Investigating the Origin of the Claim that Rejects the Repentance of a Blasphemer in Hanafi School of Law: A Critical Study

Abstract

The issue of blasphemy against the Prophet (PBUH) is one of the burning issues that is widely discussed these days. Whenever the incident of blasphemy takes place, Pakistani law (Sec. 295C: Pakistan Penal Code 1860, that determines capital punishment for blasphemy) becomes the subject of discussion. Here the subject of repentance also comes into consideration if the blasphemer is a Muslim. There are two opinions among the Hanafi jurists regarding repentance. It is narrated from the earlier Hanafi jurists that a Muslim blasphemer is like an apostate, and resultantly, in this case, capital punishment can be waived off. Contrarily, the later jurists opined that Hadd (prescribed punishment) will be imposed upon such a blasphemer, and the repentance is unacceptable. Ibn Abdin al-Shami asserts that al-Bazzazi was the first one to have had this viewpoint, and the later jurists followed him without critically evaluating the principles of the Hanafi School of law. While in literature, there are some statements attributed to Hanafi Jurists earlier than Bazzazi. If these statements from literature are genuine, it will challenge the validity of Ibn Abdin’s claim, and if that is not the case, then the claim will stand irrebuttable. The current study examines those texts and evaluates the validity of Ibn Abdin’s claim.