“ جس کا مقصد کسی بات کو ہنسی، دل لگی اور مذاق میں اڑادینا ہو”

Imam Amin Ahmed Islahi interprets this word as “اگر کوئی شخص یا گروہ علانیہ خدا اور رسول کےخلاف بکواس کرتا ہے”

Another word used in this ayah that needs elaboration is  آياتِنا (aayaatenaa). This has multiple connotations: our signs, our verses or our revelations. In Ahkam al-Qur’an, Imam al-Jassas amplifies its meaning: This verse tells that Muslims should abstain from every such gathering where things are being said against Allah Ta’aala, His Rasool and the Shari’ah of Islam….”

The ayah is thus commanding HIS beloved Rasool and through him the Muslim community to turn away amicably from any meeting where HE or HIS Rasool or HIS Deen is being derided, ridiculed or scorned. It would be a sin not to do so.They are asked to return once “they immerse themselves in talk other than this”. Imam al-Jassasadds in Ahkam al-Qur’an “and where it is not within one’s power and control to stop or have it stopped, or, at the least, be able to say what is true and right. However, participating in such a gathering with the intention to reform and to carry the message of truth to them does not matter”. The research scholar Ghamdi seems to differ. He maintains it would be improper to participate in such an atmosphere even for tabligh and da’wah. Nasr et al refers to some reports that connect this prohibition even to discordant factions among the Believers “who would engage in fruitless and divisive debate about religion”. Some literalists have carried this logic to the extreme and “have taken this verse to mean a prohibition against all discussion and debate regarding religious issues, and thus as an indication that one should rely only on a literal reading of the scripture”. However al-Razi refutes this verdict.

These two ayahs and many others like them announce a very clear and definite message and command to us Muslims in the face of criticism, derision or mocking on any item of our Deen by the non-believers: TURN AWAY OR LOOK THE OTHER WAY IN A FRIENDLY WAY; join them again after they start behaving themselves.

I was tempted to select this ayah for our discussion when I read about the planned competition of drawing images of our Holy Prophet in the Netherland. I was flooded by the memories of the violent disorder and riotous confusion in multiple countries following a similar attempt few years earlier in Denmark. Fortunately for all, wiser counsel prevailed and the event was cancelled. This gives us a peaceful environment to ponder over this very artificial and unnecessarily created problem of Blasphemy.

What is blasphemy? Can it be labelled openly and clearly an Islamic concept? No. Works of legal luminaries like Justice Shafiq Usmani endorse the view that the concept of blasphemy is unknown to Islamic jurisprudence. It may be defined as something done  or said that shows disrespect for God or sacred things. A related word sacrilege is used for the violation, desecration, or theft of something considered holy or sacred or the disrespectful or irreverent treatment of something others consider worthy of respect or reverence. Historically, the  blasphemy laws began in Christian Europe as a means to prevent dissent and enforce the church’s authority. They were exported to Muslim majority nations via British imperialism. It is worth mentioning that blasphemy laws were introduced in the Indo-Pak subcontinent by the British back in 1860 in a misguided attempt to reduce tension between Hindus and Muslims. The laws were instituted for purely administrative reasons and do not have any basis in religious tenets. Today, just about every Muslim majority nation that has blasphemy laws can trace them back to British statute from centuries prior.

Let us first quickly mention and readily set aside the attitude of the West in this matter. Yes they betray double standards by accepting a ban on denial of Holocaust but refusing to do so for our demand. Their attitude of absolute and unlimited free speech is morally wrong and practically unachievable; etc etc. But I am not concerned with the Western thought right now. My concern is the message our Holy Text is  conveying to us about our attitude and reaction to acts of “blasphemy” in our times.

As far as the reaction to blasphemy is concerned, these ayah clearly and forcefully negate  the blasphemy law of Pakistan and the violent reaction of Muslims to the cartoons in Denmark. A quick look at the words and deeds of our beloved Prophet will bear out that he never indulged in any reaction in face of worst personal insults and humiliation.

If an individual has the temerity to tarnish in any way our great Prophet, it depicts his ignorance and his mean character. It does not, not in the least have any bearing on the glory of my Prophet. I would just ignore it as dictated by the ayahs under discussion. To think otherwise betrays a great disregard of the Holy Quran, depicts a disproportionate and unhealthy hero worship and emotionalism and even some inferiority/superiority complex.

While the Quran refers to blasphemy repeatedly, it does not ordain any worldly punishment for it; this is deferred for the Hereafter. Yet there are strong Islamic scholarly opinions to uphold death penalty for blasphemy. As I have mentioned in the Prelude to this series “It should sound unbelievable but factually appears to be true: Many of our prevalent, widespread and important concepts and opinions about religious matters do not have a basis in the Quran and sometimes even appear to be in obvious conflict with the teachings of the Quran”. Blasphemy is a classical example of this phenomenon.

How does this come about? It is the confusion and ambiguity about the second source of Islam: the Sunnah of our Holy Prophet; his preachings and practice. Where do we find the Sunnah? Here again the primary source should be the Quran. Once Bibi Ayesha was asked by the Sahaabaa for some information on the life and practice of the Holy Prophet. She told them to read the Quran adding that Prophet Mohammed is a walking Quran.

The next source of Sunnah is Seerat-e-Paak or biographies of our Prophet. These also show that The Holy Prophet’s  life is a beautiful illustration of the word forgiveness. There are multiple examples in the life of our Prophet of his mercy and forgiveness even to his open and vocal foes and enemies; show of any anger or punishment is conspicuous by its absence. Some examples are in place to convince you:

“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”. He could or should have ordered killing of all these people if blasphemy was punishable by death in Islam. In that case we would have been deprived of some really great Sahaabaa.

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.

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.

“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” according to Dr. Aslam Abdullah, editor in chief of the weekly Muslim Observer and director of the Islamic Society of Nevada.

The Holy Qur’an records:

“Indeed, when we return to the City (we) the ones most worthy of honour will surely drive out therefrom those most contemptible ones!……….”^[5]

This is reportedly the statement of Abdullah bin Ubayy made in public. He is exalting himself and demeaning the Holy Prophet and his companions in public. Yet he received no retribution at all.

He lived peacefully in Madinah until his demise. The Holy Prophet  himself led his funeral prayer.

At  the fall of Makkah, the Holy Prophet pardoned all those who had rejected him by calling him a sorcerer, madman, or liar. He let go Abu Sufyan despite all the wars he led against our Prophet. Similarly he forgot Wahshi, the killer of Hazrat Hamzah and Hinda, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who had torn out Hadhrat Hamza’ liver and chewed it out of spite. He had also pardoned Habbar, who attached the camel carrying Hadhrat Zainab, pregnant at time from Makkah to Madinah. She miscarried as a result and eventually passed away. And yet the Holy Prophet forgave even him.

The controversy over the punishment for blasphemy props up with the introduction of the third source of the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, the Hadith and the uncritical conformity to it. This is a very valuable historical document (and the only one for details of Ibaadah) to learn the sunnah. It is not part of any teaching program of our Holy Prophet. It is on record that he was initially opposed to the writing of hadith; later he rescinded. The first book of hadith the Mawatta of Imam Malik was compiled one hundred and fifty years after the demise of our Prophet. The sahihain—Bukhari and Muslim—followed a century later. Hazrat Umer, the second caliph remained hostile to writing of hadith till the end. He had predicted very aptly that later Muslims will cling to this at the cost of the Quran. This is exactly what many of us including our scholars are practicing. So, Hadith is not sunnah per se; it is a very important source for sunnah. It has to be tackled very seriously and carefully because it tends to be confusing, controversial and contradictory; also polluted by forgery, a fact widely accepted. Imam Bukhari had to reject nine hundred and ninety five ahaadith for every five that he accepted.

It is on this basis some ahaadith that there is a strong Islamic scholarly opinion advocating death as a punishment for blasphemy as shown hereunder:

It is claimed that  “at the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet Muhammad  announced general amnesty to all except those who were guilty of blasphemous acts and sacrilegious statements”. A very nebulous and vague incident (no names, no specific information) is quoted in it’s favor: “A  slave Jew woman was killed by her master for her repeated blasphemy against the Prophet and when the case was brought to the Prophet’s notice he declared no retaliation against the master” (Nasai and Sunan Abu Daud, Hadith No.4348).

One of the dogmatic statements says “The death punishment assigned for blasphemy is agreed by all Islamic scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah and, is normally covered in Kitabul Hudud in Islamic juridical texts. The evidence for blasphemy punishment being based on Ahadith, certain reported incidents during the lifetime of the Prophet (p.u.h.) and unanimous agreement of all Islamic scholars in all the ages (Ijma)”.

Imam Ahmad was asked about those who insult Abu Bakr, Omar, and A’ishah and he replied, “I do not think they are Muslims any longer”.

 Imam Malik said, “Whoever insults one of the Companions of Muhammad — Abu Bakr, Omar, ‘Uthman, Mu’awiyah, or ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘Aas — by saying that they were astray and disbelieving shall be executed.

The fourteen century outstanding scholar Imam Ibn Taymiyyah is a prominent supporter of this view. He has said “Blasphemy against Allah or His Messenger (prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) is an act that nullifies faith, both outwardly and inwardly, whether the blasphemer knows that this is haram, deems it halal, or is not aware of the ruling at all”.  This ruling is applicable even in relation to criticizing or blaming the Prophet as regards any of his deeds, sayings, etc. Ibn Taymiyah clarified, “If someone criticizes a judgment or instruction by the Prophet, he should be executed, as the Prophet told us to do in his life and after his death”.  This ban is then extended to the noble companions. “If someone believes that it is halal to insult Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), then he has become a disbeliever” says Ibn Taymiyyah. A hadith is quoted in support “Whoever reviles my Companions let the Curse of Allah, the Angels, and all people befall him” (Declared Hasan by Al-Albani in “Series of Authentic Hadith Books: 2340”).

Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdel-Wahab said, “So, whoever insults them (i.e., Prophetic Companions) will be disobeying Allah’s Ordinance to honor them. Also, whoever believes in something immoral about some or all of them will be denying Allah’s confirmation of their perfection and virtuousness, and, by extension, whoever denies something stated by Allah is definitely deemed a disbeliever”.

Dr. Shahid of Al Maurid illustrates how studying a hadith can be tricky:

“Here, someone might also refer to oft-related incident in which ‘Umar (rta) is reported to have struck off the head of a man who refused to accept the Prophet’s legal verdict on a certain occasion. Our ‘ulama relate this incident from the pulpits and directly encourage people to show the same attitude as reflected in the narrative towards those whom they perceive as blasphemers of the Prophet (sws). However, the fact is that not just the first and second degree of Hadith collections (in terms of authenticity) but also the third degree works are devoid of this narrative. Even Ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari, who often relates narratives in all categories, has not regarded it worthy of consideration. This narrative comes from a gharib (with isolated chain of narrators) and mursal (with omissions in the chain) Hadith that has been cited by some exegetes in their commentaries; however, those acquainted to some extent with Hadith sciences have clarified that, in the chain, its attribution to Ibn ‘Abbas (rta) is absolutely implausible. Moreover, in the sanads of Ibn Mardawayh and Ibn Abi Hatim, the narrator Ibn Lahi’ah is dai’if (“weak”)”.

 Zeeshan Hasan in his article “  Islam and blasphemy law  in his blog liberalislam.net has nicely discussed the relative importance of the sources of Islam. He concludes: “However, once the Muslims triumphed over Mecca, the association of apostasy and treason ends. In peacetime, apostasy should once again be considered only a personal matter of faith, and the death penalty based on treason during wartime is not applicable. Rather, the position of the Qur’an, which never advocates any earthly punishment for blasphemy or apostasy, makes more sense as the default position of any Islamic law outside the context of the Quraysh/Muslim war. And where there is clear difference between the precepts laid down by the Qur’an and the apparent legal stricture suggested by the Hadith, surely Islamic laws should follow the reasoning of the Qur’an”.

I would like to add that “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” .

It is this attitude about blasphemy, that the cartoon issue has been blown out of all proportion. There is perhaps some element of underlying “Islamophobia”.  However the main driving force behind these cartoons is their exaggerated emphasis on free speech and their knee jerk antagonism to any curb on that freedom. “Muslim intolerance” in this regard is a challenge to them. I am sure if we had ignored these cartoons according to the dictates of our Holy Text, the issue would have remained confined to the minor magazine  with a very limited circulation where it was first published.

I had sent an email on the occasion of publication of the infamous Danish cartoons under the heading:

The Muslim World has proved what the Cartoons hinted;

Blasphemy and Sacrilege by Muslims in Muslim Lands

I am reproducing  parts of it as they remain  relevant to our discussion:

The cartoons published in Danish newspaper are outrageous and provocative to us. They have caused great grief and pain to all Muslims world over. As pointed very fluently by Robert Frisk in the Sunday, February 5, 2006 issue of the Dawn, these cartoons have surfaced once again the hypocrisy and duplicity of certain sections of Western opinion. However these nefarious cartoons have in no way even touched the impeccable personality of our great Prophet nor have they violated any injunction of the Holy Quran or any dictate of our Prophet. It is just that we are hurt and hurt badly. Does this justify a response that flouts the basic teachings of our Deen?

The Holy Book repeatedly and at the end of many an injunctions strongly forbids us from committing excesses and transgression. This has been the Sunnah- by words and deeds-  of our  Holy Prophet PBUH all through his commendable life. He has been a pattern and paradigm to whole Humanity to show forbearance, tolerance and restraint in face of open insults and even physical harm to his person.   He has commanded us in strong terms not to use violence until it is done on you; not to destroy properties even during war. He has repeatedly ordered us to preferably forgive or avenge to degree you have been  harmed and no more. He wants us to respect  every Human being as sacrosanct; killing of one individual is tantamount to killing of whole Humanity. He has instructed us to protect and guard our guests of whatever denomination till they have been sent home in safe custody. Studying life events of Prophet Muhammad also show that he neither punished nor cursed his enemies when they threw stones or garbage on him or rejected him as the last Messenger of Allah. Disbelievers argued with him openly and he always tried to convince them through reasoning without annoying or announcing punishment. Prophet Muhammad had never restrained freedom of speech in the name of Islam. In Islamic teaching, there is no punishment for the act of blasphemy as some of the hardliners believe.

As a reaction to the despicable Danish cartoons, protests across the Muslim world and sharp denunciations were called for. Instead we have forcefully and openly flouted the clear Sunnah of our great Prophet by violent demonstrations. It appears as if we have gone berserk. In his name and to protect his image we have gone on the rampage: protests, economic boycotts and warnings of possible retaliation against the people, companies and countries involved and even those not involved like UK and USA; burning of Norwegian and Danish flags; demands for economic boycotts and to break away diplomatic ties; stoning and storming and burning their embassies which is our sacred duty to protect; threats to KILL citizens of Denmark; across Iran to Indonesia demanding “Danish blood”; declaring a reward of 100 kg. of gold for the killer of the Cartoonist. Laban, the Danish Muslim cleric who is mainly responsible to internationalize this issue has said that he supports peaceful protests and that violence and economic boycotts are “counterproductive.”

I dare say, this reaction itself is pure blasphemy against the admirable and exceptional Personality and Teaching and Conduct of our great Prophet. More so as it is done apparently to respect him. The cartoons are  symbolic and harmless blasphemy. The reaction of Ummah is factual and hazardous sacrilege: at least seven Muslims have lost their lives in Muslim Lands. The Ummah will be  responsible if there is a back lash against 200000 Muslims living in Denmark who have been prudent and civilised. Many Muslims in Denmark have disavowed the vehemence of the protests. “The majority of Muslims don’t care about this,” said Naser Khader, a Syrian-born member of Parliament. “This is an Islamist agenda,” he has said and added  “We don’t want those imams to talk for us. All of us, across cultures and religions, have to say ‘enough is enough’ to the Islamists.” he added,

While the debate rages, an important point has been overlooked: despite the Islamic prohibition against depicting Mohammed under any circumstances, hundreds of paintings, drawings and other images of Mohammed have been created over the centuries, without a word of complaint from the Muslim world. Such imagery has been part of Western and Islamic culture since the Middle Ages. One of the archives about this subject, has at least 116 depictions of Mohammed in Full and with Face hidden, starting from Islamic Medieval period through the Christian Medieval period to the present day. A Muslim Irani woman has portrayed a “young Mohammed”. It was accepted as it predates the prophethood. When a delegation of Danish imams went to the Middle East to “discuss” the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars, the imams openly distributed a booklet that showed 15images — not only the original 12 cartoons, but three other anti-Mohammed depictions that were much more offensive than the ones published in Denmark.

The chain of events illustrates how the blind and passionate emotionalism of Muslims given the current climate of tension between Islam and the West, a small spark, printed on an inside page of a midsize unknown newspaper in a small country, can escalate into an international conflagration. The issue has been deliberately and definitely politicized beyond recognition to the original issue of  defending our emotions and ideals about our Prophet?

The crucial and original nidus of this ugly episode is the laudable concept of freedom of speech. The media in general and the Western media in particular have a very fundamentalist approach to this: focusing only on this to the exclusion of all other relevant issues. To them this conception is as sacrosanct as the respect for our prophet is to us. This is typified by the reply Rose offered: “I apologize for having offended them,” he said. “But as an editor, as a newspaperman, as long as I’m operating within the law, as long as I am not breaking any code of conduct in the Danish context, I cannot apologize for that.” Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has refused to apologize. In a recent speech, without mentioning the controversy, he denounced “any expression, action or indication that attempts to demonize groups of people on the basis of the religion or ethnic background.” But he added that “freedom of speech is absolute. It is not negotiable.” In this international furor Europeans are trying to stand up for Western principles of freedom of speech and not cave in to self-censorship in the name of multiculturalism and fear.

The entire controversy started when culture editor of conservative, mass-circulation Danish daily Jyllands-Posten Flemming Rose smelled a good story. He said he’d read that museums in Sweden and London had recently removed artworks and portraits from their gallery for fear of offending Muslim sentiments. A Danish comedian told him that he felt free to desecrate the Bible but that he’d be afraid to do the same to the Koran. Then Rose read that a Danish author Kåre Bluitgen complained that he could not find illustrators who dared draw Muhammad for a new book on Islam. Rose, suspected the art world was self-censoring out of fear of Islamic radicals. So he contacted 25 Danish newspaper cartoonists with a challenge: Draw Muhammad as you see him. Twelve responded, and the newspaper printed their submissions in September 2005 and were reprinted three weeks ago in Magazinet, a small evangelical Christian newspaper in Norway. “We have a tradition of satire in Denmark,” Rose, 47, said in an interview. “We do the same with the royal family, politicians, anyone. In a modern secular society, nobody can impose their religious taboos in the public domain.” But the newspaper is offering a gesture to its critics: On Sunday, Rose said, it will publish a full page of cartoons satirizing Jesus and the Israel-Palestinian conflict.  One, he said, is by Kurt Westergaard, who drew the picture of Muhammad with the bomb in his turban. The cartoon that will be reprinted shows a Star of David attached to the same kind of bomb. The present scenario of “ Islamic terrorism” is clearly seen in the content of these nefarious cartoons. In the ensuing brouhaha, the original book was almost forgotten; it has now been released, and does feature page after page of Mohammed depictions. The satirical French magazine Charlie-Hebdo has reprinted the  cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, citing freedom of expression. As well as publishing the Danish cartoons, Charlie-Hebdo published other cartoons on its back page which caricatured other religions including Christianity and Judaism.

Respect and consideration for our values is to be commanded by our attitudes. It cannot be demanded and certainly not enforced by threats, hijacking and killings.The media in the West is well known for their independence from any official pressures and enjoys using and abusing their absolute freedom. The response to these senseless self inflicting wounds by the Muslims is that they have come up with more of these cartoons of our Prophet. The front page of the same weekly magazine carried a new drawing of Muhammad. He is burying his face in his hands and saying: “It’s hard to be loved by fools”. The only concession they have made to our irrational and un-Islamic demonstration and wild protest is that they have come out with fresh cartoons about Prophet Jesus and Israel. The newspaper, as a gesture to its critics has  published a full page of cartoons satirizing Jesus and the Israel-Palestinian conflict.  Another by Kurt Westergaard, who drew the picture of Muhammad with the bomb in his turban shows a Star of David attached to the same kind of bomb. Rose said. “We are trying to show that we are not giving anybody a free ride.”

An article written by John Ward Anderson in the Washington Post Foreign Service on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 was headed as “Cartoons of Prophet Met With Outrage; Depictions of Muhammad in Scandinavian Papers Provoke Anger, Protest Across Muslim World”.

I have edited some of the notable points made therein: Islamic critics charged that the cartoons were a deliberate provocation and insult to their religion designed to incite hatred and polarize people of different faiths. Defenders of the newspapers and artists said the 12 published cartoons simply were intended to highlight Islam’s intolerance……….The clash is being fueled by a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment in staunchly secular Denmark, where many express frustration that the country’s 200,000 Muslim immigrants are resisting assimilation into Danish society……….”People are inclined to see Islam and political extremism as two sides of the same coin,” he said…….The tumult passed, but was reignited even more furiously when Magazinet, the evangelical Christian paper in Norway, reprinted the cartoons. The editor, Vebjoern Selbekk, wrote that he was “sick of the ongoing hidden erosion of the freedom of expression.” He told the Reuters news agency that he had received 15 death threats and more than 1,000 hate letters……..”The question here is how far do you show sensitivity and self-control over issues without falling into self-censorship,” said Medhi Mozaffari, a professor at Aarhus University in Denmark, who defended his government’s stance not to apologize……”This is Islamists putting democracies on trial to see how far they can be pressured.”

As can be seen, there may or may not be an underlying element of “Islamophobia” in publishing these degrading cartoon. The main driving force behind is their exaggerated almost distorted concept of freedom of speech and their visceral opposition to any limitations put on this liberty. They regard it their duty to resist “Islamic intolerance” seen in their country. There appears to be a strong dose of anti-immigrant sentiments in the back ground.

Another article by Ibrahim Barzak of The Associated Press dated Friday, February 3, 2006 based at Gaza City, Gaza Strip describes the exaggerated, misplaced and indiscriminate reactions of the Muslims in areas far and wide in blatant disregard of the Quranic ayahs we have just studied. I  have included some of the reports in this article:

Outrage over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad escalated in the Arab and Islamic world Thursday, with Palestinian gunmen briefly kidnapping a German citizen and protesters in Pakistan chanting “death to France” and “death to Denmark.”……….Palestinian militants surrounded European Union headquarters in Gaza, and gunmen burst into several hotels and apartments in the West Bank in search of foreigners to take hostage………..The issue opened divisions among European Union governments. Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik said EU leaders have a responsibility to “clearly condemn” insults to any religion. But French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship.”……….The Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, had asked 40 cartoonists to draw images of the prophet. The purpose, its chief editor said, was “to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues.”……France’s Grand Rabbi Joseph Sitruk said he shared Muslim anger. “We gain nothing by lowering religions, humiliating them and making caricatures of them. It’s a lack of honesty and respect,” he said. He said freedom of expression “is not a right without limits.”…….One of the militants, flanked by two masked men with assault rifles, said the governments of Germany, France, Norway and Denmark must apologize for the cartoons by Thursday evening. If no apology is issued, the gunmen said they would target citizens of the four countries and shut down media offices, including the French news agency.

Once again please note that the real bone of contention is the distorted emphasis on free speech by one side and equally distorted and totally un-Islamic reaction to it by the other.

As I am closing down, I would like to put on the table a suggestion that the blasphemy law of  Pakistan^[6]  is clearly the greatest blasphemy against the most commendable personality of my beloved Holy Prophet. There are many authorities to support this view.^[7]  The way it is being implemented flouts the primary demands of ordinary justice, let alone the high bar which our Holy Prophet upholds through the teachings of our Holy Text.^[8]

. ……..and Allah knows best.

May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding–“fahm”–of our Deen, Aameen.

Dr. Khalid Mitha