Blasphemy Law: An Academic Investigation

PM #546

I will try to answer your question.

Urstruly is wrong in interpreting that these Ayah are related to adultery.

These Ayah are for rebellion, in the context of inclination towards adultery. (as far as I understand).

Once the act is committed, the thing usually ends in La`an. Or divorce. (Although these Ayah 4:34 may still be applicable if there is no La`aan).

Matter of stoning (or lashes) is different. It requires legal proof.

Asif Naqshbandi#

Your contention that

1- Prophet PBUH sometimes ordered killing of blasphemer ( Give me an example anyway) because he was law giver (God given law).

2- Sometimes he pardoned them because he was Rahmatul-Lil- Alameen.

So in effect Rahmatul-LilAlameen portion is not related to God but Prophet PBUH.

While before each Surah you recite:

``In the name of Rahman and rahim God``

This law giving portion is from God who is Rahman and Raheem. i.e to kill.

And pardoning is by Prophet PBUH who is Rahmat-ul-LilAlameen. i.e to pardon.

I am getting more and more confused, on the illogic you are presenting in your post.

Tell me after a crime is committed, what justice tells you to pardon for a crime.

Is there any such thing in Islamic jurisprudence.

If there is any such thing, it is not justice.

If there is no such thing as everybody knows, you are going directly against prophet`s behaviour.

Pardon some and kill others for the same proven crime.

Before your post depicted Prophet PBUH as hypocrite. Now you are telling me that he was unjust also.

in 569,

``or amputation is really what we nowadays understand it to be`` should have been ``or amputation is NOT really what we nowadays understand it to be...``

PM #558

Thanks for the thanks.

A little more information on difference between Hadith and Sunnah.

According to Islamic teachings, Quran and Sunnah are two main sources.

In the prophet`s life there was no problem. He was there to guide. And that was Sunnah.

After his death people would bring his sayings as a proof of Sunnah. (I can presume some will be true and some will be fake for political purposes). My another presumption is that at a certain time people would be making Hadith in drawing rooms. So there arose a need almost simultaneously for Sahih Hadith.

But this Hadith business is (in my opinion and I may be wrong) like New testament. (Without invoking guidance of holy spirit, its validity remains in question).

So for me Sunnah is as given in Koran.

There is a Hadith by AYESHA rzah WHICH SAYS THAT Prophet`s action were Quran.

Also the punishment of Adultery was given according to Torah punishment. But Hadith does not specify that was it given after the Surah for 100 lashes came or before that.

HamidM #567

Insha- Allah.

``...As the father of two daughters...`` - It`s fathomless - Rundikhana - and the search for God and then wife beating and two innocents for whom good jewish boys should be considered? why not just two good boys? But for a ``concerned`` father, the daughters hosting at the Khotah, are seperated by exactly what? Such indignant righeousness, especially from those find sweet confort and good company on well treaded paths? well, why not then, that they should cast the first stone; for are they not more righteous, more indignant, or does memory of old debts, not fade?

Hamid: I think all concerned Muslim parents should give their daughters SOME martial arts training. In an ideal situation, if the husband mentions words like ``sharia`` or ``Hijab,`` the wife should simply stand up and spin kick him.

If i have daughters im gonna turn them into walking nightmares.

Urstruly:

005.038 of surrah Al-Maida (The table spread):

“ As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.”

You write:

``The statement of penalty of this penal law is specific about the penalty of amputation of a limb but the statement of offence is not clear about what specifically is theft.``

OK. Are u making a case for something being lost in translation? That is the ONLY reason I can belive that anyone could - or SHOULD - attempt to put fine text under the word of God. Once your begin questioning what `theft` means and whether petty theft is or isn`t so, or what amount equals presumably `real` theft and what doesn`t, you`ve basically stated that the Lord GOd forgot to specify, and it left to us.

To use analogy, this is somwhat akin to teenagers who don;`t like zero-tolerance rules and somehow find ways (often sensible ones) to modify the law in their minds. (``Hey, should be fined the same amount for running a red light on a crowded intersection as on a country road with no traffic in sight?)

Don`t get me wrong... it`s just as well you folsk add riders to the quranic edict in this case... I would hate to see a 90 percent hand-less population :) It;s jsut that I don`t see where you guys find any sense of incompleteness about the edict, enough to even have to go the sunnah for direction.

As for the sunnah/ahadith, i can see folks arguing that an amputation for theivery amounting to the value of a shield is way too harsh, so maybe there shields was a mere metaphor, or amputation is really what we nowadays understand it to be. So we shall go to the next step -- ijtemah!

Guess what? in doing so, you would have made completely irrelevant the Quran and hadith! Now you see why Mr nashbandi is getting so hot and bothered?? :)

But seriously, what is the current understanding on a thief who steals more than the worth of a (ok, nice, facny, gilted) shield? ANd what if he steals this to feed his starving family? (I know, i know, in a true Islamic welfare state there will not be anything such as a starving family. But that is yet to become a reality)

Urstruly:

005.038 of surrah Al-Maida (The table spread):

“ As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.” (tr: Yousafali).

`` The thief,male or female,you shall mark their hands as a punishment for their crime,and to serve as an example from God.God is Almighty,Most Wise.``(tr:Dr.Rashad Khalifa)

The practice of cutting off the thief`s hand,as decreed by the muslims has no Quranic basis.Verse

12:31 refers to the women who so admired Joseph that they ``cut`` their hands.Obviously,they did not ``cut off`` their hands;nobody can.

The root word used in both the suras is:Q`taa.

wassalam.

.....urstruly and his ilk admit to wife beating ........

.......i can`t honestly say i have read through all the specious arguments and ridiculous kaka presented by urstruly and his new soul mate 739674, but one thing is clear: they have uncategorically stated that under certain circumstances the man is allowed to beat his wife(s) ........as far as i am concerned, that is enough to convict them of being religious demons and potential wife-beaters ............ and this is not an academic discussion for me ...... as the father of two daughters i find it disgusting and absolutely repugnant that any man would think that they have a god-given right to strike their wife under any, and i repeat any, circumstance .........

...... i hope to god my daughters find a nice hindoo or jewish boy before they are charmed by a god-crazed mullah ....... god save our women

In response to saminashah, who wrote:

“I was merely rejecting your notion that misogyny is an inappropriate word use to describe the war declared on women in many parts of the world, esp. the Muslim world. Hey, its great that the men and women in your family are equal (what you are implying, anyway), more power to them.”

War declared on women...I don’t agree with this assessment, however I will concede that if this is your perception then you are being consistent with your use of the word ‘misogyny’.

As far as my family goes, I wouldn’t go so far as to say we’re ‘equal’...at least not in the political sense since we don’t relate to each other along such lines. Also, some members of my family have/had clear authority and responsibilities over others. I would say we had a cohesive and supportive family, with it’s share of flaws and problems.

She writes:

“But I`ll bet you that your sister and mother`s experiences are NOT the same as yours, regardless of where you live, and its really not your place to decide that women who DO live in gendered hostile environments are not experiencing misogyny.”

Certainly. However, I would not suggest that you should be granted the ability to tell, say, either my mother or sister or anyone in comparable social settings, that they are victims of behavior/social structures that are characteristic of what you consider to be misogynistic. Obviously on some issues there’ll be no argument. On others, there will be.

She writes:

“ In addition, you are aware that should you, your mom and your sis travel to Pakistan or Saudia Arabia, your immediate realities change due to your genders? ... you claimed `misogyny` was not the word you would choose to describe the kinds of environment women live in. What word would you use?”

Our realities would change, no doubt. For the worse, or for the better? Now, I know what my family’s reaction would be (definitely worse, especially for them). However I think it’s conceivable that others may (and do) disagree, men or women. There is a greater reality beyond all of our perceptions.



Also, It’s not so simple with Pakistan. I know the females of my family, and even the males, have much more in common with my female relatives in Pakistan/India than, say, people from lower social strata that are economically disadvantaged and socially marginalized. Any differences between us will lie in the general economic and security disparities between our environments.

This is not to suggest that there are no specific problems that afflict women. The range of problems are great, ranging from health and education issues, to rape and honor killings. And in the extreme cases there is no doubt examples of misogyny in it’s rawest form. However, identifying misogyny as the root for this broad range of problems, and not just the extremes, is a bit simplistic. And when certain salient characteristics of a culture are being identified as misogynistic, and inaccurately so in my opinion, then the use of the word becomes meaningless. It’s not just about the use of a single word, but the broad accusations of malevolence the use of this particular word has.

In the Muslim world in particular, there is great ignorance of exactly what the needs and aspirations of women are, and even worse, a general apathy towards what these needs and aspirations may be. The problem is further agitated by dire economic circumstance, to which there is further apathy and ignorance along class lines. These feed off each other, but I don’t think it’s done out of spite or hate. No doubt misogynistic attitudes and interpretations of faith don’t help matters much, and I do readily admit that they are there and are a detrimental influence. But the problems are larger than that.

I realize the above description is just as simplistic as using a single word, however my understanding is that the issues are complex, and so any plan of action towards a solution must be as sophisticated as the problem. And so I don’t intend to replace a single word with another, or one body of rhetoric with another (to the extent my human failings will allow me).



She wrote:

“What I find disturbing is the unwillingness of many South Asian men, esp. twenty somethings, to openly engage with and acknowledge the climates from which our grandmothers and mothers have emerged, and the nightmare in which too many women live.”

Now, I am well aware of the climate my mother’s generation came from. And here’s the interesting thing: they don’t describe it in nightmarish terms. In any case, by our living standards, life was no picnic for the men either. Life in rural India was not easy.

Urstruly Sahib …

I reviewed links you provided … but they do not address the issue of corruption of Torah. Arguments I raised in post #260 remain unanswered … including the fact that Torah has changed beyond recognition. Discarding Quran in favor of Torah remains an absurd notion.

However … if your scholars insist on following Torah … while ignoring Quran … why don’t they start with the following …

- Allow people to beat their slaves to death (Exodus 21:20-21)

- Get drunk and naked in front of their sons (Prophet Noah did this, Genesis 9:20-22)

- Commit incest with their daughters (Prophet Lot did this, Genesis 19:30-36)

- Allow the deceased’s brothers to go in unto the widow and have children (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)

I hope you no longer advocate following Torah. Rrrrright?

PM

In my 562, the first Hadith that I quoted mentions the word ``egg``. The egg is not a chicken egg it actually means a helmet - as it is explained in the next line of the hadith

Sattar

You write:

``Some additional thoughts …In #550, Naqshbandi Sahib insists that some Quranic verses are abrogated. Urstruly Sahib … does this make him, and his ullema, kaffirs? Please give a simple answer!``

Reply:

This is a very important and valid question. I wanted to write about it for quite a while. I will write a note shortly with a qualified answer. By the way I agree with Asif.

PM # 544

It is a good and valid set of questions. But had you checked into Ref # 3 you would have understood what I meant by the formulation of law through Qyra’n-Ahadith-Ijtehad sequence. Anyway let me get down to the point which is about the hudd (penalty) of theft. In my article in argument # 2 I wrote:

Quote

It can be explained by an example: In Islamic law the punishment for theft is the Hudd (penalty prescribed by Almighty Himself) of amputation of a hand (limb) of the perpetrator. If we look at this crime closely, we find out that this human behavior is not black and white; there are several gray areas. For example, the statement of penalty of this penal law is specific about the penalty of amputation of a limb but the statement of offence is not clear about what specifically is theft. Should we amputate the hand of a robber who enters into a house by force, holds people in the house hostage on gun point, assaults them and then takes away all their possessions; is the crime of a person who just sneaks into someone`s house while the people of the household were asleep and steals their valuables, equivalent; or a person who is hungry for the past two days and steals a loaf of bread just to satiate his appetite, is he as much culpable as the former two? What about the wife who helps herself every now and then with husband`s wallet? Should their punishment be one and only i.e. amputation? What about coffin thieves or computer hackers; there is nothing specifically written in Qura`n about them either.

End quote.

You have deduced from this quote that I am trying to wriggle out the harshness of the penalty and that who is it that decides how to apply hudd (penalty) when God himself has prescribed it.

The commentary that I have quoted above is consistent with the Islamic law and verified by ahadith. One must understand that in the matters of jurisprudence it is absolutely imperative that the statement of offence is clearly defined – if it is not done so the prosecution cannot proceed successfully and justly. Please take a look at the Quranic verse which prescribes the penalty of amputation of hand

005.038 of surrah Al-Maida (The table spread):

“ As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.” (tr: Yousafali).

One can see that the statement of penalty is very clear but statement of offence, as to what really is theft is left open for interpretation for us. At this stage we will need Ahadith to see as to how Holy Prophet (pbuh) has interpreted this offence for us. It becomes clear from several of his traditions. According to the example set by him we come to know that (and I will quote actual ahadith at the end of the post):

1. The Hudd (penalty) of amputation is not applicable on the petty theft. This is confirmed by an Hadith quoted by Ayesha (RA).

2. The Hudd (penalty) is not applicable on the theft of food, produce and harvest.

3. The hudd (penalty) is not applicable if someone steals from the Bait-ul-Maal (treasury)

4. The Hudd is not applicable if someone embezzles money which was given to him for safe keeping.

5. There is certain amount of valuables, if stolen then Hudd is applicable. Some Ahadith say that this amount is quarter of a Dinar and some say it is above 10 dinar. Muslim jurists are divided on this issue as to what is the least amount for the applicability of Hudd. And I think this difference of opinion is beneficial for the perpetrator.

So you see PM, that my commentary was consistent with the opinion of Muslim jurists, Ulema, Qura’n, and Hadith. Similarly my opinion on 4:89-91 is also supported by hadith and consistent with the consensus (Ijma’a) of the Ulema.

Now here are some of the Ahdith to support my point 1-5 above:

Ahadith From Sahih Bokhari

Volume 8, Book 81, Number 774:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, ``Allah curses a man who steals an egg and gets his hand cut off, or steals a rope and gets his hands cut off.`` Al-A`mash said, ``People used to interpret the Baida as an iron helmet, and they used to think that the rope may cost a few dirhams.``

Volume 8, Book 81, Number 781:
Narrated `Aisha:
The Prophet said, ``The hand of a thief should be cut off for stealing a quarter of a Dinar.``


Volume 8, Book 81, Number 783:
Narrated `Aisha:
The hand of a thief was not cut off during the lifetime of the Prophet except for stealing something equal to a shield in value.


Volume 8, Book 81, Number 785:
Narrated `Aisha:
A thief`s hand was not cut off for stealing something cheaper than a Hajafa or a Turs (two kinds of shields), each of which was worth a (respectable) price.

Volume 8, Book 81, Number 787:
Narrated Ibn `Umar:
Allah`s Apostle cut off the hand of a thief for stealing a shield that was worth three Dirhams.

Book 38, Number 4375:
Narrated Rafi` ibn Khadij:
Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Hibban said: A slave stole a plant of a palm-tree from the orchard of a man and planted it in the orchard of his master. The owner of the plant went out in search of the plant and he found it. He solicited help against the slave from Marwan ibn al-Hakam who was the Governor of Medina at that time. Marwan confined the slave and intended to cut off his hand. The slave`s master went to Rafi` ibn Khadij and asked him about it.

He told him that he had heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: The hand is not to be cut off for taking fruit or the pith of the palm-tree.


From Muslim:

Book 017, Number 4181:
`A`isha reported that during the lifetime of Allah`s Messenger (may peace be upon him) the hand of the thief was not cut off for less than the price of a shield, iron coat or armour and both of them are valuable.

Ref harimau #: 533

[Ref 786786 #: 531

(So, what should be the punsihment for a non-muslim who renounces his or her faith? or a non-muslim woman who marries a muslim man?}__________________________________________________

It is preferable & commendable if she converts. Her status as a legal wife is suspect and she cannot invoke muslim legal system for redress.

You mean she cannot be stoned to death for adultery or demand the munificent sum of 3 months of maintenance for a lifetime of marriage?]

Harimau should be ashamed of himself. Did he not know that in Nigeria a woman has been SPARED the punishment of being stoned to death for adultery until her currently 8-month-old baby reaches 2 years of age? And yes, Nigeria has enforced this law against Christian women too and there has been no discussion about postponing the punishment till the child can be weaned from nursing.

Bad boy, that Harimau!