Untangling the Concept of Blasphemy in Islam
By
Rashad Ali
November
20, 2018
It Is
Necessary To Understand The Issues Of Blasphemy That Have Arisen In Recent
Times, Whether Terrorist Claims To Murdering Alleged Blasphemers, Conservative
Clerics Positions On Insults To The Prophet By Depicting The Prophet Of Islam,
And The Claims And Foundations Of Blasphemy Laws Within Pre-Modern (Medieval
And Pre-Medieval In Fact) Islamic Jurisprudence
Main
Points:
1. Muslims have
defined Shariah as the ‘speech of the divine related to human conduct’
2. Blasphemy is
specifically related to disparaging, denigrating, or insulting the Prophet.
3. Today’s
extremists and conservatives who do not wish to contextualise their view still
advocate the pre-modern point of view.
4. We need to
challenge the narrative of extremists and highlight its ideological flaws,
-------
Children of Asia Bibi, who was accused of insulting the Messenger of
Islam,
-----
No one can
have missed the events in Pakistan. Following the trial, and intended release
of Asia Bibi, who was accused of insulting the Messenger of Islam, was locked
up for 8 years, during which, we have seen the Murder of Salman Taseer, a
former Governor and Statesman in Pakistan for daring to question the Blasphemy
laws, an then the subsequent conviction of his murderer, and then the practical
beautification of his murderer, we were informed that she would finally be
released after three judges found her not guilty. This was not the end. The
judges have been declared ‘Wajib Ul-Qatl’ i.e. a death sentence has been
imposed on them. Senior clerics have called for their re-trial and after riots,
demonstrations, mysterious murders of senior clerics, and others denouncing the
State system’s validity and calling for sub-judicial murder, the government of
Imran Khan, after strong words of condemnation have caved in and allowed for a
re-trial
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read: Can Islamism Be Regarded as The Root Cause of
Extremism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What this
article seeks to do is understand the issues of blasphemy that have arisen in
recent times, whether terrorist claims to murdering alleged blasphemers,
conservative clerics positions on insults to the Prophet by depicting the
Prophet of Islam, and the claims and foundations of blasphemy laws within
pre-modern (medieval and pre-medieval in fact) Islamic jurisprudence.
What is
Shariah for Muslims?
Muslims
have defined this as the ‘speech of the divine related to human conduct’ [i],
which is often translated into Islamic law. It is also often used
interchangeably with what is known as fiqh or the ‘knowledge or understanding
of the rulings of the Shariah which have been interpreted from specific
scriptural sources’ [ii]. The difference
between the two though is considerable and the mixing of the two is one that
creates an analytical problem. Fiqh, for Muslim specialists of religious
jurisprudence or ethics, is a human understanding of the shariah. This
distinction is key in preventing the essentialising of Islam, or the belief
that one specific understanding of the religious teaching IS Islam.
It is
important to understand that there are many diverse interpretations of the
shariah i.e. the religious texts, be they verses from the Qur’an, prophetic
traditions or citations of consensus, or the rationale in these texts or their
purposive content, particularly when seeking guidance on human behaviour. Hence
there is a multiplicity of schools of thought and divergent understandings.
While the four major schools of thought, or Madhahib (or Madhab in
singular), are considered to provide Sunni Muslims with sound orthopraxic
rulings, many others are, in fact, considered acceptable as interpretations for
Muslims to follow and apply in their life. Supplementing the formal positions
of these Madhahib, even interpretations of well-known companions of the
Prophet or major scholars from the early generations [iii] are often cited.
This is evident in Muslim practice of Islam, whether in relation to prayers and
how to perform them or related to questions of law, such as how to deal with
issues that are of interest to us here, namely apostasy or how to deal with
those that insult the Prophet of Islam.
In fact, a
key aspect of the ideology and the claims of extremists is that their understanding
of Islam is the only sound or correct understanding of Islam or Islamic
rulings. It is also one of the problems that both critics[iv] of Islam and
extremists often fall into – either essentialising Islamic rulings and “law” to
the most extreme view or claiming that the most reasonable or direct reading of
Islamic law requires Islam itself to be reformed[v].
An example
of such extremism can be seen in a lecture delivered by al-Awlaki who not only
misrepresents the views laid out in pre-modern works, but also lays claim that
this is the only sound view of Islamic religious ethic as transmitted through
Muslim tradition and the only possible or sound view of Islam. He argues that
those responsible for insulting the Prophet of Islam should be assassinated and
that Muslims have a duty to engage in such murderous acts as a means to compete
for the pleasure of the Prophet and of God, and a fundamentally a religious
duty[vi].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Classical
Position on Blasphemy and Islamic Law
Blasphemy
in the context we are speaking of is specifically related to disparaging,
denigrating, or insulting the Prophet. In relation to cartoons, they are seen
as a disrespectful portrayal of the Prophet of Islam and in some instances
gratuitously insulting. Whilst much has
been said of the issue of depicting the Prophet in imagery, it is to some
extent necessary to differentiate the issue of images of living beings,
portrayal of the Prophet, and the issue of blasphemy as defined above. The
former was traditionally forbidden by Sunni Muslims scholarship. This is based
upon the view held by apparent majority of traditional Sunni schools that any
image of a living person or one that possess a soul is forbidden i.e.
depictions of animals too. This however, is not an absolute consensus. Even
among the early scholars, some had notably taken a position that
two-dimensional images or portraits of living people were not forbidden. In
fact, it has become the popular view with such an edict given by the Mufti of
Libya, Sadiq al-Ghiryani, which actually in this instance despite the Mufti’s
own Salafist leanings represents the Maliki School [vii]. It was also, according to Imam al-Nawawi [viii],
a view among the Salaf, or the earliest Muslims, though one that he does not
consider as sound in the Shafi school, even though it was one which was held by
major Shafi jurists such as Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni[ix] (al-Nawawi is a
jurist who is considered the official representative of the later Shafi school
and widely respected by all scholars and even Islamists).
This
dichotomy was due to the distinction between merely two-dimensional pictures
and three-dimensional statues. Though they were both prohibited, this was,
according to the early hadith scholar and jurist Khattabi [x], because
they were worshipped besides God. It was this aspect that was considered
problematic, even as the Prophet, according to sound hadith narrations, relaxed
the prohibition on two-dimensional objects. This discussion is related by the
major hadith master Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his magnum opus, and commentary of
the hadith collection of Imam Bukhari [xi], considered the soundest narrations
of prophetic statements and acts [xii]. Still, he does take the view of the
majority, which is that it was forbidden to depict any human being fully in a
form that could be recognised as a human being, even as he mentions the
Prophetic tradition relaxing such a prohibition.
The Maliki
school, as stated earlier, has taken this as a standard view, mentioned in of
several views of the school by al-Zarqani in his commentary on the Muwatta,
the famous collection of traditions, legal judgements and hadith as accepted by
the early Muslims of the city of Medina and collected by Imam Malik bin Anas,
the eponym of the Maliki Madhab [xiii].
This does not necessarily translate into a permission to depict the
Prophet, but it does raise the issue of its possibility, as it doesn’t appear
to be a question that is explicitly discussed widely in Islamic jurisprudence [xiv].
Scholars also mention that according to some jurists the prohibition itself was
considered by some to apply only to making idols and keeping idols not images [xv]
Historically,
though, there does appear to be evidence to suggest that Muslims did have
devotional portraits and pictures. These are still available to be viewed
around the world. This was seen historically both among Sunnis and Shia
cultures and specifically, but not exclusively, the Ottomans [xvi].
Again this
does not in any way negate the fact that most Muslims would not see that the
cartoons would have been acceptable in Islamic terms, or that Muslims should
not take offense. All it demonstrates is that there are diverse views about
what appears to be, at first sight, an obvious and apparent consensus. Similarly,
Muslims have had various reactions to the latest depiction in Charlie Hebdo’s
first magazine after the murders of their staff. This was seen in the debate on
the BBC’s ‘This Week in Politics’ [xvii], where there were diametrically
opposed perspectives on the latest cartoon by Muslims themselves.
The
Rulings on Blasphemy
Classical
Islamic jurisprudence similarly has a number of different positions on legal
sanctions and the various complexities in the manner in which they are
implemented. Unsurprisingly, these positions are at various ends of the legal
and political spectrum and manifest themselves in different understandings of
the world. As it was explained to this author by a mufti, or specialist in
issuing religious edicts, Muslim society was historically centred around
religion and organised society around it. Blasphemy was not merely a violation
of the sacred in religious terms but also was considered a political act aimed
at undermining the glue that bound society, differentiating loyal subjects from
those whose loyalties laid elsewhere.
In such
imperial times, it was also the case that the norm in political life was
warfare and imperial expansion. Conflict on political, and therefore religious,
identities was the norm. As such, undermining the religious foundations was
seen as undermining the foundations of the society, possibly leading to treason
and war. This is the way in which Muslims perceived their society and looked at
preserving their integrity and empire. In such a context, blasphemy was considered
a capital punishment necessary for the fundamental preservation of not just
belief but the integrity of Muslim society as a whole, or so some jurists had
argued.
This was
and can be seen as an extreme perspective in modern multicultural societies. Alongside
other rules such as those on apostasy, this perspective was also viewed in the
same light by scholars such as Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut, the former rector of
al-Azhar and widely respected mufti who lived through the late 19th and early
to mid-20th centuries. He hence viewed them completely inappropriate today,
against the principles of Islam, and against the decisive verses of the Qur’an,
which gave absolute freedom of faith and forbade coercing people into embracing
the Muslim faith[xviii].
This was how
major companions such as the second Caliph Umar bin al-Khattab understood the
religion and condemned others for killing apostates even those that joined
rebel armies and fought against Muslims. This was also the understanding of the
some of the major scholars from the salaf such as the likes of Umar bin Abdul
Aziz the famed Sufyan al-Thawri, and Ibrahim al-Nakha’I as documented by major
Salafi scholars such as Imam Shawkani in his Nayl ul-Awtar. [xix]
Nevertheless,
today’s extremists and conservatives who do not wish to contextualise their
view still advocate the pre-modern point of view, often without considering the
caveats laid down by pre modern jurists as should be demonstrated through this
paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidences
Used To Substantiate This Viewpoint – A Critique
The key evidences
put forward are generally found in specific texts or statements attributed to
the Prophet of Islam and incidents in the time of the Prophet. The most famous
ones are apparently commands of the Prophet and general rulings. There is a
statement that is attributed to the Prophet saying, “Whoever insults the
Prophet should be killed/kill them”. This is an oft-cited narration from those
that advocate such a view, such as Taqi al-Din al-Subki of the Shafi Madhab.
However,
even these authors are aware of the fact that such narrations are at least
considered highly problematic to say the least, if not outright false. al-Subki
himself states that if these narrations were sound, they would be the strongest
evidence for this interpretation, yet he himself cites the Shafi hadith master
who states in no uncertain terms that “this hadith is [completely] unknown”
because Ibn al-Salah did not find a chain for it at all. al-Subki cites a
similar narration by the prophet’s cousin Ali bin Abi Talib that says “whoever insults
a Prophet, then you should kill them”. He recognises this narration as being
equally problematic and cites Ibn Hibban and others as having criticised the
narrators. In fact Ibn Hibban stated that Abdul Aziz bin Hasan bin Zabala
discovered unfounded narrations from the ‘Madinans’ that were not to be relied
upon at all. al-Dhahabi also cites other narrators that are problematic and
criticised them. Hence the contemporary Salafi hadith scholar and editor of the
work, Salim bin Eid bin Muhammad al-Hilali, states that the narration is
fabricated (mawdu) and should be forbidden to be attributed to the Prophet.
Interestingly,
al-Subki states that if these narrations were authentic, then they would
clearly provide a foundation for the ruling and executing of someone for
insulting the Prophet, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, without the lengths he had
to go to in the book to attempt to derive such a ruling [xx]. This makes the
hadith side of the evidence, or at least the alleged explicit injunctions and
declarations of the rulings, unfounded or weak at best.
Al-Awlaki
also attempts to cite the rulings from Qadi Iyad al-Yahsubi [xxi], the Maliki
judge, as a general ruling advocating murder. However, what should be clear is
that neither Qadi Iyad, al-Subki, or even Ibn Taymiyya [xxii], whom he cites
extensively, actually saw this as a vigilante action or justification for
terrorism. The ruling was one that could only apply after being established in
a court and applied by the judge [xxiii]. Iyad states that it could only be
applied if established (in thabit) which was explained by Khafaji the
commentator as bil-Shahada Aw Iqrar– or “by testimony or confession”.
Furthermore, it has been claimed that historically when there were cases of
deliberate blasphemy aimed purely at creating martyrs for the sake of making a
point, the judges in Muslim Spain, from where Qadi Iyad hailed, stopped
applying the penalty so as not to create martyrs, as the purpose of the ruling
was not merely to kill people for martyrdom’s sake [xxiv].
This was
also justified on the sound narrations of the Prophet not exacting any penalty
for blasphemy and moreover forbidding his companions from doing so against
non-Muslims who had cursed him. Thereafter, those that assumed there was a
punishment sought to reconcile this, arguing that the Prophet dropped the
punishment in order to soften their hearts. So for the sake of the Maslaha, or
public interest, it was acceptable to not apply such punishments.
In fact
that was the explanation given by Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani of the hadith
(whose authenticity is agreed upon), in the collection of Imam al-Bukhari [xxv].
Hence even according to these jurists, the course of action was aimed at
bringing people together and for a public benefit, rather than applying
punishments indiscriminately. The former was not necessarily the correct
application of their Fiqh or subjective interpretation of the Shariah.
The Maslaha of public interest and bringing harmony to the society was
more important and congruent with the purpose and spirit of Islam, at least
according to the Prophet. This is definitely not the attitude of terrorists
such as those that we have seen.
The
proponents of such a view also argue through incidents that took place or
allegedly took place during the Prophet’s own life. Commonly cited at least are
two incidents including the order to execute Kab bin Ashraf and the infamous
story of the killing of Asma bint Marwan. Regarding the narration of Asma bint
Marwan, despite the fact that the narrations themselves are contradictory, the
narrations themselves were also considered fabrications, as they were
attributed to infamous narrators of hadith known to fabricate stories.
Ibn Adiy
states in his Kamil fil-Duafa wal-ilal ul-Hadith that one of the narrators,
“Muhammad bin al-Hajjaj… was accused of just forging hadith“. Ibn ul-Jawzi the
jurist and hadith scholar in his Kitab ul-Ilal likewise quotes Yahya bin Ma’in
the famous contemporary of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, eponym of the Hanbali school,
as saying this narrator was a “liar and repugnant (khabith),” al-Daraqutni
considered him a “total liar,” and Imam al-Bukhari stated in no uncertain terms
that he was a “Munkar” or one who rejected hadith. As such as he is the
only narrator to transmit the narration from Majlad from Shabi to Ibn Abbas,
leaving it an extremely weak a story or apocryphal, i.e., a fabricated
narration. These discussions can be
found in the works of Salafi hadith scholar al-Albani, considered by them as
their major hadith scholar of recent times, in his collection of weak and
fabricated hadith [xxvi].
As for the
incident with Kab bin Ahsraf, al-Awlaki tries to assert that there is no other
reading of the incident that should be considered as reasonable. This actually
quite difficult to accept as it is such a well-known figure from Muslim
historians. He was killed, as other scholars have asserted, for a number of
reasons, including conspiring with the Meccans in their war against the new
city-state in Medina, which was revealed by others when they converted, i.e.,
an act of treason. He was also narrated to have attempted to assassinate the
Prophet and hence fled and was later killed for those reasons [xxvii]. In fact
the famous exegete and jurist of the Hanafi school of Fiqh, Badr ul-Din
al-Ayni, states in his commentary on Imam al-Bukhari’s collection of hadith
that “he [Kab] was not killed merely for insulting the [Prophet], but rather it
was surely for the fact that he was an aide/spy against him, and conspired with
those who fought wars against him, and supported them” [xxviii]. Hence the
facts disagree with the explanation of the events and incidents as presented by
al-Awlaki, these are well known and well documented in the prophetic biography
and hadith collections, hence commentators like al-Ayni, which are relied upon
by Muslim jurists, explicitly refute the assertion made by others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative
Positions
Imam
al-Ayni is also representative of the Hanafi madhab, which states not merely
that there was no such punishment for blasphemy but that such an action by the
authorities was forbidden. They use the above evidences in the Sahih of Imam
al-Bukhari which stated that the Prophet was cursed by non-Muslims and yet he
did not do anything. When people asked if they should kill them, the Prophet
explicitly forbade it. Badr al-Din al-Ayni states that this was the opinion of
Imam Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Bukhari[xxix] and he stated so by placing these
hadith under the chapter of “Dealing with non-Muslims under Muslim governance
who insulted the Prophet such as by saying ‘death be upon you’.” This was his Fiqh,
as al-Ayni explained. This was also the view of Imam Abu Hanifa the eponym of
the largest school of fiqh[xxx] based on the soundest hadith on the subject –
ad certainly the dominant school in countries like Pakistan.
al-Ayni
also explained that people are not punished or killed for greater than such a
blasphemy and insult against the Prophet of Islam, which was from an Islamic
perspective that they were committing shirk or did not give God His due, but
rather associating others in His lordliness in Islamic terms. Yet this was not
deemed a criminal act and they were not punished for it. This was why they were
not punished for the blasphemy in the time of the Prophet as that was a greater
matter [xxxi].
It was also
the position of Sufyan al-Thawri[xxxii] another major scholar who had his own
school or Madhab [xxxiii] and was a contemporary of Abu Hanifa. Additionally,
it was one of the transmissions from the Shafi Madhab according to the Qadi Abu
Tayyib, who was a well-respected jurist and judge of the Shafi Madhab [xxxiv].
Moreover Ibn Taymiyyah, the Hanbali jurist also cites the Hanbali scholar Imam
al-Hulwani as stating that was also a view attributable to Imam Ahmad bin
Hanbal.[xxxv] So it is a position that can be found across all Sunni schools.
There is
also an additional consideration from the Shafi School that advocates capital
punishment. It does not consider that such punishments applicable upon people
if states had treaties to not apply such punishments, such as international
treaties which would have been signed making such agreements. In such a
scenario, then they mention that if they were to make an agreement to allow
them to call to their beliefs or if they had an agreement that said their
covenants and treaties were not repudiated by such acts as blasphemy or the
above, then the Mutamad, a relied upon position in the Madhab, was that
such a Treaty could not be violated and remained intact without the punishment
being applied. This was stated by Shaykh Zakariya al-Ansari in his commentary
on the Minhaj [xxxvi].
However
this is all not relevant to universally agreed upon rulings across Sunni
schools for Muslims living in a country that was predominantly non-Muslim. In
those cases, they would have had to obey the social agreements that they
entered into implicitly by living in such countries, a “covenant of security”
which would apply more so today living in multicultural societies.[xxxvii]
Effectively, international agreements would preclude having such impositions
upon people according to the agreements such as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights – of which Pakistan is a signatory – and others protecting people
of different religions, nations, and their citizens, and would be considered
when seeking to apply such punishments according to this point of view.
So We
Should Be Clear Then On The Following:
There were
those that considered such matters as serious crimes that required a capital
punishment. The actions of terrorists and extremists seeking to carry out such
actions are not justified even by such pre-modern interpretations that believed
that there were punishments for these acts. Even then, the modern world and
political realities would make the same scholars see that the political
agreements that we make preclude such an approach according to their own
interpretation of the Shariah i.e. their own Madhab of Fiqh.
In fact it
may well be that the Maslaha and the purposes of the Shariah and the spirit of
Islamic teachings does not favour such an approach and stopping such
punishments would be considered perfectly consistent to the understanding of
the same jurists and schools.
The basis
for blasphemy laws is not necessarily the most authentic view, and certainly
not the only view of pre-modern Islam. In fact, the opposite position i.e.
there is no such law for blasphemy. is held across various schools of thought
and madhahib from across the spectrum – which includes major jurists and hadith
scholars even of the more scriptural traditionalists (ahl al-hadith). Some may
have described these scholars as scriptural literalists, but it was through
their literalism that they opposed such punishments.
None of the
transmitted positions of Islam do not way justify the horrific acts of
terrorism. The ideological and pseudo-theological narrative of al-Qaeda, ISIS,
and their pseudo clerics do not have a justification for their positions and
should ironically be seen as not medieval but modern and heretical distortions,
of pre-modern theology, combined with the modern tactics of terror. [xxxviii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concluding
Thoughts
Ibn Daqiq
al-Eid, the famous scholar who almost uniquely was considered a jurist in his
own right able to deliver edicts – Fatawa – from the sources directly
and derive from more than Madhab, wrote extensively on hadith and Islamic
jurisprudence. His works are known for independent rigour, fairness in dealing
with various position and schools, and the presentation and disclosure of
differing perspectives. He was also known for personally striving for justice
and when, in his time, there occurred an accusation of blasphemy taken against
another scholar, he defended them and challenged those injustices even as they
were made in the name of orthodox religious interpretations, i.e., Fiqh
or ruling of the Shariah.
Ibn Daqiq
al-Eid commented extensively on the well-known hadith of the Prophet, relaying
that among seven quintessential commands given to the companions was to come to
the ‘aid of the oppressed’ – ‘Nasr ul-Mathlum’. One of the points he makes is
that justice should not come in rushing to seek to apply punishments on people.
He gives a scenario of when aiding the oppressed may become a duty: when two
judges are present in a sitting/hearing (Majlis) and they differ in
their positions on a case which may involve the taking of life or punishing
and/or condemning someone as a blasphemer or as a heretic (Zindeeq),
then the one who can see that he could prevent the punishment/condemnation or
taking of life should rush forth to protect the individual from the harsh
judgement of the other. This means that the one who could protect this person
would be fulfilling the command of the Prophet to come to the aid of the oppressed
[xxxix].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read: Udaipur Beheading: Educated Muslims Say Not In My
Name
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need to
challenge the narrative of extremists and highlight its ideological flaws, its
simplistic view of the world and skewed nature of politics, and dismantle the
pseudo-religious arguments. We need to prevent not just of those on the
Islamist right but also those on the far-right from seeking to essentialise
Islam, helping create and further cement civil tensions, or even justifying
attacks on Muslims. The middle ground must be radically fought for.
Inconsistencies
and contradictions must be addressed at a wider level so that justice is not
only done as a society but, as the saying goes, must be seen to be done
----
[i]
These are common definitions taken by scholars and specialists of Usul ul-Fiqh
or first principles related to understanding and deriving ‘fiqh’ – definition
to follow -. This was given by scholars such as the famous jurist al-Ghazali
and specialist in Usul Ibn Hajib, page 272 in his Mukhtasar muntaha al-su’l
wal-amal fi ilmay al-Usul wal-Jadal published by Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut – Lebanon
2006
[ii]
Page 15, al-Bahr ul-Muhit fi Usul ul-Fiqh, published by Dar ul-Kutb l-Ilmiyya,
Beirut-Lebanon 2007. al-Zarkashi, Badr ul-Din Muhammad bin Bahadir, bin
Abdullah died 794
[iii]
The famous scholar and jurist Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, who is considered to be the
soundest retention of the Shafi school, or Madhab, one of the most widely
followed of the Muslim schools of jurisprudence, states this in a Fatwa or
religious edict where he states that this was the position of the early major
scholars including the celebrated Imam al-Iz bin Abdul-Salam and Taj al-Din Ibn
al-Subki and others. Whilst some did restricted it to the four schools the
soundest view was that it was not restricted. This is recorded in the
collection fatawa or non-binding religious edicts, in the chapter on ‘Qada’ or
juridical verdicts, page 308 volume 4, al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiya ala Madhab
Imam al-Shafi published by Dar ul-Kutub ul-ilmiyya, 1997, al-Haytami, Shihab
al-Din Ahmed bin Mohammad bin Ali bin Hajar al-Makki died 1565
[iv] A
good example of this is the new atheist Sam Harris who describes Islam as ‘all
fringe and no centre’ an that Islam itself is extreme. Whilst this is an
intellectually problematic approach and indeed one stooped in simplistic
assumptions, it is a good example of the prevalent type of criticism of Islam.
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-reality-of-islam
[v] An
attempt to demonstrate that the hermeneutic approaches are not literalistic nor
are they free of considerations of natural law, inductive scrutiny and
principle based interpretations, which deal with or historically have dealt
with problematic statements in scripture, is James A C Brown’s ‘Misquoting
Muhammad: The Challenge and choices of interpreting the Prophet’s legacy’
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Muhammad-Challenge-Interpreting-Prophets/dp/178074420X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421642879&sr=1-1&pebp=1421642885881&peasin=178074420X
[vi]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY27ozxBXis The Ruling on insulting the Prophet
[vii]
The various views, ranging from permissibility; prohibition; permission of
incomplete pictures or without the head; that which was in a venerated position
was forbidden – are all mentioned, with the third preferred by al-Zarqani in
his commentary on the Muwatta: page 429, volume 4, Shar’h ul-Zarqani ala
Muwatta al-Imam Malik, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut – Lebanon 1997, Mohammad Abdul Baqi
bin Yusuf al-Zarqani Died 1122
[viii]
Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya bin Sharaf al-Nawawi died in 1277 and officially is
considered the reference for the soundest position in general, of the later
Shafi school. A scholar who is cited by Sufis, traditional scholars, and
respected by salafis and Islamists as well as across all schools of Sunni
jurisprudence
[ix]
Imam al-Haramayn Diya ul-Din Abdul Malik bin Yusuf al-Juwayni, was the teacher
of the famed mystic, scholastic theologian and jurist al-Ghazali. He was a
theologian )mutakallim) and legal theoretician (usuli) and jurist. His works on
jurisprudence bridge the gap between the early and later school and he is
considered a major scholar within the Shafi madhab. He died in 1085
[x] Abu
Sulayman Hamd bin Mohammad bin Ibrahim known as Khattabi was a scholar of
hadith literature as well as Fiqh and theology. He is widely quoted by scholars
such as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and al-Nawawi in their respective commentaries.
Died 988
[xi]
Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Bukhari is considered by Sunni Muslims one of the
greatest of scholars of Hadith or collections of reports of the Prophet’s
sayings, actions or incidents in his life. His collection is considered the
soundest of collections of Hadith followed by those of Imam Muslim bin
al-Hajjaj. Died 870
[xii]
Pages 2623 to 2629, volume 3, Fat’h ul-Bari bi-Shar’h Sahih al-Bukhari,
published by Bait ul-Afkar ul-Dawliya, Jordan and Saudi Arabia 2004.
al-Asqalani, Hafidh Ibn Hajar died 1372
[xiii]
See footnote 46 for elaboration.
[xiv]
Shia clerics have issued edicts stating that it was in fact permissible in
principle to do so, as stated by a leading shia cleric Ayatollah Sistani.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/01/economist-explains-12.
There has been some debate some of these issues among Sunni clerics also in
modern times. http://www.abigmessage.com/fatwas-against-visual-depiction-of-the-prophet-and-his-companions.html
[xv]
This is discussed by major medieval Shafite jurists such as Imam al-Zarkashi
and Imam Sha’rani on their respective works on Islamic Principles or Qawa’id
ul-Shariah, see page 391of ‘Maqasid al-Sanniya fi-Bayan al-Qawaid al-Shariah’
of Imam Andul Wahhab bin Ahmad al-Sha’rani died 973H, published by Dar al-Fat’h
2016
[xvi]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/drawing-prophet-islam-muhammad-images
Drawing the Prophet: Islam’s hidden Mohammad images
[xvii]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04yl86t/this-week-15012015
[xviii]
Pages 280-281, Islam – Aqida wal-Shariah, published by Dar ul-Shuruq Cairo –
Egypt 1992. Imam al-Akbar Mahmud Shaltut Died 1963
[xix]
https://abuaminaelias.com/freedom-of-religion-and-apostasy-in-islam/ for a good
discussion on the sources and understanding of early Muslims.
[xx]
Pages 1180119 al-Subki
[xxi]
Qadi Iyad bin Musa al-Yahsubi was a famous judge and jurist and scholar of
Hadith traditions from Muslim Spain. He was known for his work on Prophetology
commonly known as the Shifa and his commentary on the Hadith collection of Imam
Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, al-Jami al-Sahih, which was widely cited by later
scholars and upon which Imam al-Nawawi heavily relied. Died in 1149
[xxii]
Ibn Taymiyya was a controversial figure among orthodox Muslims of his time. He
did not always conform to the prevailing consensus on matters of creed,
religious practice and political edicts and was imprisoned several times.
Famously, he criticised the Mongols’ conversion to Islam as insincere and as a
means of justifying the occupation of Muslim territory. His life and works are
often seen as contradictory: at times he appears to advocate tolerance of
differences in juristic positions; other times he ascribes deviancies to people
in minor juristic disputes. His student, the polymath Imam al-Dhahabi, stated
that he took a more tolerant view towards the end of his life. He is considered
the putative authority of modern jihadism and an inspiration for Qutbist Islamists
as well as austere Salafi-Wahabism. Some believe this to be a misreading of his
edicts: his fatwa concerning the status of the city of Mardin, for example, was
allegedly subject to a copyist error changing the meaning. While many believe
he wrote that Muslims should be treated as they deserve and unbelievers should
be fought as they deserve, the original edition only contains yu`a’mal (should
be treated) which was mistakenly rendered yuqatal (should be fought) in a
subsequent edition. Nevertheless, the incorrect fatwa has been used to justify
indiscriminate violence, terrorism and the excommunication of Muslims; and Ibn
Taymiyya remains a reference point among contemporary Jihadists. For a thorough
study of his thinking and work see Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, eds Y. Rapoport
and S. Ahmed (Karachi: Oxford University Press 2010) [footnote taken from ‘A Guide to Refuting Jihadism’, by Rashad Ali
and Hannah Stuart]
[xxiii]
See pages 270 onwards of Khafaji’s commentary on the Shifa of Qadi Iyad, Nism
ul-Riyadh fi shar’h ul-Shifa Qadi Iyyad of Shihab al-Din Khafaji volume 6 Dar
ul-Kutub ilmiyya
[xxiv]
In the article Shaykh Hamza Yusuf attempts to explain that some elements will
inevitably react to what he sees as provocation and praises the Popes
pronouncements. He also cites the incidents of the ‘Martyrs of Cordoba’. There
are of course hugely disputed versions of these events.
http://seekershub.org/blog/2015/01/on-the-passing-of-the-young-abdullah-abdullatif-alkadi-and-a-postscript-on-charlie-hebdo-sh-hamza-yusuf/
[xxv]
Pages 3081-3082, volume 3. al-Asqalani
[xxvi]
These discussions can be found in the major collections of Hadith analysis by
these authors. Many of the comments can be found in Nasir al-Din al-Albani’s
collection of weak and fabricated Hadith. whilst he has been criticized he is
in good company here with major masters of Hadith scholarship throughout the
ages. See his collection Silsilat al-ahadith al-da’ifa wal-mawdu’a wa atharuha
al-sayyi’a fil-Ummah, published by Maktabat al-Arif, Riyadh – Saudi Arabia
1988. Died 1999
[xxvii]
These reasons were elucidated by the scholar and Qur’an specialist Nouman Ali
Khan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzP8e9b_OT8 My thoughts on Paris
Shooting. He also elucidates that this understanding is in complete violation
of the Qur’an in multiple verses and the entire life of the Prophet in Mecca
and Medina
[xxviii]
page 121, volume 24, Umdat ul-Qari Shar’h Sahih al-Bukhari, published by Dr
Ihya Turath al-Arabi Beirut – Lebanon 2003, al-Ayni, Badr ul-Din Abu Muhammad Mahmood
bin Ahmad. Died 1360
[xxix]
Page 120, al-Ayni.
[xxx]
The perplexing factor here is that Pakistan is arguably a country which suffers
from the abuse of blasphemy laws and sub cultures which exploit them and has
lead to horrific incidents which are far too well known, is a country whose
Muslims claim to follow the school of Abu Hanifa i.e. the Hanafi madhab
[xxxi]
Page 121, al-Ayni
[xxxii]
Page 537 volume 31, al-Tawdih li-Shar’h al-Jami al-Sahih, published by Wizarat
ul-Awqaf Qatar 2008. A commentary on Imam al-Bukhari’s collection of Hadith
authored by the famous Hadith and Fiqh specialist Siraj ul-Din Abu Hafs Umar
bin Ali bin Ahmad al-Ansari. Died 1402
[xxxiii]
Sufyan al-Thawri was a major scholar from the second generation of Muslims and
was considered a Tabi’i i.e. a scholar who had met companions of the Prophet.
He had his own school of thought and madhab, and a major scholar of Hadith
also. See al-Imam Sufyan al-Thawri wa ara’uhu fiqhiya muqarana bil-madhahib
al-ukhra, published by Obeikan, Riyadh – Saudi Arabia, 2007. al-Thawri died 778
[xxxiv]
Pages 206-207, al-Subki. al-Subki himself argues though that Shafi has more of
a right to be followed than Qadi Abu Tayyib, whose position he narrates but
does not advocate following – page 208
[xxxv]
Page 190. The editor also cites Ibn Taymiyya’s work al-Sarim al-Maslul volume 2
page 23 on the same page footnote 4. al-Hulwani is Muhammad bin Ali bin
Muhammad bin Uthman bin al-Buraq al-Hulwani. Died 1111.
[xxxvi]
Page 316, volume 2, Fat’h ul-Wahhab bi-Shar’h minhaj ul-Tullaab al-Ansari,
Shaykh Zakariya, was a major scholar of the later school in the Shafi school
whose works are widely studied today. Died 1520
[xxxvii]
Both the above reference and the consensus of Sunni schools can be found in the
Hanbali author’s Kashf ul-Litham Shar’h Umdat ul-Ahkam, volume 7, pages 198-
207, a commentary on the most authentic Hadith found in the collections of
Bukhari and Muslim, when discussing the meaning of the Hadith: “traitors will
be known on the day of judgement by carrying the flag of treachery”. Published
by Dar al-Nawadir in Syria – Lebanon – Kuwait. Imam Shams al-Din Muhammad bin
Ahmad bin Salim al-Safarini. Died 1774
[xxxviii]
For an elaborate but brief explanation of this see Bombing Without Moonlight –
The Origins of Suicidal Terrorism, Published by Amal Press, Bristol – London,
2008. Murad, Abdal Hakim.
[xxxix]
Page 169, volume 2, Shar’h ul-Ilmam bi-ahadith ul-Ahkam, published by Dar
al-Nawadir, Beirut – Lebanon – Kuwait, 2010. Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, Taqi ul-Din
Muhammad bun Ali bin Wahb al-Qushayri al-Misri. Died 1302
-----
Rashad Ali is a counter terrorism practitioner.
He works on deradicalization initiatives with Prisons, Probation, UK courts,
Police and community groups. He is a Resident Senior Fellow at ISD – Institute
for Strategic Dialogue. He is classically trained in Islamic theology and
jurisprudence and Modern studies in Islam, and read at Markfield Institute and
has taken courses at al-Azhar University in Cairo. He has also studied various
texts in Aqida (theology), Fiqh (jurisprudence), Usul ul-Fiqh (Principles of
Islamic Jurisprudence), Qawaid (Maxims of jurisprudence) Tasawwuf
(Spirituality), Hadith (traditions of the Prophet), Mustalah ul-Hadith (science
of Hadith), Tarifat wal-Hudud (definitions and terminology) Arabic language, with various of scholars
from various denominations and schools of thought.
URL: https://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-jihad/untangling-concept-blasphemy/d/127386
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism