The Issue of Blasphemy Against the Prophet

fatwas, adhering to them with imitative zeal. This mindset led to the rigid application of rulings derived during the Abbasid period, a time when Muslims held political dominance and could easily enforce such laws. An Arabic poet aptly captured this era of authority: “When the commanders dispatch an army against the enemies, we simply send a letter.” However, circumstances have changed. Muslims today lack the same political and social dominance. Additionally, modern values, such as the sanctity of freedom of expression and the global influence of modern media, have created entirely new challenges. The result was clear: despite widespread Muslim support, it was impossible to kill Salman Rushdie. Worse still, Islam’s reputation suffered irreparable damage. To modern observers, Islam came to be viewed as a religion of terrorism, fostering fanaticism. This was the outcome of attempting to enforce outdated jurisprudence in a radically changed era. Had contemporary Muslims adopted ijtihad-e-mutlaq (absolute independent reasoning), they would have sought direct guidance from the Quran and Sunnah in Rushdie’s case. They would have realized that the solution lay not in issuing a fatwa for his execution but in refraining from reactive measures and engaging in peaceful dawah efforts. Instead, their imitative mindset trapped them within the confines of a jurisprudence developed during an era of Muslim dominance. As a result, they adhered to the juristic ruling that “The blasphemer is to be executed as a prescribed punishment” (al-shatim yuqtal haddan).