Should Pakistan Repeal the Blasphemy Law?
By Dr. Mohiuddin Waseem
Modesto , CA
Once again the controversial blasphemy law of Pakistan has made headlines following the award of death sentence to Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five. The prosecution alleged that Ms. Asia made derogatory remarks about Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), an offense that carries the death penalty under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. The human rights activists of Pakistan are to be commended on their persistent protests against this controversial legislation since its inception in 1986 by General Zia’s regime, as time and again it is exploited for giving vent to personal enmity and encourages extremism. I am hopeful that by the time these lines appear in print Ms. Asia would have received the presidential pardon from President Asif Ali Zardari. The following few lines are a rebuttal to the evidence put forward by the proponents of this law.
Historically speaking, just like Christians who once promulgated a similar law to protect the honor of Jesus Christ, this blasphemy law is heavily influenced by the Muslim mentality of middle ages when Islam became the dominant religion in the Middle Eastern society. A frequently referred treatise on this subject by Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328 CE), As-Sarim Al-Maslul ala Shatim Ar-Rasul (The drawn sword against those who insult the Messenger), was written in response to an incident in which Ibn Taymiyyah saw a Christian insulting Prophet Mohammad.
I invite my readers to further go back in history to the earliest sources and ask a simple question as to “what the Prophet himself said and what the Holy Qur’an teaches about this issue”? If the supporters of this law are right, one should see tons of examples in the literature as throughout his ministry Prophet Mohammad was verbally and physically abused thousands of times, but strangely enough you only find a few “implied” traditions, exclusively in those books considered less authentic by the scholars such as Nisai, Abi Dawood and Dar Qutni etc. One is surprised to find that the Holy Qur’an is completely silent on awarding any worldly punishment on this issue, neither do we find any prophetic tradition (hadith) in its support, especially in the two most authentic books on hadith, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
The bedrock claim of the proponents of this law is a tradition from Abu Dawood, in which a blind man kills his concubine; who used to abuse and disparage the Prophet. Despite being forbidden many times according to the blind man’s account, she did not give up her habit, and one night as she began to slander the Prophet he took out a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. Unaware of the woman’s pregnancy an unborn dead fetus was thus delivered and was smeared with overflowing blood. When the news of this murder reached the Prophet he confronted the blind man who in his defense repeated his version of the story. Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood (Sunan Abu-Dawood, 2048).
This concocted tradition is classified by scholars of hadith as Hasan, which linguistically means good and only better than Daif, the weakest tradition. It is important to remind my readers that for early hadith collectors, Muhadiseen, the most important task was to differentiate between Sahih, the authentic ones, from Daif traditions. It follows naturally that early Muslims based their faith on Sahih hadiths alone. Scholars tell us that it was Al-Tirmidhi (824–892 CE, 209-279 AH) who in the third century after Hijra became the first to set up rules to identify Hasan traditions among the Daif, which later became acceptable for use as religious evidence among scholars; however, not rising to the level of Sahih, which is my bias against this kind of traditions. Another tradition with variant reading, considered Daif (weak) by scholars reads, “A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disparage him. A man strangled her and she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood” (Sunan Abu- Dawood 2049). Quite obviously one would like to know the identity of this blind man, so another variant tradition is pulled out from Ibn Saad’s “Tabqat AlKubra” where he is identified as Ibn umm Maktoom, but this time the female was killed by hitting. You will agree with me that such evidence in a court of law will be instantly thrown out if the witnesses are not clear about the details of the crime.
Once this is settled, the proponents of the blasphemy law in their support present the story related to the death warrant issued by the Prophet against Kab Ashraf, a member of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir, who were settlers in the outskirts of Madinah. Before we discuss the circumstances of his murder it is important to recall that the Prophet as a statesman had given this tribe a charter of freedom and in return they were expected to be loyal to the Muslim State of Madinah. Kab, at some stage, became openly hostile to Islam. He besmirched in verses the reputation of Muslim women, and incited the tribes in and around Madinah, to rise against the Prophet and Islam.
He became particularly distressed when he heard the news of the Muslim victory at Badr. He took it upon himself then to travel to Mekkah to express his grief and to incite the Quraysh to take revenge. Clearly because of his openly declared war against the Prophet, he was considered dangerous and a public enemy to the nascent Muslim State. It was in these circumstances that the Prophet, who was quite exasperated and annoyed with him, said to the Muslims, “Who will deal with Kab bin Ashraf? He has offended God and His Apostle” (Sahih Bukhari 5.369).
Abu Rafi, another adversary to the early Muslim State, was killed after Kab Ashraf on similar charges and in the words of Bukhari, “Abu Rafi used to hurt Allah’s Apostle and help his enemies against him” (Sahih Bukhari 5.371).
We should remember here that according to our modern legal system, inciting murder is considered worse than murder itself. These people were inciting murder and violence and therefore were punished for that crime; and not just because of their slander of the Prophet. Ibn Saad in his “Tabqat Alkubra” mentions two more murders which occurred after the battle of Badr; in one a female Asma bint Marwan, and in the other Abu Afak, an elderly Jew, were killed on similar charges of inciting rebellion. Because of lack of asnad (chain of transmitters) in these reports it is superfluous to say that these reports cannot be considered reliable.
The same is true for the report related to the murders of Nazar bin Al Haris and Uqba bin Abi Muhit, who were enemy combatants captured in the battle of Badr (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, p 308). According to Ibn Kathir’s explanation, out of all the captives these were the only two chosen to be killed because of their constant rebellion and abusive language, even in captivity, against God, Apostle of God and Islam (Albidaya wal Nahaya, Urdu edition, Vol 3, p311). Even if I agree for the sake of discussion that the Prophet himself ordered their execution, Ibn Kathir’s explanation tells us that it was done for the sake of general welfare of the State and not as an act of vengeance. We should remember that there were no jails in those days and if they were set at large, it was foreseeable that in all likelihood they would have once again indulged in inciting people against the State of Madinah.
In conclusion, Prophet Mohammad neither killed nor incited anybody to kill for his personal grief or vengeance. Ten years of his initial ministry in Mekkah is clear proof that despite the worst imaginable abuse and torture inflicted on him, he and his companions never resorted to violence in retaliation. Even when he became powerful as the head of state in Madinah, he never took advantage of his position for settling scores or personal vendetta. He always acted for the welfare and protection of his subject people, regardless of their religion or creed, and if certain enemies of the State were dealt with “preemptive strikes”, it was with the intention to defend the State and not for vengeful reasons. It is high time that the government of Pakistan should repeal the blasphemy law from its criminal proceeding code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
