I agree with few points raised by the author, but at the same time he has been wrong quite a few times.
Quote:
|
Could the Qur’an be silent on a matter of such grave importance? Have we been left to rely on the ijma and qiyas of the clerics who came some two centuries after the Prophet (PBUH)?
|
Imam Abu Hanifa was born in 80 A.H and died in 150 A.H. His father met Ali (R.A) who invoked his blessings on him and his chidren. He was one of the follower of Successors. So the author is wrong where he says that those clerics came some two centuries later after Prophet (P.B.U.H)
Plus, if we rely on the traditions that reached us through those clerics, why do we have a problem in considering their ijma or qiyas? (I know 200 centuries is not an issue here but since I found him wrong so I thought to point him out)
Quote:
|
The Qur’an says in Surah Al-Massad:“The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and gains will not exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming fire. And his wife, the wood-carrier, will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fiber.”The common theme between the verses noted above is that, while the highest condemnation has been heaped on anyone reviling or attempting to revile the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and eternal damnation promised for the perpetrator, neither a direct order (amr) has been given to impart a punishment nor a set punishment prescribed — not even for Abu Lahab!
|
Surah Lahab or Al Massad was revealed in Mecca. We all know how badly Prophet (P.B.U.H) and his companions were persecuted during the Meccan period. The verses or chapters that were revealed in Mecca basically deal with Belief, punishments and the bounties to be received by infidels and believers respectively in the next world. We all know the infinite tolerance level that Prophet (P.B.U.H) and his companions had during their stay at Mecca. At the same time, we see that once Muslims got a state, even a Muslim was not allowed to slap his Muslim brother.
Having said that, let me add that Quran is not too clear while defining certain legal rulings. So if one finds something ambiguous in Quran or Sunnah, that is when mujtahids resort to ijma, qiyas or ijtihad. Didn’t our Prophet (P.B.U.H) invoked his blessings upon Hazrat Muaz when he said that if he wont find anything in Quran and Sunnah, he would do his ijtihad and treat everyone fairly? I presume Hadith-e Muaz is known to most of us. On the other hand, we all know how a whole tribe perpetrated murder of a man of another tribe. Hazrat Omer, under Maslaha Mursalah (or Public Interest) ordered to kill whole of the tribe (despite the ruling in Quran “ a life for a life”).
Quote:
|
Almost all proponents of severe or capital punishment for blasphemy, therefore, quote verse 33 of Surah Al-Maidah, in support of their argument:“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”It is a travesty of justice that a verse dealing with war, sedition and rebellion is invoked to punish what may not even qualify as theocratic or religious dissent.
|
Again, Surah Al-Maidah is a Medinese surah and we all know Medinese surahs deals with transactions (or muamlaat). The verse is not absolute and has many probable meanings. How does the author define fitna? Because the one who commits blasphemy, to me, fall under this category (if he is a habitual offender). The same verse is often used to justify that rape comes under harabah (fasad fil ard). So, there is no point of saying that this verse only gives a ruling as regards to rebellions and wars.
Quote:
|
Article 295 is repugnant to the Qur’an and Sunnah and, as long as it remains on the books, it will be a direct negation of the verse “Wama arsalnaka illa Rehmatan-lil-alameen” (We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures — 21:107)
|
Fancy statement but what I couldn’t grasp is that is the author against the blasphemy law and the punishments serived by classical scholars, or the blasphemy law incorporated by Zya ul Haqq, or the abuse of law or what (Seems he has problem with all of these)?
As far as blasphemy law is concerned, it is not repugnant to Quran and Sunnah. I myself cannot digest the Zia version of blasphemy law(which is said to be the agreed upon law)for it does not take into account the guilty intent of the blasphemer. At the same time, the public interest tells us that the law has been misused since the time of its formulation . Juristic preference or Estehsaan tells us that under these circumsyances, it would be prudent to soften the rigour of this law for both Muslims and non-Muslims have been victimized by abuse of blasphemy law (in Pakistan). Last but not the least, the blasphemer should be given the chance to repent or do tobah. The one falsely accusing someone of blasphemy should be punished with capital punishment. No one will disagree as regards to the alterations needed in the court procedure.