Almost all religions in world teach tolerance, respect and acceptance of fellow human beings, as a moral value, to their adherents. All Humanists claim to uphold the same value. But it is Islam, the eternally modern religion, and the first system of values that specifically teach mutual respect, dignity, equality and tolerance to its adherent and gives this value a status of law. The moral cosmography and the set of social values that Islam presents to the human beings has its foundation in the concept of mutual respect and human dignity. Islam recognizes whole mankind as progeny of Allah regardless of race, religion, color, gender, ethnicity or language. Thus it endows human beings the self-respect, dignity, and esteem. [Ref: 16]; and it becomes not only an ethical value but also a law for Muslims. It took 1500 years for rest of the world to recognize that a human being is entitled to honor and dignity, when in 1948, all the nations under the banner of United Nations declared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Article 12 of United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks".

Thus Blasphemy Law recognizes and qualifies a universally accepted human value. Should we exempt prophets from this value?

Blasphemy in Judaism
The commandment against blasphemy is given in Exodus 22:28: "Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people." Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death" by stoning. The blasphemer was to be taken outside the camp, and all who heard him should lay their hands upon his head; then all the congregation should stone him. Leviticus also provides an example of an Israelite mixed blood (having an Egyptian father) being stoned to death after getting into a fight with a Hebrew and cursing the Name of the Hebrew God.

Later the use of God's proper name came to constitute blasphemy according to normative Judaism. although it is allowed to mystics of the kabalistic and some hasidic traditions. In ancient times, people were also guilty of blasphemy if they were idolaters, manifested disrespect towards God, or insulted his chosen leaders. For example, reviling the king, who acts as God's representative, was considered a form of blasphemy (Exodus 22, 27; Isaiah 8.21). Equating oneself to God was also considered blasphemous.

The Mishnah states the rabbinical opinion that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounces the name of God in his insult or curse (Mishnah Sanh. 7.5). An opinion in the Gemara, however, extends the definition of the crime to a disrespectful use of any words which describe the sacred attributes of God, such as "The Holy One" or "The Merciful One." When the Jewish courts exercised criminal jurisdiction, the death penalty was sometimes applied to the blasphemer who used the Name; but the blasphemer of God's attributes was subjected to corporal punishment (Sanh. 56a).

When taking testimony during a blasphemy trial, witnesses who heard the blasphemy were not permitted to repeat the very words in question. The excommunication of the blasphemer could be substituted as a punishment for the death penalty (Pithe Teshubah to Yoreh De'ah, 340, 37). In addition to the court's punishment, the blasphemer is also excluded from the life in the world to come ('Ab. Zarah 18a).

Blasphemy in Christianity
The New Testament teaching on blasphemy is often related to Luke 12:10: "Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." The author of Ephesians commands that blasphemers be expelled from Christian society: "Blasphemy be put away from you, with all malice" (Ephesians 4:31).

When Christians came to control the power of the state, blasphemy became a crime punishable by law. Thomas Aquinas saw blasphemy as a form of unbelief, stating in Summer Theohgica (13:3) that blasphemy, being a crime directly against God is "more grave than murder." Moreover, later Christian society was not as forgiving as Luke, insisting on harsh punishments for blasphemy against the Father and the Son as well as the Holy Spirit, and sometimes equating the public denial of Christian doctrine as blasphemy. For example, a seventeenth century Act Concerning Religion in Maryland stated that whoever shall "Blaspheme GOD, that is curse him, or deny that JESUS CHRIST our Savior to be the Son of God, or deny the Holy Trinity... shall be punished with death, and forfeiture of all of his or her Lands and Goods...."

The advent of religious toleration in the late seventeenth century witnessed a gradual relaxation in blasphemy laws in Christian societies.

We find out that both Old Testament and the New Testament explicitly stipulated capital punishment for blasphemy. It is evident through several books and several verses, which cross-refer with each other. For example:

Leviticus 24:16 states: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." The verse cross refers with New Testament: Matt 26:66, John 19:7.

Acts 6:8 & 7:60 Stephen, a Christian, was found guilty of blasphemy and stoned to death.

Blasphemy in Jainism
In Jainism. blasphemy is the teaching of the false; the hindrance of the true religion; the denigration of the saints, of the images of gods, and of the community, of the canon: and the rape of sacred objects, alt of which cause the state of darsana-mohaniya-k (a disturbance of the knowledge of the religious truth inherent in one's natural disposition).

An example of the Jain legal view on blasphemy occurred in Mangalore, India, where the police arrested B. V. Seetharam, editor of Kannada, the evening daily newspaper of Karavali Ale, along with his wife, Rohini. They were taken to the Panambur police station for the "blasphemous reporting and personal abuses" against the spiritual leader of Jainism, Munishree Tarunsagar.

The Precedence of Blasphemy laws:
Blasphemy laws Blasphemy laws - nowadays exist in several countries, such as in: Austria (Articles 188,189 of the penal code) Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code) Section 10 - Breach of the sanctity of religion (563/1998) A person who

(1) publicly blasphemes against God or, for the purpose of offending, publicly defames or desecrates what is otherwise held to be sacred by a church or religious community, as referred to in the Act on the Freedom of Religion (267/1922), or

(2) by making noise, acting threateningly or otherwise, disturbs worship, ecclesiastical proceedings, other similar religious proceedings or a funeral, shall be sentenced for a breach of the sanctity of religion to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.

Section 11 - Prevention of worship (563/1998)
(1) A person who employs or threatens violence, so as to unlawfully prevent worship, ecclesiastical proceedings or other similar religious proceedings arranged by a church or religious community, as referred to in the Act on the Sanctity of Religion, shall be sentenced for prevention of worship to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.

(2) Art attempt is punishable.
Unsuccessful attempts were made to rescind the law in 1914,1917,1965,1970 and 1998.

Germany (Article 166 of the penal code)

Chapter Eleven Crimes Which Relate to Religion And Philosophy of Life Section 166 Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life
(1) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings {Section 11 subsection (3)) insults the content of others' religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults a church, other religious society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be similarly punished.

Section 167 Disturbing the Practice of Religion
(1) Whoever:
1. intentionally and in a gross manner disturbs a religious service or an act of a religious service of a church or other religious society located in Germany; or
2. commits insulting mischief at a place dedicated to the religious services of such a religious society, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Corresponding celebrations of an organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany shall be the equivalent of religious services.

Section 167a Disturbing a Funeral Service
Whoever intentionally or knowingly disturbs a funeral service shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

Section 168 Disturbing the Peace of the Dead
(1) Whoever, without authorization, takes away the body or parts of the body of a deceased person, a dead fetus or parts thereof or the ashes of a deceased person from the custody of the person entitled thereto, or whoever commits insulting mischief thereon, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Whoever destroys or damages a place for laying-in-state, burial site or public place for remembering the dead, or whoever commits insulting mischief there, shall be similarly punished.
(3) An attempt shall be punishable.

Ireland
The Netherlands (Article 147 of the penal code)
New Zealand (Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961)
Spain (Article 525 of the penal code)
Switzerland (Article 261 of the penal code)
Denmark (Paragraph 140 of the penal code). Was up to revision in 2004, but failed to gain majority.
The United States
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees a relatively unlimited right of free speech, although some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:
Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

United Kingdom Blasphemy laws in England have never been repealed. Philosophical Base:
Blasphemy in Islam
Almighty ALLAH says in The Holy Quran, in Surah Al-Anfal (08), verses 12 & 13: strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes. (12) This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. (13)
Similarly, in Surah At Taubah (09), verse 61:
And among them are men who annoy the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and say: "He is (lending his) ear (to every news)."Say: "He listens to what is best for you; he believes in Allah; has faith in the believers; and is a mercy to those of you who believe." But those who hurt Allah's Messenger (Muhammad SAW) will have a painful torment.
There are more than one traditions (Ahadith) of the Holy Prophet (May Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him) that tell us that the punishment for both apostasy and blasphemy is death. (The Holy Prophet Muhammad, May Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him, himself sent his companions (May Allah Be Pleased With Them) to kill the persons who committed the crime of blasphemy.
The death punishment for the crime of blasphemy is provided in the famous and authentic book of Ahadith, "Sunan Abu Daud" which is one of the 'Sah Sitta' under the 'Kitab ul Hadood' which means that this punishment is under Hadood law. It has remained the practice of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, May Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him and the Khulafa-e-Rashedeen, May Allah Be Pleased With Them, that death was the only punishment given against the crime of blasphemy.

Reverence of Prophet (pbuh) is an Essential Part of Faith (Qura'n) When a person insults another person he in fact violates his victim's sanctity as a human being; it is then up to the victim either to forgive, ignore or to seek retribution. Similarly, when a person blasphemes a Prophet, it is Prophet's prerogative whether to forgive, ignore or seek retribution. But a Prophet is not an ordinary human being. He is a messenger whose words and actions, when he specifies, is the voice of Almighty and become a law for his followers. Moreover there is a special connection, a bond of love, respect, and discipline that binds his followers to him.
The Holy Prophet Muhammad, May Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him, has said that the faith of a believer is not complete unless he loves the Holy Prophet more than his father, mother and the whole humanity (Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim).
So when a blasphemer insults a Prophet, not only he violates the sanctity of Prophet but that of his followers as human beings, as well. Thus an act of blasphemy is an offence not only against the Prophet but the society as well. And when a Prophet passes away he cannot forgive, ignore or avenge the offences committed against his sanctity. But the followers cannot tolerate such a heinous crime. Since different individuals of a society retaliate differently to the same offence, therefore, an explicitly stated law is required to respond to such offences in a uniform fashion, so that it expresses unanimous outlook of the society. As we know that the act of blasphemy is a repugnant behavior, which creates unrest in the society, and society may act in excess towards the perpetrator, hence a law is required.
The following verses provide the philosophical base for the blasphemy law by insisting that the reverence of Prophet is an essential part of faith. We can see from the following verses that Qura'n is explicitly insistent upon Muslims to manifest reverence to the Prophet; it is adamant about respecting his decisions; it commands to help him; and it forbids raising voice in front of him. Obeying and respecting Prophet is equated to having strong faith whereas divine retribution is promised for those who disobey and disrespect Allah's Apostle.
4:65 AI-Nissa (Women):"But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction." [Ref: 6; tr: Yousafali] This important subject is reiterated in the following verses: AI-Fath (Victory) 48:09; Al-Maeda (the table spread) 5:12; Al-Anfaal (Booty) 8:24; AI-Araaf (The Heights) 7:157; AI-Ahzaab (The Coalition); Ai-Hujrat (The Private Quarters) 49:1 & 2

Brief History of Blasphemy laws in Pakistan: in the subcontinent the laws on the offences of blasphemy and apostasy had been in practice during the Moghul era as confirmed by the edicts in the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri and various books prior to that. The British repealed the laws in 1860 to facilitate the work of Christian missionaries who came along with them.
In Pakistan, the need to re-enact this law arose in 1982-83 when a lawyer named Mushtaq Raj authored a book titled Heavenly Communism, in Lahore and distributed it free of cost at a large scale. This book contained insulting remarks about, Allah, the Holy Prophet (pbuh), other messengers, religious scholars and several religions; which infuriated the Muslims and they took to streets. The World Association of Pakistan Muslims Jurists called an emergency meeting and adopted a resolution against the book and its author. A meeting of the Lahore High Court Bar Association, which was attended by more than five hundred members, unanimously scrapped the membership of Mushtaq Raj. A report with the Anarkali police was registered against Raj on the charge-of humiliating religion.
The police registered a case under section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code, which is provided below:-
295- A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting Its religion or religious beliefs:
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the 'religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.
At the time, when the police registered the case against Mushtaq Raj, there was no punishment in the penal code against a heinous crime like blasphemy.
Then religious and political leaders belonging to all schools of thought moved the Federal Shariat Court on July 18, 1983. The court admitted the petition for hearing and issued notices to the attorney general of Pakistan and advocate generals of all the provinces. Religious scholars hailing from all schools of thought appeared before the full bench of the court and produced their oral as well as written arguments before it. After hearing the federal government and the citizens, the court reserved its decision on the petition.
In the meantime, another prominent lawyer and human rights activist, Asma Jahangir, uttered insulting remarks for the Prophet (pbuh) at a seminar in Islamabad. The audiences protested and demanded that the advocate withdraw her words and apologize. Asma's rejection of demands resulted in a pandemonium. When the national Press published the news the next day it provoked the people to come on roads and protest over the incident. The people started demanding enforcement of Hadd (punishment) for blasphemy. The late MNA Mohtarma Nisar Fatima presented a bill in the National Assembly suggesting death for blasphemy against prophet-hood. After long arguments the bill was unanimously adopted by the Parliament on October 2, 1986, and clause 295-' C was added to the Pakistan Penal Code. The 1986 version of law prescribed the punishment of death with life term as its alternative. Lawyers and religious scholars again launched a movement and argued that for blasphemy accused deserved only death sentence in Islam. After three years of deliberation, the Federal Shari'at Court announced its verdict on October 30, 1990, which stipulates only death penalty for the offence of blasphemy.
The present blasphemy law is not discriminatory.
The present legislation is neither discriminatory nor aimed at any particular sect or religion. The Penal code's section 295-C, reads:

Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Misuse of law is also an argument brought forward for removal of blasphemy laws but all laws are misused but the basis of this, these laws cannot be removed from the statute book.
Law alone is not sufficient to curb a social ill. Societal role cannot be over-emphasised. Punishment for malicious prosecution is already provided in the Pakistan Penal Code as under:
OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE 191. Giving false evidence:
Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1: A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2: A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know.
192. Fabricating false evidence:
Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by low before a public servant as suck or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said to fabricate false evidence.
193. Punishment for false evidence:
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall, be punished with imprisonment of either description" for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1: A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2: An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court ofJustice.73[]73
Explanation 3: An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding/though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.
194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence:
Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing ft to be likely that he will thereby cause any person to be convicted on an offence which is capital by any law for the time being in force, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; if innocent person be thereby convicted and executed : and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described. 195. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or for a term of seven years or upwards:
Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause any person to be convicted of an offence which by any law for the time being in force is not capital, but punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.
196. Using evidence known to be false:
Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence, any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence.
Procedural improvements can also be made to further block the possibility of false prosecution. Fact finding joint committees at appropriate level to verify allegations before a prosecution is launched. A possibility may be examined of entrusting investigation to a senior police officer as well as trial by a superior court, to exclude the chances of exploitation of law. But the presence of law and judicial process is always better than its absence. (The writer is an Advocate High Court and former Member Provincial Assembly Punjab).

Ending his speech, The Prince said: There is a profound truth in that seemingly simple, old saying of the nomads - that the best of all Mosques is Nature herself".

The Vice-Chancellor of the Oxford University, Professor Andrew Hamilton, gave the vote of thanks. He said, It has been an immense pleasure to welcome you back to the University of Oxford to lecture on this subject."

This is a university of many nationalities, particularly in its teaching and research staff, and postgraduate students, and also one of great international reach."

Earlier, the Prince was given a tour of the Centre's new premises in Marston Road, which are currently under development, by its founder director, Dr. Farhan Nizami. The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies is a recognised independent centre of Oxford University. Established in 1985, it encourages a better understanding of the culture and civilization of Islam and of contemporary Muslim societies. Although independent, the centre is linked to Oxford University.

Seventeen years ago, the Prince gave a speech entitled Islam and the West to the Centre. Since then, world figures including Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan and Sonia Gandhi have given lectures at the centre.