Eye on common sense: When poet's tweets are deemed blasphemy

It also seems that the masses are expressing their egotistical desires in the Prophet's name. Regardless, concerned people are supporting human rights petitions and organizing protests outside Saudi embassies. However, will this be sufficient to preclude future cases of such nature?

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | US Desk
Source/Credit: The Edmonton Journal
By Junaid Jahangir | March 3, 2012

Early last month, prominent Saudi clerics incited a mass frenzy to call for the death of a 23-year-old poet, Hamza Kashgari, for his blasphemous tweets. His letter of apology and self-imposed exile were of no avail. He was hounded back from Malaysia to face trial in Saudi Arabia.

Kashgari had referred to the Prophet as an inspirational rebel. He stated he loved some aspects of the Prophet but hated others. He further mentioned that he would not pray for the Prophet, whom he viewed as an equal human being. One may question if these words warrant a trial on blasphemy and apostasy.

Many Muslims, while opposing the death penalty, remain indifferent to Kashgari's plight. Several have ex-pressed feeling hurt and angry on the disrespect shown to the Prophet. They allude to the anger one would express if one's parents were disrespected.

Parallel to Christian teachings in Matthew 10: 37 on placing God before one's parents and children, Muslims emphasize the same for the Prophet. As such, any support for Kashgari has been generally based more on a concern for defending Islam than for his welfare.

Traditionalists believe that a Muslim society ought to operate with its own taboos and values. However, Muslim intellectuals have stated that Muslim masses need to grow up. They warn the masses against investing too much in clerics who tap into their insecurities to foment communal politics.

It is unfortunate irrational mob frenzy has been a power in Muslim societies since the Salman Rushdie case in 1988. More recently, such furor has been witnessed in the Danish cartoon controversy in 2005, the Sudan teddy bear case in 2007 and the Pakistan Aasia Bibi case in 2009.

These mobs ignore the 8th-century jurist Abu Hanifa, who stated that even if an utterance is made up of 99 per cent of disbelief, it would still not amount to disbelief. They also seem to have ignored the statement of the Egyptian Grand Mufti that "We don't kill our sons, we talk to them." It also seems that the masses are expressing their egotistical desires in the Prophet's name. Regardless, concerned people are supporting human rights petitions and organizing protests outside Saudi embassies. However, will this be sufficient to preclude future cases of such nature?

Therefore, in various articles and blogs, brave Muslims writers continue to mount a strong case against blasphemy laws. In contrast to Leviticus 24: 16 in the Judeo-Christian tradition, such Muslims indicate that there exists no Qur'anic verse that prescribes the capital penalty for blasphemy. Moreover, they have marshalled around two dozen Qur'anic verses to bolster their case. Pakistan-based Islamic scholar Dr. Khalid Zaheer states that the Qur'an simply asks Muslims to be patient and to ignore those who insult and ridicule the Prophet.

Muslims exploring an expansive theology go beyond critiquing blasphemy laws. They indicate that the Prophet's conduct was based on "futuwwa-spiritual chivalry" that teaches us to pray for the one who insults us. In the battle of verses, they emphasize aspects of the Muslim tradition that are consonant with the teachings of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King.

These Muslims allude to instances in Muslim heritage that morality legalists would deem blasphemous. They indicate that Muslim communities have been tolerant enough to allow the 9th-century scholar Al Razi, among others, to critique Prophets. Likewise, they allude to literature that depicts the Prophet admonishing 12th-century Muslim scholar Ghazzali for rebuking Moses. They also point out the Urdu proverb "Only God can read the writings of Moses," which refers to bad hand-writing!

Muslims exploring an expansive theology also question if Kashgari's tweets constitute blasphemy. Addressing the Prophet as an "inspirational rebel" is not far from Rev. Nancy Steeves of the Southminster-Steinhauer United Church referring to Jesus as a "first-century Jewish peasant."

Many Muslims, like their Judeo-Christian counterparts, also express their discomfort on aspects of the tradition which they are unable to understand and as such deem irrelevant for their lives. As a poet, Kashgari has only voiced that discomfort. Why should he be punished for expressing his honest conclusions based on his personal quest for truth?

The 13th-century Persian poet Rumi wrote a satire piece, Moses and the Shepherd. Adapting from Rumi's piece, maybe the "wrong" way Kashgari talks is better than a hundred "right" ways of others and perhaps his most honest blasphemy is his truest devotion.


Read original post here: When poet's tweets are deemed blasphemy