THE ISSUE OF BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE PROPHET
To understand this matter, consider the following: all jurists agree that anyone who insults the Prophet Muhammad, even indirectly, is subject to a mandatory death penalty. Blasphemy is considered a prescribed punishment (hadd). This ruling has little exception among notable jurists. For detailed discussions, refer to the following works:
- Al-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim al-Rasul by Ibn Taymiyyah
- Al-Sayf al-Maslul ‘ala Man Sabb al-Rasul by Taqi al-Din Ali al-Subki
- Tanbih al-Wulat wa al-Hukkam ‘ala Ahkam Shatim Khayr al-Anam aw Ahad Ashabihi al-Kiram by Ibn Abidin al-Shami
Writers often cite these jurists to argue that the punishment for blasphemy in Islam is death, claiming a near-unanimous consensus with minimal juristic disagreement.
However, a critical question arises: If this ruling is mandated by Shariah, why was it not enforced during the early days of Islam? Historical records show that many individuals committed blasphemy against the Prophet but were not executed.
One clear example is Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul of Medina. He openly blasphemed against the Prophet repeatedly. Despite irrefutable evidence and public pressure, the Prophet did not order his execution, and Abdullah ibn Ubayy eventually died a natural death. Explaining this incident, Allama Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) writes:
“The Prophet refrained from killing him only because it was feared that his execution would cause people to turn away from Islam since Islam was weak at that time.” (Al-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim al-Rasul, p. 179)
This prompts another question: Why does the jurisprudence of the early Islamic period differ from the fiqh developed later under the Abbasid Caliphate?
In February 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa declaring that Salman Rushdie had insulted the Prophet Muhammad in his book The Satanic Verses and that it was obligatory for Muslims to kill him. This fatwa received widespread support from Muslims worldwide, with the exception of this writer. Massive demonstrations followed, but despite global Muslim support, the fatwa could not be carried out. Instead, the issuance of the fatwa and subsequent reactions led to Islam being defamed globally, with its image, God forbid, associated with barbarity.
In today’s world, freedom of expression is considered a fundamental human right, akin to a modern “religion.” Consequently, the global community perceived this fatwa as a direct attack on their values. Modern media amplified the issue, ensuring it reached every corner of the world. Thus, the same concern that led the Prophet Muhammad to refrain from executing Abdullah ibn Ubayy manifested on a much larger scale in the case of Salman Rushdie.
Now, consider these two opposing precedents. The precedent set by the Prophet of Islam demonstrates that in the case of shatm-e-Rasool (blasphemy against the Messenger), no matter how widespread it may be, the practical consequences of executing the blasphemer must be taken into account. In contrast, the precedent set by the jurists (fuqaha) dictates that whenever someone commits shatm (blasphemy), they must be immediately put to death.
Why did they do so? The answer lies in imitation (taqlid). Contemporary Muslims adopted the view that the door to independent reasoning (ijtihad) from the Quran and Sunnah was closed. Instead, they relied solely on juristic fatwas, adhering to them with imitative zeal. This mindset led to the rigid application of rulings derived during the Abbasid period, a time when Muslims held political dominance and could easily enforce such laws. An Arabic poet aptly captured this era of authority:
“When the commanders dispatch an army against the enemies, we simply send a letter.”
However, circumstances have changed. Muslims today lack the same political and social dominance. Additionally, modern values, such as the sanctity of freedom of expression and the global influence of modern media, have created entirely new challenges.
The result was clear: despite widespread Muslim support, it was impossible to kill Salman Rushdie. Worse still, Islam’s reputation suffered irreparable damage. To modern observers, Islam came to be viewed as a religion of terrorism, fostering fanaticism. This was the outcome of attempting to enforce outdated jurisprudence in a radically changed era.
Had contemporary Muslims adopted ijtihad-e-mutlaq (absolute independent reasoning), they would have sought direct guidance from the Quran and Sunnah in Rushdie’s case. They would have realized that the solution lay not in issuing a fatwa for his execution but in refraining from reactive measures and engaging in peaceful dawah efforts. Instead, their imitative mindset trapped them within the confines of a jurisprudence developed during an era of Muslim dominance. As a result, they adhered to the juristic ruling that “The blasphemer is to be executed as a prescribed punishment” (al-shatim yuqtal haddan). Ijtihad Mutlaq can be translated as “absolute independent reasoning” in Islamic jurisprudence. It refers to the capacity of a scholar to exercise independent reasoning directly from the primary sources (Quran and Hadith) without relying on the interpretations of other scholars.
