THESE days there is much talk about blasphemy and what should be done with the blasphemer. Blasphemy can mean being irreverent about, or desecrating, a sacred subject, object or a person. Since the Prophet’s (PBUH) actions and teachings were based on the Quran, we should examine it to see what is expected of Muslims in such a case.

In Surah Al-Anam it is said, “When you see people engaged in vulgar arguments against Our signs, turn away from them, until they engage in some other matter. And if Shaitan makes you forget do not sit, once you remember, with those who transgress (6:68). There is no responsibility on the pious on account of them at all, except to explain, perchance they might become God-fearing” (6: 69).

The first reaction one has to show when difference of opinion arises in matters of faith, is to simply move away from the argument. We will also have to examine the various meanings of the Arabic word ‘ayaat’ or ‘signs’. The verses of the Quran, which are referred to by this very word, all the prophets sent by Him in order to deliver His message and the miracles they wrought are also “signs of God” (3: 49).

The question that arises here is: what should the believers do with those who blaspheme against the “signs of God”? Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his English commentary on the above verse writes, “If in any gathering the truth is ridiculed, we must not sit in such company. If we find ourselves in it, as soon as we realise it, we must show our disapproval by leaving.”

Pir Karam Shah, who also served as a judge in the Federal Shariat Court, in his Urdu commentary Zia-ul-Quran, says, “…Allah has forbidden Muslims to sit in the company of those whose pastime it is to day and night ridicule Islam, the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) and the Quran.”

Abul Ala Maududi in his commentary Tafheem-ul-Quran remarks, “…it is not the duty of the believers to refute their (the opponents’) absurd objections but present the truth before them … the pious people should not waste their time and energy by entering into useless polemical disputes, discussions and argumentations with the disbelievers”.

All these three eminent scholars have come to the conclusion that all the believers have to do is to move away and avoid confrontation which, in such a case, is a clear commandment in the Quran.

Once, when the Prophet went to negotiate with the unbelievers, they plotted to kill him by planning to roll a boulder in his direction. He was given a timely warning by Gabriel and was saved. Some of his companions were so infuriated that they wanted to kill the enemies. But the Prophet stopped them by saying that he was sent as rehmatul lil aalimin (21: 107), “mercy for all the worlds” and did not seek revenge for his person.

Even at the conquest of Makkah, all the Prophet’s adversaries who had persecuted him throughout his prophetic career were afraid that there would be a reprisal. But the Prophet announced, “Today I forgive you, the way my brother Prophet Yusuf forgave his brothers.” Similarly, when people ridiculed him he simply ignored them, and asked his followers to do the same. He practised the Quranic injunction of “repelling the evil with the good” (13:22; 23:96; 28:54; 35:32; 41:34).

It is not always non-Muslims who ridicule Islam, and everything such people say need not be interpreted. The Quran has granted freedom of religion to everyone by saying, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). Throughout the Quran, Muslims have been asked to establish justice for which there should be a complainant, an accused, witnesses and the final authority, the judge, to listen to all of them and then decide the case according to the prevailing law. The punishment, if any, will be carried out by the state.

Can, then, any pesh-imam (prayer leader) of a mosque self-appoint himself as a judge, pass judgment without giving the accused a chance to defend himself, without following any legal procedures for a fair trial and then lead lynching mobs to murder an innocent victim? It is the duty of the state to take note of such incidents and to punish those individuals found trespassing their authority, including imams and maulvis who sanction and instigate murders in the name of blasphemy. The accusers, when found to be lying blatantly, should also be punished.

In Article 33 of the constitution of Pakistan, it is said that it is the state’s duty to “discourage parochial, racial, tribal, sectarian and provincial prejudices among the citizens”. The laws and the judgments passed should not favour any one person, based on the said grounds.

It is the duty of those charged with investigating the case to make sure that there is no personal axe to grind or a personal vendetta to settle, which is usually the case as a hidden agenda behind the accusation of blasphemy. It should also be mentioned here that unlike other religions, there is no institution of and no authority for the clergy or the maulvis in Islam.

Civil society and those in authority must step forward to stop this mad witch-hunting.

In the globalised world of today, if we want Muslims to have freedom of religious thought and practice in non-Muslim countries, we must also give non-Muslims in Pakistan these same rights. In fact, that would be following the practice of Prophet Muhammad himself.

nilofar.ahmed58@gmail.com