The Issue of Blasphemy Against the Prophet

declaring that Salman Rushdie had insulted the Prophet Muhammad in his book The Satanic Verses and that it was obligatory for Muslims to kill him. This fatwa received widespread support from Muslims worldwide, with the exception of this writer. Massive demonstrations followed, but despite global Muslim support, the fatwa could not be carried out. Instead, the issuance of the fatwa and subsequent reactions led to Islam being defamed globally, with its image, God forbid, associated with barbarity. In today’s world, freedom of expression is considered a fundamental human right, akin to a modern “religion.” Consequently, the global community perceived this fatwa as a direct attack on their values. Modern media amplified the issue, ensuring it reached every corner of the world. Thus, the same concern that led the Prophet Muhammad to refrain from executing Abdullah ibn Ubayy manifested on a much larger scale in the case of Salman Rushdie. Now, consider these two opposing precedents. The precedent set by the Prophet of Islam demonstrates that in the case of shatm-e-Rasool (blasphemy against the Messenger), no matter how widespread it may be, the practical consequences of executing the blasphemer must be taken into account. In contrast, the precedent set by the jurists (fuqaha) dictates that whenever someone commits shatm (blasphemy), they must be immediately put to death. Why did they do so? The answer lies in imitation (taqlid). Contemporary Muslims adopted the view that the door to independent reasoning (ijtihad) from the Quran and Sunnah was closed. Instead, they relied solely on juristic