Imprisonment, 40 lashes, and a fine – all for allowing a teddy bear to be named Muhammad! A group of hoodlums rape an Arab woman, and the Saudi religious court orders her to receive 90 lashes! Extremists always lean on “Islam” to justify their actions. But does Islam condone this behavior?

Well, the Quran condemns blasphemy on ethical grounds 5 times, but forbids man from punishing the blasphemer. In fact, the Quran instructs man to quietly disassociate from the company of blasphemers until they change their behavior. Blasphemy is a crime against Allah, not man. Consequently, man has been given no authority to punish the blasphemer. It is God Who can read a man’s heart, not man. For example, just as God supports a true prophet, He is responsible for punishing a false claimant. If the prophet is true and man attempts to obstruct his progress by labeling him a blasphemer, it is man who will suffer. If the prophet is false, man has no need to intervene, as God will. Either way, it simply does not make sense, nor is it allowed, for man to punish the blasphemer.

Regarding rape, the Quran declares just the calumny of chaste women as tantamount to damnation – leave alone rape. Moreover, the Quran declares torture to be worse than killing.

If not the Quran, Prophet Muhammad must have encouraged it. The same Muhammad who, as the de facto ruler of Medina , forgave Abdullah Ubay bin Salul’s blasphemy? The same Muhammad who later would lead his funeral prayer? The same Muhammad who forbade anyone from harming a Bedouin who passed water in the mosque? The same Muhammad who then later cleaned the urine with his own hands? The same Muhammad who forgave Meccans who dumped the entrails of a camel on his back while he was prostrating before God? This is the man who encouraged the punishment of naming a teddy bear after him out of love?

The same Muhammad who ordered that a rapist should be executed? The same Muhammad who likened women unto “crystal”? The same Muhammad who forgave a woman who attempted to assassinate him by feeding him poisoned meat? This is the man who encouraged a helpless woman to be punished for a crime committed against her own self?

Now, the reader should also be reassured that Muhammad’s noble example of tolerating blasphemy did not die with his passing. Sudan's Article 125, under which the innocent teacher was charged with blasphemy, is similar to Pakistan 's Articles 295b and 295c. Article 295 is notorious for punishing religious minorities with fabricated acts of blasphemy, especially the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Yet Ahmadi Muslims have maintained a pristinely pure public relations résumé – never guilty of verbal or physical retaliation. In fact, many Ahmadi Muslims have migrated from Pakistan so the situation does not worsen.

Nevertheless, while naming a teddy bear ‘Muhammad’ can hardly be categorized as blasphemy, it does highlight an important point. The Muslim world’s sensitivity is not an isolated case. America , and at least 15 “progressive” European nations, has laws punishing blasphemy. This isolated case underscores the perverse view extremists hold in dealing with blasphemy.

And to the poor woman who has endured what no one should ever have to experience, our heart bleeds for you. What a horrible crime these jurists have committed against this innocent daughter of Arabia ! The very people appointed to protect its citizens! Indeed, it is regarding such criminals that Muhammad completely disassociated himself from, declaring that the clergy of the Latter Days, “would be the worst creatures under the firmament of heaven.”

So where are these extremists getting these ideas from? CERTAINLY NOT from the Holy Quran, or Muhammad.