blasphemy law

Muslim Answer for 2 percents Against Blasphemy Laws


Baseless Objections to Islamic Law of Blasphemy

Christian missionaries and other non-Muslims who are not adequately acquainted with the life history of the Holy Prophets often raise baseless objections, saying that if according to Muslim’s belief the Holy Prophet of Islam was “Blessing and Mercy for the World”, why he punished his enemies instead of forgiving them for atrocities committed against him and his companions.

As a matter of fact the Holy Prophet never avenged himself of anybody for personal vendetta. The Prophet’s wife Ummul-Momineen Aishah and record of history corroborate the above statement. What is more, the Valley of Makkah and the mountains of Taif and Yathrab (Now Madina Sharif), the locale of the prophet’s activity can unfold all that to an unbaised mind. At Taif when stones were mericilessly being rained on him by the locals and he was bleeding from top to toe, even then he never cursed them or invoked divine retribution on them. Instead he prayed to Allah for their betterment and to put them on the right path. The Makkan pagans had exceeded all limits in their persecution mania and inhuman atrocities against him, never suffered by any other Prophet before. The Holy Prophet, along with his Hashmite clan, was subjected to a horrible socio-economic boycott and left languishing for three long hardship-laden years, with a life of privation and in a mountain defile Shub-e-Abu Talib. On one occasion the Prophet’s house was besieged by his bloodthirsty enemies so that he might be put to death. He was, therefore, forced to emigrate to Madina. yet in contrast, he displayed a unique gesture of magnamity, mercy and compassion on the eve of victory over Makkah, unprecedented in the history of mankind. The same unruly and arrogant pagan people of Makkah with their words fearfully cast imploring looks at him in the face of retributive justice, which they expected was going to be administered to them. But the holy Prophet of Allah declared: “Today no penalty shall be inflicted on you.” One interpreter interpreting this verse of Surah Yusuf (Joseph) says: “The holy Prophet had the full power to wreak his vengence on them for each and every cruelty committted by them. But he instead generously forgave them.” The Noble Prophet announced this to their surprise which was indeed beyond their expectation. This was followed by his declaration of a general amnesty. The house of Abu Sufyan, previously his arch enemy was declared as a place of sanctuary. He even granted pardon to Wahshi who, on behest of HIndah (Wife of Abu Sufyan) had killed his dauntless Uncle Hamza during the battle of Uhad. So much so that he even pardoned Hindah, who had chewed the liver of his beloved Uncle Hamza after having mutilated his body in the battlefield because of her hatered. The Prophet also forgave the Jewish woman, who had treacherously given him the poisoned food.

To be true to one’s conscious one would be hardly desist from believing that the Noble Prophet never had taken personal revenge on his enemies and his companions, too, reflected the sublime qualities of character, which they imbibed from the teaching of the last Messenger of God. Once his cousin and son-in-law Amirul Momineen Ali knocked down his powerful opponent to be gorund in a battle and was about to kill him with his dagger, at that moment his opponent spat in his face. All of a sudden Ali left him unhurt. To it he explained that he was motivated by the sense of duty alone to fight against enemy of God, but later, on provocation he feared lest a sense of revenge involving his passions should pollute the divine cause.

The Holy Prophet’s mission was to liberate man from all kind of slavery and to establish the sovereignty of God on earth. The savages and wicked minds, working on the ungodly plane, went to extreme to persecute him and to obstruct the path of his historic revolution. This needed supreme efforts to civilize them and to infuse the spirit of huamn kindness into their hardened souls. The Prophet practically demonstrated to the world his successful achievements for temporal and spiritual welfare which are amazing and unheard of in the known history of the world. The concept of love for humanity and liberation of mankind would have been vague and deficient without the dawn of Islam. Edward Gibbon, renowned historian has justly said: “Through Islam, Prophet Mohammad banished from the Arab within ten years, their hard-heartedness, spirit of revenge, anarchy, female degradation, rivalry lawlessness, usury, drunkenness, infanticide, murderous quarrel and human sacrifice as well as all stupid superstitions. Through that religion he brought down upon this earth the “Kingdom of Heaven” So fondly coveted by Jesus.

Apart from indisputable historical stature, the Prophet has to be viewed in the perspective of his transcendental roots as well. For this, he certainly enjoys the most priviliged status, which no doubt further illumines into significance due to his perfect model role in social, political and military spheres of human affairs. As we observe special protocol with regard to a political or royal personage, the honour and reverence of such a great universal man and divine messenger transcends all worldly dignitaries.

In Surah Al Ahzab, it has been explicitly said: “Indeed Allah and His Angels send blessings on the Prophet, O you who have believed, you, also should ask and send blessings and peace on him”. (33:56)

The above-mentioned Quranic verse clearly and emphatically shew the sublime status of the Messenger of God in the eyes of Allah. Quite logically, any sort of disrespect and contempt for him would come to mean the belittlement of the supreme master and since the Prophet of God is embodiment of Divine law, any such ignoble attempt on the part of a person would entail a serious penalty for him. So a lawbreaker should not escape severe punishment. Hence if the death penalty is imposed for the contempt of the Prophet of God, it must not be counted as infringment of human rights as propagated in the west. It amounts to character assassination of a person which is more vicious and painful than a physical murderous attack on him. The entire Muslim Ummah has a consensus on this highly sensitive issue and this will remain unaltered forever.

In 1994, when the first edition of the author Mohammad Ismail Qureshi’s urdu version was published on blasphemy law, a letter was recieved by the author from the Federal Ministry of Religious Affairs Islamabad, which said that the international institutaions were making queries regarding the blasphemy law in Pakistan. The cooperation of Muslim Law experts was also sought for this purpse. The question is what is the scope of blasphemy law in American and British legal framework i.e. against Jesus Christ. Criticism targeted on the author starte dpouring in fromt he so called institutions of human rights and NGO’s, because the author as a Chairman of World Association fo Muslim Jurists, had moved the Federal Shariat Court for its verdict on punishment for the offence of Islamic law of blasphemy in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah’s directives and practice of holy Prophet, which is the supreme law of Pakistan. The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) accepted the Shariat petition declaring the penalty of death to the blasphemer. The Federal Government went up in appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgement of FSC but on a warning of the atuhor to the then Prime Minister, the appeal was withdrawn by the Federal government and the bill drafted by the author was moved in National Assembly by an MNA Madam Nisar Fatima, which was passed by the parliament in due process and came into force after assent of the President of Pakistan adding section 295-C to the Pakistan Penal Code in the year 1991. However a so called secular group branded it as violation of fundamental rights. Yet all such apprehensions and criticism of the group were found baseless and bereft of substance. The main cause was their lack of knowledge of Divine law of blasphemy, which involves more hazards than ignorance. It is worth mentioning that the blasphemy law in Islam is not only related to the Holy Prophet but to all other Prophets of God including prophet Jesus Christ. The people of the book must be knowing that according to the Bible the use of scurrilous language for the prophets and their deputies, equally involves death penalty. Can the Christians, despite their belief in their holy book set aside such an explicit law prescribed in the Bible the law reads as under:

“And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minster there before the Lord, thy God or unto the judge, even that man shall die:” “And all the people shal hear, fear, and do no more presumptuously.”

If the Islamic Penal Law has fixed severe punishment (Hadd) for any crime, equally stringent conditions are set therein for proving its occurrence. In fact the criterion of evidence with regard to the Hudood Punishment is more strict and extraordinary than that of ordinary law. The witnesses, whose evidence is acceptable in Hudood cases, are supposed to have abstained from major sins and to be truthful and just-minded in their social behaviour, complying with a yardstick of foolproof testimony too. If such evidence is not available then the blasphemer shall be punished in accordance with Islamic law of ‘Tazeer’ as propounded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, a case prosecuted by the author namely, Faqir Ullah Vs Khaliquzzamn where in it is held that the case which did not come within the perview of Hudood law of Qisaas then it shall be dealt with, in accordance with laws of the land keeping in view the principles of Shariah. So the culprit was awarded the punishment of death by way of ‘Tazeer’ in review filed by the author on behalf of the heirs of murdered person. Let it be made clear here that intention or motive is the basic ingredient of an offence in Islamic law. Derogatory remarks shall be considered impeachable if made deliberately, involving contempt of any prophet. As for Islamic doctrine, intention can be expounded by a well-known prophetic saying: “Certainly all actions are to be judged by an intention.”

IN the Shariah, punishment for any crime must be conditioned by the motive behind it. This fact must be within the knowledge of the learned people that Islam had first introduced intention and motive int he domain of law and, later in 18th century it became the fundamental characteristic of modern law dealing with crime and punishment. The Roman law, which was adopted by Christianity, had no such concept so far the penal law is concerned. An interesting decision was given by a court of England in this regard. A man fell down from a tree and died. To it the “Murderer tree” was given captial punishment of death, which was, materialised by cutting down its trunk.

Besides, from the Shariah standpoint, the benefit of doubt also goes to the accused. Here again we refer to a Hadith, which says: “Hudood punishments should be avoided where there is doubt.”

Above all since 1991 when the blasphemy law came into force, nobody has ever been sentenced to death by the High Courts, Federal Shariat Court or the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the indictment of blasphemy, as the prosecution or complainant could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt or where there was no conclusive proof of conviction or sufficient basis for decision as required by Shariah.

In fact the Blasphemy law ensures life an security of all those people against whom th charge of offence is not proved. Otherwise when the British government declared the annulment of the Blasphemy law in India in 1860 after the fall of Mughal Empire, the fearless and sensitive souls took the law in their own hands and kept disposing of those who gave vent to contempt and disrespect for the holy Prophet. Ironically, when this Islamic law was declared inapplicable in India, the law against the blasphemy of Jesus Christ was in force contemporaneously in England and it is still part of its common law and also included in its statutory book as an offence against religion and public worship.

When the law against the dnigrators of the holy Prophet was enforced in Pakistan, the Hadood punishment came within purview of courts of law. Obviously, an accused would fae punishment in that case only when the court has gone through all the recorded evidence and his guilt is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The Hadood punishment under the prophet’s denigration won’t come into force if the required witnesses are not present or available or fail to conform the Islamic criterion of testimony. However, where the Hadood conditions are not fulfilled in the accused, whose guilt by the circumstantial or other cogent evidence is proved, would be awarded punishment under the Islamic law of ‘tazeer’ in accordance with concensus of opinion among the jurisprudents regarding the followin edict:

“What has not been explicitly quashed through the Quran, Allah gets it quashed through the power.” Here power means a lawful competent authority in Islam, which is invested with the power of enforcing the rule of Shariah so as to check the spread and contamination of evils in society. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has considered this aspect of Islamic edict in the above cited Khaliq-uz-zaman case.

Instead of getting frightened or dismayed, the Christian or any other community should welcome the blasphemy law because any slanderous or contemptuous words spoken or written against Jesus Christ or other prophets of the book has now become a punishable offence under Islamic law of blasphemy. The blasphemy of the holy Prophet of Islam incurs the same punishment as in the case of other Prophets because the Muslims are called upon to believe all of them as true messengers of God and the same punishment has been prescribed in the holy Bible.

[Zarbe-Haq Remarks]

Now we are giving some references and cross references with few questions in the end of that, from all of those who are against this law. Remember these laws are far more strict than Islamic Quranic teachings.

1) This law not only constitutes cases against Prophet of Islam but Also If someone blasphem Holy Prophet Jesus (alehisalam), they will also be regulated with this law.

2) Which Muslim ever in the History did this act to Christians?
3) Why only Christians & Atheists or Non muslims do this Kind of Act Always?

4) Why not Church Responsible for that Instead of Madrassa Who never Committed Such thing?

5) Its also Law established in Holy Bible

References?

Shelomith’s Son Blasphemes

…15″You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone curses his God, then he will bear his sin. 16Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. 17’If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death.…
New American Standard Bible Leviticus 24:16

Cross References
Matthew 12:31
Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Matthew 26:66
What do you think?” “He deserves to die,” they answered.

Mark 3:28
Truly I tell you, the sons of men will be forgiven all sins and blasphemies, as many as they utter.

Mark 14:64
You have heard the blasphemy. What is your verdict?” And they all condemned Him as deserving of death.

John 10:33
“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

John 19:7
“We have a law,” answered the Jews, “and according to that law He must die, because He declared Himself to be the Son of God.”

Acts 7:58
They dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Exodus 22:28
“You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people.

2 Samuel 6:2
And David arose and went with all the people who were with him to Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God which is called by the Name, the very name of the LORD of hosts who is enthroned above the cherubim.

1 Kings 21:10
and seat two worthless men before him, and let them testify against him, saying, ‘You cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out and stone him to death.”

Parallel Verses
New International Version
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

New Living Translation
Anyone who blasphemes the Name of the LORD must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any native-born Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the Name of the LORD must be put to death.

English Standard Version
Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

New American Standard Bible
‘Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

King James Bible
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Whoever blasphemes the name of Yahweh is to be put to death; the whole community must stone him. If he blasphemes the Name, he is to be put to death, whether the foreign resident or the native.”

International Standard Version
because the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD is certainly to be put to death. The entire congregation is to stone him to death. As it is for the resident alien, so it is to be with the native born: when he blasphemes the Name, he is to be put to death.

NET Bible
and one who misuses the name of the LORD must surely be put to death. The whole congregation must surely stone him, whether he is a foreigner or a native citizen; when he misuses the Name he must be put to death.

GOD’S WORD Translation
But those who curse the LORD’s name must be put to death. The whole congregation must stone them to death. It makes no difference whether they are Israelites or foreigners. Whoever curses the LORD’s name must die.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

New American Standard 1977
‘Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And he that pronounces the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; the same with the stranger as with the natural, if he pronounces the Name, he shall be put to death.

King James 2000 Bible
And he that blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemes the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

American King James Version
And he that blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemes the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

American Standard Version
And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name of Jehovah , shall be put to death.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die.

Darby Bible Translation
And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah shall certainly be put to death; all the assembly shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger as he that is home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

English Revised Version
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as the homeborn, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

World English Bible
He who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

Young’s Literal Translation
and he who is execrating the name of Jehovah is certainly put to death; all the company do certainly cast stones at him; as a sojourner so a native, in his execrating the Name, is put to death.

Commentary of Holy Bible Says

Matthew Henry Commentary

24:10-23 This offender was the son of an Egyptian father, and an Israelitish mother. The notice of his parents shows the common ill effect of mixed marriages. A standing law for the stoning of blasphemers was made upon this occasion. Great stress is laid upon this law. It extends to the strangers among them, as well as to those born in the land. Strangers, as well as native Israelites, should be entitled to the benefit of the law, so as not to suffer wrong; and should be liable to the penalty of this law, in case they did wrong. If those who profane the name of God escape punishment from men, yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgments. What enmity against God must be in the heart of man, when blasphemies against God proceed out of his mouth. If he that despised Moses’ law, died without mercy, of what punishment will they be worthy, who despise and abuse the gospel of the Son of God! Let us watch against anger, do no evil, avoid all connexions with wicked people, and reverence that holy name which sinners blaspheme.

Leviticus 24:16 Commentaries

————

Conclusion:

When those people in the west who are not at all related to any religion, they usually do anti-relgion acts against any religion and say, its their human right, now what about majority of the world population who are against you, was’nt their human rights be take seriously? Muslims never disrespect Jesus, but unfortunately in Pakistan a 2 % minority of so called liberals had a habit like our politicians to only spoke Lies and Fabrications, when they sit with the west they portray themselves like “Moderate and Liberals” but the word “Liberal” which is popular in the west is not like that in Pakistan. In Pakistan those liberals are using western traditions and laws as an excuse for their evil acts. Mostly they belongs to Qadianism, rest of them are those morons who are most un-educated, most ignorant of all. In Pakistan these 2% of Political socio-economical Terrorists are the actual people behind creating TTP like terrorists. No Mulla , No Sufi No Christian or any person who belongs to religion has done any thing bad to other, only Liberals are those who are responsible for each and every turmoil in our country. So when they use slogans of the west, beware of it, it has nothing to do with the real Liberal concept of the west. Further, when we never object any law established in the west for their own society, who the hell are they to object our Traditions and Laws in Pakistan or in Muslim Ummah?. These double standards and hypocrisy must be shown the general public so they can keep their ownselves safe from those morons.
Blasphemy Law and Human Rights in Global Perspective:

Currently the issue of human rights has been brought on the front burner the world over. History stands witness that it was Islam which originally gave mankind the concept of human rights. Yet occidental wiseacres and their minions and agents in Islamic countries, who have covert aversion for Islam, audaciously try to give credit to the Greek philosophers of fifth century B.C. for it and glorify them. Surprisingly, the idea of human rights has no place at all in their system of thought.

Plato’s Republic:

Interestingly enought, Plato (428-348 BC), the leading Greek philosopher, says in his “Republic” that only philosophers have the right to rule the State and all other citizens should be put at their disposal as serving slaves. The King of Sicily, who invited Plato laughed at his utopian plan, which resulted in bitter quarrel between ruler and the philosopher. According to Plato absolute power is arrogated to the ruliing elite alone. He had no concept of human equality. In his book, he has framed separate rules for slaves and free citizens. Plato also rejects equality between man and woman, paiting the fair sex is drogatory light. Following suit his pupil Aristotle (384-322 BC) divided society into higher and lower starta and vehemently opposes the participation of general public in political power. This plainly puts at a loss to know how the roots of human rights are traced back to the pagan Greece. Indeed such an anachronistic discovery betrays intellectual honesty on the part of Western researchers and orientalists. Some of them, failing to find substantive evidence thereof to sift out the required material, turn to the 12th century Europe so as to flaunt Magna Carta as the charter of human liberty, conveniently forgetting that it had come into existence long after the dawn of Islam.

Magna Carta:

Those concerned with sober history and political science are well aware of the real worth of Magna Carta. Proclaimed in 1215 by King John, it was indeed give-and-take agreement between the monarch and the rebellious barons so that it may sever their mutual interests. In this regard an authentic testimony comes to us from the authors of New Encyclopaedia Britannica, which tern it a document safeguarding the selfish interests of feudal lords.

Human Rights aside, even it had no clause to secure the rights of general British people themselves. But after some time the barons also had to wash hands of the royal concession because Machiavellian views proved greatly helpful in consolidating the sovereign hold. This is the charter of human liberty in early 13th century of which Europe feels so proud!

In 17th century, however, a political strife against the unfathered royal powers was again triggered off by Hobbes (1588-1679 AD). John Locke (1632-1704 AD), Voltaire (1694-1788 AD) , Rousseau (1712-1778 AD). Hobbes was one of the English philosophers who opposed Aristotelian philosophy and was deeply attracted to the man, society and human affairs. John Locke defended more the rights of people than those of the King. His demoractic ideals influenced the pioneers of American Revolution. Voltaire and Rousseau are known as champions of human freedom. Voltaire had studied Islamic literature and was an admirer of Sa’adi as a human reformer. Rousseau’s treatise “Dda contract social” (the social contract) considered to be the Bible of French Revolution and it has caused storm politically and brought opposition of the church. According to his theory “Freedom is inherent in freely accepted law”. But the pitty is how placidly the Europeans afford to blink at the human rights proclaimed by the Prophet of Islam in his Farewell (Hujjatul Widaa) sermon which he delivered form the top of Mount in the vale of Arafat to the mankind fourteen hundred years ago before the gathering of over one hundred thousand of his companions. This, indeed is the greatest and unique universal charter of human rights, which was introduced to the world for the first time in the recorded history of mankind. What is more, its spirit prevailed throughout the Muslim countries and continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa int he heyday of Islam.
Prince Charles Speech:

In the 8th century when Europe was still fumbling in the Dark Ages, Islam burst upon the Spanish scene with its dazzling light of intellectual disciplines and, heralding a breakthrough, illumined the seats of learning in Andalusia. In his address at the Oxford University in 1993, Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales open-heartedly acknowledged this historical debt of gratitude to the role of Islam in initiating a process of liberalization and enlightenment, known as the Renaissance, in Europe. In his own word: “Many of the traits on which modern Europe prides itself came to it form Muslim Spain. Diplomacy, free trade, open borders, the techniques of academic research, anthropology, etiquette, hospitals, alternative medicine, all came from this great city of cities.” (Cordoba).”.

Farewell Sermon – The First Charter of Human Rights

Fettered by undue restrictions, injustice and socio-economic inequalities man was groaning under the burden of slavery. The Prophet emphasized equilibrium and evenness in every dimension of human life and infused a true sense of justice in the heart of man. To promote and articulate this noble cause he practically took revolutionary steps, restoring to man his natural human rights of which manind had been deprived of since ages. The sanctity of human dignity is enshrined in the historic and unique proclamation he made on the occasion of the Farewell address from the mount of Arafat on 9th Zil Haj, 10th of Hijri (March 632 AD). That abolished all obscurantist myths and practices and heralded human progress and human liberty. The Prophet gave this good tiding to the world:

And Behold, all the customs of the days of ignorance (Jahilia) are trampled under my feet“.

About the equality of men and human dignity he declared: “O men! Behold, you have one God and your father is also one. This makes you one and equal. No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, niether white on black and vice versa.”

Human being the progeny of Adam, are all equal. Unity of Mankind, prior to this revolutionary proclamation, had been torn to shreds. Men had been divided on the basis of linguistic ethinic, geographical of borders, race, colour and creed. Propmted by those artificial demarcation and discrimination some considered themselves superior to others and brought the weak and the downtrodden under their ways or sphere of influence. This led to promulgation of discriminatory policy of the whites towards the subjugated coloured people and it was the same spillover of the barbaric past which we witnessed in the worst apartheid policy of the racist whites in South Africa in 20th century. The oppressed yet unbending blacks, however, made tremendous sacrifices till they wrestted freedom from the colonialists under the leadership of Nelson Mendela. There is no place for racism in Islam. In fact the holy Prophet, fourteen centuries ago, had taken care to wipe out all its prenicious germs. Establishing a concrete example of human equality and brotherhood of mankind, he had said: “All human beings are equal like the teeth of a comb.”

Through this unprecedented revolutionary advancement he had, indeed, catapulated the ancient world into the modern times. And thus he had miraculously bottled up the spirit of contemporary society.

Doubtless, the Prophet’s period, taking all dimensions of time into consideration, is the best in history. The reign of the four rightly guided Caliphs is also examplary for justice, human equality and dignity of man. Despite the heavy responsibilities of state administration, Caliph Abu Bakr, following the insistence of his companions, chose to take only as much daily allowance from Baitul Mall, (Public treasury) as could be enough to meet the need of a common man. During the caliphate of Umar (rd) the judiciary was separated from the executive so that courts could refrain from playing second fiddle to the administrations and be enabled to protect and take care of human rights independently.

Freedom: Birth Right of Man in Islam:-

When the son of Egypt’s Governer Amr bin Al-Aas subjected a coptic to whipping, Caliph Umar (rd)< while redressing the wrongdoing in a reverse way, looked at the governer angrily and passed a remark which lay at the heart of Charter of Human Rights of the present times.

The Caliph said, “Amr! Since how long have you started enslaving people, who were born free by their mothers?” In his words, indeed rang the voice of God: “O Mankind! Beconscious of your sustainer, who has created you out of one living entity”. This verse stresses the common origin and brotherhood of the human race.

In the 18th Century, French Philosopher Rousseau reproduced the same remarks of the Caliph Omar that “the man is born free”, Attributing it to Rousseau, western thinkers consider it to be the corner stone of the French Revolution.

Similarly, tall claims are made about the Constitution of United States. In 1776 Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence. When there was widespread public criticism for omission of fundamental rights of the people, the defenders of the Constitution introduced a Bill of Rights which is said to be the great achievement of American democracy to protect the citizens against the Government actions. It went into effect in 1791. France adopted the same bill after making certain adjustments in it. In 1926, the League of Nations passed a resolution for the abolition of the slave trade by imposing restrictions in a gradual process. This was the same anti slavery approach which ahd been pioneered by Islam in 7th century and within short span of less than 50 years slave trade was remarkably reduced. It was the Prophet of Islam who gave the slaves the status of freemen. So much so that Bilal, a slave Negro, was his close companion. Following his foot steps, the believers of the Prophet chose the slaves as powerful head of states. It is historical fact that the slave dynasty of Muslims ruled the subcontinent of India. Sultan Shamsuddin al-Tumash, a slave from Bukhara, and another slave Ghiyasuddin Bulban, the pious and renowned king ruled over India in 13th century and loved by the people for their piety and good governance. Similarly Mamlook (Muslim Slaves) ruled over Egypt and Syria from 1250 to 1517 A.D. dispensing justice for all throughout their times. In Spain the slaves had authority to declare one of the successors to deceased Sultan as a ruler of the state, who was considered by the people to be a just and devout Muslim, as they did on the death of King Abdur Rehman. According to Stanely Lane Poole, these slaves were the people who were brought to Spain by Greek traders and sold while still children. They resembled in many respects to the corps of Mamlook, which Saladin’s successors introduced in Egypt, subsequently they attained the powers as Sultan.

So in other words, West who is enforcing their own self edited Democracy which is nothing but a destruction to the world, dividing humanity into several groups so that they can be ruled over by oligarchy does not need to tell us about Democracy , what are Human Rights, and vise versa.

U.N, Its Charter and its Role:-

The United Nations came into existence at the heels of World War II in year 1945 with the charter containing the reaffirmation of the “Faith int he fundamental rights of human being.” But it was a vague document without any guarantee for protection of human rights. However, the General Assembly of UN proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the year 1948. SOme of the articles of the Declaration are being reproduced as under:-

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedom set for in this Declaration.

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Note: Unfortunately those laws are not for Palestine and Kashmiri People, becuase they are still suffering by the brutal hands of Zionism (who also give birth to atheism) and Brahmanism (Who is born from the womb of Cabbala followers i.e. Khazars).

Only Islam is the religion which has not only produced such laws 1300 years ago when even there was not a single atheist probably in this world, this Religion does not only regulate the society of humans in harmony but also show that, with having a Real and Truthful Religion and Good morals, one can still been able to regulate the whole society and make changes and bring confrot the human life.

In the year 1951, the General Assembly of UN passed a resolution prohibiting the slavery.

Judging by appearance, the British Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the American Bill of Rights, above all, Charter of the United Nations, are man-oriented documents with inherent infirmities. Yet if we go deeply into all these documents and Articles of the UN Declaration, it would become crystal clear that their original source is the Quranic teachings and they all echoed albeit imperfectly. The Prophet’s message for th welface of humanity pronounced in his Farewell address to the mankind. The Quran and this unique prophetic address have guaranteed the basic human rights directly related to human dignity. What is most significant, these rights as enunciated by Islam do not at all bear the stamp of man’s selfish will. Instead there are Divine rules and nobody is priviliged enough to abrogate or to make any amendments or alteration therein. Nor can they be put in abeyance by any dictator or under any state of emergency, because by transcend space and time and are binding on all people in all circumstance. Looking back into the historical prespective, all citizens of an Islamic State, regardless of cast, colour, race, religion and territorial specification, have enjoyed these rights in every phase of Islamic rule, not alone in the Prophetic era. True, the laws and constitutions of Euorpe, US, Russia and other secular states of the world as well as the resolutions and human rights Charter of the U.N. speciously bring in the wording of freedom, liberty, equality, protection of life, honour and property and other human rights but without any practical relevance.

Rather the powerful nations have been flagrantly flouting the human rights iin relation to weaker nations under the very nose of international community of nations.

In the recent past, the troops of Serbia have subjected the defenceless people of Bosnia to a merciless pogrom, committing extremely wicked and immoral crimes which are unparalleled even in the dark phases of human history. What is worse, despite its being a member of the world body Bosnia was interdicted from acquiring arms for its defence and security whereas the aggressors had a free and unchecked supply of weapons from Russia and her cohorts. The U.N did not bother to take notice of the war crimes of the powerful nation against the weaker community of Bosnia.

Kashmir Affairs:-

Coming to Kashmir issue, since the Charter of Human Rights was adopted, the United Nation has passed several resolutions, giving to the people of Kashmir the right of self-determination and to hold the plebiscite. The people of Kashmir have been demanding this right but in response the Indian government has openly denied this right by use of military force. Yet, U.N. is a silent spectator to this violation of the Human Rights.

Palestine:

Similarly in Palestine, Israel is committing violation of Human Rights in a ghastly fashion, killing the Palestinians in indiscriminate firing and bulldozing their houses without feeling any scruples of conscience. Still worse, the U.N. conscience remains placid and undisturbed over this grim-drama. U.N. role is more deplorable than its predecessor League of Nations because the indignity of man has now touched the lowest ebb beyond all hopes of retrieval. It seems that the whole world along with its U.N. is going to commit suicide and if survived, the man will find himself back in the stoneage. In fact there are no effective moral sanctions which may force the world body to shun parochialism and safeguard the collective interests of humanity. In this dreadful scenario an inspirational positive voice rings out from the Holy Quran when it proclaims: “That if any one slays a human being, unless it be for murder or for spreading corruption on earth, it would be as though he had slain all the mankind. If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.”

Quranic injunctions:

A person with an objective outlook will have no hesitation to admit that the noble Quran conveys a message for the healthy growth and cohesion of human society, saving it from the erosion of self-divisive and centrifugal tendencies and integrating human beings into Divine cosmic nucleus.

Quran protects the life of man on this planet. Since the entire mankind is like a single unit in the sight of God, He puts the life of an individual at par with the collective life of creation. Therefore, in Islam, a murderer faces death penalty in this world and eternal hell-fire in the hereafter. Doubtless, a true believer cannot think of killing an innocent individual because if he gets of scot-free in this world, there won’t be an escape in the next world. Islam vouchsafes to an individual and inalienable right of protecting his life for no other reason than being a human being alone. Factually speaking, non-Muslims in Pakistan or minorities of Islamic countries should have no reason to feel perturbed about the Islamic law.

The Blasphemy law has, indeed, provided them with protection and legal safeguards. Islam is a religion of peace and wants peace to prevail in human life. Since chaos and oppression are the exact antithesis of peace and security, Islam not only detests it but also opposes it vehemntly. On it the Quran says: “Opression is even worse than killing (2:190).”

Taking things to their roots, it is discord and mischief which result in wars and riots claiming countless lives, and those who escape such a calamity, often suffer emotional traumas for odious reason, such as loss of honour and dignity. Speaking ill of the holy Prophet must incur a sever penalty because this mischeif has always generated serious unrest and turmoil in society. As honour and dignity of man have been acknowledged in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, therefore, everyone is under obligation not to insult and belittle others because this would logically mean a sinister violation of man’s fundamental right. Above all, the matters would get acutely delicate and sensitive when a personality no less than the Prophet of Islam is made an object of slander. To be sure, none is dearer, respectable and sacred than the Prophet. They can put everything, including their own lives, at stake for his sake. Historically arguing, how much the holy Prophet valued human dignity and human rights is evidenced by his Farewell address. By all consideration this raises the image and respectibility of such a unique upholder of human rights in the eyes of an impartial student of history. Never in history Muslims have let a slanderer of the Prophet of God go scot-free. Law and reason demand that if the spectre of an evil raises its head in society, it must immediately be addressed to so as to stop the cancer of corruptibility.

The law of blasphemy too is designed to counteract the cancerous effects of a grim mischief which may cause chaos in the society splitting the unity of mankind against the Divine scheme of things. How does it involve the violation of human rights? Yet, the vested interests have raise d terrible hullabaloo to confuse and poison the minds of the non -Muslim minorities. If one rises above prejudices and looks into things realistically, one would realize that the Law of Blasphemy instead safeguarding the honour and dignity of man and people learn to respect the sentiments of on another. Moreover, it imparts to nations the lesson of peaceful co-existence. So instead of attributing narrow and parochial motives to this law, it should be viewed in a wider perspective to ensure the peace and security of mankind at large.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s