IDEA 40
Dealing with Blasphemy (C)
It is an important maxim, that we ought to be very circumspect in the prosecution of witchcraft and heresy. The accusation of these two crimes may be vastly injurious to liberty, and productive of infinite oppression, if the legislator knows not how to set bounds to it. For as it does not directly point at a person’s actions, but at his character, it grows dangerous in proportion to the ignorance of the people; and then a man is sure to be always in danger, because the most exceptional conduct, the purest morals, and the constant practice of every duty in life are not a sufficient security against the suspicion of his being guilty of the like crimes. [Baron de Montesquieu. The Spirit of Laws, Book XII, Chapter 5]
We can see from the previous two posts how variegated and uneven are the laws against blasphemy — laws by which heresy could also be prosecuted. While minor criminal offences might be dealt with differently in different jurisdictions, depending on local custom and sentiment, the severity of a crime as grave as blaspheming against GOD, Whose Jurisdiction is the universe and Whose worship is virtually uniform throughout the Muslim world, requires us to consider why, in one country it can be dismissed as falling “within the bounds of freedom of thought and freedom of expression” while incurring a monetary penalty in some countries and deserving of death in yet others.
We can well imagine a state in which a blasphemous speech or written work rarely appears — say, a few times per decade — and thus can be swiftly identified, isolated from the background of normality, and punished in a public manner, making it prohibitive to repeat. But that is not the world we live in now. The global background, above which rises a constant cacophony of voices, images, and obscenities all clamouring for attention, is one of profound, destructive, and incessant hostility towards, mockery of, and disdain for not only religion but all forms of morality and decency. Suppressing this would be like ordering the hangman to hang all the fish in a tumultuous sea.
Not only is the scale of blasphemy beyond all conception of control, even adjudicating it properly, case by case, would bewilder the wisest Solon or Solomon. How do you mete out a sentence proportionate to the enormity of the offence when so much depends on context, intention, external influence, and the ignorance or knowledge of the offender? And how would one give proper weight to objects so utterly disparate in nature and authority as The Infinite Deity on the one hand and “derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages” (e.g., a Sufi sheikh) on the other, or the character of the Messenger (may GOD bless him and give him peace) compared to “materials that deviate from Islamic standards”? And then there is the issue of consistency. Does the careless talk of a few friends, overheard in a coffee shop, merit the severity of the law when an insulting post on the internet sails in from abroad and is seen, heard, and perhaps repeated by millions online and yet cannot be punished?
Our principle in declining to judge these cases is not that no offence has been committed or deserves no penalty, but rather, as Montesquieu aptly puts it, “the whole passes between man and God, who knows the measure and time of His vengeance.” A government must know its limits and what exceeds the scope of law, however immoral or sacrilegious the matter might be … and that is certainly the case with the greater part of what is seen and heard online today.
If the government is tasked with policing the internet and pursuing blasphemers, the judicial case load in even a small country like Kuwait could overwhelm the system of justice. And if the task is left to the public to file complaints, then, as per Montesquieu again, no person is safe. Practically anyone with enemies can have some careless phrase deliberately distorted, on top of which malicious calumnies can be piled to produce suspicion of having committed the gravest offence, the stain of which may never be removed. This kind of slander is so common in Pakistan that the whole subject of blasphemy eventually falls into disrepute and becomes meaningless, contradicting the original purpose of the legislation. According to this piece — http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48204815 (What are Pakistan’s blasphemy laws?) — “Often the laws are used to settle personal scores and have little or nothing to do with religion. Correspondents say the mere accusation of blasphemy is enough to make someone a target for hardliners, as is defending those accused of blasphemy or calling for the laws to be reformed.” In other words, the accusation becomes the sentence before the crime even appears in court.
Restraint in these matters is firmly based on the text of the Qur’an itself. There are numerous ‘blasphemous’ passages in the Qur’an, namely what the deniers (kuffar) and associationists (mushrikun) say about GOD, His Prophet, and various tenets of the faith, such as the resurrection or reward and punishment in the Everafter. AL-LAH condemns what they say, even so far as to exclaim: They said, “The Gracious has acquired a son.” / You have come up with an abominable thing! / The heavens almost come to being ripped apart by it, the earth split open, and the mountains fallen into ruin. (Q19:88–90) Without repentance for such statements, Divine Retribution is certain to befall the offenders, but the Qur’an does not demand that the believers take action. Furthermore, the churches in which such claims are made are not destroyed but rather protected. If GOD can tolerate such false and heretical words being uttered in places where thousands can hear them, then an Islamic government can tolerate them as well.
Every society has things it considers sacred or worthy of special respect — the flag, the anthem, the courthouse, the person of the leader, and so forth. By analogy, identifiable things — physical objects — can be afforded the clear protection of Islamic law. What people say may be too much and too hard to govern effectively, but what they do can be controlled by government in the same way as it ensures the security of its citizens and their property by laws pertaining to assault and theft. We may therefore assume that an Islamic government would have laws against defacing the physical mashaf (the Qur’an in its printed form) and violating the sanctity of religious buildings, including not only mosques but the edifices revered by other faiths.
As for the virtual sanctity of persons, such as their reputation, and which might include the reputation of persons now deceased, under laws against slander and defamation, and how far that can extend to the sanctity of GOD, I think there is enough ambiguity and complexity in the issue to require another post. What are the Islamic limits to ‘freedom of speech’ in such cases? Can they be legislated? Let us see next week.
Download the PDF version for free at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’ān – Mont Redmond complete version, or purchase a hard copy at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’an: Redmond, Mont: 9781738842506: Books – Amazo
