Answering Christianity Research Center

I remember reading once somewhere that none of the people killed in Pakistan for alleged blasphemy, had even been convicted by a court. All of those killings happen to be extra-judicial murders.

News link: https://www.dawn.com/news/1326729

Incidents like these are why Pakistani Muslims from a particular background as compared to Muslims of other nationalities, are more likely to criticise the alleged unforgivable nature of blasphemy.

W/slam,

This claim or one similar to it is not only made by "anti Islamic sites" but by "extremist" Muslims themselves too. One of the more interesting comments I read on the internet happened to be from a Muslim who was supporting the death penalty for blasphemy in Shariah by using evidence from an anti-Islamic site (although he probably didn't know that).

First of all, Ibn-Ishaq's work is a biography of the Prophet and not a Hadith book which requires much more stringent tests of authenticity. There are more than a few accounts from the biography that are either controversial or openly rejected.

Regarding the unforgivable nature of insults, you can start by taking a look at this thread, http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=2400.msg10871

Regards,

Another relevant article:
http://avari.typepad.com/avari/2010/10/jihadis-killed-270-million-people.html

Regarding "Muslims had just relocated to Medina and weren't even under attack by their Meccan adversaries":

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/23/did-quraysh-persecute-muslims-when-they-fled-to-madinah/

The following is from my personal knowledge and understanding which could be faulty.

Regarding the "...scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed." The punishment was judged because of the Muslim's apostasy and not because blasphemy was unanimously considered a capital offence. The issue of apostasy is a different subject discussed at some other place on this forum.

Regarding the woman who was strangled and no blood money was prescribed for her murderer, although this is, as far as I know, the strongest evidence for prescribing the capital punishment, it still falls short because of the fact that nowhere in the narration, is the Prophet or the companions commanding the punishment. The incident happened and the issue was what is to be done now, not whether the incident was right or wrong.

I haven't come across the opinions of critics regarding the Sunan al-Nasaa’i narration and not being a scholar I will try not to make any conclusions on it, although I do have reservations on deriving Sharia commands, especially as significant as Hadd punishments, from such indirect events.
Regarding, "It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs." in my humble opinion, this is a fallacious (non-sequitur) conclusion.

Regarding the Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas event, this event is used to support the death penalty for both apostasy and blasphemy. Supporters of the death penalty believe that apostasy and blasphemy are part of Sharia as Hadd punishments i.e. their punishment cannot be lessened, divinely ordained by God, it has to exist until the day of judgement and no one can ever be pardoned from this punishment. Critics use this same narration to argue against the Hadd status of these crimes, by pointing out how the Prophet clearly forgave those crimes. The supporters, from their point-of-view, resolve this discrepancy by arguing that Prophet Muhammad had the special God-given right to forgive even Hadd punishments. Critics do not accept this understanding.

See the following links for a different understanding even by some classical scholars,
www.dawn.com/news/1154856
www.dawn.com/news/1149558
defence.pk/threads/the-lies-of-the-clergy-on-blasphemy-and-295-c.99787/

A relevant article on the matter, having been written by an atheist:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39361_Fact-Checking_Pamela_Geller-_270_Million_Victims_of_Islam

Regarding the tashahud issue:

There are very few religious issues that Muslim scholars pretty much don't differ about at all. As far as I have read, the obligatory parts of prayers (like the tashahud) are among those issues. The reason being that such practices were being performed by thousands of Muslims in Makkah, Medina and other areas, therefore there was little doubt about how these religious practices were supposed to be performed.

If the evidence or proof regarding the obligatory parts of salat is not enough for a Muslim, then if I'm not mistaken, the evidence or proof for the reliability of the Qur'an (from a purely historical point-of-view) should also not be enough for that Muslim.