DefinePK

Abstract

This research paper investigates the views and legal opinions of prominent Islamic scholars from various Muslim-majority countries regarding blasphemy laws, particularly those related to the defamation or insult of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The issue of blasphemy has long been at the intersection of religious doctrine, legal interpretation, and socio-political realities. While the Islamic tradition universally condemns blasphemy against the Prophet, the legal implementation and scholarly discourse surrounding it vary significantly across the Muslim world. The study explores the juristic foundations of blasphemy laws in classical Islamic jurisprudence and compares them with contemporary fatwas, legal rulings, and scholarly writings from countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, and others. The paper highlights the diversity of opinions—ranging from strict penal interpretations to calls for restraint and reform—depending on the socio-political context, legal tradition (e.g., Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ja'fari), and modern challenges faced by each country.  The research also addresses the debates among contemporary scholars regarding the compatibility of blasphemy laws with human rights, freedom of expression, and minority protection. It examines whether scholars advocate for state-enforced capital punishment, discretionary penalties (taʿzīr), or non-violent responses to blasphemy. By presenting a comparative analysis of scholarly views, this paper contributes to a deeper understanding of how Islamic legal thought continues to engage with modern legal systems while striving to preserve religious sanctities. It further recommends that Muslim scholars and institutions engage in unified scholarly dialogue to present a coherent and compassionate legal approach that upholds the honor of the Prophet while considering contemporary realities and international legal obligations.