Blasphemy is a keyword in Koran whose extension and concept has been greatly changed throughout history and in different areas of Islam and found different significance.In this article attempt has been made to draw and present Moulana’s beliefs and viewpoints regarding blasphemy expressed in different verbal situations and from different angles with emphasis on Masnavi Maanavi and Divan Shams.

One of the controversial issues in the history of Islam is the faith of Hazrat Abu Talib. Sunni sources generally believe that Abu Talib did not believe and died in blasphemy. This misconception caused the Sunni companions exclude Abu Talib from the companions. Abu Talib's accusation of infidelity has been raised against Abu Talib's unbelief. The authors have also written in denial or proof of Abu Talib's infidelity and have written independent works on this subject. The present article, without seeking to prove Abu Talib's faith, seeks to answer the question of why Abu Talib has been charged with blasphemy through an analytical-descriptive method. This article, after reviewing various sources, has shown that the accusation of blasphemy against Abu Talib is incorrect and has been raised due to a superficial and biased interpretation of Quranic verses and historical reports. None of the theological rules and historical reports confirm the accusation of Abu Talib infidelity. This article shows that the repetition of Sunni misconceptions in literary, historical, interpretive and hadith sources has made this accusation famous.

In countries like Iran, religion and religious jurisprudence constitute a main source for legislation as well as there are laws and regulations meant to provide legal protection for religious beliefs and sanctities. The same situation can be traced during the era of Church authority in some other countries including the UK. However many countries such support do not provide such criminalization arguing such legislation being inconsistent with freedom of expression and human rights by contrast, according to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code, the criminalization of blasphemy including any insulation to the Prophet (and also Holy Imams) and other religious sanctities of Islam is also expanded to other holy Prophets while the English legal system there are some sporadic criminal protect merely for the Christian sanctities. But it is ambiguous what is meant by the term “religious sanctities” and whether any kind of profanity is subject to such criminal sanctions, and also what is the sentence for such crimes. These questions are the points which are getting analyzed in the present paper – focusing on the both Iranian and English regulations and judicial procedures through survey in religious sources and Islamic opinions.

Recently, a book named Persian blasphemy words in Hanafi jurisprudence (linguistic blasphemy among the public) has been published by Dr. Rasool-e Jafarian. This book is the result of collecting Persian sentences from the writings of Hanafi jurisprudence. These parts of Persian are valuable from the linguistic point of view and they indicate the old features and unusual forms. Despite this value, a section has not been dedicated to the linguistic aspect of these Persian sentences. On the other hand, this book has no index, and even a list of important Persian words and phrases has not been compiled and provided. In this article, an attempt has been made to point out some of the linguistic features of this book and to point out some of the incorrect corrections of this work and their correct form. In addition, a list of important Persian words and phrases from a linguistic point of view has also been provided.

Excommunication was first practiced by a radical group called Kharijtes which remarkably harmed society. Later on and throughout the history radical followers of either of Shiites and Sunnis accused each other of blasphemy. Among these people Yusef Bahrani (Deceased.1186 A.H) also believes in jurisprudential blasphemy of dissident.He uses various arguments to prove his claim. One of the arguments is the emphasis on the narrations as he thinks denote jurisprudential blasphemy of dissident. Using library studies and descriptive-analytical method, this research has tried to raise the narrations that Bahrani has discussed and provide valid response against them. This study shows that none of narrations that Bahrani has referred to; do not denote jurisprudential blasphemy or impurity of dissident. Although some scholars analyzed these narrations and inferred the theological blasphemy of dissident, most of them deduce the purity of adversary.

In religious thought, faith has been treated as the most eminent value. However, this question has always been propounded: Do all believers have equal and similar faiths and hence equal values? In other words, can faith and blasphemy increase or decrease or not? Accepting either side of the problem involves questions such as: are faith and blasphemy simple or compound affairs? Is action related in their reality or not? Answering these questions, Islamic scientists have different viewpoints. This essay is to decipher and compare the viewpoints of two Islamic superior thinkers, Mulla Sadra and Ibn Arabi. According to Mulla Sadra’s documentations such as his Quranic interpretations and his general fundamentals of philosophy including principality of existence, analogicity of existence, substantial motion and his theological views such as regarding faith and blasphemy as existential things, this conclusion has been drawn that from his point of view, faith and blasphemy can be weak or strong.But Ibn Arabi did not enter in numerous discussions concerning faith and blasphemy in his works and also his expressions in this relation are equivocal and cause uncertainty in his opinion. Regarding prevailing reasons and documents showing confirmation of existence and oscillation in faith and blasphemy, justifications should be presented in order to obviate these contradictions. In the case that contradictions are justified, it can be said that he also believed in decrease and increase in faith and blasphemy. However, in admissibility of accepting decrease and increase in faith and bleaphemy, although his fundamentals don’t have variety the same and consolidation as Sadra’s. Detailed speeches, documentations and attitudes of these two thinkers should be searched within this essay.

Religious sanctities are persons, concepts, institutions andr espected symbols that insulting them emotional arousal and can be infrastructure for extremist behaviors and serious security risks at the national and international levels. This study investigated the religious foundations in criminalization of blasphemy and has analyzed the principles of public interest and harm to others as principles can be used in criminalization of insulting religious sanctities. In addition, due to the need to separate the criticism and discussion in support of freedom of expression and insulting in support of freedom of opinion and respect for believers, challenges in criminalization of blasphemy are discussed.

The study of Sire (practice) of the prophet of Islam (PBUH) and the great leaders including both Shiites and Sunnis can help us to reach a common view on the limits of Islam and faith, and also the rules and laws that are applied to Muslims from different Islamic sects as well as the disbelievers. Therefore, it is imperative to examine the criteria of Islam and disbelief in order to deal with the misleading beliefs that Islamic sects have towards one another. The present paper is an attempt to examine some issues such as criteria and limits of Islam and disbelief among the followers of the two major branches of Islam, the criteria of apparent Islam, the viewpoints of the jurisprudents of Farighein (two sects) about Takfir, in order to wisely reject the views of Takfiries who excommunicate other Muslims anyway.

Sath, an apparently blasphemous utterance made by a Sufi during a spiritual ecstasy, is a controversial term as there is no consensus on its definition. The purpose of this paper is to study sath in the works of 'Attar. In 'Attar, sath may be studied from tow points of view: its surface form, which mayor may not be against religion, and its deep meaning, which, in principle, cannot be against religion, but which needs to be interpreted. Words uttered in defense of Iblis, for example, provide a good example of sath, which frequents in 'Attars' works. Sathiyyat, in the works of 'Attar, appear in tow forms: some sath are utterances made by great Sufis, some are blasphemous utterances made by wise Sufis who pretend to be lunatics. It seems that these latter Sufis represent the hidden personality of 'Attar himself, who invents them to talk for him without his words being criticized by devout ascetics and cruel rulers. These apparent lunatics are able to utter their strong protest against not only the oppression of unjust rulers but the creation of the universe as well.

The penalty for blasphemy against the holy Prophet and the Infallibles prescribed by the Shiite Jurists based on the hadiths is the obligation of killing the blasphemer and that his blood may be shed with impunity. Nonetheless, there are a variety of cases in the infallibles' practical conduct where they have treated the blasphemer nobly and with tolerance and prevented their companions from executing the death penalty. The authors, with a view to resolve the above said contradiction, have reviewed and analyzed the hadiths underlying the death penalty for the blasphemer and concluded that up to the certainty of the referred proofs is the obligation of killing the blasphemer who has targeted the holy Prophet’ s prophethood position. In case the subject matter of hadiths is extended to those who blaspheme the Imams, the death penalty concerns the rancorous persons and blasphemers who knowingly and intentionally insult the Imam's legal personality and Imama position. Therefore, there is no conflict between the religious ruling of punishing the blasphemer and the Infallibles' practical conduct in the form of treating morally and generously those who unknowingly insult them and, out of ignorance, were hostiles to their individual personality