Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
solitair

Fatwa - Better Understanding

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I am trying to understand and I love to learn about Islam.

 

To many people, many of the fatwas that are announced in the media seem to orchestrate a safety issue - maybe even a global safety issue. Now Wikipedia defines fatwa simply as an opinion.

 

I read that a Muslim – (forgot his name and everything else) – said something to the affect that it was ok to rape woman in some place. This was a fatwa.

 

I want to be respectful, but find It hard to select the appropriate words about this person.

 

So a question is what can we say about this fatwa? Clearly raping a woman is disgusting, no matter situation and circumstance, and anybody that does disgust them selves.

 

Is a fatwa like described above not a severe sin against God? Does it not dishonor Islam?

 

If a fatwa is an interpretation of the law in the Qur'an, than this fatwa is claming that you can rape according to the Qur'an ??? What ??

 

All of this makes me sad and confused. I hope someone can help me understand this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prophet Muhamad said " Non honored them (women) except a noble and non hurt them except a lowlife"

 

Fatwa is the affirmation. In Arabic it is even used in non religious situation. When an engineer is consulted and he gave an opinion based on great knowledge and experience, he gave his opinion with affirmation that it is the correct way to go then this is a fatwa.

Now, anyone can make a fatwa as anyone can think that they know enough. But in Shia islam since this is a shia site, fatwa declaration is restricted to set of scholars that had been peered reviewed in terms of knowledge honor and integrity. We call them Maraje or references or ayatollah.

 

I cannot really speak about the other schools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We call them Maraje or references or ayatollah.

 

 

What comes to mind (your profile picture), is the Fatwa sentencing Salman Rushdie to death. I have followed some links on the internet tonight, and watched a documentary about Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeins fatwa. I am a little confused about some distinctions between sentencing - and interpreting - giving opinion.

 

Yesterday i used lots of time reading about Ayatollah Ali Sistanis fatwas on his website. The ones i read, are what i expected - explanations and interpretations and so forth.

 

Ayatollah Khomeini sentence Rushdie to death - something that seems more like a commandment - or like an order someone has to be execute. I just don't see this as interpreting or explaining, but rather like a captain on a ship, making decisions, steering and leading or even like a king. This is somewhat confusing.

 

I need some help a more detailed definition. Can for example a fatwa be something that is commanding people do to what the issuer wants them to do ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to understand and I love to learn about Islam.

To many people, many of the fatwas that are announced in the media seem to orchestrate a safety issue - maybe even a global safety issue. Now Wikipedia defines fatwa simply as an opinion.

I read that a Muslim – (forgot his name and everything else) – said something to the affect that it was ok to rape woman in some place. This was a fatwa.

I want to be respectful, but find It hard to select the appropriate words about this person.

So a question is what can we say about this fatwa? Clearly raping a woman is disgusting, no matter situation and circumstance, and anybody that does disgust them selves.

Is a fatwa like described above not a severe sin against God? Does it not dishonor Islam?

If a fatwa is an interpretation of the law in the Qur'an, than this fatwa is claming that you can rape according to the Qur'an ??? What ??

All of this makes me sad and confused. I hope someone can help me understand this.

There is no fatwa from any Muslim that says it is ok to rape a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

I am going to speak about fatwa from shia islam perspective. In shia Islam, we believe that the legislation is the right of Allah alone. He sent messengers with his commands to people. He also appointed these messengers as teachers, demonstrators and executioners of laws. The rest of the nation has an obligation to obey and follow. If everyone stuck to their own position where Allah has placed them, no trouble shall arise.

Shia add to the above that after the prophet death, this structure of islamic society shall not be changed. Shia believe that prophet appointed a successor to him who is Imam Ali. Sunnis denied Imam Ali as successor by religious means because they thought that the prophet job was done, that the laws are clear and that the understanding of how the laws shall be carried had been well explained by the prophet. They also denied that islam has specific political structure. For them, politics and religion are separate when it comes to selection of the head of the state but not after it. 

Going back to Shia, Shia hold the belief that the political role of the prophet did not stop by his death but rather was inherited by Imam Ali. Shia say that this inheritance is inheritance of divine knowledge and divine authority. Zaidi Shia accepted as much as that in defining the imam, they said that imam is poetical necessity for ummah.

Imam is saint, the 12 Imams of Shia are like the 12 apostles of jesus. The Imam role is an extension of the prophet role. Prophet was a teacher, a demonstrator and a politician. So our Imams were also politicians (the three first Imams) and teachers and demonstrators of how the laws should be executed.

During the time of Imams up till today, there are many people who are distant from them. Those people sought Imam advice on how they get the legislations since Imams are the only approved legislators after the prophet (since they are the agents of Allah). Imams told the people to seek those who memorize and comprehend the hadiths (narrations where laws are declared).

Bear in mind that having access to hadiths, memorizing them or understanding them is not enough to issue a fatwa. The laws can change, are conditioned and sensitive to subjectivity of humans. A good example is the case of cutting the hand of the thief. Although it is agreed upon without any doubt that the thief punishment is to cut his hand but in Shia islam, when Imam was asked to be the judge, he sat 7-9 conditions that should be fulfilled before cutting the hand of the man ( if he was in need, if he was poor etc).

Thus, those who are allowed to be meditator between the people and their imams are those who are sensitive to these conditions and also firm in their judgment. This tradition of seeking a man who knows the hadith of imams was carried on from times of Imam till the disappearance of our 12th imam.

 

When no visible source of legislation was there, Shia continued to carry out some of the roles of imams which is to teach religion, explain the laws only, relaying on the continuous  tradition.

 

When Sayed Khomaini came, he looked for a way to solve troubles in his country without stepping on the Imam rights. He asked "Is there a way , is there a hadith that allows me to kick out the oppressors , to wage wars, to call for jihad, to lead a nation , to form a government ?"

 

Khomaini did not invent new hadiths, he just used the same hadiths that allow shia scholars to explain the religion and hadiths to people. The hadiths said that the good pious shia man may act as a judge.

So Khomaini took this hadith and over stretched the word judge to include the political judgement.  So he took the role of the imam as a teacher of religion and the role of imam as a politician regaining the islamic structure of society.

 

He was faced with storm of criticism till today from both scholarly circles and the general shia population. That's why you will find Khomaini fatwas are different than the other shia scholars fatwas. The rest said that there the only role that was approved by imam is to teach and explain the proper law. Enforcing laws is not an approved role. Khomaini said it is an approved role. Both used the same set of hadiths.

 

 

I hope i was of help and that i did not confused you more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no fatwa from any Muslim that says it is ok to rape a woman.

 

I believe Salafi Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni is a muslim, that issued a fatwa that permits rape on non-sunni woman. Seems like shia woman can be raped freely along with the rest. There is Muhammad al-Arifi that issued a fatwa for gang rape. There is also Sheikh Ishaq Huwaini, although i dont know if what he said was a fatwa of if he is just advocating enslavement and rape of non muslim woman.

 

When that is said, my purpose of this debate is to understand fatwa, it is not to discuss these crazy people, so please - let us not drag them in to this conversation.

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was faced with storm of criticism till today from both scholarly circles and the general shia population. That's why you will find Khomaini fatwas are different than the other shia scholars fatwas. The rest said that there the only role that was approved by imam is to teach and explain the proper law. Enforcing laws is not an approved role. Khomaini said it is an approved role. Both used the same set of hadiths.
 
 
I think i understand this, but have concerns about Khomeini's fatwas. It is like he overstretched something, like you said - and it worries me. I think Salman Rushdie should be locked up somewhere, I think he knew all along what he was doing, and I don't think there are any excuses for what he did, but it is a problem for me when a fatwa is issued like an order to execute.
 

A law of a country is written down in for example a penal code, and the lawyers are trained in this law. Other countries are aware of the law of that country and we all know the consequence of breaking that law.

 
Now if Khomeini issued a fatwa, that said that he considered what Rushdie did to be a crime against Islam, and then a a court wold follow up demanding that Rusdie be deliver to Iran, to investigate and prosecute him according to a well known law in Iran - that all parties and lawyers are familiar with both foreign and domestic - this entire situation would be different. I think an appropriate punishment would be 10 years in jail and a fine equivalent to all his earnings from the book, for what he did. He got 4 years of nightmare( i don't remember exactly anymore), his wife left him because of it, so he god punished, and i think many people think twice now.
 
But to issue a death sentence over a man living in the UK, where people are not even clear on what Islam is about - and have no idea that something like this could result in a death sentence, well that is just not acceptable for me. Nobody had a clue that this would happen, and therefor - it can not be acceptable. There are degrees of a crime, one is when you commit a crime out of negligence, another is when you plan it completely aware that you commit a crime and the consequences of your crime an so on. One has to think about how the rest of the world looks at Islam. I don't want people to be scared of Islam, but i can not help thinking that Khomeini scared many people away by what he did. This troubles me a great deal actually.
 
I do not think that anybody knew that Salman Rushdie committed a crime punishable by death, including himself. I think he expected riots and drama, but not a death sentence. When Khomeini issued this fatwa, he changed the world, but i wish he did not do it.
 
I do not want Islam to be soft and without a back bone like Christianity, but I am worried about how a few individuals stretch things a little to much in the fatwas they issue.
 
Can someone give me some feedback on this, i find it hard to finalize where i stand in this. It is hard to feel that one does not agree with someone so learned and educated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 
I think i understand this, but have concerns about Khomeini's fatwas. It is like he overstretched something, like you said - and it worries me. I think Salman Rushdie should be locked up somewhere, I think he knew all along what he was doing, and I don't think there are any excuses for what he did, but it is a problem for me when a fatwa is issued like an order to execute.
 

A law of a country is written down in for example a penal code, and the lawyers are trained in this law. Other countries are aware of the law of that country and we all know the consequence of breaking that law.

 
Now if Khomeini issued a fatwa, that said that he considered what Rushdie did to be a crime against Islam, and then a a court wold follow up demanding that Rusdie be deliver to Iran, to investigate and prosecute him according to a well known law in Iran - that all parties and lawyers are familiar with both foreign and domestic - this entire situation would be different. I think an appropriate punishment would be 10 years in jail and a fine equivalent to all his earnings from the book, for what he did. He got 4 years of nightmare( i don't remember exactly anymore), his wife left him because of it, so he god punished, and i think many people think twice now.
 
But to issue a death sentence over a man living in the UK, where people are not even clear on what Islam is about - and have no idea that something like this could result in a death sentence, well that is just not acceptable for me. Nobody had a clue that this would happen, and therefor - it can not be acceptable. There are degrees of a crime, one is when you commit a crime out of negligence, another is when you plan it completely aware that you commit a crime and the consequences of your crime an so on. One has to think about how the rest of the world looks at Islam. I don't want people to be scared of Islam, but i can not help thinking that Khomeini scared many people away by what he did. This troubles me a great deal actually.
 
I do not think that anybody knew that Salman Rushdie committed a crime punishable by death, including himself. I think he expected riots and drama, but not a death sentence. When Khomeini issued this fatwa, he changed the world, but i wish he did not do it.
 
I do not want Islam to be soft and without a back bone like Christianity, but I am worried about how a few individuals stretch things a little to much in the fatwas they issue.
 
Can someone give me some feedback on this, i find it hard to finalize where i stand in this. It is hard to feel that one does not agree with someone so learned and educated.

 

:)

In the case of Salman Rushdi, Khomaini did not over stretched anything. A judge can execute a person to death, can handle marriages and divorces , can cut the hand of the thief etc. Khomaini just thought that these hadiths carried more meanings than simply to state the laws.

As for killing the man who insult the prophet, this is another issue. Generaly, anyone who insult the prophet is kafir and sometimes should be killed. This is not a unique fatwa of Khomaini or unique fatwa for Shia.

The subjectivity of your case, that the people were not ready to this fatwas as they did not know much about Islam is why we do have maraje. In our Maraje case, they should weight the issue and bring the most accurate rulings. If they were to be called liars, hypocrites, pedophils, medievals, dictators , batris, etc then be it. For them to change the ruling according to the subjectivity of the culture would mean that we will not have consistent tradition that works upon our rulings and our conditions not upon the living culture ruling and conditions. Today you may find it difficult, tomorrow when things are clearer, you will understand the benefit of standing for what we believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:)

In the case of Salman Rushdi, Khomaini did not over stretched anything. A judge can execute a person to death, can handle marriages and divorces , can cut the hand of the thief etc. Khomaini just thought that these hadiths carried more meanings than simply to state the laws.

As for killing the man who insult the prophet, this is another issue. Generaly, anyone who insult the prophet is kafir and sometimes should be killed. This is not a unique fatwa of Khomaini or unique fatwa for Shia.

The subjectivity of your case, that the people were not ready to this fatwas as they did not know much about Islam is why we do have maraje. In our Maraje case, they should weight the issue and bring the most accurate rulings. If they were to be called liars, hypocrites, pedophils, medievals, dictators , batris, etc then be it. For them to change the ruling according to the subjectivity of the culture would mean that we will not have consistent tradition that works upon our rulings and our conditions not upon the living culture ruling and conditions. Today you may find it difficult, tomorrow when things are clearer, you will understand the benefit of standing for what we believe in.

 

 

My head feels like it is going to explode... :wacko:  this is hard work to understand, so many new words.... i must have looked up a hundred words the last couple of days.

But thank you for all your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Salafi Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni is a muslim, that issued a fatwa that permits rape on non-sunni woman. Seems like shia woman can be raped freely along with the rest. There is Muhammad al-Arifi that issued a fatwa for gang rape. There is also Sheikh Ishaq Huwaini, although i dont know if what he said was a fatwa of if he is just advocating enslavement and rape of non muslim woman.

 

The names you mentioned are all rats, that issue retarded fatwas. Al arfi is a dog that has zero brians and his most likely hidding in a whole somewhere like a rat, right know.

People halal and haram as they like these days.... This people should be behaded, rape should never be halaled...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The names you mentioned are all rats, that issue retarded fatwas. Al arfi is a dog that has zero brians and his most likely hidding in a whole somewhere like a rat, right know.

People halal and haram as they like these days.... This people should be behaded, rape should never be halaled...

 

I think much worse than rats, but like i said, this thread is not about these crazy people. Please do not flood this with colorful opinions about these people. I am trying to understand fatwas - and would be thankful if we can stay on this topic.

The difficulty i am having now is about fatwas from Khomeini. If you can help me understand for example the fatwa against Salman Rushdi, I would be most thankful. The specifics that are hard to understand is how and why the fatwa as a death sentence is handled like a global "wanted dead" order to all Muslims, ordering them to execute him. There are so many implications so many complicating factors, like laws in other countries and consequences like the worlds view on Islam and the prophet and so on. The long term effects of it, like how the world is raising up against Islam with more determination and willingness to destroy... there seem to be so many issues, in so many arenas.

 

So a question would be how to explain the reasoning behind it. There clearly must have been some very difficult evaluations of what consequences might come, and what the effects of this would be long term. I don't think the fatwa was issued without evaluating all these issues.  Has anybody written something about this somewhere ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think much worse than rats, but like i said, this thread is not about these crazy people. Please do not flood this with colorful opinions about these people. I am trying to understand fatwas - and would be thankful if we can stay on this topic.

The difficulty i am having now is about fatwas from Khomeini. If you can help me understand for example the fatwa against Salman Rushdi, I would be most thankful. The specifics that are hard to understand is how and why the fatwa as a death sentence is handled like a global "wanted dead" order to all Muslims, ordering them to execute him. There are so many implications so many complicating factors, like laws in other countries and consequences like the worlds view on Islam and the prophet and so on. The long term effects of it, like how the world is raising up against Islam with more determination and willingness to destroy... there seem to be so many issues, in so many arenas.

 

So a question would be how to explain the reasoning behind it. There clearly must have been some very difficult evaluations of what consequences might come, and what the effects of this would be long term. I don't think the fatwa was issued without evaluating all these issues.  Has anybody written something about this somewhere ?

Am unsure of the reasening behind it but salman pushed the limites and must of been considered as a threat. Salman highlighted all the negative aspects of islam and muslims. I think he may of exposed to much information to the west. I dont think anyone will have the main reasen as to why his was issued a death sentance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://islamqa.info/en/22809

 

Ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
I heard on a tape that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be executed even if he shows that he has repented. Should he be killed as a hadd punishment or because of kufr? If his repentance is sincere, will Allaah forgive him or will he go to Hell and his repentance will be of no avail?

 
Praise be to Allaah.  

 

The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues: 

1 – The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) 

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. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16 

This ruling is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah. 

In the Qur’aan it says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur’aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.’

If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?’

Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed”

[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]

This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir, whether he was serious or joking. 

With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman  used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas which we will quote below. 

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). 

Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655) 

It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her.  

Al-Nasaa’i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, ‘Shall I kill him?’ He rebuked me and said, ‘That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .’” (Saheeh al-Nasaa’i, 3795) 

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. 

The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be accepted or not? 

The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him. 

But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution. 

Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented. 

They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the ahaadeeth: 

In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas said: “On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn Abi Sarh… As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, and when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of ‘Abd-Allaah.” He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said: “Was there not among you any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?” They said, “We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?” He said, “It is not befitting for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334) 

This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes repentant. 

‘Abd-Allaah ibn Sa’d was one of those who used to write down the Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115. 

With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth: 

They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious, because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious, because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which still stand despite his repentance. 

If it is said, “Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?” The answer is: 

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out. 

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438 

Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool  which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar’i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr. 

And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.

 

^

sunni source but shia do not differ on this ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for this link, it explained many things - but far from all of it.

I think what i have problems with is how the world looks at Islam when something like a fatwa to execute is issued. It seems to hurt Islam and it hurts muslims so bad.

 

If two people communicate - and the other person hears an insult. Is it the first persons intentions that decide if it is an insult or is it what the recipient understand from it that decides if it is an insult.

 

This is very important distinction because a fatwa to execute is understood by millions of people as an irrational and crazy mans act. It upsets me that people can come to such conclusions but they do. Only if the intentions are the only applicable defining regulator, can you say that a fatwa to execute never brought negative perceptions of Islam and the prophet in to peoples minds. But that is hardly the case.

 

I am struggling because millions of people consider some of the ayatollahs/issuers of some fatwas,  to be the greatest source of negativity towards Islam. This is because how people view the message, not based on how the message is intended from the issuer of the fatwa. And if issuing a fatwa to execute makes the world see the prophet as crazy and irrational - why is it ever done ?

 

What is it to make an insult ? For me it does not matter what your intentions are, you have to consider the consequences, and you are responsible for them ? So by doing something that you know will make millions of people hate the prophet, hate Islam, have you not made a mistake ? Have you not deprived many people of the possibility to learn about Islam because their community is now drowning in hate towards Islam ?

 

I read the examples used to explain this, but it does not consider and is not applicable to our society because  the consequences of killing was different at the time in the place where it happened. None of the implications that we face today is part of the scriptures used to explain this. To execute someone did not create hate against Muslims and the prophet in the way it does today. It cleaned up the situation. Today it does not have any effect close to anything at the time.

 

How can we use these scriptures, when they do not address any of the important factors. Seriously - Salmans Rusdies life is not an important factor, he is a disrespectful person with no rights in this. The important factors is how people view the prophet and Islam. Does the action create hate or does it not ? In the scriptures quoted - killing or a woman - did not have any implications of the kinds we have today - so I can not see how it is even remotely relevant to the fatwa against Rusdie.

 

To sum this up - i do not find anything in these scriptures that explain - why Ayatollah Khomeini decided that issuing a fatwa against Salman Rusdie was a good idea. It all just seems like a very bad idea, not because it is wrong to execute Rushdie but because so many people ended up hating Muslims because of it, and because it creates an image in many peoples head of a crazy killer prophet. This makes me sad and upset actually.

 

 

Can someone please shine some more light in to this ?

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...