The Leftist Jewish publication Tikkun has reprinted a 2011 piece by Dr. Aslam Abdullah, editor in chief of the weekly Muslim Observer and director of the Islamic Society of Nevada. In 2011 at IslamiCity it was called “Is Blaspheme Punishable by Death in Islam?” ; Tikkun has corrected the title to “Is Blasphemy Punishable by Death in Islam?.”
Anyway, here we go again. A non-Muslim publication publishes a piece by a Muslim purporting to explain that terrible behavior we see being perpetrated in the name of Islam in reality has nothing to do with Islam at all, and must instead be ascribed to cultural or societal factors. Then I come along and provide the Islamic canonical texts and fatwas, etc., that explain why some Muslims believe that the terrible behavior in question is justified, even commanded in Islam. In publishing its piece, the non-Muslim publication’s editors believe that they are showing their love for Muslims, and their rejection of bigotry and intolerance. They further believe that when I publish my piece, I am showing hatred for Muslims, as well as that same bigotry and intolerance.
Innumerable people take it for granted that to bring such texts to light is an act of bigotry and hatred. But it is more accurate to say that the non-Muslim publication’s editors are actually demonstrating their hatred for non-Muslims, as they would prefer that they be complacent and ignorant rather than informed about why the terrible behaviors happen. And that I, in bringing the Islamic justifications for such behaviors to light, am showing love for both Muslims and non-Muslims, enabling the latter to understand the reasons why these terrible things happen, and encouraging those of good will among the former to work for genuine reform. Tikkun, in sum, has not only done its readers a grave disservice by republishing this misleading piece, but aided in the destruction of the lives of those who are victims of Islamic blasphemy laws, by obscuring the reasons why such laws exist in the first place.
“Is Blasphemy Punishable by Death in Islam?,” by Dr. Aslam Abdullah, Tikkun, July 28, 2014:
There is nothing in the Quran or the authentic teachings of Prophet Muhammad justifying the killing of people for opposing, criticizing, humiliating or showing irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs and beliefs of Islam.
The Quran says:
“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah,
lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance.
Thus We have made alluring to each people its own doings.
In the end will they return to their Lord,
and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did. [6:108]“O ye who believe! Let not some men among you ridicule others:
It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former):
Nor let some women ridicule others: It may be that the (latter are better than the (former):
Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames:
Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed:
And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong. [49:11]“Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive;” [42:37]
Predictably, these are selective quotations — and none actually says in any direct way that blasphemers should not be punished with death. One Qur’an passage that Muslim defenders of the death penalty for blasphemy adduce is this: “If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism – you are no longer bound by your covenant with them – that they may refrain” (9:12). But the main justification for the death penalty for blasphemy comes from statements and actions attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith and Sira. Abdullah adduces some hadiths, but again quite selectively:
If blasphemy was punishable by death in Islam, then the Prophet would have been the first one to order the killing of hundreds of his foes who later became his closest companions. With the exception of a very few earlier Arabs who accepted the Prophet as the Messenger of Allah , the majority of people of Makkah opposed him, humiliated him, cursed or blasphemed him or even tried to kill him, yet he preferred to practice forgiveness and to seek the divine mercy for them.
The old woman who used to throw garbage on the Prophet was visited by him when he did not see her throwing it any more to learn that she was not well. When Suhail bin Amr, a poet who composed poetry blaspheming the Prophet was taken as a prisoner of war after the battle of Badr, the Prophet asked his companions to show kindness to him. There are examples after examples to prove that the Prophet was never resorted to violence against those who were showing utter disrespect to him.
The assassination of a Pakistani Christian cabinet minister for speaking against the blasphemy law is a stab in the heart of Islam and a humiliation of the Prophet by those who claim to be his followers. Those who are supporting his killing or similar actions are the worst enemy of Islam who neither understands Islam nor respects the Prophet. No matter who they are, they must be challenged on the basis of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet.
Good idea. Except for the fact that those who consult the Qur’an and the teachings of Muhammad will find support for the death penalty for blasphemy. Muhammad ordered the deaths of Abu Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess Asma bint Marwan, for making fun of him. Abu Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad’s question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, “Umayr ibn Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)
Then there was Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf. Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama, answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)
And another incident:
A blind man had a slave-mother [a slave who bore children for him] who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He [the blind man] forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he [the blind man] took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, book 38, number 4348)
And:
A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, book 38, number 4349) That is, no one was to be penalized for killing her; her death was just.
Abdullah continues:
Unfortunately, their argument is built on a position that is supported by a good number of Muslim religious scholars all over the world that demand death for acts of apostasy and blasphemy, two of the practices that were developed under the influence of corrupt despotic Muslim rulers who misused their power to twist religious scholarship to serve their political interests.
After ignoring the Islamic texts that justify the death penalty for blasphemy, Abdullah claims that it is an import from Christianity and Judaism (neither of which actually have a death penalty for blasphemy):
The idea of blasphemy is foreign to Islam. It was justified by many medieval Muslim scholars on the basis of their understanding of Christian and Jewish texts supporting laws against those who blaspheme and vilify their religions.
The word “blasphemy” came via Middle English blasfemen and Old French blasfemer and Later Latin blasphemare meaning “I injure.” Based on this definition, rulers used laws to victimize non-members of and dissident members of the ruling sect or cult. Countries that had a state religion used it often to serve the interests of the rulers. In Judaism, the third book of Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy shall surely be put to death. The seven laws of Noah seen by Judaism as applicable to all of humankind prohibits blasphemy In Christian theology, the Gospel of Mark 3:29, describes blaspheming the holy spirit as unforgiveable [sic] eternal sin. Thomas Aquinas considered blasphemy a major unforgiveable [sic] sin, more grave than murder. The Book of Concord describes it the greatest sin ever committed. The Baptist Confession of Faith calls it a disgusting and detesting act. Catholic Church has specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy against God and the Church was a crime punishable by death in much of the Christian world. In England, last blasphemy execution, was that of an 18-year-old Thomas Aikenhead who was executed for the crime in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the accuracy of Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ’s miracles.
The Quran and the authentic teachings of the Prophet describe the practice of showing irreverence to God and his messenger as acts of ignorance, deliberate provocation or hatred. Yet the two sources of Islamic guidance never proposed punitive action on the basis of theological dissent or religious differences or irreverence. Some Muslim jurists, have, often misused the institution of ijtihad to serve the emotive interests of the people. The fatwa or religious decree issued by Khomeini proposing murder of Salman Rushdie was a personal opinion with no support from the divine guidance.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan also has in its penal code laws that prohibit and punish blasphemy against Islam ranging from a fine to death. The Criminal courts often decides a case of blasphemy on the basis of public emotions and political interests rather than the divine writ. Pakistan’s Criminal Code has its blasphemy laws. For instance, code 295 forbids damaging or defiling a place of worship or a sacred object, code 296A forbids outraging religious feelings, code 295 B forbids defiling the Quran, code 295 C forbids defaming Prophet Muhammad.
Defiling the Quran in punishable by imprisonment for life and defaming Prophet Muhammad by death with or without a fine. None of these codes have any basis in the Quran or the authentic teachings of the Prophet. It is a position that many scholars adopted under the influence of despotism that prevailed in the Muslim world for centuries and still prevails in many countries. This position is rarely challenged by those who claim to have knowledge of the Quran and sunna. Often, they use their religious authority to suppress debate on the issue.
The tyranny of religious scholars is so intense that those opposed to these laws are condemned as non-Muslims punishable by death. Some of the scholars even encourage their followers to unleash terror against such people. Their arrogance has reached to a point that they do not want to listen to any argument based on the Quran and the teachings of the Quran. The religious and educational institutions of the Muslim world suffer from the tyranny of these scholars who justify their ignorance and arrogance on the basis of a literature that emerged at a time, when Muslims had lost connection with the Quran and by and large were at the mercy of despotic rulers and their hired religious scholars.
The un-Quanic [sic] and un-Prophetic practices adopted by many Muslims scholars must be challenged. Islam is not the monopoly of self imposed scholars. It is a faith given to people for their well being and guidance without any interference from any authority other than Allah , the almighty.. Those who assume the divine role in condemning people and deciding their life and death must be challenged and what better way than to seek the repelling of blasphemy law in light of the Quran and sunna.
If Muslim religious scholars are seriously concerned about the sensitivities of people with regards to their faith and its holy figures, then they should advocate common laws for every religion and religious community emphasizing that respect must be shown to all religions and freedom of speech must not be seen as a license to hurt and provoke others.
It is time that Muslim scholars from all over the world revisit issues such as blasphemy and apostasy in the light of the Quran and sunna rather than falling victim to positions that can not be substantiated by the divine writ.
This is all fine, but it would have been much better if Abdullah had listed the passages that I have listed here, showing why so many Muslims, including the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, believe that Islam does have a death penalty for blasphemy. By ignoring these passages, Abdullah makes a mockery of his repeated insistence that blasphemy laws be scrutinized in light of the Qur’an and Sunnah. To pretend that the causes of the problem do not exist, and that therefore there is no problem, only begs the question of why the problem arose in the first place: if Islam has no death penalty for blasphemy, why are there so many misunderstanders of Islam on this point?
There is a difference between reform and deception, and Abdullah’s piece is yet another example of the latter. Tikkun readers will go away happy and reassured, but the Muslims who believe that blasphemers should be killed will be in no way convinced by Abdullah’s hollow argument, and will go on killing blasphemers as before.