The slogan, ‘Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda’, is against the core teachings of Islam; not a single verse in the Quran suggests that someone should be killed for disrespecting the Prophet
A poor tailor, Kanhaiya Lal, living an honest and simple life in Udaipur, suffered a horrible fate when two religious fanatics brutally killed him for ‘blasphemy’. The Rajasthan Police miserably failed to save him, even after he had lodged an FIR against the perpetrators. This incident has been an eye-opening case for the police to take necessary action when the complaint is lodged, especially when someone is threatened. Appearing to be similar to an ISIS-style killing, this incident has shocked the nation as the killers have admitted the killing with ‘pride’ and even threatened to murder Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The questions we all need to ask: Why did this macabre killing take place? How can anyone kill in the name of the Prophet, whom the Muslim community unanimously declares as “a mercy to all mankind”?
No support for violence
Many Muslims around the world have a superficial understanding of their own scriptures. No wonder, on several occasions their actions go against their own faith. The slogan Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda, for instance, is against the core teachings of Islam; it is nowhere mentioned in the Quran and other Islamic sources. Not a single verse in the Quran suggests that someone should be killed for disrespecting the Prophet; instead, there are a number of verses found where the Prophet’s contemporaries were accusing him for many wrongs, yet the only suggestion, in the form of revelation, came from God was to have patience.
In the Hadith, various people have been found demeaning the Prophet. Incidents like the one where the Prophet was accused of dishonesty while distributing the war booty in Najd; or, when the Prophet went to enquire a Jew boy, Ibn Sayyad, and the latter responded with derogatory remarks. One can also look at the story of the famous hypocrite, Abdullah Ibn Ubayi, in Medina whose sole objective was to malign the character of the Prophet; he even accused the Prophet’s wife for adultery, which was later confirmed to be a big lie. Yet, the Prophet never demanded their killing; instead, he discouraged this kind of act. In fact, on request of Abdullah Ibn Ubayi’s son, the Prophet shrouded him in his own shirt so that he could be saved from the fire of hell.
Some scholars raise the issue of the killing of Kab Bin Ashraf, a Jew who was killed on the orders of the Prophet. They invoke those narrations in which the Prophet affirms his killing due to his words that hurt the Prophet. However, the killing of Kab Bin Ashraf wasn’t only about the status of the Prophet; rather, Kab was reportedly plotting to kill the Prophet and gain his rank, which was a political matter. The Quran supports no killing, not even hurting someone just because of his bad remarks on Prophet Mohammed.
Renowned scholars and their views
Some of the greatest scholars, including the venerable Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, have clearly stated that there is no punishment prescribed on this issue, neither in the Quran nor in the Sunnah. It is also to be noted that till date no Sunni or Shia scholar supporting death penalty for Gustakh-e-Rasool have challenged the opinion of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi.
Renowned Pakistani scholar Muhammad Ali Mirza shared his opinion on the punishment for Gustakh-e-Rasool, saying that this issue was highly exaggerated by Ibn Taimiyyah. In the end, one must understand that nobody has the right to kill someone only for his opinion about a reverend personality.
Selective ‘fact-checking’
A day before the Udaipur beheading, Mohammed Zubair, a self-proclaimed fact-checker, was arrested for a highly provocative derogatory remark on the Hindu faith. We should not forget that Nupur Sharma’s rebuttal on a TV show was mischievously — and selectively — edited by Zubair, to showcase her as Gustakh-e-Rasool; what he didn’t show deliberately was that Nupur Sharma was only responding to Tasleem Rehmani’s highly objectionable comments on Hinduism.
It is Zubair’s selective “fact-checking” that pushed this issue globally, resulting in a strong response from the Muslim world, and also several stone-pelting incidents within the country. Two young Muslim boys also lost their lives as the police had to open fire in self-defence against the stone-pelting mob in Jharkhand. Zubair played a sinister game quite similar to that of Pakistan’s Khadim Rizvi, who started the ‘Tehreek-e-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah‘, which instigated many Muslims throughout the globe and particularly Mumtaz Qadri who killed Salmaan Taseer as a response to the Asia Bibi blasphemy case. The killing of Kanhaiya Lal and the threats that Naveen Kumar Jindal and Nupur Sharma have been receiving are the outcome of his selective “fact-checking”.
On the alleged Gustakh-e-Rasool issue, a renowned Pakistani scholar, Muhammad Ali Mirza, has clarified that Nupur Sharma had only responded to the abuse of her Hindu gods by Tasleem Rehmani. Mirza further stated that the Holy Quran does not permit the mocking of someone’s faith and Zubair edited out the very context, so that the viewers saw Nupur Sharma’s response in a vacuum. As Nupur Sharma lives under the threat of thousands of beheading calls, Rehmani still appears on TV debates, and no one has even lodged an FIR against him!
***
Also Read
Off-centre | Udaipur beheading: Time to decry religious extremism
Udaipur killing: Prime accused has links with Pak-based Dawat-e-Islami, visited Karachi, says DGP
***
After Zubair’s arrest, several so-called seculars and liberals have come out in his support. Our Constitution does not give anyone the right to mock any religion. Those who are supporting Zubair must understand that giving moral support to him is like opening a way for more disruptions in future.
Islamic reform is the way forward
Muslims have to reform their faith and follow the simple principles being conveyed in the Quran and Sunnah. They have to return to the core teachings that Islam has prescribed in which a Muslim has no right to punish someone for the issue related to Kufr (disbelief), Shirk (idolatry) and Irtidad (apostasy). The religion belongs to God and only he can supposedly decide for all these recompenses, as we are not entitled for it (The Quran 88/22). In the narrations, the Prophet is also reported to have said that the best follower is one who takes an intermediate course of religion (moderate way). It was also stated that if one believes in one God, offers prayers and fasts in the month of Ramzan, pay the Zakat and if possible, perform the Haj, then the Prophet himself will lead him/her to heaven. The unnecessary extra burden and hatred-based laws are all derived by the self-declared scholars hailing from the Dar-ul-Uloom.
Muslims have to understand that most issues pertaining to their insecurity in India are raised by mischievous elements that have no stakes/interest in the welfare of Indian Muslims. They are controlled by the forces which clearly want to destroy peace and hegemony of India.
Dar-ul-Uloom books need scrutiny
As a suggestion I would request the Government of India to scrutinise the books being taught at Dar-ul-Uloom in India. The Governor of Kerala and one of India’s greatest Islamic scholars, Arif Mohammad Khan, too has pointed towards this direction. India is a secular nation where there is no scope and space for hatred against any religion or community. Scholars or even self-proclaimed fact-checkers found to be going against the Constitution must be challenged both intellectually as well as legally.
All we have to do is to reform our society in such a way that it would not become a threat to anyone. Hurt sentiments cannot be the basis for beheading people.
The writer is a researcher on the Holy Quran and other sacred Islamic texts. Views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.