بسم
الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة
والسلام على سيد المرسلين
Mere
hours ago, Tahir Nasim was murdered in open court in Peshawar by a
young man, Muhammad Khalid, who is being hailed as a hero of Islam by
many Muslims in Pakistan.
ان
لله وان اليه راجعون
Tahir
Nasim, who like myself hails from an Ahmadiyyah background, but left
the organization, claimed to be the Mujaddid (divinely
appointed Reformer) of the 15th century after Hijrah, the
Mathil (resemblance) of the
Messiah, and a prophet in the same sense that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used
the term to describe himself, that is, a Zilli
and Buruzi prophet. He
propagated his claim to prophesy on social media. This attracted the
attention of hard line elements among the Muslims of Pakistan, and
subsequently he was arrested in 2018 and charged with a whole range
of blasphemy offenses, the most serious of them being 295-B (defiling
the holy Quran) and 295-C (blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad
(sall Allahu alaihi
wasallam). The controversial
murder of Tahir Nasim deserves dispassionate examination. Prior to
his murder, a Pakistani gentleman and another prophesy-claimant, Asad
Shah, who also hailed from an Ahmadiyyah background, was murdered in
his shop in Glasgow, Scotland, by a Muslim of Pakistani descent,
Tanwir Ahmad in 2016. He too is considered a ghazi
and a hero, especially among Pakistani Sunni Muslims. In 2010, a
British citizen of Pakistani origin, Muhammad Asghar, an elderly man
diagnosed with schizophrenia, who allegedly was claiming to be a
prophet in certain letters, was arrested in Pakistan under its
notorious blasphemy laws. While in Adiala Jail (where I recently spent five months, also charged with blasphemy but now released on bail) one of the prison guards attempted to murder Muhammad Asghar.
The latter not only survived, he was released from custody and
returned to the UK. All three of these incidents were essentially
inspired by the murder of Salman Tasir, the former governor of
Punjab, in 2010 at the hands of his own bodyguard, Mumtaz Husain
Qadiri. The murder of Salman Tasir was motivated by his speaking out
before the media and press in favor of a Christian lady accused of
blasphemy (295-C) against the Prophet (sall
Allahu alaihi wasallam).
Incidentally, that lady, named Asiya, was found not guilty and
ordered released by the Supreme Court last year. She subsequently
departed for Canada, and presently is considering asylum that has
been offered to her by France. Before his extrajudicial murder,
Salman Tasir had termed 295-C a “black law”, which caused
considerable backlash from hard line religious elements in the
country, and was a huge factor in why his own bodyguard decided to
kill him.
I
recently began a series of articles on religious freedom, and
explained my position on the controversial subjects of apostasy and
heresy, but thus far have not explained my position on blasphemy. I
shall use this opportunity to discuss my views, in general, on this
sensitive issue.
So
I strongly condemn the murder of Tahir Nasim, and of Syed Asad Shah
before him. I consider both of them to be martyrs, if Allah wills,
and pray for their forgiveness. May Allah have mercy on their souls
(Amin).
Note,
I do not necessarily agree with their respective claims of being
prophets (in whatever sense they intended). However, from my
perspective, their claims, in their essence, were not claims that
expel someone from the fold of Islam. The question for me is whether
or not they were truthful in claiming to possess prophesy (in
whatever sense they intended). I leave the matter in Allah's holy and
blessed Hands, He is the ultimate Judge. It appears that both of
these gentlemen claimed prophesy in the same sense they understood
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian to be a prophet.
I
would also like to make it clear that I do not actually hold the
young man, Muhammad Khalid, responsible for the murder of Tahir
Nasim. He is a brainwashed youth and appears to have been misled and
indoctrinated by the medieval minded Mullas
of Pakistani society. Therefore, those Mullas
who are saluting and congratulating Muhammad Khalid, are the ones who
are truly guilty of Tahir Nasim's murder. As far as I'm concerned, it
is their hands that are covered in the blood of Tahir Nasim.
The
blasphemy laws in Pakistan are not only misused and misapplied, they
are in fact hopelessly flawed due to ambiguous wording. Thus, even
some “orthodox” traditionalist Sunni Muslim scholars, notably
Professor Tahir ul-Qadiri, have criticized the procedural aspect of
the blasphemy laws. Blasphemy is intentional disrespect and
desecration directed against that which is holy, such as Allah Most
High, His Prophets, His Angels, and His Scriptures. Thus if someone,
with the intention of disrespect, curses the Prophet (sall Allahu
alaihi wasallam) or desecrates a copy of the Quran, they have
committed blasphemy. Anyone who is apparently a Muslim and commits
blasphemy by cursing a Prophet or desecrating the holy Quran, is
undoubtedly no longer a Muslim, but an apostate. Whether there is an
Earthly punishment for the one guilty of blasphemy is subject to
discussion, and is a contested issue that is debated among Muslims.
My own position is quite nuanced. I shall (in sha Allah) write a
detailed article on the subject, but for now shall give my general
position, which is that there does not appear in the Shari'ah to be
an earthly punishment for blasphemy, especially if it is not a severe
kind of blasphemy. Thus I make a distinction between levels of
blasphemy in severity. It is known, for example, that the chief of
the hypocrites, Ibn Ubayy, committed blasphemy against the Prophet
(sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) by saying he is (God forbid), the
“meanest of men”, yet he was not subject to any Earthly
punishment on account of this obvious blasphemy and disrespect.
Therefore, the issue is not so black and white, though the bigoted
section of Mullas assert that even the slightest blasphemy against
the Prophet's holy personage (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) must be
dealt with by the sword, and even if the blasphemer begs for
forgiveness and repents from his blasphemy. So we see in Pakistan
that the vast majority of those who are charged with blasphemy
against the Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) under 295-C of the
PPC are not actually guilty of deliberately cursing or swearing at
the Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam). Mens rea
is therefore a necessary part of the definition of blasphemy.
It
is noteworthy that that which many of the bigoted Mullas consider
blasphemy is not actually blasphemy because it lacks the element of
intention to disrespect. Rather, they are examples of differences in
creed and doctrine. Many Mullas consider the doctrine that Prophets
are capable of sinning or erring blasphemous. Whether this doctrine
is correct or incorrect is another matter, but the fact is that the
Muslim who believes in it is not guilty of blasphemy because their
intention is not to disrespect or insult the Prophets in personally
believing or even propagating this idea. Likewise, it is obvious that
the Christians, Jews, and members of other religions, who do not
believe in the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam), and
may even consider him a false prophet (God forbid), are not guilty of
blasphemy. That is simply their belief, which they are entitled to
hold as per the teachings of Islam itself.
Keeping
this principle in mind, let us now consider the issue of someone
claiming to be a prophet after the Last Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu
alaihi wasallam). According to the extremist Mulla of Pakistan, such
a claimant is by default a blasphemer and it is necessary to execute
him. Yet logic dictates that by simply claiming to be a prophet it
does not follow that the claimant is intending to disrespect the
Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam). And practically
speaking, the majority of prophet-claimants that have arisen within
the Ummah simultaneously asserted their allegiance and respect for
the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam). If they were
disbelievers and apostates, it was because they were lying upon
Allah, not because they intended to commit blasphemy. Therefore, as
far as I'm concerned, someone merely claiming to be a prophet is not
ipso facto a
blasphemer.
*Here
I would like to explain that in my understanding, someone who claims
to be a prophet in the sense that he is abrogating the Shari'ah of
Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam), and claims that a new
Scripture or Law has been revealed to him, such a claim is kufr
akbar or major disbelief. Most
individuals who make such a claim do not self identity as Muslims.
The Baha'is, for example, who believe Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri was a
prophet in this sense, do not identify as a Muslim sect, but consider
themselves a separate community and adherents of an independent
religion. Nevertheless, in a scenario in which someone professes to
be a Muslim while making this claim, they may indeed be a disbeliever
in the sight of Allah, but as I have explained, we are not in a
position to brand them non-Muslim disbeliever. On the other hand,
someone who claims to be a prophet but subordinate to the Shari'ah of
Prophet Muhammad, remaining within his Ummah, and does not bring a
new law or scripture, in my view such a claim is not in it of itself
kufr akbar. It is
certainly possible the claimant is a liar, but his or her claim is
not disbelief or apostasy from Islam in itself.
In
conclusion, I strongly condemn the senseless murder of Tahir Nasim.
For me, he was a Muslim entitled to all the rights of a Muslim.
Hypothetically, if he wasn't a Muslim, it was still wrong to murder
him, for Allah says the murder of a single soul is akin to the murder
of all humanity (Surah 5:32).
The name of the young, teenage killer of Tahir Nasim is, according to the latest information, Faisal Khan, and Khalid appears to be a mistake from initial reports, or else it is his nickname.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be true?
DeleteYes, in sha Allah
Delete