Punishment for Blasphemy in the Light of Religious Scriptures

If you say, Pakistan is the land of hot issues it would not be a false statement at all. Whether it is the religious, political, economic or social issues; Pakistan is the place you will find on top of all. Lately, the issue of blasphemy has arisen when a session court (lower court) sentence Asiya Bibi (who was Christian by faith) to death after finding her guilty her of sacrilegious comments.

The debate of repealing this law has come out of blue this time after 2-3 decades of legislation regarding. There are several opinions regarding this blasphemy act 295 (c) of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. There are oodles of angles to this law, whether it be religious, democratic, political or human right.

We have gathered some evidences from the Quran, Hadith, Sunnah and history (compiled by historians) for the exact punishment for blasphemy. This will also answer the most asked question “What Muhammad (S.A.W) would have done?” “How he would have responded?” and many supplementary questions like “What Quran says?”,  “Is there any evidence in Hadith?” and “What other religions say about blasphemy?”

Let’s start from a Quranic verse:

The above verse of Surah e Ahzab (Chapter 33:6) shows the right of a Allah’s Apostle Muhammad (S.A.W) on Muslims. It is clear from the word of GOD that Muhammad (S.A.W) has more right over our lives and closest of relations.

The following Reference of Holy Quran Chapter 4 V 65 was revealed when a man was beheaded by the Hazrat Umar (R.A) due to non compliance of judgment given by Holy prophet Mohammad (S.A.W).

Context of Revelation (Chapter 4, V 65):

Al-Hafiz Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin `Abdur-Rahman bin Ibrahim bin Duhaym recorded that Damrah narrated that two men took their dispute to the Prophet , and he gave a judgment to the benefit of whoever among them had the right. The person who lost the dispute said, “I do not agree.” The other person asked him, “What do you want then” He said, “Let us go to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq.” They went to Abu Bakr and the person who won the dispute said, “We went to the Prophet with our dispute and he issued a decision in my favor.” Abu Bakr said, “Then the decision is that which the Messenger of Allah issued.” The person who lost the dispute still rejected the decision and said, “Let us go to `Umar bin Al-Khattab.” When they went to `Umar, the person who won the dispute said, “We took our dispute to the Prophet and he decided in my favor, but this man refused to submit to the decision.” `Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the second man and he concurred. `Umar went to his house and emerged from it holding aloft his sword. He struck the head of the man who rejected the Prophet’s decision with the sword and killed him. Consequently, Allah revealed, the aforementioned verse. [Context taken from Tafseer Ibn-e-Kathir]

Let’s get to another verse where Allah (SWT) announces the punishment for enemies (of ALLAH and His Apostle) and who so ever attributes disgrace to Allah and His Apostle Mohammad (S.A.W).

May we present another verse from the Quran where Allah immediately answers to the sacrilegious comment made by the blood relative (uncle) of Allah’s Apostle Mohammad (S.A.W).

Context of Revelation

Abu Lahab (Father of Flame) was the nickname of ‘Abd Al-’Uzza, the Holy Prophet’s uncle and his inveterate enemy and persecutor. He was so called either because his complexion and hair were ruddy or also because he had a fiery temper. The Surah recalls an incident during the early preaching of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W). On being commanded by Allah (S.W.T) to call together his relatives and to deliver to them the Divine Message, the Holy Prophet, one day, stood on mount Safa and called the different Meccan (Makkah’s) tribes by name, the tribes of Luwayy, Murrah, Kilab and Qusayy and his near relatives, and told them that he is God’s Messenger, and that if they did not accept his Message and did not give up their evil ways, Divine punishment would overtake them. The Holy Prophet had hardly his speech, when Abu Lahab stood up and said, ‘Ruin seize thee, is it for this that thou hast called us together’ (Bukhari).

Another precedent from the Holy Quran where Allah (SWT) directly replied to Waleed bin Mughaira, who called Mohammad (S.A.W) Majnoon (Insane) by uncovering the hidden truth regarding his illegitimate birth upon him.

Now let’s move to the evidences from Hadiths.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 372:

Narrated Al-Bara:

Allah’s Apostle sent ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Utba with a group   of  men   to   Abu   Rafi   (to   kill   him).   They   proceeded   till   they approached  his   castle,  whereupon Abdullah  bin  Atik   said   to   them, “Wait  (here),  and  in  the meantime  I  will  go and see.”  ‘Abdullah said later on, “I played a trick in order to enter the castle. By chance, they lost a donkey of theirs and came out carrying a flaming light to search for it. I was afraid that they would recognize me, so I covered my head and legs and pretended to answer the call to nature. The gatekeeper called, ‘Whoever wants to come in, should come in before I close the gate.’ So I went in and hid myself in a stall of a donkey near the gate of the castle. They took their supper with Abu Rafi and had a chat till late at   night.   Then   they   went   back   to   their   homes.  When   the   voices vanished and I  no longer detected any movement, I  came out.  I had seen where the gate-

keeper had kept the key of the castle in a hole in the wall. I took it and unlocked the gate of the castle, saying to myself, ‘If these people should notice me, I will run away easily.’ Then I locked all the doors of their houses from outside while they were inside, and ascended to Abu Rafi by a staircase. I saw the house in complete darkness with its light off, and I could not know where the man was. So I called, ‘O Abu Rafi!’ He replied, ‘Who is it?’ I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He cried loudly but my blow was futile. Then I came to him,  pretending  to help him,  saying with a different   tone of  my voice,   ‘  What   is wrong with you,  O Abu Rafi?’  He said,   ‘Are you not surprised? Woe on your mother! A man has come to me and hit me with a sword!’ So again I aimed at him and hit him, but the blow proved futile again,  and on that Abu Rafi  cried  loudly and his wife got up.   I came again and changed my voice as if I were a helper, and found Abu Rafi lying straight on his back, so I drove the sword into his belly and bent on it till I heard the sound of a bone break. Then I came out, filled with astonishment and went to the staircase to descend, but I fell down from it and got my leg dislocated. I bandaged it and went   to my companions limping. I said (to them), ‘Go and tell Allah’s Apostle of this good news, but I will not leave (this place) till I hear the news of his (i.e. Abu Rafi’s) death.’ When dawn broke, an announcer of death got over the wall and announced, ‘I convey to you the news of Abu Rafi’s death.’ I got up and proceeded without feeling any pain till I caught up with my companions before they reached the Prophet to whom I conveyed the good news.”

At the conquest of Makkah:

Holy prophet Mohammad (S.A.W) announced general amnesty to all except those who were guilty of blasphemous acts and sacrilegious statements, Ibn e Khatal was one of the convict (Tareekh-e-Tabari Page 104 / History written by Al Tabari) This is evident from the following Hadith.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 582:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

On the day of   the Conquest,   the Prophet entered Mecca, wearing a helmet on his head.  When he took it off, a man came and said, “Ibn e Khatal is clinging to the curtain of the Ka’ba.” The Prophet said, “Kill him.”

Sahih Bukahri Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up  saying,   “O Allah’s  Apostle!  Would you  like   that   I  kill  him?”  The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).  “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e.  Muhammad demands  Sadaqa  (i.e.  Zakat)   from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have  followed him,  we do not  want   to  leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel   load or   two of   food.”

(Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your  sons  to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel   load of food.  That would cause   us   great   disgrace,   but  we  will  mortgage   our   arms   to   you. “Muhammad   bin   Maslama   and   his   companion   promised   Kab   that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied,  “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as  ‘Abu bin  Jabr.  Al  Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. “have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best  Arab  women  who   know  how   to   use   the   high   class   of   perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your   head?”   Ka’b   said,   “Yes.”  Muhammad   smelt   it   and made   his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”

Punishment in Bible for blasphemy:

The punishment for blasphemy in most of the major religions is death. It is stated in the Old Testament of the Bible, which is the authority for both the Jews and the Christians:

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: [Book of Leviticus 24:16]

A reference from Hindu Scripture:

“If a man born of a lower class intentionally bothers a priest, the king should punish him physically with various forms of corporal and capital punishment that make men shudder.” [Manusmriti 9:248]


It is evident from the above references that the punishment for the act of blasphemy in any religion or any form is very severe. Hence, people who are waging a campaign against the article 295 (c) of the constitution to repeal the said law, is not aligned with Islamic, Christianity and Hinduism religious law. The current law is compliant with the ethical and moral values of society Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In a nutshell, this law should stay in place to prevent blasphemous acts. But by no means, anyone should be allowed to use this law for personal vendetta or misuse it. Procedural changes should be made with the consent of Ulema to prevent the misuse of the underlying law.

A Must Read Article: Blasphemy laws-Amendment required?


54 thoughts on “Punishment for Blasphemy in the Light of Religious Scriptures

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Punishment for Blasphemy in the Light of Religious Scripture « I'm No Superman! -- Topsy.com

  2. MashaAllah!This is a very detailed article with authentic references.I’m feeling happy that i have got answer of all of my questions here. I was thinking that Allah helps us always in whatever sort of knowledge we want to get. i was in gread need to find the facts and historical evidences aboyt laws concerning blasphemy.Here i found well reserached article with you. Like me, it definitely gonna help others too!
    Thanks for sharing it.

    May allah bless you.


  3. If everything above is right, we should stop projecting Islam as religion of Love, Peace and Humblness, or shouldn’t we?. Ofcourse killing somebody would lead to more awe in people’s minds of Islam, it would be a better idea to offer mercy to such a CRIMINAL!


    • Yes the above verses are very right. If someone wants to challenge the authenticity of the Sahih Bukhari or the context of Quranic verses that were revealed in particular situations, he is free to challenge. As long as the question of Projecting Islam as a religion of Peace is concerned, let me ask you a counter question if don’t mind and I know you won’t mind 😉
      What about raising a country in true democratic manner and putting articles of high treason like article 6 in constitution of Pakistan? Are we and the world projecting the peace through their constitutions which is ought t layout the basic right of the citizens of that particular country.
      Yes mercy and pardon can be an option but can you tell me where is the aggrieved party in this case who is suppose to grant pardon??

      Keep visiting and keep sharing 🙂
      P.S i haven’t proof read the post yet lots of typos are there 😉


        • Dear Fellow Blogger:

          When I said challenge “Sahih Bukhari or the Quran” I tried to state a rhetoric remark 🙂 We are humans, we all do. But what if we “react—a defensive measure than offensive” to a certain sacriligious remark?
          Yes Muafi/Pardon is of great value in Islam but it doesn’t take the right of revenge or avenge from the aggrieved party, Does it?

          Keep visiting and Keep Sharing 🙂


          • The Authenticity of Sahih Bukhari as a book of facts can easily be challenged. It is a compilation of traditions carried on through generations. It was complete in 862, more than a 150 years after the Prophets death. It is a compliation of traditions .. that is, he said it, then someelse said it and it carried on. As a human being you know how simple words can be changed into stories within days. How can one trust something told to Imam Bukhari after more that 150 years and we consider is authentic. It is just not Authentic. There was nothing recorded during the prophets time. The 1st account of prophets life come out also after more then a 100 years of his death written by Ibn Ishaq which is considered to be the foremost source of the profits life.

            It is a book of stories carried through generations. No actual records were made during the profits time. So it is not fact it is stories. That how I challenge the Authencity of Sahih Bukhari as actual account of what the prophet said. It cannot be taken as fact and law!


            • @Khan

              Thanks for your visit again,

              I think you do not believe in research and science or you are unaware of the science of “Narrations”. Please have a good read about Science of Narrations. Then you’ll get a good hold of what I wanted to say above.

              Well, what about the references from Quran? From Manusmriti From Levictis? Quran was revealed during the time of Prophet.



              • I am an academic researcher, and I am fully aware of the science of Narrations. Actually calling something science does not mean that it becomes actual fact. Narrations are a line of stories passed down through generations. They cannot be taken literally and cannot be trusted completely as the action or saying of the original person. It can be taken as a historical context to get a certain idea about how things were in that era but still cannot be taken literally as the final word of that person because the narrations are passed down through a long period of time. As a law, narrations cannot be taken down as fact. We can say he might have said it.. but we cant say he actually did say it. It become highly interpretive. So unless recorded at the time it was said or a little closer to that time, the authenticity in scientific terms become questionable.

                As far as the Quran is concerned after the Prophet’s death in 632 AD there was no definitive compilation of the holy book. It was present in different people’s memories different sorts of parchments, tablets of stone, branches of date trees, other wood, leaves, leather and even bones. Soon many of the followers started collecting the revelations and were written down in codex form. Initial preliminary compilation was made during Abu Bakr’s time but that was not spread throughout the empire. As Islam spread there developed different Metropolitan codices of Mecca, Madina, Damascus, Kufa and Basra. Caliph Usman tried to bring and end to this chaotic situation by canonizing the Medinan Codex (but then what about the others by other sahaba?) copies of which were sent to different cities of the empire. Even on this issue there are different accounts from hostorians and hadith, but all agree that there was no compilation finalized during the time of the Prophet it only happened when Caliph Uthman did it between 650 – 656 AD that is more than 20 years after the Prophets death. Even Uthman’s canonized version was not accepted by many because the version’s consonantal text was unpointed, that is, zer zaber and dots were missing. This difficulty led to different centers with their own different traditions regarding how the texts should be vowelized and pointed inevitable leading to different meaning of different words. It was only by the Imminant Quranic scholar Ibn Mujahid (died 935 AD) that a system of 7 was recognized of codices made by different people. Which still had was not accepted by many scholars. And not going into the full history of it because its a reply to the comment that we came to have the current version of Quran. So it can be said that it was not revealed in its perfect form to the Prophet took several stages and several decades that the texts were compiled from memory (cannot be completed trusted) and bits and pieces and still across the empire there were different versions. So we cannot say with complete certainly that Uthman’s version was the final version because many other sahaba in different parts of the empire had their versions also. And even if we consider Usman’s version the final one it did not get completely finilized untill some centuries after the prophets death. So I will say again, although alleged revealed to the prophet no evidence of the form exists during the prophets time so it can be questioned.


                • Sorry, the arguments you put forward shows you do not know about the science of Narrations.

                  I just want to add that (so that you know where I am standing and how I am seeing this case), I am a Research Scholar too with couple of international publications and henceforth I know how to research and I know how Science of Narration works.

                  Science of Narration is not mere passed down of stories from generation to generation, it is proper science with set of rules to obey. Few are like

                  -Observing that narrator’s religiosity and asking others about it.
                  -Requesting the narrator in question to narrator from a particular living scholar and then returning to that scholar and comparing his narrations with those of the narrator under examination.
                  -If the narrator narrates from a deceased scholar, inquiring when he, the narrator in question, was born, when he met that scholar and where and then comparing the dates provided in his response to the recognized dates of that scholars death and travels. So, perhaps, the dates provided by the narrator may contradict the established dates, for example, claiming that he heard from a particular scholar after the recognized death of that scholar.
                  -Comparing the narrations of the narrator with those of narrators of established reliability, comparing them seeking any distinctions that might be unique to that narrator, in particular, while contradicting the others.
                  -Examination of the narrations either written or memorized by that narrator after the passage of time observing any discrepancies with their initial narrations.
                  -Altering the wording of a hadith or more for the purpose of examining the ability of the narrator being examined to detect those alterations.

                  These is considered an acceptable practice so long as those alterations are brought to light following the examination process.
                  Source: Ilm al-rijāl wa Ihimmiyyatuh, n.d, pp. 22–44

                  So it is not mere passing of stories over generations, it is an established science and fortunately many مستشرکین Mustashr-e-keen also recognize and admire this amazing science of keeping authenticity of Hadith intact.

                  Yes, there are many compilations of hadiths but “Sahih / Healthy” compilations of hadiths are those who strictly follow the rules of ilm-e-Rijal i.e. science of narrations (or men to be literal).
                  and consider this,

                  2ndly, if I’m not wrong you argued that Quran’s comilation cannot be trusted because it was complied years after Mohammad (S.A.A.W)
                  Here you are challenging compilation not the original text because the original text was save during the time of the Prohet himself.

                  So, yes We can say with complete certainty that the text of the Quran is original as it was revealed at the time of Prophet but compilation.

                  What do you say about Darwin? Big Bang? You cannot be sure and you will never will what ever may the Richard Dawkins says because you believe in “They were not there at the time of creation so whatever they deduce or induce, I’m not going to believe it, they were not there!!” That is how “Shak – شک” works 😦

                  Thanks for your time and input 🙂


                  • Again I will say I am fully away of the how the science of narrations work. The point I am trying to make is that it is not factual. Comparison with different narrators does not mean that whatever was said 150 years ago is absolute actual fact. Bukhari had access to the current living narrators of his time. Not the person who actually said it more than a century before that. So therefore the authenticity can be questioned. It can never be taken as fact like the circumference of the earth or the the speed of light. Narrations are dependent on the narrator’s preferences.

                    Regarding Quran. Yes taken down but not compiled and saved at the same time. It was not being chronicled. Only after several years that it was compiled. The authenticity can be questioned by the mere fact why was the only Medina codex was canonized? What about the other versions? the existence of other versions mean that there was no ONE text. If it was one devine book unchangeable then there would not be any other texts available. Uthman would not have to chose from different texts. Only that can question the divinity of the book. Similar cases can be made for the new and the old testament of the bible.

                    You are right about Darwin and Big bang. It is a scientific theory. My questioning of the Quran and Hadith does not automatically mean that I am a believer in something else. I am a research scholar (shak) as you put is the foundation of all scientific progress. Darwin put forward his theory as a theory and then later developments in Biology and physics have started to ad evidence to that theory to be generally believable. There is a plethora of evidence in favor of evolution in the shape of fossils and dna evidence. There might be no conclusive evidence to say everything of Darwin as true, but evolution in general has been proven in several species. Evidence exists that man is evolved from another form which renders the adam and eve story as redundant. Same is the case, the big bag theory is still an overarching theory BUT it is proven that the universe was not created in 6-8 days.

                    Anyway I am digressing. I have extreme doubt scientifically on the Authencity of the Quran. We have text, but if the originality of the text is questioned due to the presence of several texts before one being canonized, then, the divinity and the changeability of GOD’s word is questionable.


                    • Questionable?
                      One simple question…
                      What in the world is not questionable??

                      By your standards, there should be no ‘belief’ coz everything is questionable. Unfortunately, by understanding your point of being “Questionable?” I came to the conclusion that either there is nothing in world in any sense that there exists something like “Belief” or if that is not the case then you are saying something of really high intellect that I cannot savvy. I think it would be the latter 🙂

                      I really enjoyed deliberating and discussing this topic with you and I hope I was able to reciprocate the same for you.

                      Thanks again for your time and valuable input


  4. Pingback: Verdict of Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) on Blasphemy! « I'm No Superman!

  5. Pingback: A Glance at the End of 2010 – I’m No Superman! « I'm No Superman!

  6. Pingback: The Attractive Tag of Liberalism! « I'm No Superman!

  7. Can anybuddy tell us.. Is killing of salmaan taseer come in the law of blasphemy..
    If someone illitrate person speak worng about our prophet by lossing his temper and then he ask for forgiveness..Dose it comes in Blasphemy. If someone is in the act of Blasphemy.then who can kill that culprit? All above references are for the direct war with Allah and our phrophet and who spread fasaad in the society. but nothing about the present situation. 99% of our pakistan muslims are practicing beliving that just kill even on a minor issue like salman taseer. All mullah have concenses on it. If someone non muslim he dosent know about his own religion. shall anymuslim can kill him.?
    Our Islam is for preavling peace. Prosperity of society and tolerance and forgiveness..


    • Zia, No in any case this heinous crime cannot be justified not even under 295 (c) of the constitution of Pakistan.
      When there is an Islamic state in existence. One must appeal to the state i.e. sue the blasphemous and then prove it. This is the only accpetable way of pursuing this article 295 (c). Bypassing the state and its law by both ‘Qadri” and “Salman Taseer” is unjustifiable. Seesion Court decioson should have been taken up in high court rather than the mercy plea by Governor to the President of Pakistan.

      For me both went agaionst the state law and bith should have been persecuted under the respective concerned law.

      Keep visiting and Keep Reading 🙂


  8. Pingback: Mideast Youth » Blog Archive » The Attractive Tag of Liberalism!

  9. Pingback: Blasphemy Laws - Opinions, Please - Page 4 - Religious Education Forum

  10. Pingback: Celebrity Blog

      • Syed Abdul Wahab Gilani in west there is no punishment for blasphemy, which is not considered a crime. People regularly have jokes, satires and cartoons against Christianity and Christians. Tell me why does Islam and the all powerful Allah need protection from humans against blasphemy against them? Doesn’t Allah and Islam promise eternal torture in hell against the unbelievers? Surely punishment for jokes and satire against Allah should be left up to Allah himself? Or do you not in your heart of hearts believe that punishment will come? Because if so then in your heart of hearts you dont really believe in Allah but just support Islam as a belief you have been born into and support as you would any association like your football club.


        • Dear, there is only one way to answer your question that is with a question.
          If we consider your argument that blasphemy is punishable in hereafter so there is no need for the law and punishment in this world, Then should we also repeal the laws that ask for punishments for Murder, Rape, Vandalism (and even if holocaust is a possibility); as these too according to stated Islamic Shariah Law are punishable in hereafter?
          I am sure no sane soul would agree.

          Same is the case with blasphemy, it is like murder or rape; punishable by man made law and in hereafter.

          Happy Reading 🙂


          • Your argument is not logical and incorrect as you are not comparing like with like. Murder and rape are physical crimes against humans. These can be seen and some human gets physically hurt by these crimes. Humans have thus evolved laws to punish those who may have committed these crimes.

            Blasphemy is not a physical crime. Blasphemy is insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God/ Allah or a religious figure such as Muhammad or something considered sacred like the Quran. No human gets physically hurt with an act of blasphemy.

            An equivalent human crime to blasphemy is not murder or rape but if someone was to, for example, laugh at you, make fun of you or abuse you.

            The response would depend on you and also the difference between you and the abuser. For example if you were a powerful man and very angry and vengeful by nature and the abuser relatively weak, but almost the same social status as you, you may beat him or punish him physically. If you were a merciful person and the abuser much below you, like a small child, or a dog barking in the distance, who could never possibly hurt you, and you were very wise and understanding and forgiving, you would probably ignore the abuse. To retaliate would be far beneath you.

            The difference between Allah and a human is supposedly far more than between an adult and a child or even a dog barking in the distance. Allah is also supposed to be all knowing and wise and merciful. A wise and merciful man would easily forgive someone insulting him, how then does Allah not do so? Is he less merciful then a merciful man? Less wise? More vengeful and more hateful? Most men would not like to order the death of someone merely insulting or making fun of them. Is Allah less forgiving than most men?


            • Yes, the way you said it is illogical indeed. Agree.
              Do you think these nations and their legislators are illogical too?

              Blasphemy Laws in several countries: Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the penal code); Denmark (Paragraph 140); Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17); Germany (Article 166); Greece; Ireland; Iceland; Italy; The Netherlands (Article 147 of the penal code); New Zealand Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961); Norway (section 142 of the the Norwegian Penal Code never applied); Spain (Article 525 of the penal code); and Switzerland (Article 261 of the penal code).

              To be more clear I stated instances from Islamic history in the above text (if you read) and what we Muslims believe the word of Allah (Quran). How Islamic law operates is a different field of study altogether.

              Furthermore, if you compare a human with God, won’t it be illogical? Comparing human with something non human supreme?

              Allah is not only the most merciful and beneficent but Also HE is Al Jabbar and Al Qah’har i.e. The Compeller and The Subduer. So just picking out the merciful part only will be unjust.

              Happy Reading 🙂


              • “Yes, the way you said it is illogical indeed. Agree.” Is there any other way to say what I said?

                “Do you think these nations and their legislators are illogical too?” They WERE illogical. Past tense. These laws are outdated from a time when religion was important in western countries. Now many people believe that religion and God was created by men to try and explain things they couldn’t explain in the past and also to control and enslave people.

                No one has ever been, in recent times, prosecuted for blasphemy in any of the countries you have mentioned.

                By asking if these nations and their legislatures were illogical, you are trying to make an argument that if they were illogical then its OK for Islamic countries to be illogical too. Or perhaps they cannot be illogical (being western democracies) therefore Islamic countries cannot be illogical too. These implied arguments are clearly false. One illogicality doesn’t make another illogicality logical.

                Thirdly even these antiquated western laws are very mild, putting a maximum punishment of imprisonment of a year or two and puts very high bars to any prosecution at all under these laws.

                Compare this with Islamic countries where the punishment for blasphemy is death. And punishments are common.

                “if you compare a human with God, won’t it be illogical?” Not if God is a human invention. One can easily see that all Gods have human characteristics.

                Allah for example as you said is “The Compeller and The Subduer” which are some of the not very nice characteristics shared by some not very nice humans. The other nicer characteristics of Allah also shared by humans which you say are merciful and beneficent.

                Can you think of any characteristic that Allah has that any human is just not known to have?


                • To forgive someone is great, to be just to in order to stop others from doing it is even better. Let’s say Richard, you get verbally abused & since you are a nice man, you forgive me. Great, but chances are I’d be assured if I do it again you won’t do anything & I might continue to nag you.

                  And if I don’t, others might find that sweet spot & abuse you from time to time. & that’s what has been happening. Look at all the people abusing Islam & Quran these days in the name of freedom of speech because they are under protection of your stupid liberal laws.

                  Secondly, if your liberal thoughts allow mocking & carbonising Jesus then continue to do so with ‘your own religion’ [although none of the muslims would appreciate because Jesus is our prophet too]. What’s the dire need to mess around with someone else’s ??

                  Thirdly, we do tend to forgive matters that relate to us but not for the ones we love. It comes naturally to us. If I abuse your wife or mother, would you stand innocent and not protect?

                  Do you not your Liberal courts filled with contempt cases where some party verbally abused the other ? Consider the ‘Holiness’ when it comes to abusing prophet or God, the intensity of emotions & respect?

                  Unfortunately, the western society is hypocritical in their law making & legislation. You can’t say a denial about ‘holocaust’ in so many modern & liberal country (and that’s just a denial not a blasphemy, just a difference of belief not using offensive wording) while allowing mocking of Prophets and God. Ain’t that funny, stupid & contradictory unless they believe in God & Prophets.

                  Fourthly, God has many attributes humans have none. He doesn’t die, he wasn’t born or gives birth to any nor is married or has anyone in this liking thus truly One and he doesn’t sleep.

                  All the human characteristics you spoke of are in common with God not God’s in common with humans. [although I see you are digressing from point of argument, it is about blasphemy not existence of God or Allah].

                  Let’s respect each other’s beliefs and not make fun of them & if somebody does, teach them a lesson so nobody else will do so.

                  Logic is becomes worthless when it is irrational. Logic and Rationality combined answers more question.

                  Happy Reading 🙂


                  • Syed Abdul Wahab Gilani, “Do you not your Liberal courts filled with contempt cases where some party verbally abused the other ?”

                    I think you are confusing with Libel and Defamation. There is a very high bar for proving this in western countries. For example the party claiming Defamation has to prove the statement was false and caused harm and, usually, that there was an intent to cause harm. The punishment is usually monetary and in no case is it the death penalty.

                    “God has many attributes humans have none. He doesn’t die, he wasn’t born or gives birth to any nor is married or has anyone in this liking thus truly One and he doesn’t sleep.”

                    Yes these are the attributes, some attribute to God, some also assign him powers of omnipotence and omniscience, some assign Gods with many arms, heads etc. But I was talking about characteristics as in qualities (of character). Qualities such as anger, hate, love, compelling, subduing, bullying, forgiving, merciful, cruel, hateful, merciless, unkind. You can know a persons character, whether he is wise, kind or cruel etc, without knowing how tall or strong he is, the colour of his eyes or how long he lived. God always seems to have human qualities.

                    “the western society is hypocritical in their law making & legislation…. allowing mocking of Prophets and God.”

                    Our western freedoms are based on some very basic, deeply held and tried and tested principles, that our liberty depends on the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and that cannot be limited without being lost. That truth will triumph over untruth and falsehood, and has nothing to fear from untruth through free argument and debate. That untruth and falsehoods become dangerous when it is not permitted freely to contradict them. That censorship is the path to oppression and error.

                    This basic human freedom is lacking in Muslim countries.

                    We have some stupid laws but freedom of speech is not one of them. And unlike religious laws, which are fixed for all time, we have the power to change them and we have progressed to make them better over time.

                    “Consider the ‘Holiness’ when it comes to abusing prophet or God, the intensity of emotions & respect?.. if your liberal thoughts allow mocking .. Jesus then continue to do so with ‘your own religion’ … What’s the dire need to mess around with someone else’s?? ..Let’s respect each other’s beliefs and not make fun of them & if somebody does, teach them a lesson so nobody else will do so.”

                    I would not disrespect your beliefs because I do not believe in hurting peoples feelings. But when a person blasphemes or becomes an apostate and renounces Islam, the only persons that are aggrieved are you and your fellow Muslims and the only punishment that is carried out is by Muslims, not Allah. If a person were to curse Allah in the middle of the Sahara desert or the Amazon jungle, nothing would happen to him. But if he were to do so in the market place in Pakistan or Mecca he would immediately be killed by Muslims.

                    We live in one world and all humans have basic rights. Everyone who come to our countries have equal rights under the law to everyone else. This is not so in your countries. Minorities are unequal under your laws as second class citizens. Too often they are prosecuted under trumped up charges of blasphemy and killed even if acquitted.

                    It is when religion takes away human freedoms that there is a problem. You are not entitled to take away a humans rights on the basis of freedom of religion. The rights to equality, the right to believe or not believe what he or she chooses and the most basic of all rights, the right to life.


                    • Dear Richard,
                      We see things differently as you see.
                      Again, I would post a long counter argument to every argument and you would respond and then a new point will arise.
                      it seems an unending discussion. For now I think we should agree to disagree.

                      Loved your feedback and most importantly your time.

                      Keep us enlighten 🙂
                      Happy Reading


                  • Good try. There is no law in the US for instance against denying the holocaust. It would be stupid to deny it but it is not illegal. There should be no barrier to false speech since the truth (Islam) stands clear from error, as Allah (SWT) says. Free thinking people will see falsehood for what it is – censorship and un-Quranic punishment is not the answer.


                    • Lol.
                      A Scholar once said,
                      People who have no hold over their process of thinking are likely to be ruined by liberty of thought. If thought is immature liberty of thought becomes a method of converting men into animals.


            • I would second to Mr. Abdul Wahab. If what you say is correct, shouldn’t I inquire you about laws on holocaust & that why does the western civilization consider it a crime? If so, why not go about and discuss it? If so, why do you think that there are charters of UN against Blasphemy {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations}.
              Do you ever consider the factor of incitement of crimes?
              You say that Blasphemy is not a physical crime. This is actually more than physical…. Its spiritual; something more than of this world. Why talk about materials and physical crimes; the difference between east (esp the Muslim East) and west is even more than cultural, its spiritual; more than countries or any other man-made constitution.

              Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: I'm No Superman! » Blog Archive » The Attractive Tag of Liberalism!

  12. Pingback: The Attractive Tag of Liberalism! | I'm No Superman!

  13. Pingback: Verdict of Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) on Blasphemy! | I'm No Superman!

  14. You have completely failed to prove in a single surah of Quran where it clearly and indisputably requires death penalty for blasphemy. You are an enemy of Islam and an agent of Jews and Christians, determined to bring shame upon Islam by creating a violent image of Islam. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself went to meet a woman in Mecca who used to throw garbage on him daily, just to find out if she was okay because she did not throwh garbage on him one day. How can a great human being like him require death of people who disliked him. Shame on you Ignorant, illetrate mullahs. Islam is in embarrassed globally because of morons like you.


    • Okay. Syed this is the most Frequently put argument

      . Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself went to meet a woman in Mecca who used to throw garbage on him daily, just to find out if she was okay because she did not throwh garbage on him one day

      I ask only one counter question from you.. Who can forgive if the aggrieved party is not present in the first instance? Better consult a modern Liberal lawyer he’ll answer you ’cause you are not going to believe a conservative Sharia’h lawyer anyway 🙂

      I ask you study please enlighten me in the light of Quran isn’t the blasphemy “Fasad fil Ard” ?? if you think so then please find what is the declared punishment for the one who commits this heinous act in the Quran. Help yourself please Quran is for you too.

      P.S: Don’t forget the Liberalism is also an extreme. Try to find some middle ground 🙂 Happy Reading

      P.P.S: I am an internationally published Management Science Scholar who shave weekly and have no moustache either 😉

      P.P.P.S: I’ll take all your personal hits as a compliment


    • Exactly! Blasphemy is not punishable in the Quran. Even the proponents of blasphemy say that the prophet is not alive to defend himself so they are ‘defending him’ – this is a farce.

      The Prophet (PBUH) kindly tolerated peoples insults. This is his true Sunnah and benevolence. Who are you to re-write his Sunnah by instituting a barbaric, anti-Quranic response claiming to be his allies? Let Allah (SWT) be the judge and punisher of those who insult the Prophet. If a death penalty is not spelled out in the Quran then it is shirk to create one. It is shirk to make the lawful unlawful. Allah knows best.


      • You should read all the content. Skipping the content and judging is worth a shame too. Let’s not be opinionated. Your views are respected conditionally (Words you Choose)

        I don’t usually grace such arrogant comments with reply, since you put shame on me; I copy pasted the relevant text from above post as under.

        Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 582:

        Narrated Anas bin Malik:

        On the day of the Conquest, the Prophet entered Mecca, wearing a helmet on his head. When he took it off, a man came and said, “Ibn e Khatal is clinging to the curtain of the Ka’ba.” The Prophet said, “Kill him.”


  15. Pingback: Court acquits Christian on death row for blasphemy - Page 6

  16. Pingback: tester

  17. Pingback: Tabari Light Nat Leather

  18. Dear brother,

    There are many verses in Quran where man is asked to forgive or to not sit with those who are ignorant. please mention them as well to give true picture about blasphemy law. If you are trying to be rational the show both sides of coin rather than on side.


  19. What crap. There is not a single example where the prophet ordered anyone killed for insulting him. The Prophet (PBUH) had a very thick skin, unlike charlatans of today who defame him by arguing for such a barbaric punishment for blasphemy. Shame on you!

    Even if one were to accept the law as legitimate, there is no way it can be adjudicated fairly. All it takes is for someone to be charged with this ‘crime’ and the blood thirsty masses take care of the rest.

    There is a gag rule in Pakistan in effect – even the Supreme Court had to rely on a technicality to avoid ruling against the Shariah Court’s death penalty ruling.


Comments are closed.