The Law of Tawhin-i-Risalat: A Social, Political and Historical Perspective

Why such a severe punishment?

An insult of the messenger amounts to the insult of the message and its sending authority – more so, if the authority enjoys the ultimate religious sanctity and constitutes the final source of legitimacy for the whole system. The early Muslims, particularly the sahābah, considered insulting the Prophet as a sufficient ground to annul all treaties of citizenship concluded between the Muslims and different religious communities. In his magnum opus, Kitāb al‑Umm, Imām Shāfi‘i has given some draft agreements that may be made with non‑Muslims. In these draft agreements, he suggests a provision under which all agreements, treaties, rights and privileges guaranteed to a non‑Muslim in an Islamic state should stand withdrawn when a person insults the Prophet of Islam.⁴

Shafi‘i is not alone in his strict attitude. Every exponent of Islam right from the first caliph Abu Bakr up to scholars of our own times share it. The only reason for this unanimity is the love and respect that the Prophet enjoys among the Muslims. There are other religious communities, like the Jews, who share with the Muslims a common belief in taūhid (monotheism). No doubt, differences exist in the perceptions of the two communities about the essence and attributes of the Almighty Allah, but they meet each other on the basic doctrine of tauhid. Likewise, similarities exist between the Jews and some Christian groups who have been believers in monotheism. As religious communities, they represented divergent views only because of their belief in different persons as their prophets and messengers. This clearly shows that the position enjoyed by a prophet’s person in a community surpasses all other considerations often associated with a secular or non‑religious society. Religious communities can never afford to be unmindful about their responsibilities to protect the sanctity of their respective messengers.

Many Christian scholars and theologians also share this Muslim perception. One of the greatest Christian theologians of the medieval ages Saint Augustine says, “thus who knew the revealed truth yet permitted disloyalty to it committed a greater crime than those who rejected it.”⁵ Other Christian theologians following Augustine also hold the same view. It is difficult to say whether Augustine was influenced by the writings of the Muslim theologians on the subject, but there is no denying the fact that this statement represents the logic developed by the Muslim jurists on this subject. To them, the issue of forgiving is of far graver consequences than is being realized. If one is convinced that the teachings of Muhammad (upon him be peace) have their source in the divine revelations and embody the final truth, then insulting him will be logically inconsistent.

It is perhaps because of this logic of the Muslim jurists that their attitude appears as somewhat uncompromising to others who do not assign to a religious message and its messenger the same significance as the Muslims give to theirs. For the Christian West, this may be intolerance, but to Muslims, tolerance in such a matter is nothing but hypocrisy, inviting others to commit it as well, and sheds doubts on the truth.