Contemporary Juristic Debates on Blasphemy Law: A Comparative and Critical Analysis of the Four Sunni Schools of Jurisprudence

Abstract

This study examines the classical foundations of blasphemy rules, legal classification of these rules, & conditions under which punishment is applied in our Islamic law. This article presents a comparative and critical study of juristic disagreements regarding the law of blasphemy in the light of the four major Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence i.e. Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi ‘i, and Hanbali. It explains juristic debates, Tawbah’s evidentiary requirements, and authority of the state in implementing punishment to offender who may be Muslim or Non-Muslim and the limits of their action. This research further analyses contemporary scholars’ interpretation in the context of modern legal systems, human rights, and evolves socio-political realities. We have critically evaluated the arguments of each school and their modern applications so that the study could highlight significant differences in legal reasoning and methodology. It is also concluded that although the protection of the Prophet’s honor is accepted principle in Islamic tradition, but the procedural framework, judicial conditions, and implementation of punishment are always remained subject to interpretive diversity. This diversity reflects the dynamic nature of Islamic jurisprudence and judicial standards which are responsible in addressing sensitive religious matters in societies.