Source/Credit: The News International
By S Ifitkhar Murshed | October 23, 2011
The nauseating severity of abstract ethics derived from distortions of Islamic tenets was on display again in Rawalpindi earlier this month. Some 70 masked men from a seminary stormed into a nearby school for girls and thrashed students and teachers, with iron rods. They threatened yet more severe consequences if the women did not dress modestly and wear headscarves.
Even worse, the officer in charge of the police station responsible for the area justified the attack. This he did on the ground that it was in response to the death sentence awarded by an anti-terrorism court on October 1 to fellow policeman Mumtaz Qadri for the killing of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer in January. Qadri has filed an appeal against his conviction at the Islamabad High Court and is being represented by a panel of lawyers led by the controversial former chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Khawaja Muhammad Sharif.
In March last year, Justice Sharif sparked outrage when he was reported to have said that the Hindu community was funding terrorism in the country. This prompted the first-ever parliamentary protest against a serving chief justice of a high court when the minority members walked out of the National Assembly. Subsequently, a denial was issued by the registrar of the Lahore High Court claiming, unconvincingly, that the chief justice had been misquoted by the media.
At the initial hearing of Mumtaz Qadri’s appeal, the former chief justice requested that ulema be allowed to attend the proceedings, but this was turned down by Chief Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rahman of the Islamabad High Court. The obvious purpose was not only to pressure the high court into rescinding the death penalty but also to provide religious justification for Mr Taseer’s murder.
In a burst of extremist frenzy, the leader of the JUI-F, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, transgressed all norms of decency when, during his address at a mass rally in Lahore in January, he declared that Mr Taseer’s successor, Latif Khosa, should be grateful to Qadri for making it possible for him to become governor of Pakistan’s most populous province.
The response to Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s brazen callousness came from none other than the chairman of the Pakistan Ulema Concil, Allama Tahir Ashrafi. In an interview with a private television channel, Allama Ashrafi accused the JUI-F of exploiting religion for political ends. He also did not have the slightest doubt that Mumtaz Qadri was a murderer and that it was wrong to acclaim him as a hero.
The adulation of Qadri as a ghazi, or holy warrior, was again in evidence in street demonstrations after the Anti-Terrorism Court’s verdict and these are likely to grow in intensity as the hearings on his appeal proceed. It was precisely against the glorification of those who kill in the name of religion that George Bernard Shaw wrote: “Was there ever such blasphemous nonsense!... Handel’s music and a clergyman to make murder look like piety!”
Extremism in the guise of religion is a canker corroding the soul of the nation. It is a monster, without being a myth, which holds the country in its dreadful grip.
It is not immediately possible to modify Ziaul Haq’s blasphemy laws in order to bring them in accord with true Islamic precepts because of the stern cleric-instigated resistance to any change. Nevertheless, it would be instructive to examine how the other major religions and a majority of Islamic countries address the issue.
It is ironical that of the three main revealed religions severe punishment for blasphemy is mandated in the religious texts of Judaism and to a lesser extent in Christianity, whereas the Quran is silent on punitive measures. Yet Muslim jurists have derived harsh laws punishing both blasphemy and apostasy.
Other societies have evolved and adjusted with the times, but the Islamic world has remained static and is a still a prisoner of the past. The opinions expressed by scholars of previous centuries still prevail, though the Quran specifies only a few laws, thereby enabling Muslim societies to enact legislation in line with contemporary requirements.
It is the Quran and the authentic Traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) that are sacrosanct, not the often contradictory interpretations given to these sacred texts by the founders of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Thus, in practically all countries of the world, blasphemy and apostasy are no longer major issues, but in some Muslim societies the offences are punishable by death.
The punishment for blasphemy is particularly stringent in the Judaic scriptures. The commandment in Exodus 22:28 is: “Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people,” while Leviticus 24:16 ordains that those committing the offence “shall surely be put to death” by stoning. An example is citied in Leviticus of an Israelite of mixed blood (whose father was Egyptian) being stoned to death for fighting with a Hebrew and cursing the Israelite God.
Despite this, Articles 170 and 173 of Israel’s penal code prescribe a maximum of three years’ imprisonment for causing damage, destroying or desecrating a place of worship. The punishment for injuring religious sentiment is incarceration for a year.
In comparison to the Judaic punishments for blasphemy, the Christian scriptural texts adopt a more lenient stance. The New Testament’s strictures against blasphemy are mainly to be found in Luke 12:10, which merely states that offenders “will not be forgiven.” While the author of Ephesians commands that blasphemers be expelled from Christian society.
This relatively tolerant approach to blasphemy was to change later. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica that blasphemy, being a crime against God, is “more grave than murder.” In the 17th Century a law was enacted in Maryland which stated: “Whoever shall blaspheme God...shall be punished with death, and the forfeiture of all of his or her lands and goods.”
Such laws were man-made and were far removed from the teachings of the original scripture. However, from the early 18th Century Christian societies progressively became more tolerant towards religious dissent and the severity of the blasphemy laws were watered down.
In fact, the predominantly Christian West went to the other extreme. On the pretext of freedom of expression the infliction of verbal violence and insult on entire communities was condoned for no better reason than their religious denominations and, in the process, even Christianity was not spared.
Though some Islamic countries impose harsh penalties, including capital punishment, for blasphemy, their reaction to Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa condemning Salman Rushdie to death for his Satanic Verses was entirely different. The religious authorities of Saudi Arabia and the sheikhs of Al-Azhar in Cairo condemned the fatwa as illegal and un-Islamic. This was also confirmed by the unanimous rejection of Ayatollah Khomeini’s ruling by OIC member-states in March 1989.
Furthermore, a majority of Muslim nations do not award the death penalty for blasphemy. For instance, in Indonesia the offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to five years under Section 156 (a) of the Criminal Code; in Jordan the punishment is a maximum of three years’ jail term plus a fine and; Section 125 of the Sudanese Criminal Act imposes imprisonment, a fine and a maximum of forty lashes.
What emerges is the absence of uniformity on blasphemy punishments among Islamic countries. It is significant that the OIC unanimously overturned Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie. In the final analysis the laws of Islam can only be derived from the authentic Traditions and the Quran, which says: “The truth has now come (to light), and falsehood withered away: for, behold, all falsehood is bound to wither away!”
The writer is the publisher of Criterion Quarterly. Email: iftimurshed@ gmail.com
Read original post here: ‘Make murder look like piety’
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.