By Mohammed Ibrahim.
To think that there’s something wrong with the law that sentenced a singer to death in Kano, for blasphemy, your ignorance is legendary. For crying out loud, how do you judge others through the prism of your ignorance.
The Christian faith is built on the doctrine of salvation through faith. Ephesians 2:8-9; By grace are ye saved through faith: it’s the gift of God: not of works, lest any man shall boast. Whereas, in the doctrines of Islam, salvation hinges on strict adherence to faith and sharia law.
A deeper exegesis would, however, reveal that both Islam and christianity are two sides of a coin. For even Apostle Paul was inspired to write: “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the DOERS of the law shall be justified.” Romans 2:13.
Yet, on the recent saga of a singer sentenced to death in Kano for blasphemy, I feel that those who share no faith in the religion and those who are ignorance of the Sharia, which prescribes such punishment, should exercise some restraints.
On whether or not, there’s a proper interpretation of the Sharia that led to such verdict, when we analyse the said crime, within our social order, we will see everything wrong with any contrary opinion. Clearly, Islam is not based on opinions but sharia laws and its guiding principles.
We all know that justice comes from God and He alone is the source of it. But could we receive directly from so lofty a source, that we shall neither need no government nor laws? “Shall we then continue in sin that grace may abound?” Paul replies with a resounding “God forbid” (Romans 6:2). Thus, comes the need for law.
One of the cardinal principles of a social contract is the conventions: law that stipulates the right of every individual and his limitation, religious right inclusive. Even the Quran recognizes that: unto you your religion, and unto me my religion (Q:109:1-6). Such is the tolerance of Islam as a religion. Any misinterpretation is at individual’s peril. It even further states that; there shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong (Q:2:256).
It is within this premise, that every individual is allowed by convention(the law of the land) to exercise his inalienable right, but only in recognition of the limitation of his right against that of the general member of the society.
Thus, if his freedom, as an individual, constitutes a grave danger to the general member of the society, which he is but a part, his right as an individual ceased and, in fact, becomes a threat to the general peace and stability of the larger society.
As such, if one professes whatever religious view he deems right, and he is allowed to exercise his inalienable right, but failed to recognize the religious rights and sensibilities of others, as a matter of principle and convention, then such an individual should be made to face the full consequences of violating such convention. It’s the golden rule of engagement.
What happened in kano is a clear case study.
Every true Muslim loves and regards the Holy Prophet Muhammad(saw), the leader of Islam, more than any other human being. A Muslim may tolerate insults against his parents, relatives or friends, but he cannot endure anyone mocking the ProphetMuhammad(SAW).
A person is naturally hurt whenever something he holds sacred is defiled or desecrated. Many consider it morally wrong to hurt the religious sensibilities of others, as it can disturb the peace and harmony of society and disrupt law and order.
Conversely, if the said singer committed the crime he was accused of, I find it extremely excruciating how some Christian faithful find it difficult to comprehend.
Could the doctrine of Christianity ever make sense to a non Christian; Muslim, especially? How do Christians expect the Muslims to synthesize this biblical verse Leviticus 24:13–16, as an old mosaics law, within the present discourse. Would the simple notion of old versus the new be enough. I really doubt. Intellectually, it’s important we should learn to tolerate our diversities even in perspectives.
Contrary to what must chose to believe, Islam enjoins fair treatment of all, including one’s enemies:…Let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness (Q:5:8-9)
More so, Islam does not only condemn the blaspheming of God. It also protects the feelings of polytheists, by forbidding Muslims from attacking their idols.
On this point, the Holy Qur’an states: And revile not those whom they call upon beside Allah, lest they, out of spite, revile Allah in their ignorance.… (Q:6:109)
In other words, Islam teaches Muslims to be sensitive to the sensibilities of others—no matter how strongly they disagree with them. The implication of this verse is that if it is not permitted for Muslims to slander false idols, it certainly cannot be permissible for Muslims to defile other sects within Islam or other religions. And, of course, vice versa.
The truth is that, both religious sensitivities and freedom of speech are important and need to be protected. There is no conflict if both operate within their limits and do not trespass into each other’s domain. While freedom of speech is necessary for the progress and development of a society, however, this freedom, like all other freedoms, is not limitless. The earlier we know that, the better.
Mohammed Ibrahim writes from Kaduna.
The laws surely ought to be revisited