An Overview of Islamic Tradition
The Indian legal and constitutional landscape is unfamiliar with the phrase “blasphemy.” What is blasphemy? The word blasphemy is derived from two Greek words: blapto, meaning “to injure”, and pheme, meaning “to speak”. So, blasphemy is simply considered injurious speech or speaking evil.
It has been the stance of Holy Qura’an that the Prophets’ followers to be tolerant and persistent in their beliefs and to fight evil with good and not to worry.
Persecution, mockery, and suffering were all part of life for the Prophet and his followers, but they never wavered in their faith.
Blasphemy in the Holy Qur’an and Sunna
Islamic tradition speaks of sabb allah and sabb al-rasul, meaning reviling God or reviling the Messenger. But the term Sabb (in the sense of abuse) occurs twice as manifested in the HOLY Qur’an, in 6:108: “abuse not these to whom they pray, apart from God, or they will abuse God in revenge without knowledge.” Though the Holy Quran doesn’t say what the punishment should be.
In contrast, the Hadith literature does contain references to blasphemy. The killing of prominent people, most likely because of their political activities against the Muslim community,
The development of blasphemy law in Islam
Actually, the concept of blasphemy as an offence was developed by Muslim jurists in the post-prophetic period. Blasphemy against the Prophet was considered a greater offence than blasphemy against the law. And this very notion stemmed from the idea that blasphemy was the violation of a ‘right of man’ (haqq al-‘abd’) for which repentance (by itself) was insufficient to absolve the offender. The four legal Sunni schools of Islamic legal thought all recognize the offence of blasphemy. However, there are differences between them on the question of whether perpetrators of the offence should be given the opportunity to repent. The Hanafis, Hanbalis, and Malikis advocate for execution regardless of the offender’s age (though disputes and questions arise regarding the authenticity of the original Hanafi position); in contrast, the Shafi affirms that blasphemy repentance is acceptable.
Interestingly, in the formative texts of various schools of law, blasphemy against the Prophet or the “Sahabda” is not mentioned among the punishable acts that constitute apostasy (ridda) or unbelief (kurf).
Indian Context: Historical Background
The release of songs like “Rangeela Rasool”,which made fun of the Prophet Mohammed, led to introducing a new section 295A in 1927 in the IPC, 1860. Presently, Chapter XV of the IPC, which deals with offences relating to religion, is divided into the following categories:
Injuring of defiling places of places of worship with intention to insult the religion of any class as mentioned in sec.295 of IPC corresponding to sec.298 of Bharatiya Naya Sanhita,2023)
Outraging or wounding the religious feelings of people (Sec.295A corresponding to section 299 of BNS,2023 which talks about “Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs” and 298 of IPC corresponding to 302 which talks about “Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person.”
Disturbing religious assemblies as mentioned in sec.296 of IPC corresponding to section 300 which talks about “Disturbing religious assembly.
The Constitution and Blasphemy
As India is a secular state, Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion to all citizens. Constitutional validity of the section 295A of IPC, 1860 was questioned before the apex court of the land in the case of Ramji lal Modi v. state of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1957 SC620) where the Apex Court upheld its validity on the ground that the restriction imposed on freedom of expression by the section was reasonable and was covered under the head of “public order”. The reasoning of the court was that the section did not penalize any and every act of insult to religion or the religious belief of a class of citizen but was directed to act perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feeling of a class of citizens. There must be a proximate link between speech and public disorder and not a far-fetched “remote” or “fanciful connection” (Superintendent Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia (AIR 1955 All 193, 1955 CriLJ 623).
In concluding, it can be said that blasphemy is debatable and one of the most abused law. Blasphemy is often regarded as a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression. In this modern world, where freedom of speech and religion are widely considered as fundamental and human rights, India, despite being a pluralist country with an incomparable diversity in its population, has a vast ocean of varied conflicting opinions on sec.295A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (corresponding to section 299 of BNS,2023), which is a law against blasphemy in the guise of hate speech.
Weak textual basis, apple of discord amongst the Muslim jurists, changing socio-political context, and so on should be kept in mind before contending of blasphemy. Furthermore, in a secular country like India, there must be acceptance of the concept of freedom of expression and constitutional spirit and should not be stand as antithetical to India’s secular ethos.
