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

Are We Allowed To Kill?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

Brothers & Sisters,

With the recent event that happened in France, the world's now focus on Islam. In my Facebook, Whatsapp, Path, etc. i'm seeing increasing broadcast activity stating that we're allow to kill someone who slander/ humiliate Rasulullah (pbuhahp). Some quoting a hadith, some quoting ayah from Al-Qur'an. Although, my logical argument would be," if the ummah are allowed to kill whoever humiliate Rasulullah (pbuhahp), then, 1/2 to 3/4 of Mecca's citizen would be killed during Rasulullah (pbuhahp) era".

Anyway, could someone help me with "on what condition that we're allowed to kill?". So far, all i know:

  1. Self-Defense. or some might say defensive Jihad.
  2. Offensive Jihad. When the Imam (as) calls. 
  3. Zina. Although there are steps to be taken, and usually the authority who executes.
  4. Murder. Although there are steps to be taken, and usually the authority who executes.

Are there any more conditions that we're allowed to kill?

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As a Muslim, I ask us all, did Muhammad A.S kill those who insulted him and hurt him during the beginning of his prophethood? No. Did Muhammad A.S not forgive the meccans who waged wars upon the minor

(salam)   Brother, there are examples in the Seerah of Rasoolillah where those who slandered him were commanded to be executed. Sure, the Prophet often illustrated forgiveness, leniancy and mercy in

(bismillah)   (salam)   Sadly, this issue is ambiguous.  Logically, a case can be made either way.  On the one hand that forgiveness or forbearance is principal and that punishment is only in special

  • Advanced Member

if it allowed prophet must killed many people that harm him ! Only people that fight with islam must been killed , Like American and israeal soldier's ,

If one person blame prophet we not allowed to kill it but if someone flout prophet and this because of her/him satanism we allowed , like salman roshdi !

But I have a simple question , why when American soldier's killed a million blameless people in afghanistan and iraq  , anyone in eroupe and US didn't say "why ???"  why for dozen they deafen world ?

daesh is bairn  of france , america and israeal why they don't blame themselves ?

Edited by h1229m
Link to post
Share on other sites

how can you forgot the riwayat in which Muhammed(s) ordered a person to kill who insulted prophet and then went to masjid for praying, Muhammed s said this person must have been killed, he first sent abu bakar he returned saying he is praying, then umar and then usman went, latter on ALI was sent to do the job but unfortunately he had left the mosque, it shows if ALI would have found that person he would kill him even if he was praying.

 

ask your scholars to find this riwayat in your books.


there is no ISLAM without MUHAMMED(S) and if some one is insulting Muhammed(s) he is insulting ISLAM/QURAN and Allah.


And he becomes wajib ul Qatl


today they make cartoons, tomorrow they might make movie and muslims will allow this?

Edited by ShiaHashmi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

how can you forgot the riwayat in which Muhammed(s) ordered a person to kill who insulted prophet and then went to masjid for praying, Muhammed s said this person must have been killed, he first sent abu bakar he returned saying he is praying, then umar and then usman went, latter on ALI was sent to do the job but unfortunately he had left the mosque, it shows if ALI would have found that person he would kill him even if he was praying.

 

ask your scholars to find this riwayat in your books.

there is no ISLAM without MUHAMMED(S) and if some one is insulting Muhammed(s) he is insulting ISLAM/QURAN and Allah.

And he becomes wajib ul Qatl

today they make cartoons, tomorrow they might make movie and muslims will allow this?

 

Again, I am not a sunni like yourself, so I do not believe in such forged traditions that go against the Quran. If Muhammad A.S himself did not kill anyone that insulted him, neither will I. You can continue on with your barbaric ideology. You dont seem to understand, instead of making people hate and despise Islam, make them love and understand it, by proving to them how Allah is so loving and merciful, and what a great Prophet Muhammad A.S was. That way, no matter what childish insult or lie they make against the prophet A.S, it would be dismissed because what they will remember and understand is the love of mercy of Muhammad A.S. How do you think Muhammad A.S changed the meccans by violence and force or by his mannerism, to the point they never heard a lie from him and trusted him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

again a stupid post, I am very much shia but I am not a ______** one like you.

 

If Ali is abused all shia will jump upon to send lanat on khulafah but if Muhammed(s) is abused every one wants peace and let go the culprit?

 

if this is what a shia ideology is then I am more sunni who will fight for honor of prophet(s) then a hypocrite shia.

Edited by Ali Musaaa :)
No name calling. Please address each other politely and with adaab.
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it is well allowed if we clearly have proof that some one has openly insult and defame prophet of ISLAM Muhammed(s).

and I think all islamic scholars should stop being pet dog of west and accept this in public.

You just called all Ulema a pet dog of the west.

 

Are you assuming you are more learned than the Marja in Fiqh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

This is a judgement that must be handed down by an Islamic court in an Islamic society. It would be chaos if everyone was to go around enforcing their own personal opinion of justice, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

Self defense and defense of a helpless person might be an exception, since an immediate response would be needed. Force should be only as required, not to the point where the oppressed becomes the oppressor or the defender becomes a vigilante.

Link to post
Share on other sites

today I was reading an article in bbc Urdu by Akar Patel, "don't make fun of religion" in Urdu, it was mazhab ka mazaq kabhi na udain the author was surprised and I am as well. when he found out that Charlie Hebdo had fired a journalist just for writing against jews. knowing that Charlie Hebdo was so much interested in attacking Islam. That shows that even Charlie Hebdo is and was not sure about freedom of speech. it was ok to write against islam, but it was not ok right to against Jews. 
 

Edited by ShiaHashmi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Appreciating the time and energy you put into your forum and in depth information you provide. It's good to come across a forum every once in a while that isn't the same unwanted rehashed information. Excellent read! I've saved your site and I'm adding your RSS feeds to my Google account. Sebron

Edited by hameedeh
Unreadable font removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Sadly, this issue is ambiguous. 

Logically, a case can be made either way. 

On the one hand that forgiveness or forbearance is principal and that punishment is only in special conditions.

On the other that punishment is principal and that forgiveness or forbearance is only in special conditions. 

As always, the Koran and parts of the Traditions consistently indicates the former, while the hadith on the topic are strongly for the second.

However, I believe the hadith on the topic deal with people who commit sabb ul nabi in the Muslim world, and are silent on events done by non-Muslims in the non-Muslim realm. 

There is the hadith that discourages or disallows absolutely from implementing at least some hadd outside the Muslim world. 

These points notwithstanding, there is a lot of room for a very violent interpretation of tashayyu'.

Why blame the Sunnis and Wahhabis for interpreting Islam violently when their texts permit a violent interpretation? It is not like our texts are free from this. 

This is where the Shi'a become two camps: one camp rejects the violent interpretations, because it frees them from having to internalise something they cannot approve from the heart, while the second camp revels in it, because it makes them feel more devout and righteous. 

Both have emotional reasons for their reactions, but in the end, emotion does not determine which side is right. 

We need to apply 'aql to the literature to find how we can solve this impasse. 

 

I will discuss one difficult aspect of the hadith on the topic of sabb ul nabi

The hadith include some statements that permit anyone to take another's life if they see them insulting the prophet, and there is no mention of witnesses. 

Suppose this was made into law.

What would stop a murderer claiming in his defence that the victim was insulting the prophet?

And what could stop the judge from rejecting this defence, if the above was made into law?

And even if we added the requirement of witnesses, what would stop a murderous gang to kill and then testify to this fabrication?

The plausible outcomes of this are horrendous. Not by secular standards. By Islamic standards.

Islam has a principle whereby hadd is removed in cases of reasonable doubt.

Is there no reasonable doubt that the murderer's motive and the occasion of murder was something different? 

I think there is reasonable doubt.

But if we take these hadith on sabb ul nabi, they undermine that principle.

What to do with these hadith?

 

Hadith is per se respectable, but this does not preclude a number of things.

According to the Imams [a] in their other hadith, many reports were fabricated in their name, many reports were errors which contradicted the Koran, and some reports might have been illogical or inconsistent with the principles of religion. 

Because a hadith is not the word of the Imam [a]; it is a report of a report of a report etc. of the word of the Imam [a]. 

And there is a reason that we have developed and we need to enhance and deepen the Science of Hadith. 

Because not all hadith are to be taken, and those which are taken, not all must be taken literally and absolutely, but some figuratively and relative to the existence of certain conditions. 

The Imams [a] foresaw that we may need to do tawaqquf, i.e. suspend judgement, on certain hadith

They are infallible and have knowledge from God, and they knew that the compilations of hadith, i.e. these reports which claimed the authority of the infallible, would sometimes be unreliable or seem conflicting with the Koran and 'aql

So, they taught us to refrain from rejecting a hadith, in case it actually was issued by them, but taught us to suspend judgement instead, and defer to a time when the Imam [a] would clarify the matter. 

On some of these issues, I think we may need to defer to the Imam [a] who, when he arrives, will clarify the matter. 

Allowing people to implement the death penalty by themselves could lead to anarchy. 

It undermines the very justice that God demands for much simpler cases that come to court. 

Note, I am not denying the hadith; I am realising my right to suspend judgement - and I am giving one reason why that it is the right thing to do on some of the hadith relating to sabb ul nabi.

I think the other hadith on sabb ul nabi should be similarly analysed, especially with respect to the Koran, and its scope and limits should be ascertained carefully and with caution, e.g. the permissibility to implement hadd in a non-Muslim world, or the permissibility to implement hadd if it might hurt the interests of the Muslims living in the non-Muslim world, or even gather public support for oppressing or invading Muslim countries (such as how the Taliban's treatment of women was part of the propaganda to justify a war in Afghanistan).

 

But in any case, things are not clear. And the Shi'a are as capable of violence and takfir as some extreme elements of the Sunni world, whilst remaining within the boundaries of their books. The possible interpretations are there. It's just that the maraji` have been reluctant to popularise these interpretations, notable incidents aside.

Maybe this has served the Shi'a better as a community.

This might be rational evidence that these violent interpretations are false and that forbearance is the principal way of dealing with these issues, and that violence is the exception, not the rule. 

The Meccan verses were heavy on forgiveness and forbearance.

God does not legislate except with regard to conditions, and there is good reason to believe that the hadith of sabb ul nabi were intended for the conditions of the Umma at the time of the Imams [a], and that we are now living, both in the diaspora and the community as a whole, in conditions with greater resemblance to Mecca prior to Hijra.

Allah knows. 

But the fuqaha need to work this out properly, and the Muslims as a whole need to think this through so they are clear on how they should act and react to events. 

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 1/12/2015 at 5:58 AM, Ali Musaaa :) said:

(salam)

Brother, there are examples in the Seerah of Rasoolillah SA where those who slandered him were commanded to be executed. Sure, the Prophet SA often illustrated forgiveness, leniancy and mercy in many cases, but let's not ignore the fact that he was stern against wrong-doers for the sake of Allah SWT as well. This was a important quality of justice that the Messenger had. As Muslims we can't pick and choose which parts of the Seerah we like and push to the side or ignore what we may find as unpalatable (not saying this is what you are doing or anyone else for that matter, but rather am highlighting something we all do/can possibily fall into). 

According to Seyyid al-Khoei there is ijma (consensus) on this. The crime of abusing the Prophet SA is worthy of death. 

Brother let me ask you, rationally, how is it to kill someone for insulting you? Please explain this to me. Where did you derive such a definition from? The Quran? Clearly not, when someone like Firaun L.A (The Pharaoh), who was a mass murder and genocidal killer who called himself God, what was the first thing Allah SWT commanded Moses A.S to do? Go and kill him? Lets read,

[shakir 20:42] Go you and your brother with My communications and be not remiss in remembering Me;

[shakir 20:43] Go both to Firon, surely he has become inordinate;

[shakir 20:44] Then speak to him a gentle word haply he may mind or fear.

Not only that, but how many prophets of God were sent to be ridiculed, mocked, called sorcerers, and abused? Did they go around kill the people? Is this what the quran shows us? Absolutely not! I mean sure there are hadiths even in Shia literature, that even maybe authentic, but that does not excuse them from being false, because we have a system and that is, anything that goes against the quran is to thrown in the garbage. The quran is absolutely clear on this matter. It shows no such evidence to killing a man for disrespecting your religion. Muhammad A.S who came to perfect mankind morals, who came to show us what is true patience, would kill a man for mocking him, for example? Absolutely absurd! It goes against his very essence. He was sent as a mercy to mankind, remember that.

Sayed Khoei may Allah SWT bless his soul, is gone from this world, his fatwas are void. I think many people here abuse and misuse our scholars from the past, misquoting them. I think there was more to what he said then just someone being worthy to be killed. Maybe he made a mistake? After all these scholars were fallible. When you see terrorists doing more damage to Islam then some cartoon drawing you come to realize what is a reality and what is not. Lets not give more excuses to bigots and hatred instilled beings.

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

 

Brother, there are examples in the Seerah of Rasoolillah where those who slandered him were commanded to be executed. Sure, the Prophet often illustrated forgiveness, leniancy and mercy in many cases, but let's not ignore the fact that he was stern against wrong-doers for the sake of Allah as well. This was a important quality of justice that the Messenger had. As Muslims we can't pick and choose which parts of the Seerah we like and push to the side or ignore what we may find as unpalatable (not saying this is what you are doing or anyone else for that matter, but rather am highlighting something we all do/can possibily fall into). 

 

According to Seyyid al-Khoei there is ijma (consensus) on this. The crime of abusing the Prophet is worthy of death. 

Alhamdulliah, all trace of kafir belief(human rights, freedom of conscience, other man-made ideologies) has left your heart. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Jebreil,

 

Do you have a hypothetical solution for the dispute people seem to have on this topic?

 

Rather, does anyone have a solution?  Sitting around saying, oh this is true, oh no its not, yes it is read this, no no, read that, wait, lets just not judge it at all...

 

All of this appears to have been going on for hundreds of years, or perhaps even thousands.  Where is the solution? Surely we cant just sit around waiting for the return of Jesus or the Mahdi or whomever people believe or do not believe in.  For all any of us knows, this wait could go on for countless millennia to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

As far as we are aware, and in all probability, every major imami faqih in history has ruled for the death penalty, and so there is a consensus.

The Sunni fuqaha have come to agree on this too. 

However, as far as the imamiyya are concerned, this kind of consensus is not by itself sufficient to prove the legal ruling, because their fatwa is based on the hadith, so if a mujtahid finds that the overall evidence is not strong enough to merit the legal ruling, he can break the consensus.

However, the mujtahid requires a good reason to do so. It is insufficient and dishonest for him to rule on the basis of anything but the sources of Shari'a

 

I do not have a solution.

 

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Jebreil, isn't it true that we live under a treaty when we're citizens of another country? (oath of allegiance, etc). Sunni scholars always bring this fact up when reprimanding their fellow sunnis for taking things into their own hands. Im sure the same is true for Shia islam...

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Jahangiram

 

This is from Sayyed al-Sistani's Code of Practice for Muslims in the West:

 

 

242. Question: Is it necessary for the person who has got a visa to enter a non-Muslim country to abide by the laws of that country in all fields, like traffic laws, laws regarding work and employment, etc.?

 

Answer: If he has given an undertaking—even if indirectly [as is implied in the immigration documents]— to abide by the laws of that country, it is necessary for him to fulfill his commitment in issues that are not contrary to the sacred laws [of Islam].

243. As for example, it is necessary to obey traffic regulations regardless [of the fact whether you have given a commitment or not], if not obeying those rules could eventually lead to harming people’s lives and properties which are sacrosanct [in Islamic laws].

 

 

 

 
The book is interesting. 
 
 
(wasalam)
Edited by Jebreil
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother let me ask you, rationally, how is it just to kill someone for insulting you? Please explain this to me. Where did you derive such a definition from? The Quran? Clearly not, when someone like Firaun L.A (The Pharaoh), who was a mass murder and genocidal killer who called himself God, what was the first thing Allah commanded Moses A.S to do? Go and kill him? Lets read,

[shakir 20:42] Go you and your brother with My communications and be not remiss in remembering Me;

[shakir 20:43] Go both to Firon, surely he has become inordinate;

[shakir 20:44] Then speak to him a gentle word haply he may mind or fear.

Not only that, but how many prophets of God were sent to be ridiculed, mocked, called sorcerers, and abused? Did they go around kill the people? Is this what the quran shows us? Absolutely not! I mean sure there are hadiths even in Shia literature, that even maybe authentic, but that does not excuse them from being false, because we have a system and that is, anything that goes against the quran is to thrown in the garbage. The quran is absolutely clear on this matter. It shows no such evidence to killing a man for disrespecting your religion. Muhammad A.S who came to perfect mankind morals, who came to show us what is true patience, would kill a man for mocking him, for example? Absolutely absurd! It goes against his very essence. He was sent as a mercy to mankind, remember that.

Sayed Khoei may Allah bless his soul, is gone from this world, his fatwas are void. I think many people here abuse and misuse our scholars from the past, misquoting them. I think there was more to what he said then just someone being worthy to be killed. Maybe he made a mistake? After all these scholars were fallible. When you see terrorists doing more damage to Islam then some cartoon drawing you come to realize what is a reality and what is not. Lets not give more excuses to bigots and hatred instilled beings.

(wasalam)

بِسْم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم brother

False Qiyas is what your using here to derive your own subjective ruling on this matter and this is Haram in Islam. This is further stressed by the fact that we have a plethora of narrations where the Ma'sum عليه السلام clearly and explicitly states that any person who is Baligh, has a sound intellect and intentionally insults the prophet, his Ahlulbayt without resorting to repentance or seeking the truth when it is brought forth to them and they reject it out of their arrogance, then their state is to be killed. Moreover, our scholars hold an Ijma'(scholarly consensus) on this issue, hence the position of Sayed Al-Khui remains standing firmly and not necessarily void. As for our current Ulama, here for example, is what his eminence Sayed Ali Al-Sistani has to say on this issue.

This fatwa of his is taken directly from his website and it's a continuation of a previous question that was asked about the state who jokingly hesitate about Islam, prophet, Ahlulbayt and Allah but do not actually mean it. For that one his eminence states that they are extremely wrong but not to be killed since they don't really mean what they say. As for those who intentionally hesitate and attack the honour of the prophet, he answered as shown below:

Sistani(Various Fatwas):

ولو كانوا جادّين قاصدين في سبهم لله عزّ وجلّ، أو للنبي صلى الله عليه وآله، أو للائمّة عليهم السلام، أو للدين، أو للمذهب، وقاصدين ذلك باِصرار منهم عليه؟

ــ حكمهم القتل

Question: ...If they are serious and intentionally insulting Allah, or the prophet, or the Imams, or the religion or the Madhab, what is their state?

Answer: They are to be killed

Source: http://www.sistani.org/arabic/book/19/1049/ (bottom of the page)

And here are various narrations from Wasa'il Al-Shi'a where the Ma'sum عليه السلام explicitly confirms the above.

http://alkafeel.net/islamiclibrary/hadith/wasael-28/wasael-28/v11.html

Moreover, Islam does not restrictively mean peace and this can become misleading to say otherwise as that is only partially correct. But rather, linguistically it means submission and the very essence of Islam is to submit to Allah(swt). For example:

"Our Lord! and make us both (MUSLIMEEN)submissive to Thee and (raise) from our offspring a nation submitting to Thee, and show us our ways of devotion and turn to us (mercifully), surely Thou art the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful."[Al-Baqarah-128-SHAKIR]

Meaning, when it becomes explicitly clear what orders we are given by Him to follow via the prophet and A'immah, then we obey just as the Angels obeyed Him when he ordered them to prostrate to Adam. Therefore, when there is clear evidence where the prophet and Imams عليهم السلام explicitly tell us that those who insult them and Allah are to be killed, then we accept their judgment unconditionally. Hence, no point in trying to "rationalize" of what should be deemed logical or illogical using our fallible and deficient intellects when the wisdom for these judgments is with Allah سبحانه وتعلى.

As for the prophetص , after the conquest of Mecca, who ever became Muslim from the Mushrikeen of Mecca that used to insult him before his migration to Medina, then he forgave them and forbade their blood based on their apparent display of Islam(for example the Tulaqaa like Abu Sufyan and Mua'wiyia). For those who used to insult him like the poets and refused to become Muslim due to their arrogance even when given the chance to be brought to the truth, they were all beheaded.

وعليكم السلام

(bismillah)

(salam)

Jahangiram

This is from Sayyed al-Sistani's A Code of Practice for Muslims in the West:

242. Question: Is it necessary for the person who has got a visa to enter a non-Muslim country to abide by the laws of that country in all fields, like traffic laws, laws regarding work and employment, etc.?

Answer: If he has given an undertaking—even if indirectly [as is implied in the immigration documents]— to abide by the laws of that country, it is necessary for him to fulfill his commitment in issues that are not contrary to the sacred laws [of Islam].

243. As for example, it is necessary to obey traffic regulations regardless [of the fact whether you have given a commitment or not], if not obeying those rules could eventually lead to harming people’s lives and properties which are sacrosanct [in Islamic laws].

Here is the link: http://www.al-islam.org/a-code-of-practice-for-muslims-in-the-west-ayatullah-sistani/dealing-laws-non-muslim-countries#introduction

The book is interesting.

(wasalam)

السلام عليكم

This is rather ambiguous. Laws that don't neccessarly and directly attack Islam, especially those that are essential to keep order in a society are to be followed. However, does that include laws that propagate hate speech against Muslims, attack their honour and beliefs and are not as essential in a western society say as traffic laws, court laws ect?

Edited by Al-Najashi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

بِسْم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم brother

False Qiyas is what your using here to derive your own subjective ruling on this matter and this is Haram in Islam. This is further stressed by the fact that we have a plethora of narrations where the Ma'sum عليه السلام clearly and explicitly states that any person who is Baligh, has a sound intellect and intentionally insults the prophet, his Ahlulbayt without resorting to repentance or seeking the truth when it is brought forth to them and they reject it out of their arrogance, then their state is to be killed. Moreover, our scholars hold an Ijma'(scholarly consensus) on this issue, hence the position of Sayed Al-Khui remains standing firmly and not necessarily void. As for our current Ulama, here for example, is what his eminence Sayed Ali Al-Sistani has to say on this issue.

 

False Qiyas? Subjective? What is qiyas and subjective about not unjustly killing someone over an insult? Explain to me how is that just? How is it not CONTRADICTORY to the quran? What is subjective about not killing someone for seriously joking about Islam, from the holy quran? The holy quran from cover to cover does not, in a single instance, promote or even come close to promoting such a law. Just because there is an "ijma" does not necessitate obedience, another mujtahid can disagree.

 

 

This fatwa of his is taken directly from his website and it's a continuation of a previous question that was asked about the state who jokingly hesitate about Islam, prophet, Ahlulbayt and Allah but do not actually mean it. For that one his eminence states that they are extremely wrong but not to be killed since they don't really mean what they say. As for those who intentionally hesitate and attack the honour of the prophet, he answered as shown below:

 

Again, where does it say who is suppose to carry out the killing? Or how is it proved? Or when is it permissible to do so? During the time of the Imams? In anyone's land? Anyone can make a lie against another and claim that one insulted the honor of the prophet. Do you go around killing people and it becomes "justified"? This notion is irrational. In fact you are mistakenly comprehending fatwas.

 

 

Moreover, Islam does not restrictively mean peace and this can become misleading to say otherwise as that is only partially correct. But rather, linguistically it means submission and the very essence of Islam is to submit to Allah(swt). For example:

 

But AGAIN... Islam means peace though.

 

 

Meaning, when it becomes explicitly clear what orders we are given by Him to follow via the prophet and A'immah, then we obey just as the Angels obeyed Him when he ordered them to prostrate to Adam.

 

The only time it "becomes" explicitly clear is when the Imam A.S speaks to you directly, otherwise all this hadith talk and blind obedience is simply subjective to personal interpretation and how one sees history and authenticates it. I dont reject Hadiths, I reject your myopic understanding of hadiths.

 

 

As for the prophetص , after the conquest of Mecca, who ever became Muslim from the Mushrikeen of Mecca that used to insult him before his migration to Medina, then he forgave them and forbade their blood based on their apparent display of Islam(for example the Tulaqaa like Abu Sufyan and Mua'wiyia). For those who used to insult him like the poets and refused to become Muslim due to their arrogance even when given the chance to be brought to the truth, they were all beheaded.

 

So he forgave the likes of Maqiya and Abu Sufyan L.A who killed his own family, yet supposedly killed poets and such who rightfully rejected Islam? Even though the Quran does not force you to become Muslim? Sounds like false history to me.

 

 

Therefore, when there is clear evidence where the prophet and Imams عليهم السلام explicitly tell us that those who insult them and Allah are to be killed, then we accept their judgment unconditionally. Hence, no point in trying to "rationalize" of what should be deemed logical or illogical using our fallible and deficient intellects when the wisdom for these judgments is with Allah سبحانه وتعلى.

 

This is what I call blind following. The exact reason why crazies do what they do in the name of Islam. The exact reason why Shias get killed by the dozens daily. The same incompetent and ignorant minds who "submit" to God all in the name of God, because God says so. You remind me of the christians who claim questioning Jesus A.S means disbelief. Please tell me what is irrational about what I am saying.

 

 

And to all people who agree with Mr. Najashi, let me be quite blunt. In the west there is no way what so ever we have not heard directly an insult to Islam and Muhammad A.S, so what have you done? Hmm? Tell me. Did you obey the fatwa? Or did you not submit to God and call the Imam A.S or Prophet A.S a liar since you did not accept the hadith by not following it? Pure Rubbish, Double Standards. It shows you, your own fitra rejects it. Instead of trying to change the subject answer my question. What is just about killing someone over an insult? For someone who is called the Mercy of Mankind, would he do such a thing so contradictory? Islam teaches us to respect the land we are in and their laws. This way the name of God nor Islam stays safe from tarnish.

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ok, so here is my question now.

 

if we all were to completely ignore scripture and/or scholars fatwas or laws that scholars create, and to strictly think with our hearts.  If someone were to draw a picture of the Prophet, for example the one just published with the Prophet holding the I am Charlie sign...

 

Do people believe that these people should be killed/beheaded? Strictly thinking with our hearts.

 

Id go even further to ask, would anyone personally want to kill them? strictly speaking from your hearts. Not just whether or not they should die, but if you yourself could personally do it or would want to.

 

 

 

I would certainly hope that everyone here would say...well no, thats kind of sick, why would we murder someone over this? Its not that bad is it? A cartoon?

Edited by iCambrian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

PureEthics is arguing for the sake of arguing. He can't accept that we have explicit proof which proves the execution of a blasphemer - his arguements are coming from man-centred viewpoints...

False Qiyas? Subjective? What is qiyas and subjective about not unjustly killing someone over an insult? Explain to me how is that just? How is it not CONTRADICTORY to the quran? What is subjective about not killing someone for seriously joking about Islam, from the holy quran? The holy quran from cover to cover does not, in a single instance, promote or even come close to promoting such a law. Just because there is an "ijma" does not necessitate obedience, another mujtahid can disagree.

 

 

Again, where does it say who is suppose to carry out the killing? Or how is it proved? Or when is it permissible to do so? During the time of the Imams? In anyone's land? Anyone can make a lie against another and claim that one insulted the honor of the prophet. Do you go around killing people and it becomes "justified"? This notion is irrational. In fact you are mistakenly comprehending fatwas.

 

 

But AGAIN... Islam means peace though.

 

 

The only time it "becomes" explicitly clear is when the Imam A.S speaks to you directly, otherwise all this hadith talk and blind obedience is simply subjective to personal interpretation and how one sees history and authenticates it. I dont reject Hadiths, I reject your myopic understanding of hadiths.

 

 

So he forgave the likes of Maqiya and Abu Sufyan L.A who killed his own family, yet supposedly killed poets and such who rightfully rejected Islam? Even though the Quran does not force you to become Muslim? Sounds like false history to me.

 

 

This is what I call blind following. The exact reason why crazies do what they do in the name of Islam. The exact reason why Shias get killed by the dozens daily. The same incompetent and ignorant minds who "submit" to God all in the name of God, because God says so. You remind me of the christians who claim questioning Jesus A.S means disbelief. Please tell me what is irrational about what I am saying.

 

 

And to all people who agree with Mr. Najashi, let me be quite blunt. In the west there is no way what so ever we have not heard directly an insult to Islam and Muhammad A.S, so what have you done? Hmm? Tell me. Did you obey the fatwa? Or did you not submit to God and call the Imam A.S or Prophet A.S a liar since you did not accept the hadith by not following it? Pure Rubbish, Double Standards. It shows you, your own fitra rejects it. Instead of trying to change the subject answer my question. What is just about killing someone over an insult? For someone who is called the Mercy of Mankind, would he do such a thing so contradictory? Islam teaches us to respect the land we are in and their laws. This way the name of God nor Islam stays safe from tarnish.

Just to respond to the ramblings regarding Muaa`wiyah and Abu Sufyaan - they were not executed because they were showing Islaam publically (although they were actually munafiq) - this is why nothing was done to them, because they never did anything that was seen in public which was worthy of execution, in the Prophet's time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

PureEthics is arguing for the sake of arguing. He can't accept that we have explicit proof which proves the execution of a blasphemer - his arguements are coming from man-centred viewpoints...

Just to respond to the ramblings regarding Muaa`wiyah and Abu Sufyaan - they were not executed because they were showing Islaam publically (although they were actually munafiq) - this is why nothing was done to them, because they never did anything that was seen in public which was worthy of execution, in the Prophet's time.

 

First of all your arguments are from man too, except blindly. Second, instead of making excuses answer my questions. Btw, Abu Sufyan did nothing? Really now? You know who he was right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

First of all your arguments are from man too, except blindly. Second, instead of making excuses answer my questions. Btw, Abu Sufyan did nothing? Really now? You know who he was right?

What is there to answer? Your mind cannot comprehend the facts that there are laws in Islaam, proven through text. Your arguementsbare emotional, you cannot imagine that such laws exist because they seem unjust in your eyes.

As for Abu Sufyan, he accepted Islaam atleast publically. In his heart he was a munafiq...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

What is there to answer? Your mind cannot comprehend the facts that there are laws in Islaam, proven through text. Your arguementsbare emotional, you cannot imagine that such laws exist because they seem unjust in your eyes.

As for Abu Sufyan, he accepted Islaam atleast publically. In his heart he was a munafiq...

 

So please explain to me so I understand it then. How is it just killing a person because of an insult? Tell me. Im still waiting.

 

Oh and you are failing to realize Abu Sufyan was a KILLER yet he was forgiven but poets who insulted the prophet got killed, "supposedly" by Mr. Najashi's understanding of history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So please explain to me so I understand it then. How is it just killing a person because of an insult? Tell me. Im still waiting.

 

Oh and you are failing to realize Abu Sufyan was a KILLER yet he was forgiven but poets who insulted the prophet got killed, "supposedly" by Mr. Najashi's understanding of history.

It is Just because we have hadeeths which proves it, and also scholars agreeing with this, in fact a consensus regarding this.

Abu Sufyan became a Muslim just so he doesn't get killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This is a judgement that must be handed down by an Islamic court in an Islamic society. It would be chaos if everyone was to go around enforcing their own personal opinion of justice, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

Self defense and defense of a helpless person might be an exception, since an immediate response would be needed. Force should be only as required, not to the point where the oppressed becomes the oppressor or the defender becomes a vigilante.

For those that say death sentences given for published material against the prophet/quran/islam is punishable by death, only in Muslim countries under an Islamic court.

Why then did imam Khomeini give a death sentence to Salman Rushdie and all those affiliated with the publication of 'the satanic verses'

I don't think he was Muslim (or the people affiliated with the publication) nor was he living in a Muslim country.

Edited by kbsquare
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

It is Just because we have hadeeths which proves it, and also scholars agreeing with this, in fact a consensus regarding this.

Abu Sufyan became a Muslim just so he doesn't get killed.

 

Its just because we have hadiths? Okay, that makes purrrrrfect sense. Just as we blindly believe God is just and merciful right? NO. God proves He is just and merciful through the quran, and that is how we know he is just and merciful. Therefore, your sense of reasoning is absurd and the same level as the christians and sunnis. Also, another important point is that God does not force man to Islam, there is no such law. Therefore, my point stands! A killer who becomes muslim is forgiven but a person who insults you gets killed, oh what a mercy to mankind. What rubbish false history.

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Its just because we have hadiths? Okay, that makes purrrrrfect sense. Just as we blindly believe God is just and merciful right? NO. God proves He is just and merciful through the quran, and that is how we know he is just and merciful. Therefore, your sense of reasoning is absurd and the same level as the christians and sunnis. Also, another important point is that God does not force man to Islam, there is no such law. Therefore, my point stands! A killer who becomes muslim is forgiven but a person who insults you gets killed, oh what a mercy to mankind. What rubbish false history.

Who said God doesn't forgive? We have a narration where God forgives the homosexual, that doesn't mean that the act of Sodomy isn't punishable by death as per Islamic law. You believe it isn't JUST, but that's you, according to Islam it is JUST, we wanna go against th aHaadeeth of Ahlulbayt and the consensus of the scholars, past and present? That's your problem.

A person who insults the Prophet - if he is Muslim - it is like committing apostasy. It's kufr.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...