The issue of the punishment for blasphemy is not a new one. It has been a topic of discussion among scholars throughout the intellectual history of the Muslim community. Its foundational basis is undoubtedly theological, such as the determination of punishment for this crime through certain verses of the Quran, the encouragement to enforce this punishment in some Prophetic traditions, or the reasoning derived from the actions of the Companions in dealing with such offenders. On all three counts, respected teacher Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has clarified the errors in the primary theological arguments that scholars commonly present in his article, “The Issue of Blasphemy.”
No serious scholarly response has yet been provided to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s critique, which could establish the validity of the theological stance taken by the scholars. However, in our opinion, the sensitivity regarding the blasphemy law in the subcontinent also includes certain social factors in addition to theological arguments. The most significant among these is the emergence of Ahmed Raza Khan’s school of thought in this region. This school attempted to present the mystical concepts that were previously not defended in an intellectual framework in the light of theological arguments while adhering to classical juristic traditions.
Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi developed a theology that highlighted the transcendent and eternal dimensions of the personality of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to substantiate these mystical and supra-rational claims. While these dimensions were discussed sporadically in theological discourses throughout Islamic history, presenting the Prophet’s personality as an invincible force through this methodology is undoubtedly the contribution of the Barelvi school of thought.
In this methodology, religion, law, and mysticism are all tied to the superhuman personality of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), from which every command emanates. Therefore, any doubt, objection, or alternative interpretation shakes this entire framework. This is the reason for the extraordinary sensitivity and emotional fervor concerning the personality of the Prophet (PBUH) within this school of thought.
Thus, analyzing Ahmed Raza Khan’s foundational arguments reveals, in simple terms, that since the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is placed at such an exalted station that all the knowledge of what was and will be until the Day of Judgment is within his grasp, he is omnipresent and a supporter and helper of his lovers, then miraculous occurrences by saints like Ghous Azam are naturally outcomes of this same relationship of love. The discourse reached a point where the internal mystical insights were made public from the pulpit without fear of contradiction.
This blend of mysticism and jurisprudence was a far more confident stance compared to the past. Consequently, Ahmed Raza Khan outrightly refused to compromise on this foundation. His book “Husam al-Haramayn” clearly illustrates his psychology, as he launched a campaign to publicly disown the leading religious figures of his time who could obstruct the acceptance of this new methodology.
Prominent Deobandi figures such as Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Maulana Qasim Nanotvi, Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, and Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri were declared guilty of blasphemy and apostasy without mincing words, merely because they denied the status of the Prophet’s personality that Ahmed Raza Khan had defined. This act was considered equivalent to disrespect and blasphemy against the Prophet. Thus, it can be observed that the first organized fatwa of blasphemy in the subcontinent was issued against the “senior leadership of Deoband.”
Although the Deobandi scholars initially responded strongly to this uproar and cleared their name both locally and internationally through writings like “Al-Muhannad ala Al-Mufannad,” the stance of later Deobandi scholars reveals that they soon realized that such intellectual disagreements could neither be presented at the public level nor gain acceptance. Since the disputes revolve around the personal stature of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Barelvis were unwilling to compromise, presenting the issue as an emotional public matter, the Deobandi scholars preferred to tread cautiously.
In contrast, the Barelvi school’s public engagement focused on fulfilling the psychological and cultural needs of the masses, such as the observance of commemorations like Qul, Barahween, and Eid Milad-un-Nabi. This allowed them to establish a strong connection with the public, which gave them far greater influence compared to the scholarly acceptance of Deoband’s intellectual movement rooted in the continuity of work by exegetes, hadith scholars, and jurists.
Ultimately, the compromising attitude of Deobandi leadership on one side and the aggressive actions of Barelvi scholars on the other led to a situation where the Deobandi school was gradually forced to wash away the stigma of diminishing or disrespecting the Prophet’s stature. This public acceptance in the subcontinent compelled them to adopt the Barelvi stance, albeit reluctantly.
Following the partition, the Deobandi leadership in Pakistan continued this compromise with the Barelvi scholars. When the agitation for legislation on the punishment for blasphemy arose, the Deobandi leadership sought to assure their loyalty and profound love for the Prophet, thus avoiding becoming a target again. In doing so, they not only abandoned their previous scholarly stance and the position of the majority of scholars but also adopted the Barelvi stance entirely. This included aligning with the contemporary Barelvi interpretation of Hanafi jurisprudence on the punishment for blasphemy, which left no room for repentance, made no distinction between men and women, or Muslims and non-Muslims.
In our view, this intellectual defeat of Deobandism is due to the social impact of Barelvi thought, which Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi presented with unwavering determination and forced public acceptance. This is why today’s Deobandi scholars are part of the same movement of declaring individuals blasphemers and seeking their execution, a movement that once declared their ancestors guilty of blasphemy, compelling them to defend their faith.
In our opinion, this is now a “point of no return” for the Deobandi school of thought. While there is a growing awareness of this compromise among young Deobandi scholars, returning from this position will exact a heavy price, as even their followers may no longer value their scholarly opinions on this issue.
This is precisely the same situation as when the Deobandi school of thought actively participated in the Afghan conflict, declaring it as “jihad” during the global political tussle, but later attempted to retreat. The Deobandi leadership realized that their students and the very Mujahideen they had nurtured did not accept the idea of ending the conflict and turned against their own mentors, even thirsting for their blood. This exacted a heavy price.
Similarly, regarding the blasphemy law, the Deobandi scholars must reflect on the humiliation they faced by associating themselves with a borrowed stance. Today, even if they wish to backtrack, God forbid their followers might refuse to accept their repentance or retraction.
Recently, when we brought the issue of Section 295-C and repentance to the attention of Deobandi scholars, the prominent intellectuals of this school expressed their inability to take action, acknowledging that the matter is no longer in their control. At most, they can highlight the disagreements among jurists to convey the message that this law was based on a singular opinion, but they cannot bear the burden of amending or adding to it.