Arguments from Jurisprudence

BASED ON AN ANALOGY permissible to shed their blood, meaning that such a person must be killed. Abdul Qadir Oudah mentions that jurists hold two opinions regarding mocking prophets and angels. The first opinion states that such a person should be killed without accepting their repentance. The second opinion considers the individual as an apostate, and their repentance will be accepted, but if they commit the offence again, their repentance will not be recognized. (al-Tashrīʿ al-Jināʾī, Vol. 2, pp. 726-727) Considering the general nature of this command, only a few fortunate individuals in the human population would be exempt from its implications. The vast majority of human beings would fall under the scope of this general order in one way or another. Such a list could be extensive, encompassing almost all human beings, rendering the practicality of implementing this order nullified. If everyone is deserving of death, who would be left to carry out the killings? On the one hand, jurists have declared blasphemy or ‘shatm’ punishable by death. However, on the other hand, ‘shatm’ is defined in a way that makes almost everyone qualify as a blasphemer in some manner or another. According to this definition, various actions such as ridiculing, demeaning, taunting, insulting, humiliating, defaming, showing disrespect, offending, backbiting, making jokes, and playing with words are all considered blasphemy. The author suggests that it is not only abusive to utter blasphemous, offensive, and unjust words directly