Religious freedom means any religion
Source: The Huffington Post
By Faisal Kutty: Assistant Professor of Law, Valparaiso University and Adjunct Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Pakistan Criminal Code Article 295 -C
In a span of less than two weeks, in two separate cases, three Christians — a couple and an another unrelated man — were sentenced to death and fined under this draconian provision of the Pakistani criminal Code. A paralyzed church school worker, Shafqat Masih, and his wife Shagufta, were sentenced for sending text messages against the Holy Prophet. While Sawan Masih, a road sweeper from Lahore, was condemned to death after a friend accused him of making blasphemous remarks during an argument.
Human rights activists are counting on a de facto death penalty moratorium in place since 2008 to keep them from the hangman’s noose. Though Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif hasattempted to lift the moratorium.
“This is a travesty of justice,” said David Griffiths, Amnesty International’s Deputy Asia Pacific Director, commenting on the Masih case. Indeed, both cases are not only a travesty of Justice but make a mockery of Islam.
About the author:
Faisal Kutty is an assistant professor of law at Valparaiso University Law School in Indiana and an adjunct professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto. He co-founded the Toronto-based law firm KSM Law. He has spoken and written extensively on national security, Islamic law, legal pluralism, religion and law, and human rights. He has been selected for inclusion in The Muslim 500: The World’s Most Influential Muslims compiled by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre in Amman, Jordan for the past four consecutive years. His articles have appeared in the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, Ottawa Citizen, National Post, Arab News, Indian Express, Al-Ahram Weekly, Jakarta Post, Jurist, Lawyers Weekly, Counterpunch, etc.
A Book: Murder in the Name of Allah
Freedom of Speech: A Core Islamic Value!
As per my understanding, Hadhrat MasiheMaood (AS), writing against the book “Rangeela Rasool” (written by a hindu, maligning The hOly Prophet of Islam (Peace be on him)which caused great riots in India at that time) him self suggested to the British Government to introduce laws which bar people to attack the Prophets or other faiths just for the sake of it or to create riots. I don’t have reference handy but its a well known history.
What wud you say about that? May be some one else can find the reference for better understanding.
I think some Laws are already there in every land but to make them just and to use them properly is more of a concern rather than having such Laws as these. Pak laws r just one sided – which do not secure the accused’s right to defend properly nor it suggests any punishments for false accusations. That’s what make them even worst.
“–INDEED, BOTH CASES ARE NOT ONLY A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE BUT MAKE A MOCKERY OF ISLAM”.
Which ‘islam’ is it making a mockery of? Why do people like to live in denial?
The writer of this article, who is said to be a ‘professor’, has shown how deficient he is in the quran and the hadiths which record how Muhammad had ordered for the killing of those who spoke or sang against him.
This ‘professor’ cannot claim to know more than those who drew up the Pakistani penal code which makes ‘blaspheming’ Muhammad a crime punishable by death or a life term. He cannot also claim to know more than the prime minister who wants to lift the moratorium on the death penalty for blasphemy. He is following the examples set by Muhammad himself.
This piece is a product of ignorance aimed at making its readers even more ignorant.
Namelee likes only those interpretations of Islam, which support his hateful understanding of Islam.
Every thing good looks Christian to him.
Is he wearing polarized glasses?
Perhaps he has not read a book, which describes Christianity in medieval Europe:
Out of the Flames: The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World
Here is a short review from Amazon:
Click here to buy the book in Amazon.
@ Namelee
You highlight those few who were punished by Muhammad (SAW) – but you forgot tons of those who were forgiven.
We need to be unbiased here – Muhammad was not only a Prophet but also a statesman and the King of that land, and the care taker of the welfare of people and property and peace of the people under his Kingship. He was not imposing his decisions as a king on foreign lands. I am not exactly sure what happened nor you witnessed first hand, but a king has to defend his people against Riots or Rebels. I wonder What would you do in situations like that if you were a king? Also if people of his times accepted his decisions then why you or me have to bother after 1500 years. Why not we care more about the peace of our times?
Nadi,
What is now called ‘blasphemy’ was described as ‘sedition’ by Muhammad aka allah. Read the quran and hadiths. The penalty for that was and is still death by whatever means.
We bother about what happened 1500 years ago because it set the stage for what is happening today. That affects the “peace of our times” as there is none because of that which happened 1500 years ago.
I live in a country that experiences this every single day.
Can you provide a list of the ‘tons of those who were forgiven’?
@Namelee.
As per my understanding, as a king he had the duties to stop riots or chaos or rebellion. You should be more worried if a king keeps sleeping while his country is going into flames. The proof that he dealt with people nicely and forgave many is that his followers remained against all odds. Have you forgotten the forgiveness of Hinda and Ikrama and many others? And what caused his followers to be dedicated to him and suffer all kinds of pains for his Deen. It was basically his merciful character and disposition.
I am also one of the those who have faced problems for faith but still I believe its not because people remember what occurred 1500 years ago, but because they forgot that or they like to remember only what suites to them.
Anyways I invite you to peace regardless who is doing what around us.
Blasphemy laws – when implemented properly – are pro-Islam.
It is unfortunate that just because of the onslaught of criticism from media organs and states that themselves engage in persistent violations of freedom – just because of these pointing fingers, it is very unfortunate that Muslims should feel the need to scramble around and deny parts of their religion in order to look respectable in the world. Respect and dignity is in the hands of Allah, not in the abiding by a few trendy hot topics raised by those who do not accept the True Creator of the universe and of humanity.
The author of this article is mistaken. The author should have a better education of the context and the chronological order of events during the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him), from which the Shariah is derived. Islam does in fact have laws of apostasy and blasphemy.
As the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
“It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: An adulterer who had been married, who should be stoned to death; a man who killed another man intentionally, who should be killed; and a man who left Islam and waged war against Allah, the Might and Sublime, and His Messenger, who should be killed, or crucified, or banished from the land.” [Nasai Vol. 5, Book 1, Hadith 4053]
And the Shariah of Islam is derived both from the book that God revealed and the man He sent as its vehicle, teacher, and Messenger (peace be upon him).
So if blasphemy/apostasy law exists in Shariah, does this mean that Islam is barbaric?
Not at all, and it would very presumptuous to jump to such a conclusion. (Note that the Hadith specifies those who leave Islam and *wage war against it* – in other words, people who make their apostasy a political issue). Islam includes laws for state-level legislation, and just like any other state in the world – it includes clauses on how to deal with those who cause serious political problems – since Islam is not merely a personal religion but a complete system of governance as well.
Now, given the existence of such laws, does this mean that innocent women and children can be killed? No. Certain people in the countries mentioned above have abused the laws of Islam – just like in any country, any number of laws may be abused by any corrupt individuals. There are far more laws abused in Pakistan and Sudan than the ones mentioned. Certainly such abuse as well as the assassinations of innocents is abhorrent, but that does not mean that we should dump the idea that such laws even exist. If people abuse traffic laws, should such laws be revoked?
The solution is not to pretend that no blasphemy/apostasy laws exist in Shariah, but to implement them *properly* and penalize those who abuse it.
There are three main issues here of immense importance:
1. The hand of the media in blowing issues out of proportion and making rarely-implemented laws – which are abused in Muslim countries that *do not* correctly follow Shariah – appear to be some sort of fundamental cornerstone of Islamic life and Islamic legislation.
2. There is a lot of CONTEXT to the apostasy issue in Islam, as applied in a state *correctly and comprehensively* applying Shariah. For honest, open-minded people who would like to be educated on the context and to be able to see the idea of apostasy and blasphemy from a *different* perspective, please enter the following in Google search: “miraatu of_apostasy_blasphemy_and_islam” and read the document that shows up.
3. There is another, INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT context that is very often missed out in the “blasphemy/apostasy in Islam” discourse. And that is the “Extremely frightening laws against blasphemy and apostasy” in the same Western and so-called “free” states that present their criticism against Islam. The West may do not use the word “blasphemy” but it effectively treats any anti-establishment discussion as blasphemy. For example, please google this: “huffington post journalist or terrorist”. And this is just one recent article, only discussing life imprisonment. There is no dearth of documented evidence of state-sponsored assassinations against those whom the West conceives as a threat. Just because they do not openly claim such laws does not mean they do not actively engage in them. Do keep in mind that Gitmo and the worst torture cells in the world, where people are held *without criminal charges*, mainly for indulging in the “possibility” of what is blasphemous to Western ideology, remember that is a product of Western society, not Islam.
Ignoring namelee’s comments completely, I see that
Miraatu is not right. Miraatu has presented only one hadith, nothing from the Quran to support the blasphemy laws in Islam. There is no justification for such ideas.
The prophet Muhammad s.a.w.s. acted on the revealed words of the Quran. Before the revelation of certain verses, he used to act upon the guidance given in Mosaic law. But when new knowledge came to him, he never went back to any other law.
He prayed facing Jerusalem for many years. He may have stoned some adulterers to death in early days in Madinah. But after verses were revealed with new teachings, he never faced Jerusalem for daily prayers and never killed (Stoned to death) any adulterer.
If blasphemy is mentioned in Mosaic law (and I believe it is) then the prophet s.a.w.s. may have acted upon that. But since there is no mention of any punishment for blasphemy in the Quran and death penalty is a capital punishment and the life example of the prophet s.a.w.s. indicates he never abused or wished to punish any one who disrespected him, we can say that there is no punishment in Sharia for blasphemy.
Of course it is bad (very bad) to abuse the holy men of God. Allah also does not like that. There should be some restrictive laws to uphold the respect of leaders of religions. Nadi has rightly mentioned that Hazrat Masih mau,ood a.s. had requested the British government to introduce some kind of law to preserve the respect of the leaders of all faith i.e. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna, Budha (a.s.) so that nobody abuses them openly (freely). That was a good request to restore peace in the land.
The promised Messiah a.s. never wanted any draconian law to be introduced against the teachings of Islam.
The present blasphemy laws are very harsh and against Islam. Allah had told the prophet s.a.w.s. “Is Allah not enough for His servant?”= Alais Allah u bikaafin Abduh’u?
Indeed Allah is enough for His servants.
When people are commiting sins and crimes (stealing) in Pakistan due to poverty and since there is no system that any one can easily give a true testimony (Shahadat) in any court, then it is silly to introduce very harsh laws in that country. There is no need too.
It is the only crime (blasphemy) in the country? Why not introduce death penalty for stealing and robbing and giving false evidence etc.???
Miraatu has tried to prove something which is not supported by the Quran and in fact it is anti-Islamic.