Arguments from Jurisprudence

BASED ON AN ANALOGY Throughout history, there has never been a gathering of scholars and jurists specifically focused on the issue of assassinating a blasphemer, where a unanimous decision was made after mutual consultation. Hence, it is incorrect to claim that scholars and jurists have reached a consensus on this matter. However, it would be accurate to say that the majority opinion supports the view of the killing of a blasphemer. If the prevalent viewpoint is referred to as consensus, it is only in a figurative sense rather than being an actual consensus. Despite these arguments, two crucial factors challenge the notion of consensus on this matter. Firstly, there is no explicit command in the entire Quran or Hadith collection that specifically prescribes the killing of a blasphemer, regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. Neither the Quran nor the Hadith books contain such a command. Hence, the reality is that this issue, though widely known, is based on inference rather than direct textual evidence from the Quran or Hadith. Secondly, the issue raised in relation to scholars and jurists is not limited solely to the Prophet of Islam. It applies equally to God, His angels, the Prophet of Islam, and all other prophets. Therefore, according to this juridical perspective, the comprehensive rule states that anyone, whether a believer or a non-believer, who utters insulting words about God, His angels, the Prophet of Islam, or any other prophet, or disparages the religion of God in any way, must