BASED ON AN ANALOGY
People commonly hold the belief that anyone engaging in blasphemy against the Prophet is subject to punishment under Shariah law, as repentance alone cannot undo the offence. However, this assumption lacks any basis in Shariah. Regardless of the widespread belief in this theory, it remains unsubstantiated. Therefore, in the following pages, we will carefully examine this issue from the perspectives of the Quran, Hadith, and Fiqh (jurisprudence).
As mentioned earlier, the most comprehensive book on this subject is authored by Ibn Taymiyyah (661-728 AH). During his time, there was an incident of blasphemy when Assaf Nasrani uttered derogatory words against the Prophet of Islam. This incident sparked a heated debate in Syria and Egypt regarding the appropriate punishment in Islamic law for those who insult the Prophet. Provoked by this event, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a substantial book comprising 600 pages, which was later published under the title ‘As-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim ar-Rasul,’ meaning ‘The Open Sword for the One Who Insulted the Prophet.’
Arguments from the Quran
In one section of his book, Ibn Taymiyyah argues that numerous verses in the Quran support the killing of blasphemers. However, the verses he quotes in this context are unrelated to his position or opinion on killing blasphemers. Thus, let us translate some of the verses he has referred to in this discussion.
“Among them are those who vex the Prophet by saying, “He listens to everyone.” Say, “His listening to everyone is good for you; he believes in God, puts his trust in the faithful, and is a mercy to those of you who believe. Those who annoy God’s Messenger shall have a painful punishment.” They swear by God to please you [believers], but it would be more fitting for them to please God and His Messenger if they are believers. Do they not know that whoever opposes God and His Messenger shall abide forever in the fire of Hell? That is the supreme humiliation.” (Quran, 9:61-63)
These verses specifically address individuals who caused harm or annoyance to the Prophet. However, they do not contain any explicit or implied command to kill those individuals. Instead, they indicate the punishment that awaits them in the afterlife rather than in this world. The verses advise Muslims to adopt a policy of avoidance towards such individuals, as God will be the ultimate judge of their actions in the next world. The responsibility of Muslims in this world is solely to convey the divine message, and they will be held accountable for their deeds in the Hereafter. It is important to note that inferring a command for the death of blasphemers goes against the knowledge we gain from the grammar and the commentaries (Tafsir) of the Quran. Another verse of the Quran states:
“You will not find believers in God and the Last Day aligning themselves with those who oppose God and His Messenger, even if they are their fathers, sons, brothers, or close relatives. Their faith is deeply ingrained in their hearts, and God has fortified them with His spirit. They will be admitted to Gardens with flowing rivers, where they will dwell eternally. God is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. They are the party of God and will surely attain a state of bliss.” (58:22)
Regarding the interpretation by Ibn Taymiyyah, he argues, based on this verse, that Abu Quhafa, who was Abu Bakr’s father, committed blasphemy against the Prophet. Consequently, Abu Bakr intended to punish his father for this offence. Similarly, Abdullah bin Ubayy insulted the Prophet, so his son sought permission from the Prophet to kill his father. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, such incidents demonstrate that anyone who opposes the Prophet is an infidel and, thus, deserving of the death penalty.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements lack evidence and rely on deceptive arguments. In the two mentioned incidents involving Abu Bakr Siddiq and Abdullah bin Ubayy’s son, Abdullah, they expressed their willingness to kill the blasphemers by seeking the Prophet’s permission. However, it is essential to consider the complete story. The subsequent part of these incidents reveals that the Prophet did not grant permission to kill the blasphemers. Consequently, both individuals, referred to as “shatim,” lived on and eventually died of natural deaths.
The guidance for Shariah law should be derived from the words of the Prophet rather than from the words of Muslims who, in the heat of the moment, uttered statements that were not endorsed or approved by the Prophet.
In the case of Salman Rushdie, after it gained attention, those advocating for the death penalty published numerous articles and issued statements claiming that killing a blasphemer is supported by Quranic verses. However, all these arguments, similar to Ibn Taymiyyah’s, are baseless. In an article written by Pakistani scholar Maulana Qazi Mazhar Husain, it is stated that the killing of a “shatim” can be proven through many verses of the Quran (Haq Char Yar, Monthly, Lahore, June 1989).
He refers to the Quranic verse: “God shall curse those who annoy God and His Messenger in this world and the Hereafter. God has prepared a humiliating punishment for them. Those who affront believing men and believing women without their having deserved it [done any wrong] shall bear the weight of slander and a flagrant sin.” (33:57-58)
Indeed, these verses address those who cause harm to the Prophet. However, they do not directly or indirectly command the killing of the perpetrators. Nowhere is it stated that those who commit atrocities against the Prophet should be put to death.These verses focus on the punishment God will administer in the Hereafter; they do not mention any legal consequences or punishments in this world.
The writer has taken the word ‘torment’ from the Quran and added the word ‘killing’ on his own. If this method is considered valid for extracting meanings from the Quran, then any interpretation can be derived by citing the Quran. Those who have attempted to prove the killing of blasphemers from the Quran have employed the same approach as the examples mentioned above.
No verse in the Quran commands the killing of a blasphemer. The truth is that this notion is fabricated and holds no connection to the divine scripture. It is unrelated to the Quran and has no bearing on its teachings.
Arguments from the Hadith
There is no authentic narration in the entire collection of Hadith that commands the killing of a blasphemer. This ruling has been deduced from the Hadith and is not directly stated in the texts. The most common argument put forth in this regard is derived from a Hadith regarding apostasy that states that anyone who has abandoned their religion should be killed. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 3027) People who support the killing of blasphemers believe that since blasphemy against the Prophet is viewed as a form of apostasy, engaging in it makes one an apostate and, thus, deserving of death. However, equating apostasy with blasphemy is an erroneous inference in itself.
An apostate chooses to renounce and distance himself from his religion, whereas blasphemy is an act that influences others. Apostasy is an individual action, so the problem is seen to be resolved by executing the apostate, just as the issue of murder is resolved by executing the murderer. On the other hand, blasphemy impacts others through its defamation, raising objections and attempting to cast doubt on the faith that people follow. In other words, blasphemy criticizes the belief system, highlights unfounded flaws in religion, and raises objections against it. Therefore, while the punishment of the apostate may resolve the problem at hand, the impact of blasphemy cannot be eradicated merely by killing the blasphemer. The effects of blasphemy will persist until misconceptions are dispelled through rational arguments.
Let us consider an example from chapter 108 of the Quran. In Arabic, the word ‘Abtar’ means to be cut off. Thus, if a person is without offspring, they are called ‘Abtar’ in Arabic. Since Prophet Muhammad did not have male descendants, the people of Makkah derogatorily referred to him as ‘Abtar,’ implying that his lineage would not continue after him.
There was a prominent polytheist named Al-‘As bin Wa’il who, whenever the Prophet’s name was mentioned in his presence, would dismissively say, “Leave him alone. He has no male child.” This derogatory statement implied that the Prophet would have no heirs to carry on his message after his death. This was a clear instance of blasphemy. This misconception about the Prophet being ‘Abtar’ (without descendants) was spreading among the people in Makkah. Influenced by this false propaganda, many individuals hesitated to believe in him.
The solution to this issue did not lie in killing individuals like Al-‘As bin Wa’il and others who shared similar views. Instead, the answer lay in refuting the propaganda they spread with a strong counter-argument. Consequently, the chapter called Al-Kausar was revealed. In this chapter, God Almighty declared that He had granted “Kausar” (abundance) to Muhammad. Thus, it was affirmed that the Prophet would indeed have a legacy, and those who opposed him would be left without any roots or continuity.
‘Kausar’ literally means ‘one of great abundance.’ The verse in the Quran states: “Indeed, We have granted you, [O Muhammad], abundance (al-Kausar).” (108:1)
Abdullah bin Abbas states that in the above verse, ‘Kausar’ refers to the blessings and goodness God has bestowed upon the Prophet of Islam. Ikrima, a disciple of Ibn Abbas, further elaborated on this by explaining that it signifies Prophethood and the Quran. This means that God has granted the Prophet something far more significant than having male children—He has bestowed upon him the true religion of God. Millions of people will come under the influence of the Prophet and become faithful followers of this religion. Instead of having just one male heir, Prophet Muhammad has been granted millions of ideological heirs. Even the children of his opponents will take pride in abandoning their own religion and embracing his teachings. Hence, in this situation, one can reflect and decide who lacks heirs—Prophet Muhammad or his adversaries.
This answer, given in the verse of the Quran, was undeniably more impactful than physically killing Al-‘As bin Wa’il. While killing him would have eliminated an individual, this powerful declaration frustrated the plans of the individual and had a far-reaching effect.
Let us take an example to understand better the distinction between an ‘apostate’ and a ‘shatim.’ Ibn Taymiyyah writes that Hasan bin Thabit Ansari used to respond to the polytheists of Arabia who attacked the Prophet through poetry. These couplets appeared to the blasphemers even harsher than arrows.
To address the ‘shatim,’ a pulpit was arranged in the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah specifically for Hassan bin Thabit. From this elevated position, he would recite poetic couplets in defence of the Prophet, countering the blasphemous remarks made by people. This method effectively defended the Prophet against the perpetrators of ‘shatm.’ (As-Sarim al-Maslul, p. 200)
This approach appears appropriate when discussing individuals engaged in ‘shatm.’ Let us compare this with the matter of apostates by altering the narrative: “Hasan bin Thabit responded to those who abandoned the religion of the Prophet and became apostates through his poems. For this purpose, a pulpit was placed in Masjid Nabavi, and Hassan would sit upon it, defending the Prophet against these rebellious apostates.” The first method of responding to blasphemers seems meaningful, while the second method does not hold the same weight.
Abu Bakr Siddiq, the first caliph, exemplifies that true apostates are confronted through force, specifically the sword. In contrast, countering blasphemers effectively involves responding to their words with more powerful words, as Hassan bin Thabit Ansari demonstrated. This example clarifies the distinction between an apostate and a ‘shatim.’
In addition to the mentioned inferences from the Hadith on apostasy, several other unfounded conclusions have been drawn.
For instance, based on the Hadith mentioned above, it is understood that the issue of apostasy pertains to a believer, explicitly addressing the ruling for someone who initially embraced Islam and later renounced it.
On the contrary, the matter of ‘shatm’ encompasses both believers and disbelievers. Generally, jurists assert that anyone who insults the Prophet Muhammad should be killed, regardless of whether they are believers or disbelievers. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, whoever insults God’s Messenger, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim, is obligated to be killed. (p. 4)
Ibn Taymiyyah applies the Hadith mentioned above to both believers and disbelievers equally. Now, a question arises: How can a Hadith that specifically addresses Muslims and mentions the issue of the claimant’s faith be used as the basis for a general ruling that encompasses both believers and disbelievers?
Furthermore, there is no need to infer or deduce what actions should be taken in response to insults and mockery. The Quran and Sunnah provide clear and detailed guidance on this matter.
These texts distinguish between the case of a blasphemer and an individual who becomes an apostate and abandons his religion. Hence, equating blasphemy and apostasy under a single ruling is incorrect.
Ibn Taymiyyah refers to incidents from the time of the Prophet of Islam as evidence of individuals being executed for blasphemy. However, there is no substantiated evidence from the Prophet’s era in Islam that supports the claim of anyone being put to death for blasphemy.
For instance, Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that Ka’b bin al-Ashraf was executed for blasphemy (pp. 70-73). However, the truth is that Ka’b bin al-Ashraf was put to death due to his repeated acts of treason, not for blasphemy. While he, like other opponents, may have expressed contemptuous words, his execution was a result of his persistent violation of the covenant, not solely for blasphemy.
Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah claims that two Ansari youths killed Abu Jahl because of blasphemy (As-Sarim al-Maslul, p. 160-159). However, this claim is entirely unfounded. Abu Jahl was killed on the battlefield while fighting against the Prophet of Islam. He had joined the army of the Makkan opponents when they attacked Madinah. The Muslims engaged in defensive war when the Quraysh confronted them at Badr, where many of the disbelievers were killed, including Abu Jahl. Therefore, it is illogical to label this as a case of the death penalty for blasphemy.
Ibn Taymiyyah presents additional examples from the early period to support his argument that the Prophet of Islam executed individuals for blasphemy. However, these incidents are unrelated, as none of the killings were solely based on blasphemy. There were other factors involved, such as the individuals being killed while fighting on the battlefield or due to acts of treason.
Arguments from Jurisprudence
Jurists commonly assert that anyone who commits blasphemy against the Prophet of Islam or speaks derogatory words about him should be subject to capital punishment, regardless of their religious affiliation. Various books, such as ‘Kitabul Umm’ by Al-Shafi’i; ‘Sharhul Minhaj,’ Al-Rawdah Al-Nadiyah,’ by Siddiq Hasan Khan ;‘Al-Raud Al-Basim’ by Al-Shaukani; ‘Kashf al-Qina’ ‘an Matn el ‘Iqna,’ by Mansur bin Yunus Al-Buhuti; ‘Fiqh as Sunnah’ by Sayyed Sabiq; and ‘Al Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-‘Arba’ah’ by Al-Jazari, and ‘At- Tashri’ al-Jina’i al-Islami’ by Abdul Qadir Oudah, present this viewpoint.
In his extensive work, Allama Ibn Taymiyyah has tried to substantiate and support this perspective with evidence and arguments in his book. He claims that there is a consensus among most Islamic scholars regarding the punishment for blasphemy. (pp. 4-5)
Upon examining the books of jurisprudence, it becomes evident that jurists often rely on the opinions of early scholars when addressing these issues rather than presenting their arguments. If a renowned scholar from the early days has already issued a fatwa on a particular matter, subsequent scholars tend to follow suit without further investigation.
Consequently, they claim a consensus or ‘ijma’ among jurists and scholars. However, this consensus is often based on imitation rather than independent research and scholarly inquiry, contrary to the academic and Shariah definitions of ‘ijma.’
Consensus is widely regarded as one of the four sources of Shariah. However, it would be incorrect to state that scholars have reached a consensus on the matter of killing blasphemers. Instead, it is more accurate to say that most scholars have expressed a similar opinion.
One form of consensus is when scholars and jurists from different periods of history are unanimous on an issue. This is known as the consensus of the majority of scholars, meaning the opinion shared by the majority.
Another form of consensus, or ‘ijma,’ is described by Qadi Baydawi as the agreement among Muslim jurists on a particular issue. (Minhaj-ul-Usool, Vol 1, p. 37)
On the legitimacy of consensus, an argument is made from the commandment of consultation in Islam. For example, in this context, the following verse from the Quran is presented: “And consult them in the matter” (3:159) as a source of the principle of consensus. This indicates that consultation is an integral part of the consensus. Consensus is reached through mutual consultation among Muslim scholars. Therefore, consultation is necessary for consensus, and achieving consensus requires all relevant individuals to come together in one place and engage in detailed discussions to reach an agreement.
Throughout history, there has never been a gathering of scholars and jurists specifically focused on the issue of assassinating a blasphemer, where a unanimous decision was made after mutual consultation. Hence, it is incorrect to claim that scholars and jurists have reached a consensus on this matter. However, it would be accurate to say that the majority opinion supports the view of the killing of a blasphemer. If the prevalent viewpoint is referred to as consensus, it is only in a figurative sense rather than being an actual consensus.
Despite these arguments, two crucial factors challenge the notion of consensus on this matter. Firstly, there is no explicit command in the entire Quran or Hadith collection that specifically prescribes the killing of a blasphemer, regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. Neither the Quran nor the Hadith books contain such a command. Hence, the reality is that this issue, though widely known, is based on inference rather than direct textual evidence from the Quran or Hadith.
Secondly, the issue raised in relation to scholars and jurists is not limited solely to the Prophet of Islam. It applies equally to God, His angels, the Prophet of Islam, and all other prophets. Therefore, according to this juridical perspective, the comprehensive rule states that anyone, whether a believer or a non-believer, who utters insulting words about God, His angels, the Prophet of Islam, or any other prophet, or disparages the religion of God in any way, must be subjected to the death penalty. The individual should not be allowed to live, even if he repents for his actions.
Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that it was the practice of the Prophet of Islam to order the execution of individuals who blasphemed against Allah, His Messenger, and ridiculed the religion of God. However, it should be noted that Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement, “This was the Sunnah of God’s Messenger,” is not accurate. It is a generalization based on exceptional cases, such as acts of treason. Further clarification on this point is provided below.
Ibn Taymiyyah, after quoting the Hadith Qudsi, “Yu’dhīnī ibn Adam, Yasubb al-Dahr wa ana al-Dahr” (The son of Adam hurts Me by abusing Time, for I am Time), from Sahih al- Bukhari, Hadith No. 4826, asserts that even a lesser degree of abusing God and His Messenger is punishable by death under all circumstances. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the Messenger of Allah unequivocally condemned blaspheming God and His Messenger, and the penalty for such an act is death. Furthermore, he states that if the perpetrator of blasphemy is a Muslim, killing him becomes an obligatory action (p. 550).
In a section of his book, Ibn Taymiyyah writes that anyone who humiliates the Prophet of Islam or any other Prophet is considered a ‘kaafir’ (disbeliever). Therefore, the punishment for blasphemy against any prophet is akin to that of blasphemy against the Prophet of Islam. In other words, every blasphemer is deemed an infidel, and it is permissible to shed their blood, meaning that such a person must be killed.
Abdul Qadir Oudah mentions that jurists hold two opinions regarding mocking prophets and angels. The first opinion states that such a person should be killed without accepting their repentance. The second opinion considers the individual as an apostate, and their repentance will be accepted, but if they commit the offence again, their repentance will not be recognized. (al-Tashrīʿ al-Jināʾī, Vol. 2, pp. 726-727)
Considering the general nature of this command, only a few fortunate individuals in the human population would be exempt from its implications. The vast majority of human beings would fall under the scope of this general order in one way or another. Such a list could be extensive, encompassing almost all human beings, rendering the practicality of implementing this order nullified. If everyone is deserving of death, who would be left to carry out the killings?
On the one hand, jurists have declared blasphemy or ‘shatm’ punishable by death. However, on the other hand, ‘shatm’ is defined in a way that makes almost everyone qualify as a blasphemer in some manner or another.
According to this definition, various actions such as ridiculing, demeaning, taunting, insulting, humiliating, defaming, showing disrespect, offending, backbiting, making jokes, and playing with words are all considered blasphemy. The author suggests that it is not only abusive to utter blasphemous, offensive, and unjust words directly but also regarded as abusive to insult the message conveyed by the Prophet of Islam indirectly. For instance, making a playful remark implies that the Prophet believed he could conquer the palaces and forts of Rome. (p. 33-34)
Here are a few examples to highlight the seriousness of the problem in the current context.
According to a Hadith Qudsi (Sacred Narration), God Almighty stated, “When a man accuses Time, he abuses Me for I am Time.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 4826) Another Hadith mentions that believing in God having a son amounts to ridiculing God. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 6099; Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2804) Both polytheists who consider angels as sons of God and Christians who believe Jesus is the son of God fall under the category of shatm or blasphemy. These instances of ‘shatm’ are quite prevalent, implying that a significant number of people, including polytheists, Christians, and many educated individuals, can be found guilty of committing the crime of ‘shatm’ against God. Consequently, according to the juridical ruling, everyone would deserve to be killed.
Similar disrespect towards the Prophets is also noteworthy. For instance, Jews may derogatorily refer to Jesus as an illegitimate child, God forbid. Likewise, Christians, being the most prominent religious denomination globally, may label the final Prophet as a False Prophet. By the interpretation of this law, it would mean that all Jews and Christians worldwide should be killed.
The same applies to those who hold polytheistic beliefs, associating a non-God with any of the attributes of God. This group includes grave worshippers and saint worshipers (Akabir) among Muslims, in addition to well-known polytheists. They will all be considered guilty of blasphemy against God because they express words that can be seen as disrespectful to God. According to this viewpoint, all these individuals are considered deserving of death, and none of them should be spared.
It is essential to clarify that the above statement does not reflect the author’s opinion. Instead, it represents the fundamental requirement of proponents of the ideology of “Killing the shatim.”
As mentioned earlier, making allegations against religion or mocking it is considered a crime that warrants capital punishment, and in today’s supposedly modern and educated world, nearly 99% of people would be found guilty of this offence.
Similarly, socialists and communists can be referred to as “criminals” since they perceive religion as a form of mental opium. While others may not use the same explicit language, they express similar ideas in more polite terms.
According to this belief, approximately 99% of modern educated individuals would be deemed deserving of death.
Moreover, proponents of this perspective argue that there is no requirement for a legal trial or a Government directive to execute those who commit blasphemy. They claim that “if the Islamic Government fails to impose this punishment, any Muslim can take it upon themselves to enforce it and kill the offender.” This viewpoint is entirely absurd.
Contemporary Muslims face a peculiar contradiction when it comes to the issue of blasphemy. They assert that slandering any of the prophets of God is as grave an offence as speaking ill of the last Prophet. They proclaim that every such offender must be killed. However, in practical terms, their outrage is solely directed at insults targeting Prophet Muhammad. Regardless of the nature of insults aimed at other prophets, they remain unmoved.
There have been countless depictions of the Prophet Jesus, found in millions of books and homes, without eliciting any resentment among Muslims. However, if Muslims hear news of their Prophet’s images being published in a newspaper, even from a distance, they immediately become infuriated and often respond violently. Conversely, numerous blasphemous statements and publications about other prophets do not seem to bother Muslims. Their concern is solely provoked when negative news pertains to their own Prophet.
This situation has escalated to the extent that not only non- Muslims or disbelievers but even Muslims themselves show veneration for their Prophet while disrespecting other prophets. Several examples can be given to illustrate this point. For instance, if a Hindu, Christian, or Jew writes that “Prophet Muhammad fled from Makkah,” all Muslims will rise and proceed to burn the book in which the word “fled” is used instead of “migrated.” However, they remain undisturbed when a Muslim writer states that “this is the same town from which Prophet Yunus fled” (Tafheem-ul- Quran, Volume 4, p. 309).
The truth is that the current mindset among Muslims involves discrimination between God’s Messengers. However, those who engage in such discrimination do not deserve reward but punishment in God’s eyes.
It is a fact that the concept of “killing the blasphemer” is unfounded. There is no authentic evidence for it in the Quran and Sunnah. Throughout the history of Islam, from its inception until now, this concept has never been put into practice, nor is it likely to be adopted in the future.
During the time of the Prophet, the Christians in Arabia used to label him a self-proclaimed prophet. The Jews were also guilty of disrespecting both the Prophet of Islam and Jesus Christ. Additionally, the polytheists residing in Makkah insulted the Prophet and referred to the angels as daughters of God. Hence, their level of guilt was even greater.
In this context, we can say that a significant portion, at least 95%, of the ancient Arabian population engaged in some form or the other of blasphemy. If Islamic Shariah had prescribed the killing of the blasphemers, these individuals would have been mercilessly killed, resulting in the elimination of a majority of the Arab population. And, if this punishment was a ‘hadd’ penalty (A punishment fixed in the Quran for crimes), the Prophet could not have pardoned the perpetrators according to the Shariah ruling.
However, Islamic history demonstrates that Prophet Muhammad did not take such action; instead, he forgave them all. Had Shariah obligated him to impose the death penalty on blasphemers, he could not have granted them forgiveness.
It is stated that the Prophet’s role was that of a bearer of Divine Religion. His purpose was not to punish the wrongdoers but to convey God’s guidance to humanity. The Quran refers to him as “Rahmat ul lil Alamin,” which means “Mercy to all mankind” (21:107), a title bestowed upon him by Almighty God. However, some Muslims desire for the Prophet of Islam to be remembered in history as a “killer of people.”
It is widely known that punishment for blasphemy was never administered during the time of the Prophet of Islam, even after his passing. While some individuals were killed during the Prophet’s era for reasons such as treason, rebellion, or in the context of warfare, no scholar of that time ever issued a fatwa calling for an execution solely based on verbal abuse. Furthermore, there is no historical record of any ruler carrying out such an execution.
The truth is that criticizing God, angels, or the prophets does not constitute blasphemy. It signifies raising objections, which is not a crime in its simplest form. Common social or moral offences can be deterred through corporal punishment, but objections and criticisms cannot be curbed similarly. The only viable action in such cases is to refute them with compelling arguments. Such objections or criticisms should be disproven through more powerful and persuasive dialogue than those presented by the critic.
Based on these compelling reasons, the writer firmly believes that the doctrine held by the “majority of the jurists” regarding the killing of the blasphemer is either not understood in the same manner as Ibn Taymiyyah and like- minded individuals, or even if it is interpreted in that sense, it should not be considered valid as it is not prescribed in the Quran and Hadith.
There is no explicit command found in the Quran and Hadith and the Prophet’s actions that confirm that the blasphemer must be put to death. Furthermore, if we analyze this issue as explained by the jurists, it must be acknowledged that all scholars and rulers have consistently violated this rule of Shariah throughout Islamic history. Even the Companions of the Prophet would be included in this extensive list of violators.
The inconsistency of this popular view with the Quran and Sunnah clearly indicates that Ibn Taymiyyah was well aware of it. In his 600-page book, he attempts to explain why the Prophet did not enforce this supposed Shariah order on numerous occasions and allowed many disrespectful individuals to go unpunished. However, these so-called justifications can be seen as adding insult to injury.
For instance, in one section of the book, Ibn Taymiyyah mentions some of the hypocrites in Madinah who allegedly mocked and humiliated the Prophet. Yet, they were not subjected to capital punishment. In this context, Ibn Taymiyyah writes that the sentence was not administered to them because jihad against the hypocrites was not obligatory then. Instead, the Prophet was commanded to endure their persecution and forgive anyone who insulted him.
According to Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement, the Prophet was instructed to overlook the hypocrites’ insults and humiliations and forgive them. Ibn Taymiyyah suggests that this command was temporary and later revoked. However, he does not specify when this revocation took place.
The Hadith and Sunnah provide evidence that the Prophet did not order the execution of hypocrites who had committed the offense of mockery and insolence against him. This demonstrates that, according to the revelations received by the Prophet and the example set by his actions, the command to forgive and avoid such cases persisted until the end and was never abrogated.
The question arises: If the Quran and Sunnah do not provide evidence of the abrogation of this command, then what other source did Ibn Taymiyyah rely on to make such a claim? Did another Prophet emerge after Muhammad bin Abdullah, who informed him that the ruling on amnesty had been revoked and that all blasphemers must now be killed?
If that is not the case, and indeed it is not, then Ibn Taymiyyah and those who share his views should adhere to the teachings of the Prophet on this matter. They should refrain from considering them abrogated through self- fashioned interpretations and advocating for actions not based on the Quran or the words and actions of the Prophet. Ibn Taymiyyah’s theory relies on conjecture and inference, which do not hold as valid arguments in such a case.
Scholars throughout different eras have disagreed with this viewpoint. Sufyan al-Thawri (97-161 AH), known as a leader in the field of religious sciences during his time, expressed that an apostate should always be asked to repent and should not be killed. He applies the same rule to a blasphemer, as the ruling for blasphemy is derived from the Hadith on apostasy.
