vacuum by looking to the stance of no less a personage
supporters of the blasphemy law and has repeatedly than the Grand Mufti of Pakistan.
categorised blasphemy as an unpardonable offense, with a
Grand Mufti of Pakistan – Mufti Rafi Usmani
fixed death penalty.
Our Grand Mufti Rafi Usmani is perhaps the most
He was instrumental in the exile of theologian Javed
authoritative faqih (Islamic Jurist) in Pakistan.
Ahmad Ghamidi from the country after their debate on
blasphemy went public. In 2003, he actually gave a step-by-step procedure for
obtaining pardon for blasphemy (in the Council of Islamic
Ideology Annual Report, 2003-04, pg 135).

This was in response to a query by the state on the

acceptability of pardon for those charged under 295-C.

While these particular steps are for a Muslim (as per the
case in question), he does acknowledge the provision of
pardon as the Hanafi position for non-Muslims in the
same article as well.

Page 8 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
In response, Muhammad Sharif called his son, the Prime
Minister of the country, and instructed him to get the
petition withdrawn.

Nawaz Sharif himself recounts in the acknowledgement

section of Qureshi‘s book how he interfered in a judicial
matter.

The very fact that he gave the criteria for pardon means
that he is giving a legal and procedural way forward for
people like Dr Younus Shaikh and Asia Bibi.

While the politicised religious forces were busy condoning

and celebrating the assassination of Taseer for requesting
pardon for Asia Bibi, buried in the archives of the CII
annual reports, our own Grand Mufti had provided
procedural recommendation for pardon years ago.

The Bench of the Ulema in the Federal Shariat Court

Judgment 1991

As noted in the previous article, Ismaeel Qureshi – the

architect of the law – filed a petition in the Federal
Shariat Court to declare blasphemy a hudd (divinely Nawaz Sharif in the acknowledgement section of Ismaeel
ordained and fixed) offense without provision for pardon. Qureshi‘s book Namoos-i-Rasool aur Qanoon-i-Tauheen-
The court looked towards a bench of seven ulema on the i-Risalat.
question of pardon.
In what is a clear violation of the separation of
Four out of 7 ulema categorically stated that blasphemy institutions in democracy, Nawaz made a phone call to
was a pardonable offense (i.e. the death penalty is not the courts and got the petition thrown out.
fixed).
Why? Because he said so.
The court ignored the majority vote of the bench and went
ahead to formulate a legal interpretation that espoused The nonchalance with which Ismaeel Qureshi narrated
the opposite, making it a hudd offense. this story of political interference speaks volumes about
how commonplace it is for political agendas to creep into
One cannot help but question the judgment, especially and usurp religious narratives.
when we consider the following:

The story of Nawaz Sharif and his father

Why are the religious forces hiding the truth on
After the dubious judgment by the FSC in 1991, a petition pardon?
was filed challenging the decision.
My first article documented the original authentic Hanafi
As discussed in my first article, my research partner and I position on the penalty for blasphemy i.e. it is not
interviewed Ismaeel Qureshi. a hudd offense, there is no death penalty for repentant
Muslim offenders, no death penalty for non-Muslims and
Ismaeel Qureshi made a phone call to Muhammad Sharif, there is a provision of pardon in all cases.
the father of Nawaz Sharif, and told him that someone
was trying to challenge the FSC judgment. ‗You are Why then, do the religious forces deny or hide this?
an aashiq-i-rasool and you cannot let this happen during
your son‘s government,‘ said Qureshi.

Page 9 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
My research partner and I went on a mission to find the At the beginning of this year, when this series
answer to this question. began, Junaid Jamshed had been charged with
blasphemy.
We met Fareed Paracha of Jamaat-i-Islami, as well as the
president of Tanzeem-i-Islami, Hafiz Akif Saeed (son of Judging from comments across social media and forums,
Dr Israr Ahmed). a significant proportion of the online population reacted
with a mood of forgiveness.
After presenting our evidence of the factual inaccuracies
from which the current narrative draws its strength, we Some commentators said he was deserving of sympathy
asked for their opinion. We got the same answer – that it and forgiveness because, even though he was accused of
is a matter of maslihat (public good). It is not in the best blasphemy, he had apologised and was a Muslim. Indeed
interest of the public that information like this be openly my first article went to great lengths to establish the
disseminated. acceptability in Islam for pardon of actual blasphemers.

According to them, revealing this will help the mission of When this same charge is levelled at a non-Muslim,
the 'secular agenda' in the country. however, the reaction is extremely negative, and often
violent.
On a visit to the Jamia Madania, the chief mufti agreed
with all of our research but refused to make it official by Such a reaction is contradictory to the Hanafi jurists who
giving us a fatwa on the issue of pardon. have commented on the issue throughout the past 1200
years. Those jurists represent the stance of the Hanafi
In fact, both our primary and secondary research shows school of thought, which is one of the four schools of
that the instrument of maslihat is used consistently to thought in Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence and the one with
misrepresent the classical Hanafi Jurists on the matter. the largest following in the world, as well as the
predominant theological orientation to which an
The idea being promoted is that Islam is in a fragile state overwhelming majority of Pakistani Sunnis subscribe.
and under attack, both externally from the West, and
internally through growing secular voices. Thus, reverting Contrary to popular sentiment and belief, the position on
to the authentic Hanafi position, which resonates with the Muslim blasphemers is actually stricter and more severe
'secular' demand for clemency and lenience in blasphemy, than on non-Muslims. In fact, throughout the Hanafi
is tantamount to collusion with this 'repugnant' force. tradition, blasphemy by non-Muslims is recognised
merely as an extension of their disbelief.
The mission then becomes to claim and retain ownership
of this religio-political power play, even if it is at the The founder of Hanafi School, Abu Hanifa notes:
expense of intellectual integrity and human lives.
‗If a dhimmi (non-Muslim) insults the Holy Prophet, he
Blasphemy and the death penalty: Misconceptions will not be killed as punishment. A non-Muslim is not
explained killed for his kufr (denying the Prophet) or shirk
(polytheistic beliefs). Kufr/Shirk are bigger sins then sabb
e rasool. – (Therefore non-Muslims will not be killed for
sabb e rasool.)‘ [Al Saif al Maslool]

Further, Abu al-Husayn Ahmad al-Quduri:

‗Non-Muslims insult Allah and say that He has a son and

the Zoroastrians say He has an ―opposite.‖ This does not
break their covenant of security, therefore the same
applies to insult of the prophet PBUH.‘
[Al-Tajrid]

Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Marghinani in Al Hidaya (which is

taught all over Pakistan in Hanafi seminaries) states:

‗Insulting the prophet is kufr/disbelief. Since the non-

Muslims are not killed for their disbelief, they will not be
In the Hanafi school of thought, there is unanimous killed for any addition in their disbelief.‘
prohibition on the killing of non-Muslims for blasphemy. [Al-Hidaya]
—Reuters

Page 10 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
In fact, Tahawi goes on to prescribe a verbal warning as misattribution was subsequently used by Ismaeel Qureshi
an appropriate punishment for an offending non-Muslim: in framing Pakistan‘s blasphemy law.

‗If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, he will be given a Yet, even in al-Bazzazi‘s incorrect reading of Abu Hanifa,
verbal warning. If he repeats the offense, he will he was still only talking about the death penalty with
be punished but not killed.‘ respect to Muslim blasphemers.
[Mukhtasar al Tahawi]
This means that the origin of the current narrative against
One may be tempted to think that in citing these sources, non-Muslim blasphemers rests on uncertain foundations.
I am cherry-picking i.e. selectively choosing ones that
support this stance. But, in fact, this is not the intent or In framing Pakistan‘s blasphemy law, Advocate Ismaeel
method of research. Qureshi made two grave errors:

Below is a compiled, annotated timeline of every Hanafi As we have already discussed in previous articles, he
jurisprudence text of significance that has discussed non- referred to the erroneous stance put forth by al-Bazzazi
Muslim blasphemy. prescribing a fixed death penalty for Muslim offenders
(and misattributed it to another jurist).
View the timeline in a full screen.
In order to indiscriminately apply the jurisprudence to
This includes four authoritative tomes, whose Muslims and non-Muslims, Ismaeel Qureshi takes the
monumental significance and influence can be gauged by quote and replaces the word Muslim with ―Kafir‖ so that
the fact that they have had over 200 commentaries the death penalty can be applied to non-Muslims as well.
written on them.
The original quote built off the misreading:
Even the briefest perusal of this reference resource will
show that there is a unanimous prohibition on the killing ―A Muslim blasphemer of the prophet PBUH will be killed
of non-Muslims for the offense of blasphemy. The only under hudd and his pardon won‘t be acceptable.‖ – (Ibn
exception noted is in the case of habitual offense Abidin, Kitab al Jihad, Bab al Murtad)
committed as treason, and therefore liable – at the
discretion of the ruler – to any punishment up to and Which Ismaeel Qureshi changed to:
including the death penalty.
―A kafir blasphemer of the prophet PBUH will be killed
It is ironic, then, that people believe that to not kill a non- under hudd and his pardon won‘t be acceptable.‖ – (Ibn
Muslim blasphemer – and even to advocate for his/her Abidin, Kitab al Jihad, Bab al Murtad)
life – is tantamount to blasphemy itself.

How is it, then, that today‘s Hanafis (including devout

Barelvis and Deobands) differ so radically from the
position established by the most revered personages of
their tradition?

In my first article, I established that Pakistan‘s blasphemy

law and the discourse surrounding it re-imagined the
offense of blasphemy, claiming that there was
an ijma (consensus of scholars) that blasphemy carries
a hudd (divinely ordained) punishment of death, with no Actual Quote of Bazzazi‘s misreading:
possibility of pardon.
‫مسلمان کو سب و شتم النبی ﷺ کی وجہ سے بطور حد قتل کیا جاے گا اور اس‬
My first article established that on all three points ‫کی توبہ قبول نہی کی جاے گی کیونکہ حد توبہ سے ساقط نہیں ہوتی۔‬
(ijma, hudd and the impossibility of pardon), this
narrative was wrong, and based on a completely Modified quote of Bazzazi‘s misreading:
erroneous reading of Imam Abu Hanifa‘s position on
blasphemy by the 14th century scholar, al-Bazzazi. This ‫کافر کو سب و شتم النبی ﷺ کی وجہ سے بطور حد قتل کیا جاے گا اور اس‬
‫کی توبہ قبول نہی کی جاے گی کیونکہ حد توبہ سے ساقط نہیں ہوتی۔‬

Page 11 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
In summary, Ismaeel Qureshi not only picks an perpetuated by a variety of similar instances of erroneous
established erroneous stance, but also goes on to and at times, fabricated sources.
misattribute it to a much greater and renowned scholar
(Ibn Abidin), and finally extends this false position to Take, for instance, a fatwa on the treatment of
non-Muslim offenders as well. blasphemers (both Muslims and non-Muslims) published
by Jamia Uloom e Islamia, Binori Town (one of the
The result: An erroneous extension of an already false largest Hanafi seminaries in Pakistan). Here is the
prescription (fixed death penalty) for Muslims, to non- original text of the fatwa, which is citing Al Sarim al
Muslim offenders as well. Maslool:

As a result of this, various distinct groups are now Scanned excerpt from a fatwa from Binori Town:
subjected to the same treatment under the blasphemy
law.

The sordid history of the blasphemy law includes other

attempts at establishing the strictest possible penalty
(death) for non-Muslims by quoting sources meant only
for Muslims.

In 1987, when the law was first passed, references were

made, in the parliament, to Fatawa-e-Alamigiriyah (the
most consulted resource for fatwas in South Asia) to
establish a consensus on blasphemy being a capital
offence for Muslims and non-Muslims, when the text
explicitly states a guarantee of the protection of the life
and property of non-Muslim offenders by the state. Translation: ―There is a general consensus amongst
scholars that he who insults the Prophet PBUH will be
Scanned excerpt from Fatawa-e-Alamgiriyyah: killed as *hudd. This has been endorsed by Imam Malik,
Imam Laith, Imam Ahmad, Imam Ishaq and Imam Shafi
has the same position …… and Abu Bakr Farsi quotes
Imam Shafi on the general consensus of Muslims on
death penalty to blasphemers.‖*
Excerpt from Arabic version of Fatawa-e-Alamgiriyyah:
At first glance, it seems that the use of ellipses ―…‖ is
‫ومن امتنع من أداء الجزیة أو قتل مسلما أو زني بمسلمة أو سب النبي صلي هللا‬ merely to save space and exclude irrelevant information.
‫علیه وسلم لم ینقض عهده‬ However, upon locating the cited source with the
complete sentence, we find that the ellipses had been used
Further in 1991, the Federal Shariat Court, in a judgement
to omit one of the most significant aspects of the ruling.
applying to both Muslims and non-Muslims, cited Abu
Bakr al-Jassas al-Razi‘s position of a death penalty for Here is the complete text from which the fatwa is
blasphemers, while ignoring the same author‘s ostensibly quoting:
prohibition on killing non-Muslim blasphemers.
" ‫ "أجمع عوام أهل العلم أن من سب النبي صلي هللا علیه وسلم‬:‫قال ابن المنذر‬
Scanned Arabic excerpt from Sharh Mukhtasar al Tahawi ‫ "وحكي‬:‫ قال‬."‫ وهو مذهب الشافعي‬،‫ وممن قاله مالك واللیث وأحمد وإسحاق‬،‫القتل‬
by al-Jassas: ‫ وقد حكي أبو بكر‬."‫ما هم علیه من الشرك أعظم‬-‫یعني الذمي‬-‫ ال یقتل‬:‫عن النعمان‬
‫الفارسي۔۔‬

―There is a general consensus amongst scholars that he

who insults the Prophet PBUH will be killed. This has
been endorsed by Imam Malik, Imam Laith, Imam
Ahmad, Imam Ishaq and Imam Shafi has the same
position. However, Abu Hanifa differs and states that a
English Translation: 'Whoever insults the Prophet, non- non-Muslim will not be killed for blasphemy. Shirk is a
Muslims will not be given a death punishment.' greater sin (and we do not kill him for that). Abu Bakr
Farsi quotes Imam Shafi on the general consensus of
It is unclear whether this was a deliberate or incidental Muslim.
oversight. But, even today, indications of a distorted
understanding of the issue are abundant. The narrative is The ellipses reveals itself — scan of original Arabic text:

Page 12 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
A feeling of dishonour ('bey-gharati') is natural when I
think of Hanafi tradition on non-Muslim blasphemers i.e.
they will not be killed for it. Then God puts in my heart
the thought that Abu Hanifa (who prohibited the death
penalty for non-Muslim offenders) has more
honour/ghairat than us. [Malfoozat e Hakeem ul Ummat,
Vol. 26]

Similarly, Qasim Ibn Qutlūbughā warned jurists against

Translation: ―Abu Hanifa differs and states that a non- letting emotions dictate the law:
Muslim will not be killed for blasphemy. Shirk is a greater ―Although our hearts tilt towards a strict punishment to
sin (and we do not kill him for that).‖ the non-Muslim blasphemers, we must not pay heed to
it.‖ (Ibn Abidin, Tanbih al-wulat wa‘l hukkam ‗ala Ahkam
It is surprising that the Binori Town scholars chose to
omit a reference that prohibits the killing of a non- Shatimi Khar al-anami aw ahadi ashabihi‘l kiram)
Muslim blasphemer, especially when one considers that With the latest Supreme Court judgement, it appears that
the omitted source is none other than the very founder of our institutions have realised the need to reexamine our
their own madhab (religious tradition), Imam Abu own biases in the indiscriminate and heavy handed
Hanifa. application of a death penalty to a population it was
In formulating a fatwa, a Hanafi jurist is bound to refer to perhaps not meant for.
the ruling of his own school, and over here, what has In light of all the research and resources that are now
occurred is the opposite, simply because the position available, and observable mistakes made over the past
endorsed by their own school in this case provides a more three decades, perhaps it is time that we start learning
lenient and forgiving narrative towards non-Muslims. from history and set the record straight.
Clearly, the internal biases and ‗otherising‘ perspectives of
the Ulema are interfering in their intellectual integrity in Arafat Mazhar is the founder of Engage, an institution for
responding to issues of blasphemy. research and reform of religious laws in Pakistan.
Moreover, the use of ellipses appears to be an attempt to He can be reached on Facebook or
manufacture consensus on the issue and to suppress any at arafat@engagepakistan.com and
opposing viewpoint, even if it comes from within their
tweets @arafatmazhar.
own tradition; the tradition which is the pre-dominant
one in the region.

Indeed, scholars throughout the Hanafi tradition who The views expressed by this writer is
adhered to strict codes of integrity, have acknowledged a
natural bias to prescribe the strictest possible punishment
explanaing traditional narrative that is also
for the offense of blasphemy, and have admitted that it against the blasphemy laws, however, the
even feels like a matter of honour to do so, but have remaining three parts of Javed Ahmad
cautioned against giving in to such biases. Ghamidi completely rejects blasphemy laws
as against Quran, Historical records (hadith)
Ashraf Ali Thanawi, arguably the most popular 20th and even the traditional narrative of Islam.
century jurist from South Asia remarks:

Page 13 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION

Punishment for Blasphemy against the Prophet (sws)

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

I- The law for punishing blasphemy against the Secondly, the Qur‘an says that the sentence will not be
Prophet (sws) that is invoked in Pakistan has no applicable to those offenders who, despite their prior
foundation in the Qur‘an or Hadith. Therefore, a proclamation and persistence, submit and repent
pertinent question is: what exactly is the justification before the law apprehends them. Therefore, the
for this law? Some scholars have proffered Q. 5: 33-34 directive is that those who have repented shall not be
as a possible basis. In their opinion, God, in these given these sentences. This aspect also entails that,
verses of Surah Ma‘idah, has prescribed the before any action is taken against such offenders, they
punishment for muharabah (rebellion) and fasad fi al- be called to repent and reform and be repeatedly
ard (disorder), and they believe that blasphemy against warned that, if they are believers, they should not
the Prophet (sws) is also a form of this offence of destroy their own future in the Hereafter by their
muharabah: wrong attitude or notions and, if they do not believe in
The text of the verse with its translation is: God or the Prophet (sws), they should show regard for
the feelings and sentiments of Muslims and abstain
َۡ َ ‫سبدًا ا َ ۡن یُّقَتَّهُ ُۤۡۡا ا‬
َ َ‫ض ف‬ ِ ‫س ُۡنَ ٗہ ََ یَ ۡسعَ ُۡنَ فِی ۡاۡلَ ۡز‬ ُ ‫ّٰللاَ ََ َز‬ ِ ‫اِوَّ َمب َج ٰٓزؤُا انَّر ِۡیهَ ی ُ َح‬
‫بزث ُُۡنَ ہ‬ from this grave violation any further.
ۡ‫ک نَ ُہم‬
َ ‫ضؕ ذ ِن‬ ِ ‫ط َع ا َ ۡید ِۡی ِہمۡ ََ ا َ ۡز ُجهُ ُہمۡ ّم ِۡه خِ ََلفٍ ا َ َۡ ی ُۡىف َُۡا مِ هَ ۡاۡلَ ۡز‬َّ َ‫صهَّج ُُۡۤۡا ا َ َۡ تُق‬
َ ُ‫ی‬
‫ ا َِّۡل انَّر ِۡیهَ ت َبث ُُۡا مِ ۡه قَ ۡج ِم ا َ ۡن ت َۡقد ُِز َۡا‬.‫عظِ ۡی ٌم‬ ۡ ۡ Thirdly, the verse does not make capital punishment
َ ٌ‫اة‬ َ ‫ر‬ ‫ع‬
َ َ ‫ح‬
ِ ‫س‬ ِ‫خ‬ ‫اۡل‬ ‫ِی‬ ‫ف‬ ۡ‫م‬ ‫ہ‬ َ
ُ َ ‫ن‬ َ ‫ب‬َ ‫ی‬‫ُّو‬ ‫د‬ ‫ان‬ ‫ِی‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ی‬ ٌ ‫خِ ۡز‬
obligatory. It gives the court room for a lenient
34-33: 5( .‫غفُ ُۡ ٌز َّزحِ ۡی ٌم‬ ‫بعهَ ُم ُۡۤۡا ا َ َّن ہ‬
َ َ‫ّٰللا‬ ۡ َ‫عهَ ۡی ِہمۡ ۚ ف‬
َ )
sentence in consideration of the nature of offence and
The punishment of those who fight against God and the state of the offender. The recommendation of
His Prophet or create disorder in territory is that they banishment in the verse is for such offenders as
be executed in an exemplary manner or be crucified or deserve leniency.
have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides or
be banished. This disgrace is theirs in the world, and in In the present law, none of the aspects mentioned
the Hereafter a severe retribution shall they have, above has been considered. For sentencing, this law
except those who repent before you overpower them. depends solely on testimony. There is no consideration
So [do not exceed in severity with them and] know well whatsoever for confession or denial, which
that Godis Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful. (5:33-34) consideration the verse entails; there is no room for
clemency on the repentance and reform shown in
As other viewpoints on foundations for blasphemy response to exhortation and admonition; and, as such,
laws, this opinion too needs to be reviewed for the there is no other option except capital punishment. It
following reasons: would indeed be commendable even if the ‗ulama were
Firstly, the word used in the verse is yuharibun (they to accept the muharabah verse as the foundation for
fight/rebel against). This word entails that the blasphemy punishment and, consequently, show
sentences of punishment mentioned in the verse be willingness to have amendments made to the existing
given only if the offender persists in blasphemy law. Even that would end all criticisms on the present
defiantly, resorts to disruption or disorder, refuses to law. It is obvious from the Qur‘an that capital
desist even after repeated exhortation and admonition punishment can only be given in two cases: first, if a
and, in contrast to an attitude of consequent person murders another and, second, if he disrupts law
submission, actually takes a stance of retaliation. On and order in a country and, as such, becomes a threat
the other hand, if the accused pleads that he‘s not to the life, property and honour of people. If the law is
guilty or gives an excuse to explain his attitude and amended in accordance with the requirements of the
shows no volition for persistence, he cannot, in any muharabah verse, the requirement of confining capital
sense of the word, be indicted for muharabah or fasad punishment to these two cases will be fulfilled.
fi al-ard. Furthermore, the law will also be closer to the views of
the highly venerated scholar of Islamic law, Imam Abu
Hanifah and to those of the great Hadith compiler,

Page 14 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
Imam Bukhari. In this regard, it is this opinion that about personal lives of Muslims, slandering them and
seems more advisable. The Hanafis have a majority in carrying on scandal-mongering, sometimes expressing
Pakistan, but, incongruously, their viewpoint has been desire to marry ladies from amongst the Prophet‘s holy
completely ignored in enacting this law. Therefore, it is wives, and spreading rumours of all kinds to unnerve
a fact that the blasphemy law in its present state is and demoralize Muslims. They would sometimes tease
against not only the Qur‘an and Hadith but also the Muslim ladies who went out to the fields at night or
opinion of Hanafi jurists. It should most certainly be before daylight to pay heed to the call of nature. When
changed for it has blemished the name of Islam and reprimanded for this behaviour, these evildoers would
Muslims throughout the world. come up with lame excuses as having approached a
II- Narratives related to punishment for blasphemy woman only because they mistook her for the slave-girl
that are often cited also need to be understood of such and such person and because they needed to
correctly. Abu Rafi‗ was one of those people who were ask her about such and such matter. The Qur‘an
guilty of bringing out the tribes against Madinah in alludes to these aspects of their mischief, and
Ghazwah-e Khandaq (Battle of the Ditch). In Ibn narratives in Muslim tradition record many of the
Ishaq‘s words: ‫سهَّ َم‬ ‫صهَّي ہ‬ related instances in quite some detail.[3] Muslim
َ ََ ‫عهَ ۡی ِہ‬
َ ُ‫ّٰللا‬ َ ِ‫ّٰللا‬ ُ ‫عهَي َز‬
‫س ُْ َل ہ‬ َ َ‫ة األَحْ ز‬
َ ‫اة‬ َ ‫فِ ْی َم ْه َح َّز‬.
About Ka‗b ibn Ashraf, the historians write that after ladies, therefore, were told to put their cloaks over
Ghazwah-e Badr (Battle of Badr), he went to Makkah themselves to appear different from slave-girls so that
and recited vengeance inspiring elegies for those of the the mischievous miscreants would not have pretexts to
Quraysh who had fallen in battle, wrote odes (tashbib) tease them. Furthermore, the troublemakers were also
that prefaced the names of some Muslim women and warned that if they would not stop and would persist in
caused much distress to Muslims, and, while residing their evil, they would be executed in an exemplary
in the domain of the Prophet‘s government, manner:
endeavoured to incite people against him. Some َ‫ض ََ ْان ُم ْس ِجفُُنَ فِي ْان َمدِیىَ ِخ نَىُ ْغ ِسیَىَّك‬ ٌ ‫نَئ ِۡه نَّمۡ یَ ْىت َ ًِ ْان ُمىَبفِقُُنَ ََانَّرِیهَ فِي قُهُُثِ ٍِ ْم َم َس‬
narratives describe that he even went to the extent of :33(‫ِیَل‬ ُ
ً ‫ِیَل َم ْهعُُوِیهَ أ َ ْیىَ َمب ث ُ ِقفُُا أخِ رَُا ََقُ ِت ّهُُا ت َ ْقت‬
ً ‫ثِ ٍِ ْم ث ُ َّم َۡل یُ َجب َِ ُزَوَكَ فِی ٍَب إِ َّۡل قَه‬
devising deception to assassinate the Prophet (sws). 61-60)
‗Abdullah ibn Khatal was sent for zakah (obligatory [Even after this measure] If these hypocrites do not
alms) collection by the Prophet (sws). He was desist and also those with a disease in their hearts and
accompanied by a person from amongst the Ansar and those too who spread lies in Medina, we shall make you
a servant. On the way, Ibn Khatal killed the servant on rise against them; then they shall not be able to stay
the pretext of insubordination, became an apostate, amongst you but with difficulty; cursed shall they be;
and ran away to Makkah.[1] Not only this; all three wherever found, they shall be killed in an exemplary
people mentioned here persisted in their denial of the manner. (33: 60-61).
Prophet (sws) even after the truth of his message had
become conclusively evident to them. And, God Other narratives of similar nature that are often related
Almighty has mentioned repeatedly in the Qur‘an that, are usually not credible enough in terms of historical
as a Divine principle, the direct addressees of a rasul[2] authenticity of the sanad (chain of narrators).
are within the range of Divine punishment. For that However, even if they were to be assumed reliable
reason, if they go on to the extent of hostility, they can enough, the nature of events described would still fall
also be killed. within the scope of same context: after full
manifestation of hostility in their blasphemy and
These details show that the wrongdoers in question sacrilege, these people were within the purview of the
were not merely guilty of blasphemy but had also same law that the Qur‘an has described as a Divine
committed all the other crimes mentioned above. custom pertaining to the denial of a rasul by his people
Therefore, they were killed in response to these and direct addressees. Some murders were also
offences. ‗Abdullah ibn Khatal was a murderous vindicated on these grounds. ‫ ۡلَ یُ ْقت َ ُم ُم ْسه ٍِم ثِكَبفِس‬is a
fugitive. It was decreed on these grounds that he be description of the same principle.[4] The ‗ulama are
killed even if he was hiding behind the covers of the aware of these aspects, yet they insist on deriving the
Ka‗bah. law for punishment of blasphemy from these
It was indeed offenders of this kind to whom Surah narratives.
Ahzab refers. In order to sow the seeds of doubt in Here, someone might also refer to oft-related incident
Muslims, to turn them away from the Prophet (sws), in which ‗Umar (rta) is reported to have struck off the
and to damage their reputation and the moral head of a man who refused to accept the Prophet‘s legal
credibility of their religion badly, these wrongdoers verdict on a certain occasion. Our ‗ulama relate this
would engage in many activities as cooking up stories incident from the pulpits and directly encourage

Page 15 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
people to show the same attitude as reflected in the becomes an apostate, and the punishment for apostasy
narrative towards those whom they perceive as is death. Similarly, if a non-Muslim dhimmi is guilty of
blasphemers of the Prophet (sws). However, the fact is this offence, he loses protection of the pact with him,
that not just the first and second degree of Hadith and, therefore, he too deserves capital punishment.
collections (in terms of authenticity) but also the third According to the jurists, the reason for this inference is
degree works are devoid of this narrative. Even Ibn that the directive about non-Muslim Ahl al-Kitab
Jarir al-Ṭabari, who often relates narratives in all (People of the Book[8]) in verse 29 of Surah Tawbah
categories, has not regarded it worthy of consideration. (9th Surah of the Qur‘an) entails they be killed if they
This narrative comes from a gharib (with isolated chain refuse to remain subjugated and subservient under
of narrators) and mursal (with omissions in the chain) Muslim rule. Therefore, infer the jurists, if a dhimmi
Hadith that has been cited by some exegetes in their shows an attitude of sacrilege and disrespect to the
commentaries; however, those acquainted to some Prophet (sws), it means that he has rebelled against
extent with Hadith sciences have clarified that, in the Muslim sovereignty and does not accept his
chain, its attribution to Ibn ‗Abbas (rta) is absolutely subjugation under Muslim rule.[9] In Islamic law, this
implausible. Moreover, in the sanads of Ibn argumentation probably began with this statement of
Mardawayh and Ibn Abi Hatim, the narrator Ibn ‗Abdullah ibn ‗Abbas (rta):
Lahi‗ah is dai‗if (―weak‖).[5] The view that exegetes ‫صهَّي‬ ِ ‫أیمب مسهم ست انهہہُزسُنً أَ ست أحدا مه األوجیبء فقد كرة ثسسُل ہ‬
َ ‫ّٰللا‬
relate this very narrative also as shan-e nuzul (an َ‫سهَّ َمٌُي زدح یستتبة فإن زجع َإۡل قتم َأیمب معبٌد عبود فست هللا أ‬
َ ََ ‫عهَ ۡی ِہ‬
َ ُ‫ّٰللا‬
‫ہ‬
occasion for the revelation) of Q. 4:65 is also ill- ‫ست أحدا مه األوجیبء أَ جٍس ثً فقد وقط انعٍد فبقتهُي‬
founded. Although this verse of Surah Nisa‘ is not in
want of description of any reason of revelation, yet, A Muslim who blasphemes against God or the Prophet
quite contrary to this one, the narrative that Imam or any of God‘s messengers is guilty of denying the
Bukhari and other leading scholars of Hadith have Prophet (sws). This is apostasy, which entails that
related as the occasion of revelation for this verse and repentance be demanded of the offender. If he repents,
which narrative is often cited by exegetes is one that he shall be released; if not, he shall be killed. Similarly,
pertains to a water dispute between the Prophet‘s if anyone from amongst non-Muslims protected under
paternal cousin, Zubayr, and a person from the Ansar. pact becomes hostile by openly blaspheming against
When the matter was presented to the Prophet (sws), God or the Prophet (sws) or any of God‘s messengers,
he told Zubayr to irrigate his field and leave the he is guilty of violating the pact; you shall kill him
remaining water for the Ansari. The Ansari too.[10]
immediately retorted by saying: ―O Prophet of Allah, is It is this argumentation which, according to the jurists,
this because Zubayr is your cousin?‖ This highly is the foundation of the punishment for blasphemy.
impudent remark was clearly an imputation of However, deliberation on the Qur‘an and the Hadith
injustice and nepotism. Therefore, it is related that the clearly shows that, after the age of the Prophet‘s
Prophet‘s face changed colour, but he did not say Companions, this basis has become ineffective forever.
anything save repeating his statement with more In my works, Mizan and Burhan, I have argued at
clarity and decreed that the water be retained up to the length that the punishment for apostasy was specific to
edges of the field and the rest be left for the Ansari.[6] the peoples who had been afforded conclusive evidence
One must ―commend‖ the ‗ulama on their choice in of truth by the Prophet (sws) himself but reverted to
selection for ignoring this highly credible narrative their denial after having accepted faith. The Prophet‘s
reported by Bukhari and Muslim that reflects the statement: ُ ‫( َم ْه ثَدَّ َل ِد ْیىًَُ فَب ْقتُهُ ُْي‬kill the one who changes his
Prophet‘s forbearance, forgiveness, compassion and religion[11]) relates to the same peoples. The decree of
kindness; instead, they are enthusiastically and the punishment for them was in accordance with the
zealously relating everywhere a weak and improbable sunnat-e ilahi (the Divine way and principle) that has
narrative related to how ‗Umar (rta) struck off been described in the Qur‘an in relation to the direct
someone‘s neck. addressees of the rusul. It has no relation to Muslims
in times after the Prophetic age.
III - On the issue of blasphemy against the Prophet
(sws), is the opinion of majority of jurists based on any The issue of violation of pact is also similar in nature.
directive in the Qur‘an or Hadith related specifically to No one now is dhimmi in the world and no one can be
this punishment? The answer to this question is clearly subjugated as such now. Verse 29 of Surah Tawbah is
in the negative. The basis of jurists‘ opinion on an offshoot of the same Divine principle mentioned
punishment to a Muslim is apostasy and, to a above. Therefore, the right to wage war against any
dhimmi,[7] it is violation of pact. The jurists say that a peoples perceived as deniers of the truth has ended
Muslim who blasphemes against the Prophet (sws) forever the right to keep them subjugated and

Page 16 of 17
Monday, December 30, 2019 KEY OPINION
subservient by imposing jizyah (tribute) on them. Until 2005), 332; Isma‗il ibn ‗Umar ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-
the end of the world, no one now has any right Qur‘an al-‗Azim, 5th ed., vol. 3 (Beirut: Mu‘assasah al-
whatsoever to wage a war against any people for this rayyan, 1999), 518; Muhammad ibn ‗Umar al-
particular purpose or any right to impose jizyah to Zamakhshari, Al-Kashshaf, vol. 3 (Beirut: Dar ihya‘ al-
keep the vanquished subjugated.[12] Non-Muslim turath al-‗arabi), 569.
citizens of Muslim States are not dhimmis or [4]. ―No Muslim shall be sentenced to death in
condemned to death in any principle or living under retaliation for these deniers.‖ Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‗ al-
any grant of ―protection‖ lifting which would entail sahih, vol. 6, 2534, (no. 6517).
their death. This diction and these notions belong to
the past. They cannot, in any way, form the foundation [5]. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur‘an al-‗Azim, vol.1, 681.
for argumentation now. [6]. Ibid., 680.
Now, therefore, only two possibilities remain: first, [7]. Non-Muslims (of conquered lands) who were
that,in consideration of Islam and the interests of granted protection and rights under pact in a Muslim
Muslims, laws [based without foundational religious government.
texts] be enacted and a punishment be prescribed as
[8]. In the Prophet‘s time, the Israelites and the
ta‗zir.[13] Second, verses 33-34 of Surah Ma‘idah be
Nazarenes.
used as foundation for the enactment. It is this second
possibility about which this article has already [9]. For details, see for example: Abu Muhammad ‗Ali
emphasized that, if these verses of Surah Ma‘idah are ibn Ahmad ibn Sa‗idibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bi al-athar,
used as a foundation, three aspects must be kept in 1st ed., vol.13 (Beruit: Dar ihya‘ al-turath al-‗arabi,
mind as the words of the Qur‘an necessitate their 1999), 234.
inclusion: [10]. Abu ‗Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn
1. A person regarded as guilty of blasphemy be invited Qayyim, Zad al-ma‗ad fi hadyi khayr al-‗ibad, 1st ed.,
to repent and reform and be repeatedly warned that, if vol. 4 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‗ilmiyyah, 1998), 379.
he is a believer, he should not destroy his own fate in [11]. Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‗ al-sahih, 3, 1098, (no.2854).
the Hereafter and should submit to God and the
Prophet (sws), and, if he does not believe in God or the [12]. For details of the argumentation for these views,
Prophet (sws), he should show regard for the feelings see my book chapter ―Qanun-e Jihad‖ in: Ghamidi,
and sentiments of Muslims and abstain from persisting Mizan, 579-609.
in this grave offence. [13]. A non-textual (not directly emanating from any
2. His case be filed in the court only if he refuses to foundational religious text) punishment decided on the
change or repent, persists in his blasphemy with basis of reasoning.
defiance, causes disruption, pushes away all efforts to
convince him and, instead of showing remorse, actually
resorts to belligerence and hostility.
3. Instead of having the option of capital punishment
only, room for lighter sentences be left in consideration
of any extenuating circumstances related to the actual
nature and circumstance of offence and the capacity
and state of the offender.
(Translated by Asif Iftikhar)
______________
[1]. ‗Abd al-Malik ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah al-nabawiyyah,
2nd ed., vol. 3 (Beirut: Al-Maktabah al-‗udwiyyah,
1999), 47, 248; Ibid., vol. 4, 44; Shibli Nu‗mani, Sirat
al-nabi, vol. 1 (Lahore: Idarah islamiyyat, n.d.), 253.
[2]. As a specific term in the Qur‘an, a messenger of
God sent as Divine judgment for or against his people
and direct addressees; plural: rusul.
[3]. Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari, Jami‗ al-Bayan,
4th ed., vol. 10 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‗ilmiyyah,

Page 17 of 17
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Al-Mawrid

Punishment for Blasphemy against the Prophet (sws)

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

I- The law for punishing blasphemy against the sense of the word, be indicted for muharabah or fasad
Prophet (sws) that is invoked in Pakistan has no fi al-ard.
foundation in the Qur‟an or Hadith. Therefore, a Secondly, the Qur‟an says that the sentence will not be
pertinent question is: what exactly is the justification applicable to those offenders who, despite their prior
for this law? Some scholars have proffered Q. 5: 33-34 proclamation and persistence, submit and repent
as a possible basis. In their opinion, God, in these before the law apprehends them. Therefore, the
verses of Surah Ma‟idah, has prescribed the directive is that those who have repented shall not be
punishment for muharabah (rebellion) and fasad fi al- given these sentences. This aspect also entails that,
ard (disorder), and they believe that blasphemy against before any action is taken against such offenders, they
the Prophet (sws) is also a form of this offence of be called to repent and reform and be repeatedly
muharabah: warned that, if they are believers, they should not
The text of the verse with its translation is: destroy their own future in the Hereafter by their
wrong attitude or notions and, if they do not believe in
َۡ َ ‫سبدًا ا َ ۡن یُّقَتَّهُ ُۤۡۡا ا‬
َ َ‫ض ف‬ِ ‫س ُۡنَ ٗہ ََ یَ ۡسعَ ُۡنَ فِی ۡاۡلَ ۡز‬ ُ ‫ّٰللاَ ََ َز‬ ِ ‫اِوَّ َمب َج ٰٓزؤُا انَّر ِۡیهَ ی ُ َح‬
‫بزث ُُۡنَ ہ‬
ۡ َّ َ‫صهَّج ُُۡۤۡا ا َ َۡ تُق‬ God or the Prophet (sws), they should show regard for
ۡ‫ک نَ ُہم‬
َ ‫ضؕ ذ ِن‬ ِ ‫ط َع ا َ ۡید ِۡی ِہمۡ ََ ا َ ۡز ُجهُ ُہمۡ ّم ِۡه خِ ََلفٍ ا َ َۡ ی ُۡىف َُۡا مِ هَ اۡلَ ۡز‬ َ ُ‫ی‬
the feelings and sentiments of Muslims and abstain
‫ ا َِّۡل انَّر ِۡیهَ ت َبث ُُۡا مِ ۡه قَ ۡج ِم ا َ ۡن ت َۡقد ُِز َۡا‬.‫عظِ ۡی ٌم‬َ ٌ‫عرَاة‬ َ ِ‫ی فِی اند ُّۡویَب ََ نَ ُہمۡ فِی ۡاۡلخِ َسح‬ ٌ ‫خِ ۡز‬
from this grave violation any further.
34-33: 5( .‫غفُ ُۡ ٌز َّزحِ ۡی ٌم‬ ‫بعهَ ُم ُۡۤۡا ا َ َّن ہ‬
َ َ‫ّٰللا‬ ۡ َ‫عهَ ۡی ِہمۡ ۚ ف‬
َ )
The punishment of those who fight against God and Thirdly, the verse does not make capital punishment
His Prophet or create disorder in territory is that they obligatory. It gives the court room for a lenient
be executed in an exemplary manner or be crucified or sentence in consideration of the nature of offence and
have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides or the state of the offender. The recommendation of
be banished. This disgrace is theirs in the world, and in banishment in the verse is for such offenders as
the Hereafter a severe retribution shall they have, deserve leniency.
except those who repent before you overpower them. In the present law, none of the aspects mentioned
So [do not exceed in severity with them and] know well above has been considered. For sentencing, this law
that Godis Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful. (5:33-34) depends solely on testimony. There is no consideration
As other viewpoints on foundations for blasphemy whatsoever for confession or denial, which
laws, this opinion too needs to be reviewed for the consideration the verse entails; there is no room for
following reasons: clemency on the repentance and reform shown in
response to exhortation and admonition; and, as such,
Firstly, the word used in the verse is yuharibun (they there is no other option except capital punishment. It
fight/rebel against). This word entails that the would indeed be commendable even if the „ulama were
sentences of punishment mentioned in the verse be to accept the muharabah verse as the foundation for
given only if the offender persists in blasphemy blasphemy punishment and, consequently, show
defiantly, resorts to disruption or disorder, refuses to willingness to have amendments made to the existing
desist even after repeated exhortation and admonition law. Even that would end all criticisms on the present
and, in contrast to an attitude of consequent law. It is obvious from the Qur‟an that capital
submission, actually takes a stance of retaliation. On punishment can only be given in two cases: first, if a
the other hand, if the accused pleads that he‟s not person murders another and, second, if he disrupts law
guilty or gives an excuse to explain his attitude and and order in a country and, as such, becomes a threat
shows no volition for persistence, he cannot, in any to the life, property and honour of people. If the law is

Page 1 of 4
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Al-Mawrid
amended in accordance with the requirements of the It was indeed offenders of this kind to whom Surah
muharabah verse, the requirement of confining capital Ahzab refers. In order to sow the seeds of doubt in
punishment to these two cases will be fulfilled. Muslims, to turn them away from the Prophet (sws),
Furthermore, the law will also be closer to the views of and to damage their reputation and the moral
the highly venerated scholar of Islamic law, Imam Abu credibility of their religion badly, these wrongdoers
Hanifah and to those of the great Hadith compiler, would engage in many activities as cooking up stories
Imam Bukhari. In this regard, it is this opinion that about personal lives of Muslims, slandering them and
seems more advisable. The Hanafis have a majority in carrying on scandal-mongering, sometimes expressing
Pakistan, but, incongruously, their viewpoint has been desire to marry ladies from amongst the Prophet‟s holy
completely ignored in enacting this law. Therefore, it is wives, and spreading rumours of all kinds to unnerve
a fact that the blasphemy law in its present state is and demoralize Muslims. They would sometimes tease
against not only the Qur‟an and Hadith but also the Muslim ladies who went out to the fields at night or
opinion of Hanafi jurists. It should most certainly be before daylight to pay heed to the call of nature. When
changed for it has blemished the name of Islam and reprimanded for this behaviour, these evildoers would
Muslims throughout the world. come up with lame excuses as having approached a
II- Narratives related to punishment for blasphemy woman only because they mistook her for the slave-girl
that are often cited also need to be understood of such and such person and because they needed to
correctly. Abu Rafi„ was one of those people who were ask her about such and such matter. The Qur‟an
guilty of bringing out the tribes against Madinah in alludes to these aspects of their mischief, and
Ghazwah-e Khandaq (Battle of the Ditch). In Ibn narratives in Muslim tradition record many of the
Ishaq‟s words: ‫سهَّ َم‬ ‫صهَّي ہ‬ related instances in quite some detail.[3] Muslim
َ ََ ‫عهَ ۡی ِہ‬
َ ُ‫ّٰللا‬ َ ِ‫ّٰللا‬ ُ ‫عهَي َز‬
‫س ُْ َل ہ‬ َ َ‫ة األَحْ ز‬
َ ‫اة‬ َ ‫فِ ْی َم ْه َح َّز‬.
About Ka„b ibn Ashraf, the historians write that after ladies, therefore, were told to put their cloaks over
Ghazwah-e Badr (Battle of Badr), he went to Makkah themselves to appear different from slave-girls so that
and recited vengeance inspiring elegies for those of the the mischievous miscreants would not have pretexts to
Quraysh who had fallen in battle, wrote odes (tashbib) tease them. Furthermore, the troublemakers were also
that prefaced the names of some Muslim women and warned that if they would not stop and would persist in
caused much distress to Muslims, and, while residing their evil, they would be executed in an exemplary
in the domain of the Prophet‟s government, manner:
endeavoured to incite people against him. Some َ‫ض ََ ْان ُم ْس ِجفُُنَ فِي ْان َمدِیىَ ِخ نَىُ ْغ ِسیَىَّك‬ٌ ‫نَئ ِۡه نَّمۡ یَ ْىت َ ًِ ْان ُمىَبفِقُُنَ ََانَّرِیهَ فِي قُهُُثِ ٍِ ْم َم َس‬
narratives describe that he even went to the extent of :33(‫ِیَل‬ ُ
ً ‫ِیَل َم ْهعُُوِیهَ أ َ ْیىَ َمب ث ِقفُُا أخِ رَُا ََقُ ِت ّهُا ت َ ْقت‬
ُ ُ ً ‫ثِ ٍِ ْم ث ُ َّم َۡل یُ َجب َِ ُزَوَكَ فِی ٍَب إِ َّۡل قَه‬
devising deception to assassinate the Prophet (sws). 66-66)
„Abdullah ibn Khatal was sent for zakah (obligatory [Even after this measure] If these hypocrites do not
alms) collection by the Prophet (sws). He was desist and also those with a disease in their hearts and
accompanied by a person from amongst the Ansar and those too who spread lies in Medina, we shall make you
a servant. On the way, Ibn Khatal killed the servant on rise against them; then they shall not be able to stay
the pretext of insubordination, became an apostate, amongst you but with difficulty; cursed shall they be;
and ran away to Makkah.[1] Not only this; all three wherever found, they shall be killed in an exemplary
people mentioned here persisted in their denial of the manner. (33: 60-61).
Prophet (sws) even after the truth of his message had
become conclusively evident to them. And, God Other narratives of similar nature that are often related
Almighty has mentioned repeatedly in the Qur‟an that, are usually not credible enough in terms of historical
as a Divine principle, the direct addressees of a rasul[2] authenticity of the sanad (chain of narrators).
are within the range of Divine punishment. For that However, even if they were to be assumed reliable
reason, if they go on to the extent of hostility, they can enough, the nature of events described would still fall
also be killed. within the scope of same context: after full
manifestation of hostility in their blasphemy and
These details show that the wrongdoers in question sacrilege, these people were within the purview of the
were not merely guilty of blasphemy but had also same law that the Qur‟an has described as a Divine
committed all the other crimes mentioned above. custom pertaining to the denial of a rasul by his people
Therefore, they were killed in response to these and direct addressees. Some murders were also
offences. „Abdullah ibn Khatal was a murderous vindicated on these grounds. ‫ ۡلَ یُ ْقت َ ُم ُم ْسه ٍِم ثِكَبفِس‬is a
fugitive. It was decreed on these grounds that he be description of the same principle.[4] The „ulama are
killed even if he was hiding behind the covers of the aware of these aspects, yet they insist on deriving the
Ka„bah.

Page 2 of 4
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Al-Mawrid
law for punishment of blasphemy from these III - On the issue of blasphemy against the Prophet
narratives. (sws), is the opinion of majority of jurists based on any
Here, someone might also refer to oft-related incident directive in the Qur‟an or Hadith related specifically to
in which „Umar (rta) is reported to have struck off the this punishment? The answer to this question is clearly
head of a man who refused to accept the Prophet‟s legal in the negative. The basis of jurists‟ opinion on
verdict on a certain occasion. Our „ulama relate this punishment to a Muslim is apostasy and, to a
incident from the pulpits and directly encourage dhimmi,[7] it is violation of pact. The jurists say that a
people to show the same attitude as reflected in the Muslim who blasphemes against the Prophet (sws)
narrative towards those whom they perceive as becomes an apostate, and the punishment for apostasy
blasphemers of the Prophet (sws). However, the fact is is death. Similarly, if a non-Muslim dhimmi is guilty of
that not just the first and second degree of Hadith this offence, he loses protection of the pact with him,
collections (in terms of authenticity) but also the third and, therefore, he too deserves capital punishment.
degree works are devoid of this narrative. Even Ibn According to the jurists, the reason for this inference is
Jarir al-Ṭabari, who often relates narratives in all that the directive about non-Muslim Ahl al-Kitab
categories, has not regarded it worthy of consideration. (People of the Book[8]) in verse 29 of Surah Tawbah
This narrative comes from a gharib (with isolated chain (9th Surah of the Qur‟an) entails they be killed if they
of narrators) and mursal (with omissions in the chain) refuse to remain subjugated and subservient under
Hadith that has been cited by some exegetes in their Muslim rule. Therefore, infer the jurists, if a dhimmi
commentaries; however, those acquainted to some shows an attitude of sacrilege and disrespect to the
extent with Hadith sciences have clarified that, in the Prophet (sws), it means that he has rebelled against
chain, its attribution to Ibn „Abbas (rta) is absolutely Muslim sovereignty and does not accept his
implausible. Moreover, in the sanads of Ibn subjugation under Muslim rule.[9] In Islamic law, this
Mardawayh and Ibn Abi Hatim, the narrator Ibn argumentation probably began with this statement of
Lahi„ah is dai„if (“weak”).[5] The view that exegetes „Abdullah ibn „Abbas (rta):
relate this very narrative also as shan-e nuzul (an ‫صهَّي‬ ِ ‫أیمب مسهم ست انهہہُزسُنً أَ ست أحدا مه األوجیبء فقد كرة ثسسُل ہ‬
َ ‫ّٰللا‬
occasion for the revelation) of Q. 4:65 is also ill- َ‫سهَّ َمٌُي زدح یستتبة فإن زجع َإۡل قتم َأیمب معبٌد عبود فست هللا أ‬
َ ََ ‫عهَ ۡی ِہ‬
َ ُ‫ّٰللا‬
‫ہ‬
founded. Although this verse of Surah Nisa‟ is not in ‫ست أحدا مه األوجیبء أَ جٍس ثً فقد وقط انعٍد فبقتهُي‬
want of description of any reason of revelation, yet, A Muslim who blasphemes against God or the Prophet
quite contrary to this one, the narrative that Imam or any of God‟s messengers is guilty of denying the
Bukhari and other leading scholars of Hadith have Prophet (sws). This is apostasy, which entails that
related as the occasion of revelation for this verse and repentance be demanded of the offender. If he repents,
which narrative is often cited by exegetes is one that he shall be released; if not, he shall be killed. Similarly,
pertains to a water dispute between the Prophet‟s if anyone from amongst non-Muslims protected under
paternal cousin, Zubayr, and a person from the Ansar. pact becomes hostile by openly blaspheming against
When the matter was presented to the Prophet (sws), God or the Prophet (sws) or any of God‟s messengers,
he told Zubayr to irrigate his field and leave the he is guilty of violating the pact; you shall kill him
remaining water for the Ansari. The Ansari too.[10]
immediately retorted by saying: “O Prophet of Allah, is
this because Zubayr is your cousin?” This highly It is this argumentation which, according to the jurists,
impudent remark was clearly an imputation of is the foundation of the punishment for blasphemy.
injustice and nepotism. Therefore, it is related that the However, deliberation on the Qur‟an and the Hadith
Prophet‟s face changed colour, but he did not say clearly shows that, after the age of the Prophet‟s
anything save repeating his statement with more Companions, this basis has become ineffective forever.
clarity and decreed that the water be retained up to the In my works, Mizan and Burhan, I have argued at
edges of the field and the rest be left for the Ansari.[6] length that the punishment for apostasy was specific to
the peoples who had been afforded conclusive evidence
One must “commend” the „ulama on their choice in of truth by the Prophet (sws) himself but reverted to
selection for ignoring this highly credible narrative their denial after having accepted faith. The Prophet‟s
reported by Bukhari and Muslim that reflects the statement: ُ ‫( َم ْه ثَدَّ َل ِد ْیىًَُ فَب ْقتُهُ ُْي‬kill the one who changes his
Prophet‟s forbearance, forgiveness, compassion and religion[11]) relates to the same peoples. The decree of
kindness; instead, they are enthusiastically and the punishment for them was in accordance with the
zealously relating everywhere a weak and improbable sunnat-e ilahi (the Divine way and principle) that has
narrative related to how „Umar (rta) struck off been described in the Qur‟an in relation to the direct
someone‟s neck.

Page 3 of 4
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Al-Mawrid
addressees of the rusul. It has no relation to Muslims [6]. „Abd al-Malik ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah al-nabawiyyah,
in times after the Prophetic age. 2nd ed., vol. 3 (Beirut: Al-Maktabah al-„udwiyyah,
The issue of violation of pact is also similar in nature. 6999), 47, 248; Ibid., vol. 4, 44; Shibli Nu„mani, Sirat
No one now is dhimmi in the world and no one can be al-nabi, vol. 1 (Lahore: Idarah islamiyyat, n.d.), 253.
subjugated as such now. Verse 29 of Surah Tawbah is [2]. As a specific term in the Qur‟an, a messenger of
an offshoot of the same Divine principle mentioned God sent as Divine judgment for or against his people
above. Therefore, the right to wage war against any and direct addressees; plural: rusul.
peoples perceived as deniers of the truth has ended [3]. Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari, Jami„ al-Bayan,
forever the right to keep them subjugated and 4th ed., vol. 10 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-„ilmiyyah,
subservient by imposing jizyah (tribute) on them. Until 2665), 332; Isma„il ibn „Umar ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-
the end of the world, no one now has any right Qur‟an al-„Azim, 5th ed., vol. 3 (Beirut: Mu‟assasah al-
whatsoever to wage a war against any people for this rayyan, 6999), 568; Muhammad ibn „Umar al-
particular purpose or any right to impose jizyah to Zamakhshari, Al-Kashshaf, vol. 3 (Beirut: Dar ihya‟ al-
keep the vanquished subjugated.[12] Non-Muslim turath al-„arabi), 569.
citizens of Muslim States are not dhimmis or
condemned to death in any principle or living under [4]. “No Muslim shall be sentenced to death in
any grant of “protection” lifting which would entail retaliation for these deniers.” Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami„ al-
their death. This diction and these notions belong to sahih, vol. 6, 2534, (no. 6517).
the past. They cannot, in any way, form the foundation [5]. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur‟an al-„Azim, vol.6, 686.
for argumentation now.
[6]. Ibid., 680.
Now, therefore, only two possibilities remain: first,
[7]. Non-Muslims (of conquered lands) who were
that,in consideration of Islam and the interests of
granted protection and rights under pact in a Muslim
Muslims, laws [based without foundational religious
government.
texts] be enacted and a punishment be prescribed as
ta„zir.[63] Second, verses 33-34 of Surah Ma‟idah be [8]. In the Prophet‟s time, the Israelites and the
used as foundation for the enactment. It is this second Nazarenes.
possibility about which this article has already [9]. For details, see for example: Abu Muhammad „Ali
emphasized that, if these verses of Surah Ma‟idah are ibn Ahmad ibn Sa„idibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bi al-athar,
used as a foundation, three aspects must be kept in 6st ed., vol.63 (Beruit: Dar ihya‟ al-turath al-„arabi,
mind as the words of the Qur‟an necessitate their 1999), 234.
inclusion:
[66]. Abu „Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn
1. A person regarded as guilty of blasphemy be invited Qayyim, Zad al-ma„ad fi hadyi khayr al-„ibad, 6st ed.,
to repent and reform and be repeatedly warned that, if vol. 4 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-„ilmiyyah, 6998), 379.
he is a believer, he should not destroy his own fate in
the Hereafter and should submit to God and the [11]. Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami„ al-sahih, 3, 1098, (no.2854).
Prophet (sws), and, if he does not believe in God or the [12]. For details of the argumentation for these views,
Prophet (sws), he should show regard for the feelings see my book chapter “Qanun-e Jihad” in: Ghamidi,
and sentiments of Muslims and abstain from persisting Mizan, 579-609.
in this grave offence. [13]. A non-textual (not directly emanating from any
2. His case be filed in the court only if he refuses to foundational religious text) punishment decided on the
change or repent, persists in his blasphemy with basis of reasoning.
defiance, causes disruption, pushes away all efforts to
convince him and, instead of showing remorse, actually
resorts to belligerence and hostility.
3. Instead of having the option of capital punishment
only, room for lighter sentences be left in consideration
of any extenuating circumstances related to the actual
nature and circumstance of offence and the capacity
and state of the offender.
(Translated by Asif Iftikhar)
______________

Page 4 of 4