Arguments from Jurisprudence

BASED ON AN ANALOGY criticisms should be disproven through more powerful and persuasive dialogue than those presented by the critic. Based on these compelling reasons, the writer firmly believes that the doctrine held by the “majority of the jurists” regarding the killing of the blasphemer is either not understood in the same manner as Ibn Taymiyyah and likeminded individuals, or even if it is interpreted in that sense, it should not be considered valid as it is not prescribed in the Quran and Hadith. There is no explicit command found in the Quran and Hadith and the Prophet’s actions that confirm that the blasphemer must be put to death. Furthermore, if we analyze this issue as explained by the jurists, it must be acknowledged that all scholars and rulers have consistently violated this rule of Shariah throughout Islamic history. Even the Companions of the Prophet would be included in this extensive list of violators. The inconsistency of this popular view with the Quran and Sunnah clearly indicates that Ibn Taymiyyah was well aware of it. In his 600-page book, he attempts to explain why the Prophet did not enforce this supposed Shariah order on numerous occasions and allowed many disrespectful individuals to go unpunished. However, these so-called justifications can be seen as adding insult to injury. For instance, in one section of the book, Ibn Taymiyyah mentions some of the hypocrites in Madinah who allegedly mocked and humiliated the Prophet. Yet, they were not subjected to capital punishment. In this context, Ibn