Blasphemy
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmed, Akbar S. ‘‘Al-Beruni: The First Anthropologist.’’ RAIN,
no. 60 (1984): 9–10.
Bausani, Alessandro. ‘‘Some Considerations on Three Problems
of the Anti-Aristotelian Controversy between al-Bı̄rūnı̄ and
Ibn Sı̄nā.’’ In Akten des VII. Kongressess für Arabistik und
Islamwissenschaft, edited by Albert Dietrich, 75–85. Göttingen,
West Germany: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1976.
Dallal, Ahmad. Islam, Science, and the Challenge of History.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.
Haddad, Fuad I., David Pingree, and Edward S. Kennedy.
‘‘Al-Biruni’s Treatise on Astrological Lots.’’ Zeitschrift für
Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 1 (1990): 9–54.
Jeffery, Arthur. ‘‘Al-Bı̄rūnı̄’s Contribution to Comparative
Religion.’’ In Al-Bı̄rūnı̄ Commemoration Volume, A.H.
362–A.H. 1362, 126–160. Calcutta: Iran Society, 1951.
Mirza, Mahan Hussain. ‘‘The Quest for Knowledge: Bı̄rūnı̄’s
Method of Inquiry.’’ Ph.D. diss. Yale University, New Haven,
CT, 2010.
Mirza, Mahan Hussain. ‘‘Bı̄rūnı̄’s Thought and Legacy.’’ Religion
Compass 5, no. 10 (2011): 609–623.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological
Doctrines: Conceptions of Nature and Methods Used for Its Study
by the Ikhwān al-S. afāp, al-Bı̄rūnı̄, and Ibn Sı̄nā. Rev. ed.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
Rosenthal, Franz. ‘‘On Some Epistemological and
Methodological Presuppositions of al-Bı̄rūnı̄.’’ In Science and
Medicine in Islam: A Collection of Essays, 145–156. Aldershot,
U.K.: Variorum, 1990.
Saber, Khan M. ‘‘A Classified Bibliography of Recent
Publications on al-Biruni.’’ Muslim World Book Review 10,
no. 3 (1990): 65–77.
Said, Hakim Mohammed. Al-Bı̄rūnı̄: His Times, Life, and Works.
Karachi, Pakistan: Hamdard Academy, 1981.
Watt, W. Montgomery. ‘‘Al-Biruni and the Study of Non-
Islamic Religions.’’ In Al-Bı̄rūnı̄: Commemorative Volume;
Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Pakistan on
the Occasion of Millenary of Abū Rāihān Muhammad ibn
Ahmad al-Bı̄rūnı̄ (973–ca. 1051 A.D.), November 26, 1973
thru December 12, 1973, edited by Hakim Mohammed Said,
414–419. Karachi, Pakistan: Hamdard Academy, 1979.
Mahan H. Mirza
Dean of Faculty
Zaytuna College
BLACK MUSLIMS
SEE Nation of Islam.
BLASPHEMY
The concept of blasphemy is known to Islamic law, and
blasphemous utterances are considered a criminal offense.
A number of terms, all denoting revilement or mockery,
are employed to express this concept. The most commonly
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM AND THE MUSLIM WORLD, 2ND EDITION
COPYRIGHT 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning WCN 02-200-210
used ones are sabb, qadhf, istihzap, shatm, and laqn. Blas-
phemy is generally defined by jurists as ‘‘every offensive
speech’’ or ‘‘an utterance about another one which he finds
reprehensible’’ (Ibn Qudama 1968–1969, part 24, 133).
The terms sabb and istihzap are of Qurpanic origin: The
former appears in 6:108 in the context of forbidding
Muslims from abusing the deities worshipped by the
pagan Meccans besides Allah, the latter in 9:65–66 where
mockery of God, his signs, and his messengers is men-
tioned. The Qurpan prescribes no worldly punishment for
those who are guilty of the sin of blasphemy and/or
apostasy, to which it may be linked.
In classical legal works, the discussion of blasphemy
appears in sections on apostasy (ridda) or is associated
with it. The reason for this is that committing a blasphe-
mous act is considered to lead to unbelief (kufr) on the
part of a Muslim, which results in his or her abandoning
Islam. Basing their verdict on the corpus of traditions
(hadith), almost all classical jurists came to agree that
apostasy (and thereby certain blasphemous acts) incurred
the death penalty. These acts are reviling God, his signs
and revealed books, and his messengers, particularly the
prophet Muhammad. Mockery of the Prophet’s mother
is also highlighted as a grave offense. Being considered an
apostate, the Muslim blasphemer is granted three days’
time to repent and is killed only if he does not renounce
his blasphemous words; some jurists, however, argue that
mocking the Prophet or his mother constitutes an excep-
tion to this rule and the grace period is only recom-
mended, not necessary. Generally speaking, jurists are
unanimous that the death penalty for blasphemous utter-
ances against God, his messengers, or the Prophet’s
mother also applies to non-Muslims living under Muslim
rule and protection, while disagreeing whether this is also
the case for those areas that are not under Muslim rule.
Based on a hadith ascribed to the Prophet, the
charge of blasphemy also extends to reviling the Proph-
et’s Companions and to mockery of his wives, in partic-
ular qApisha. In the latter case, the reasoning presented
sheds light on the historical circumstances in which this
judgment came about and links it to the accusation of
adultery against qApisha, which the Qurpan frees her from
in Surat al-Nur : to defame her equals doubting the
veracity of God’s words, which is an act of unbelief.
Questioning the truth of the religion of Islam was like-
wise included in the list of blasphemous acts, which
became ever longer, encompassing such abstract concepts
as time (al-dahr) and wind (al-rih), based on Prophetic
traditions according to which God himself or his benev-
olence are identified with them.
The legal manuals contain reports of people who were
executed for uttering what was considered blasphemous
words (see, e.g., Ibn Qudama, 1968–1969, part 24, 139).
175
Body, Significance of
At the same time, a tradition existed among Muslim theo-
logians of charging proponents of differing doctrinal posi-
tions with unbelief (takfir), while not demanding their
execution as blasphemers or apostates. Yet al-Ghazali
(d. 505/1111), one of the most celebrated scholars, con-
nects the concept of takfir with the legal charge of blas-
phemy. He maintains in his Faysal al-tafriqa bayna al-islam
wa al-zandaqa (The clear criterion for distinguishing
between Islam and heterodoxy) that the accusation of
unbelief is justified when the literal meaning of certain
basic beliefs is questioned without good grounds, because
this is tantamount to charging the Prophet with lying. Al-
Ghazali famously applies this verdict to certain beliefs of
the philosophers of Islam and the Sufis, declaring their
blood licit. Disagreement about the correct interpretation
of doctrines is therefore placed outside the realm of
blasphemy if the truth of the teaching itself is not
questioned.
In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries,
the treatment of blasphemy under Islamic law has
attracted much attention, especially in such cases as the
Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons controversy. The
British writer Salman Rushdie’s 1988 novel The Satanic
Verses was viewed by many Muslims globally as consti-
tuting blasphemy against Islam as well as the Prophet and
other revered persons, and its publication sparked major,
partly violent protests. The affair culminated in a fatwa
(legal ruling) by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran
demanding Rushdie’s death. Besides alleging that Rush-
die’s book was ‘‘against Islam, the Prophet and the
Koran’’ (quoted in Malik 1993, 79), the fatwa did not
clearly state the legal nature of Rushdie’s offense and the
basis for capital punishment, yet the inference of the
charge of blasphemy seems plausible. Rushdie, however,
rejected this charge and emphasized ‘‘the right of free-
dom of expression’’ (quoted in Malik 1993, p. 25). The
same disagreement about where blasphemy begins and
freedom of speech ends defines the Danish cartoons
controversy of 2005, which arose from the publication
in a Danish newspaper of a number of cartoons depicting
the Prophet, alongside an article on freedom of expres-
sion, following the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo
van Gogh in 2004 for his documentary Submission on the
role of women in Islam. While many Muslims worldwide
were upset by these incidents and felt that ‘‘Islam [should
not] be made the target of sacrilege in the name of
freedom of expression’’ (see the statement issued by the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation, consisting of fifty-
seven member states, in 1989, quoted in Kamali 1997,
p. 298), they rejected the death threats made in both cases.
Contemporary Muslim thinkers have proposed
alternative interpretations of the sources on which clas-
sical jurists based their rulings about blasphemy and
apostasy and have stressed instead such Islamic principles
176 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM AND THE MUSLIM WORLD, 2ND EDITION
COPYRIGHT 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning WCN 02-200-210
as tolerance toward religious diversity and freedom of
conscience (see Qurpan 2:26). Many have emphasized
that in the premodern period, apostasy was associated
with political rebellion (hiraba) against Muslim rulers
and was therefore tantamount to treason and hence
punishable by death; in contemporary times, however,
blasphemy against Islam poses no comparable threat.
SE E A LSO Apostasy; Liberalism; Rushdie, Salman (1947–).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Harkness, S. Suzan J., Mohamed Magid, Jameka Roberts, and
Michael Richardson. ‘‘Crossing the Line? Freedom of Speech
and Religious Sensibilities.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics
40, no. 2 (2007): 275–278.
Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisı̄. Al-Mug_ nı̄. Edited by T.āhā Muh.ammad
az-Zaynı̄. 10 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Qāhira, 1968–1969.
Jackson, Sherman A. On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance
in Islam: AbūH.āmid al-Ghazālı̄’s ‘‘Fays. al al-tafriqa bayna al-
islām wa al-zandaqa.’’ Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Freedom of Expression in Islam.
Rev. ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Islamic Texts Society, 1997.
Malik, Akbar Ali. The Satanic Verses: Was It Worth All the Fuss?
A Muslim Lawyer’s Viewpoint. London: Unique Books, 1993.
McCarthy, Richard J. Freedom and Fulfillment: An Annotated
Translation of al-Ghazālı̄’s ‘‘al-Munqidh min al-d. alāl’’ and
Other Relevant Works of al-Ghazālı̄. Boston: Twayne, 1980.
Saeed, Abdullah, and Hassan Saeed. Freedom of Religion, Apostasy,
and Islam. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2004.
Wiederhold, Lutz. ‘‘Blasphemy against the Prophet Muh.ammad
and His Companions (Sabb al-Rasūl, Sabb al-S. ah.ābah): The
Introduction of the Topic into Shāfiqı̄ Legal Literature and Its
Relevance for Legal Practice under Mamluk Rule.’’ Journal of
Semitic Studies 42, no. 1 (1997): 39–70.
Hannah Erlwein
Ph.D. Researcher
School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London
BODY, SIGNIFICANCE OF
The body is the locus of human existence and activity in
Islam. Islamic law stipulates the regular purification of
the body, requires the use of a body in performing rituals,
and views the body as the site of both social continuity
and punishment in the case of violating social norms.
Purification and renunciation of the body are
required for both men and women in Islamic law.
Ritual purification involves washing and wiping certain
parts of the body, and is invalidated by natural bodily
emissions (urine, feces, pus, blood, vomit), sleep,
unconsciousness, insanity, and sexual contact. Most
jurists also agree that touching one’s genitals (penis,