ʿAqīl المُصْطَفَوِي

ʿAqīl المُصْطَفَوِي



No need to “eceh” me. Yes, blasphemy laws exist in classical books of fiqh. Pressed about it? مُوتُوا بِغَيْظِكُم —Q 3:119 This is a thread about blasphemy laws for people who can’t distinguish them from vigilantism, inshāAllāh.

Firstly, I was talking about vigilantism (i.e. some random person taking laws into their own hands) in the first place, which is an entirely different thing from blasphemy laws. Why are you so pressed to equate the two together?

Whether blasphemy laws should be entirely discarded or not is your opinion, and I couldn’t care less about it—I wasn’t even discussing about it in the first place. I’m not interested to debate about the relevance of the Shari’a.

Three things to be made clear about blasphemy laws: 1) The authority of carrying out the laws There is a big difference in a ruler decreeing a law and a random person taking it into their own hands without procedural requirements.

“Proving blasphemy followed the ordinarily high evidentiary standards of the rest of Islamic criminal law...” Again, how is this the same as a random person (a terrorist, in fact) going out to enforce the law on his own with no qādī, no court or anything on his side?

2) The “context” or purpose behind the classical laws During the times when these laws were formulated, blasphemy was tantamount to posing “...a threat of violence against the state and its public order or rule of law”. The three schools of Sunni Islam “declined to hold even...

intentional jabs at the Prophet or his family to be criminally blasphemous...” and that they should only be considered as such when it “...meant departure from the laws and war against the community.”

3) The implementation in modern times Should we still practice execution as a punishment for blasphemy? The restricted meaning of blasphemy for mainstream Muslims jurists mean that “...for most jurists, the blasphemy laws formulated in classical Islamic legal writings...

could only apply to a Muslim society of earlier times and particular places of shared moral norms according to a narrow set of justifications”. Furthermore, these laws are not absolute, “...particularly when the contexts framing and justifying them were contingent”.

Source: “Islamic Law and International Human Rights Law: Searching for Common Ground?”, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 146-167. Further reading: I told you before, read a book. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of this topic...

will know how different blasphemy laws and vigilantism is—and no, it’s not just semantics. These specific terms carry different weights. I’ve said it many times, you can’t equate the two. Equating the two would perhaps give more reason for Islamists to carry out terror attacks

People can agree or disagree about the implementation of these laws in modern times. To say whether it is obligatory in a fiqhi sense to implement them, that is the work of the ‘ulamā. But what concerns us is our actions as individuals in the face of insults to the Prophet ﷺ

I’ve said this before as well, but I’ll say it again. Individual Muslims should respond with the manners and wisdom that he ﷺ taught us, not violence Feeling offended is not a choice when the Prophet ﷺ is more beloved to us than any other person. You do not dictate this to us

Simple Responses for Simple Questions: Q: But Christians and Jews aren’t offended by insults...? A: They are not our teachers.

Q: Blasphemy laws are barbaric because it doesn’t fit into my secular liberal worldview and I don’t like it :( A: That’s your opinion, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is misrepresenting blasphemy laws as something else.

Q: There’s no point talking with these Muslims. They won’t change their minds. A: Correct, glad you could see that. We will not compromise with any insults to our Prophet ﷺ.

Q: (see attached tweet) A: what did I say about critics of Islam not having anything intellectually substantive against Islam. (I also don’t mind personal attacks against me lol).

Q: You’re defending the terrorists in France A: I’m not. They should be condemned. I’m presenting a perspective on how classical laws on blasphemy could be understood, which incidentally make them less applicable to modern times. Wallāhu a’lam. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Addendum: 1/2


Follow us on Twitter

to be informed of the latest developments and updates!

You can easily use to @tivitikothread bot for create more readable thread!
Donate 💲

You can keep this app free of charge by supporting 😊

for server charges...