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

The translations from those two famous Shi'a websites which quote the stories are mine and those stories reported are Mutawatur to the extent just as the stories on Ikrima Ibn Abi Jahl or Abu Lahab are. Hence, anyone who has some background on Islamic history can see how ridiculous doubting them is.

There is no point, I give up. No matter what is brought, from clear and explicit Fatwas of 'Ulama, numerous Ahadith from the A'mmiah ع, and examples from history, yet all thrown away out of ignorance.

والله المستعان

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • 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

  • Advanced Member

Brother Al-Najashi can you comment on this event:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You don't have to accept Islaam after war, but becoming Muslim literally washes away your past sins. Even if the Prophet Muhammad ص knew they were hypocrites, they were atleast Muslims publically. If the Prophet were to execute every hypocrite, well, well.... many so-called "Sahaba" may have not become "caliphs".

Edited by Revolving Ace
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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)

 

 

  • Islam as other divine religion, permitted execution in special cases like:

    • If one kill another the next of kin to a murdered person can forgive the murderer or ask for his death as the holy Quran stated ''O you who have faith! Retribution is prescribed for you regarding the slain: freeman for freeman, slave for slave, and female for female. But if one is granted any extenuation by his brother, let the follow up [for the blood-money] be honorable, and let the payment to him be with kindness. That is a remission from your Lord and a mercy; and should anyone transgress after that, there shall be a painful punishment for him''.2- 178

     

    • A person who cause corruption on earth '' Indeed the requital of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and try to cause corruption on the earth, is that they shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides or be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter there is a great punishment for them''. 5-33

     

    • Apostasy is another case for execution in Islam, many narration and saying of  the infallibles  allowed  and permitted killing of apostate , which discussed in detail in Islamic jurisprudence.

     

     

    • A person , who stand against Islamic government   in order to collapse it, is also liable to be killed  as the holy Quran said ''If the hypocrites do not relinquish and[ also ]those in whose hearts is a sickness, and the rumormongers in the city[ do not give up ], We will surely urge you[ to take action ]against them, then they will not be your neighbors in it except for a little[ while ] '' Accursed, they will be seized wherever they are confronted and slain violently.''33-60.61

     

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If one regards and respects the main sources of the sharia: the holy quran and the ahl al bayt a.s., then...

  • there is no doubt on the basis of the quran and the teachings of the prophet and the ahl al bayt a.s. that the punishment for apostacy is death
  • there is no doubt that on the basis of the teachings of the prophet and the ahl al bayt a.s. that the punishment for blasphemy is death

thinking this is unjust will mean that Allah s.w.t. and the masoumeen a.s. are unjust.

however, the death penalty and its application today is another moot point, in terms of its practicalities, and the imam a.s. in one authentic hadeeth said that you should kill a blasphemer if you dont fear harm on yourself. so you dont need to go out of your way, get yourself shot or imprisoned to kill anybody, in fact you shouldn't, and there are a variety of other points mentioned by the mujtahids.

 

but to say that it is unjust is an insult to islam, and dare i say, blasphemous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Thank you Jebreil. Evertime we have a discussion and I do not agree with "them" their argument is always condemning me of not "obeying" the Imams because the Hadith says so and I must obey. Or they claim that the rational is insufficient and fail to answer the questions at hand. I find this saddening...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Quote

(bismillah)

(salam)

ace

Which ones, akhi karim?

pure

You both care for Islam and the Prophet.

If they didn't think denying this ruling goes against Islam, they wouldn't be opposing. 

If you didn't think affirming this ruling tarnishes the Prophet, you wouldn't be saying what you do.

I also think that they are right to worry about arguing from opinion and I think you are right to worry about advocating what genuinely horrifies you.

There's no doubt that argument from opinion is invalid and also there is no doubt that nobody has a control over their sensibilities. It's not that you choose to be horrified, but that you are, and have difficulty coming to terms with it.

From what I see, the ruling is not an easy one to deduce

And certainly there is room for ijtihad.

But it needs logical arguments from the sources of Shari'a.

There is no other way for a Muslim.

(wasalam)

Brother do you also not realize that while I cannot rationally grasp killing a man for insult as justice, I have brought forth evidence through hadith and quranic means to show what they say is contradictory. The hadiths I have brought forth are Mawatir in meaning. If it is a divine law to kill someone for insulting the religion, the prophet, or the Imam, why is it, time and time again, they showed mercy and goodness? Did you take a look at Najashi's fatwa he got from Sistani? What are your thoughts, and I ask you too, as they have failed to answer my question I asked both ace and najashi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is fanciful to say that the great scholars from the time of sheikh kulayni until now, nobody gave weight to a muslim's life as you claim and that more proof is needed.

The fact that a muslim’s life is of great concern, and should not be wasted due to conjectural evidence, proves actually that the scholars of the past would not have given such a fatwa on conjectural flimsy evidence, and that they were sure of it. That’s why we see them expressing that there is consensus on this issue, and consensus bequeathed to them certainty.

And the consensus which is regarded as hujjah is that consensus that shows that this ruling is coming from the imams a.s., so many have restricted this consensus to those of the early ages. so modern fuqaha and scholars, according to them all themselves, have no role in that consensus. yes they have the right to argue against its existence, but they cannot be a part of it, and their divergence from it itself does not disprove it.

As for the proof from ahadeeth, there is much more than what you have mentioned, and it could reach the level of tawatur ma’nawi. Here is a list of a few of them, with the content paraphrased:

  • hadeeth of hisham ibn salim, imam sadiq a.s. said the closest one to the blasphemer should kill him (in alkafi and altahdheeb)
  • hadeeth of al-washa, imam sadiq a.s. gets called to a case of a blasphemer and he speaks against the views of the people in punishing him different ways and implies that he must be killed (in alkafi and altahdheeb)
  • hadeeth of ali ibn imam sadiq a.s. from his brother imam kazim a.s.: same story as above, except that the imam explicitly says that the punishment is death. (in alkafi and altahdeehb)
  • hadeeth of muhammad ibn muslim from imam baqir a.s.: about the man from the tribe of hudhayl, as you mentioned, but you skipped the end: ibn muslim asked the imam a.s.: if a man were to blaspheme against the prophet now should he be killed? and the imam a.s. replied: if you don’t fear for yourself (i.e. theres no serious harm expected on you) then kill him. (in alkafi and altahdheeb)
  • another hadeeth of hisham ibn salim from imam sadiq a.s. he said that the blasphemer against imam ali a.s. is halal al-dum - permissible to be killed – (alkafi and altahdeeb)
  • hadeeth of abdullah ibn sulayman al-amiri narrates from imam sadiq a.s. the same thing (alkafi and al-tahdheeb)
  • and other narrations expressing that the nawasib are halal al-dum
  • and other narrations in general

these narrations are very clear, some are reliable, some are authenticated, together with the shuhra azeema or the purported ijma, there can be no doubt, and the case for this ruling to be on certainty, not conjecture as you say, is very clear.

As for the interpretation of these ahadeeth to particular context which doesn’t exist now, this is not correct, because the ahadeeth indicate a variety of contexts, generations after the prophet s.a.w.s.

As for Islam being a religion of grace and kindness and forgiveness, it is also a religion of justice and punishment, and one need only refer to the books of hudood in the hadeeth books and the jurisprudential books of our mujtahideen to see this.

I agree that when things are vague and ambiguous in the sources, it can open up certain possibilities. But the ahadeeth are too clear for such open interpretations, and for extremely limiting this ruling.

I also agree that to some extent that the blasphemy has to occur with the intention of insulting islam as a psychological warfare, whether it is a small scale or large scale, but this just means that ignorant or insane people saying ignorant things without intention of any attack on islam may be excused.

But what is happening in the world today, with the Danish cartoons and all of that, is clearly an intention to incite people against Islam, to ridicule it and insult it. This is psychological warfare against islam on a great level. The Christians didn’t take blasphemy seriously, now we see insult of prophet isa a.s. to be the norm. we cant allow this for islam and the holy prophet. We cant allow this for prophet isa a.s. as well.

But the way to do it is not what happened in paris. The Imam a.s. clearly said that one is to only kill a blasphemer if one is safe from any consequences. Living in non-Muslim countries run by those who hate islam, the proper channels are there to combat this obsession against islam and to kill people like this is not doing islam any favour, nor the muslims.

However, the claim that this ruling itself is an unjust one and alien to islam, is completely ridiculous and is an insult to Allah s.w.t. because there is no doubt that he legislated it, even if we suppose it was in very limited contexts.

 

 

brother, you cannot grasp this being just, but the mujtahids who have ploughed through the quran and the hadeeths and all manners of sources will have a better idea, and they deem it to be just. they understand the spirit of islam and what Allah s.w.t. wants from us better than you and i. many muslims around the world also see this to be just. so this rationality of yours is not one that is a rudimentary basic rationality, so it is no evidence of anything

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

Paraphrasing a select few hadiths doesnt prove anything. How can one be certain your paraphrase is correct? How can one be certain your "translations" are correct? How can one be certain there are not contradictory hadith? How can one be certain the matawatir of these hadiths are not dramatically changed? Is the validity of khaber wahid arguable? Scholars are fallible are they not? Maybe they made a consensual mistake? How does one interpret a hadith? What is ignorance and in what sense of the word does the punishment become valid? Are we in the philosophy that all man is somewhat ignorant? Especially the non-muslim world? If that is the case, then how does one argue for such a punishment? What is the difference between insult and blasphemy? Is insult also blasphemy or are they different? On what basis and evidence?  Even in your examples of hadith lies a contradiction, hadith of wahsha vs hadith of muslim. Imam Sadiq A.S claims the person MUST be killed (supposedly) where as Imam Baqir says only if you do not fear your life. Some hadiths supposedly claim if the blasphemer is ignorant then he is not at fault.  That is a contradiction, let alone interpreting Imam Baqir's hadith as in the time of the Imams A.S or in an Islamic State, or in a universal scenario. Maybe those who act against Islam with a "psychological warfare" are in reality truly ignorant? Can one not argue that? It is their ignorance that they do what they do? Therefore is such a ruling valid on the supposed evidence of ignorance? It is clearly "not clear" and absolutely not as simple as quoting a few hadiths and sooo many people on this site have this absurd problem of just quoting hadith and claiming wajibat. It is not even close to being a clear issue. Then we have to go about if you claim such a reason why does the fatwa of for example sayed sistani (if it says what najashi quoted) differs or leaves out information. Actually, you are absolutely wrong to say todays scholars have no say in previous fatwas, be it in consensus or not. That is not how the system of Fiq works, and there can and will always be a difference of opinion based on the system of authenticating history and hadith. What was then a consensus can now not be due to a plethora of reasons. Also you claim the Islam is a religion of justice just as it is a religion of peace? On what basis is peace and justice defined? What is your proof on what is justice according to Islam and what is mercy? I think I have proved my point. Note that my argument is not on dismissing certainty, that isnt to point. It is on the actuality of valid arguments.

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا ۚ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ {32}

[shakir 5:32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

One of the brothers above mentioned some aHaadeeth regarding this issue, and although there was some differences in the aHaadeeth - they all agreed that the blasphemer is to be executed. I do thank the brother for being neutral in his stance regarding this issue, but I find it hard to believe that a numerous amount of aHaadeeth concerning the same issue would all be wrong - that is, in my opinion, intellectual dishonesty, and this is what br. PureEthics is arguing for. He's using his own rationality as an arguement - because he finds this law irrational and unjust in his eyes. I don't think it is upto us fallible human beings to determine what is just and what is not.

Although 'aql is a very useful tool to have regarding Islamic Law - we have to remember that the Holy Qur`aan and aHaadeeth are the main tools we use to find out rulings - and I don't mean ahaad narrations (although they are useful) but when we have a great amount of aHaadeeth regarding one particular issue (sometimes tawaatur or istifaadha) it is bery hard to argue against.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 1/13/2015 at 11:11 PM, Revolving Ace said:

One of the brothers above mentioned some aHaadeeth regarding this issue, and although there was some differences in the aHaadeeth - they all agreed that the blasphemer is to be executed. I do thank the brother for being neutral in his stance regarding this issue, but I find it hard to believe that a numerous amount of aHaadeeth concerning the same issue would all be wrong - that is, in my opinion, intellectual dishonesty, and this is what br. PureEthics is arguing for. He's using his own rationality as an arguement - because he finds this law irrational and unjust in his eyes. I don't think it is upto us fallible human beings to determine what is just and what is not.

That is not what I am arguing for. That is just a side argument pertaining to the totality of my argument(s). I am not dismissing them, I am questioning their validity and calling them contradictory to each other and that of the holy quran. You or Najashi have yet to answer my questions. Oh and what I find as the definition of just did not come from anywhere but the holy quran and the ethical and moral teachings and examples of our prophets and the quran. That is the gist of my argument. You claim killing someone because of an insult is just, and I am saying bring your proof on how you came to determine that. Not to mention the vivid flaws that come from "because the hadiths says so". All hadiths have different spins on the notion. If insulting the prophet calls for ones execution, then the premise arises what is there to stop someone from falsely accusing someone of that and then killing them? I will keep asking the same questions until you answer them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

That is not what I am arguing for. That is just a side argument pertaining to the totality of my argument(s). I am not dismissing them, I am questioning their validity and calling them contradictory to each other and that of the holy quran. You or Najashi have yet to answer my questions.

Seriously? Your Qur`anic arguement was baatil in my eyes. You used the story of Musa (a.s) and Harun (a.s) as an arguement, where they were ordered to speak a gentle word to Fir`aun (l.a). I believe this was a bad arguement for the following reasons -

1) Although Fir`aun (l.a) was a blasphemer, we have to also remember that the hukm` at that time was under the hands of Fir`aun (l.a) - so the Sharia wasn't implemented.

2) Our current Laws differ from the Laws which were in place in Musa (a.s)'s time.

3) Qiyaas is haraam in our religion.

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

ace

 

Your concerns are valid and cannot be dismissed out of hand, and there is debate between Muslim scholars in general and imami scholars in particular on the exact role of 'aql in the various departments of religion. 

Inshallah, whenever there is an occasion specifically for this topic, I will contribute; perhaps by discussing the views of the mutakallimin of the early period. 

 

(wasalam)

Thank you br. Jebreil, it was an honour discussing with you, and hopefully there'll be more discussions btween us in the future :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Seriously? Your Qur`anic arguement was baatil in my eyes. You used the story of Musa (a.s) and Harun (a.s) as an arguement, where they were ordered to speak a gentle word to Fir`aun (l.a). I believe this was a bad arguement for the following reasons -

1) Although Fir`aun (l.a) was a blasphemer, we have to also remember that the hukm` at that time was under the hands of Fir`aun (l.a) - so the Sharia wasn't implemented.

2) Our current Laws differ from the Laws which were in place in Musa (a.s)'s time.

3) Qiyaas is haraam in our religion.

Thank you br. Jebreil, it was an honour discussing with you, and hopefully there'll be more discussions btween us in the future :-)

 

My quranic argument doesnt have to only do with one verse but the quranic position of Muhammad's A.S justice and mercy. His mannerism.

 

1. First of all the mannerism of all prophets are the same. Insulting the religion of God is not a built up notion. In fact one can argue the things done to our prophets prior to Muhammad A.S was just the same and maybe worse than what happened to Muhammad A.S. Hukum was under firawn? God's law is always prevalent as long as there is a divine source on earth. The prophet obviously had sharia given upon his people. Such a law against the blasphemer or "insulter" has different connotations and meanings you all keep bringing forth, so in that sense that law must have been applicable regardless of whose in charge of the government. Not only that but according to that verse Allah directly commanded His prophet to speak with a gentle tongue to a mass murder who deemed himself god. Can you fathom that?

 

2. huh? Insulting the religion of God does not differ from time to time. Every single prophet of Allah was insulted, hit, tortured, blasphemed, thrown garbage etc. Why did God supposedly chose the time of Muhammad A.S to apply such a law?

 

3. Thats what you always bring up when you cannot answer my questions. Thanks for proving my points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

My quranic argument doesnt have to only do with one verse but the quranic position of Muhammad's A.S justice and mercy. His mannerism.

1. First of all the mannerism of all prophets are the same. Insulting the religion of God is not a built up notion. In fact one can argue the things done to our prophets prior to Muhammad A.S was just the same and maybe worse than what happened to Muhammad A.S. Hukum was under firawn? God's law is always prevalent as long as there is a divine source on earth. The prophet obviously had sharia given upon his people. Such a law against the blasphemer or "insulter" has different connotations and meanings you all keep bringing forth, so in that sense that law must have been applicable regardless of whose in charge of the government. Not only that but according to that verse Allah directly commanded His prophet to speak with a gentle tongue to a mass murder who deemed himself god. Can you fathom that?

2. huh? Insulting the religion of God does not differ from time to time. Every single prophet of Allah was insulted, hit, tortured, blasphemed, thrown garbage etc. Why did God supposedly chose the time of Muhammad A.S to apply such a law?

3. Thats what you always bring up when you cannot answer my questions. Thanks for proving my points.

I can see you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

1. Are you serious? Musa (a.s) couldn't perform any hadd against Fir`aun (l.a) simply because he couldn't. I don't wanna argue in the same way you do, but this is exactly like Imam Ali (a.s) - the Sahaba for instance, some committed apostasy, made up innovations, took his right etc... but Ameer al-Mu`imeeneen (a.s) simply couldn't do anything to them although they were mufsideen fil ard` and were deserving of the Hadd. He simply didn't have enough supporters, likewise Musa (a.s) didn't have an army which could stand up to someone like Fir`aun (l.a) who had one of Earth's greatest civilisations under his hands.

2. That wasn't my point. My point was the Sharia of Musa (a.s) for example, wasn't exactly like that of Isa (a.s). The Sabbath laws for example don't apply to the Muslimeen nowadays.

3. That's because Qiyaas arguements in Fiqh` are absolute baatil in Shia Islam.

Edited by Revolving Ace
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brothers,

 

Look how Imam Hussain a.s has been reported to respond to those that insulted him:

 

 

I agree with Jebriel, in that how do we define insulting Muhammed pbuh? Salman Rushdie distorted Islam, wrote a book to misguide the masses, it was a disgusting filthy attack on him in novel form. 

 

But people are allowed to criticize Muhammed pbuh. Some people do not agree with early marriage of women ('early' is subjective to todays culture). They then by their terms, insult him and criticize. Surely they should be entitled to that?

 

They should be entitled to refuting Islam so long as they can reference - fairly- what they are refuting. In that don't we refute things in Bukhari? Or beliefs such as Muhammed pbuh frowning at a blind man?

Edited by Tawheed313
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brothers,

Look how Imam Hussain a.s has been reported to respond to those that insulted him:

I agree with Jebriel, in that how do we define insulting Muhammed pbuh? Salman Rushdie distorted Islam, wrote a book to misguide the masses, it was a disgusting filthy attack on him in novel form.

But people are allowed to criticize Muhammed pbuh. Some people do not agree with early marriage of women ('early' is subjective to todays culture). They then by their terms, insult him and criticize. Surely they should be entitled to that?

They should be entitled to refuting Islam so long as they can reference - fairly- what they are refuting. In that don't we refute things in Bukhari? Or beliefs such as Muhammed pbuh frowning at a blind man?

This isn't a great arguement, as which has been proven. I already said that we have a narration where mercy was shown upon a homosexual - are we going to deny the laws regarding the sodomites?

Just because mercy was shown to a few indviduals (some were jaahil due to state propaganda from Muawiya and his ilk) that does not mean we disregard proven laws.

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

 

Paraphrasing a select few hadiths doesnt prove anything. How can one be certain your paraphrase is correct? How can one be certain your "translations" are correct? How can one be certain there are not contradictory hadith? How can one be certain the matawatir of these hadiths are not dramatically changed? Is the validity of khaber wahid arguable? Scholars are fallible are they not? Maybe they made a consensual mistake? How does one interpret a hadith? What is ignorance and in what sense of the word does the punishment become valid? Are we in the philosophy that all man is somewhat ignorant? Especially the non-muslim world? If that is the case, then how does one argue for such a punishment? What is the difference between insult and blasphemy? Is insult also blasphemy or are they different? On what basis and evidence?  Even in your examples of hadith lies a contradiction, hadith of wahsha vs hadith of muslim. Imam Sadiq A.S claims the person MUST be killed (supposedly) where as Imam Baqir says only if you do not fear your life. Some hadiths supposedly claim if the blasphemer is ignorant then he is not at fault.  That is a contradiction, let alone interpreting Imam Baqir's hadith as in the time of the Imams A.S or in an Islamic State, or in a universal scenario. Maybe those who act against Islam with a "psychological warfare" are in reality truly ignorant? Can one not argue that? It is their ignorance that they do what they do? Therefore is such a ruling valid on the supposed evidence of ignorance? It is clearly "not clear" and absolutely not as simple as quoting a few hadiths and sooo many people on this site have this absurd problem of just quoting hadith and claiming wajibat. It is not even close to being a clear issue. Then we have to go about if you claim such a reason why does the fatwa of for example sayed sistani (if it says what najashi quoted) differs or leaves out information. Actually, you are absolutely wrong to say todays scholars have no say in previous fatwas, be it in consensus or not. That is not how the system of Fiq works, and there can and will always be a difference of opinion based on the system of authenticating history and hadith. What was then a consensus can now not be due to a plethora of reasons. Also you claim the Islam is a religion of justice just as it is a religion of peace? On what basis is peace and justice defined? What is your proof on what is justice according to Islam and what is mercy? I think I have proved my point. Note that my argument is not on dismissing certainty, that isnt to point. It is on the actuality of valid arguments.

 

I never set out to make a full case, i only wanted to indicate what is there in the books which is being dismissed in this whole discussion. the ahadeeth are there in their full form in the books if somebody knows how to find them. if you dont know about these narrations and how to find them, then that is where you should stop your involvement in a discussion concerning these texts. Your response indicates to me and to all that you dont know of these narrations exist, therefore you are not aware of the arguments of the side you're arguing against so strongly, which brings your involvement in this inappropriate. please understand.

 

As for the other questions, I dont know where to start, because i'll have to spend so much time in explaining very basic concepts. again, your lack of knowledge indicates that you have no right to make your claims.

 

turning to somebody who does have a right and whose honesty is appreciated....

 

 

Akhi karim brings up the issue of consensus; I mentioned already that the consensus, being based on evidence, is not binding. 

The consensus does not prove that it includes the verdict of the infallible [a], and only the latter is evidence

Also, from what I understand, the consensus is just about the ruling for sabb, and not about what constitutes sabb.

 

consensus is of two type as you know, but the question is whether the consensus on this hukm is the type that is hujjah.

it can be clearly argued very strongly, due to there being claims of consensus by some and absolutely no divergence as far as i know, that consensus here brings satisfaction that this is coming from the imams a.s, and is thus hujjah

as for what constitutes sabb, it is a common word, which is similar to shatm, and the books of lugha explain it.

 

 

There is also the question of whether or not these reports accord with the Koran and the rest of the Tradition. 

I understand that these reports are specific and have been highlighted by the traditionists under law, while the other hadith that illustrate a merciful character are placed under sira

But their sira illuminates proper practice. 

Of course, the two are reconcilable, as I previously mentioned. The forgiving of a murderer by the next of kin is reconcilable with the law of qisas

But the law of qisas is mutawatir nass of the Koran. The same cannot be said for sabb ul nabi

What is more, wherever the Koran touches the issue of insulting the Prophet, it is silent on the punishment and calls for forbearance. 

Unless one believes that all the forbearance preached by God during the Meccan is null and void, then one must ask whether or not the instruction to kill a mocker does not contradict the explicit Koranic teaching to leave them alone. 

Some of the Muslim fuqaha believe in the abrogation of such gentle verses.

There is a tendency to construe God as something that unfortunately resembles a Machiavellian prince, gaining ascendancy through cunning, fear and deceit, where the ends justify the means. 

More specifically, they believe when God called for saying 'salam' to the insolent people, it was just to win hearts, and was a ploy for Muslims from a position of weakness, and not an actual principle of morality, stemming from His unchanging character as the Just and the Compassionate. 

But abrogation in itself is debatable, and more so for particular verses, and much more so when the abrogating evidence is khabar wahid, and so there is certainly room for ijtihad.

 

You are speaking of the seerah in its entirety but you are only focusing on small fragments. the times of mecca were so different to time os madina. the early times of madina were so different to the times in madina after the conquest of makka. Just as there were times of kindness and forgiveness, there were times of punishment and wrath, as i have mentioned before.

 

a couple of verses indicating such wrath:

 

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; (5:33)

 

If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while; Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. (33:60-61)

 

This was a part of the seera of the holy prophet of islam s.a.w.s. which cannot be ignored. so lets put things into perspective

 

the story of musa a.s. is also quoted here, where he was told to speak to firaun softly. that was a certain context as explained above. but lets look at another side of musa a.s. where he said:

 

And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. (2:55)

 

Again, lets put things into perspective

 

 

 

Finally, the question becomes whether or not the reports are mutawatir in meaning. 

If I have counted correctly, there are about 6 or 7 connected chains, and the matn are utterly irrelevant to each other, except on the penalty for sabb ul nabi

Do you believe, akhi karim, that this constitutes tawatur of meaning that any insult whatsoever by anyone is punishable by death?

And based on much less, is there tawatur of meaning that one should carry this ruling out without a judge or witnesses?

 

there are more such narrations than 6 or 7, but supposing we have 6 or 7 narrations only, they all say that the punishment for sabb al nabi is death, so we must take that as a law, and not mock it to be unjust or illogical, at the very least. If then one wishes to discuss any limiting factors, such as necessity of there to be a masoom imam a.s. who allows this, or that this is in regards to muslim lands only, or if this is blasphemy is a type of pscyhological warfare against islam, or when there no harm is expected, or when this ruling will not be abused in its application, then so be it.

even one narration passed by reliable narrators is sufficient to form any ruling, provided certain other conditions are fulfilled too. Here we have at least several of various classifications consistently saying that the punishment of blasphemy is death, without any contradiction. this for many is sufficient.

 

but this, again, does not mean one should become vigilante killers, this does not serve islam at all, in fact it fuels the opposition to islam.

but lets not confuse two separate issues. the law of blasphemy was legislated, there is ample proof of this. How it applies and where and when is another matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Bravo! You all have done your job quite well, damaging the name of Islam and making people question there faith. I have received an private message of someone practically denouncing their faith. You have sure saved the name of Islam with your contributions.

 

 

i only wanted to indicate what is there in the books which is being dismissed in this whole discussion

 

They were not being dismissed, they are not enough to make a conclusion. The hadiths themselves are in contradiction. Heck, one can even make an argument on khaber wahid, therefore it isnt simply quoting a few hadiths and making a judgement.

 

 

the ahadeeth are there in their full form in the books if somebody knows how to find them

 

Ironically,  for you people its easy to find merciless hadiths, when but I quote over a dozen of hadiths contradicting such a notion and showing how the Imams A.S acted towards insults form both Muslims and Non-Muslims they are simply rejected and are called luck of the situation. It wasnt a one or two time thing like the select few hadiths you all keep bringing, but many many times our Prophets and Imams A.S proved to be forbearing and merciful in the most toughest scenarios, that it is their nature.

 

 

if you dont know about these narrations and how to find them, then that is where you should stop your involvement in a discussion concerning these texts

 

As usual when none of you have responded to the points and questions I have given you, you bring forth fallacious arguments. "We cannot use our brains", "Qiyas", "Your not knowledgeable", "emotions"...

 

 

Your response indicates to me and to all that you dont know of these narrations exist, therefore you are not aware of the arguments of the side you're arguing against so strongly, which brings your involvement in this inappropriate. please understand.

 

Please understand you have not an iota of authority upon this religion, therefore your and your like's contribution to this thread is useless :) See I can play your game.

 

 

As for the other questions, I dont know where to start, because i'll have to spend so much time in explaining very basic concepts. again, your lack of knowledge indicates that you have no right to make your claims.

 

Again with fallacies. Mhmm, they are "basic" concepts that you have to explain... Except if you read my previous posts I asked other questions and raised certain points.

 

 

consensus is of two type as you know, but the question is whether the consensus on this hukm is the type that is hujjah.

it can be clearly argued very strongly, due to there being claims of consensus by some and absolutely no divergence as far as i know, that consensus here brings satisfaction that this is coming from the imams a.s, and is thus hujjah

as for what constitutes sabb, it is a common word, which is similar to shatm, and the books of lugha explain it.

 

Ayatollah Mutahari's response:

 

First, in the Shi'ite view, only the consensus of the 'ulema of the same period as the Prophet or Imams is binding. So, if in these times of ours a consensus occurs about something between all the 'ulema with no exception, this is in no way binding for subsequent 'ulema. Second, in the Shi'ite view, consensus is not genuinely binding in its own right, rather it is binding in as much as it is a means of discovering the Sunnah.

 

The binding testimony of reason in the Shi'ite view means that if in a set of circumstances reason has a clear rule, then that rule, because it is definite and absolute, is binding.

Here the question arises as to whether the laws of the Shari'ah are in the domain of reason or not, and to this question we will give an answer when we discuss the generalities of the Principles.

As for the akhbariyyin, whom we have discussed and whose ideas we have shown, they in no way count reason as binding.

 

http://www.al-islam.org/jurisprudence-and-its-principles-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari/principles-jurisprudence-usul-al-fiqh#consensus-and-reasoning

 

 

the times of mecca were so different to time os madina. the early times of madina were so different to the times in madina after the conquest of makka. Just as there were times of kindness and forgiveness, there were times of punishment and wrath, as i have mentioned before.

 

That makes no sense what so ever. You are claiming moral and ethical laws and mannerisms are relative to time. The mercy of Allah swt, is not a one time deal. Allah is ALWAYS merciful. Muhammad A.S was sent upon mankind as a mercy, not just Muslims. Oh boy, the "wrath of Muhammad A.S and God", sounds scary, like they are some sort of revenge seeking, hateful entities to show power.

 

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; (5:33)

 

 

First of all, did you read the verse after it?

 

 Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 5:34

 

Second, this is clearly a reasonable law. Those who wage war and create ischemic on land, deserve such a punishment. Yet, what is that? Allah is merciful and forgiving? But I thought Mr. Jabbar just said Allah is rathful. The quranic notion isnt floppy like your understand. How you put it seems like God and His chosen ones have psychological problems like mental breakdowns and mood swings, absolutely rubbish.

 

About the verse regarding to Ayatollah Dastgaib:

 

In Minhaj it is written that in the 6th year of Hijrah a group from Awniyah and Akal came to Holy Prophet (S) and accepted Islam and stayed on with him (S). But when the climate of Medina did not suit them, they fell sick. The Holy Prophet (S) was informed about their condition and he gave them permission to reside on the outskirts of Medina where camel milk was available in plenty at a place called “Jabalul Eier.” In this way they may stay there for some time and drink the milk and urine of camel to cure their disease and become healthy once more.

 

They left for the valley and stayed for some time and regained health. One day they hatched a conspiracy and stole 15 camels of the Holy Prophet (S) and returned to their tribe as Murtad (renegades). When the news reached Medina, Yasar, a servant of Holy Prophet (S) chased them with a few people and caught up with them. The two groups fought with each other. Yasar was captured, his hands and legs amputed, and eyes and tongue were pierced with thorns. At last he achieved martyrdom. When the Holy Prophet (S) came to know of this he sent Karbaz bin Jabir after them. He captured all of them and tied their hands and legs and brought them to the Holy Prophet (S). So Allah, the Most High, revealed His words: “The punishment of those who wage war…” (Surah al-Maidah, 5:33)

 

There are various other traditions of Imams (a.s.) on this topic with slight differences.

 

In Tafsīr Majmaul Bayan under the explanation of the concerned verse is a narration from Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) that the punishment of an attacker is according to the seriousness of his crime. If he has committed a murder he is put to death, and if in addition to murder he has plundered wealth, he is first executed and then crucified. If only wealth is plundered without killing anyone, his punishment is severing of hands and legs. If his crime was to spread unrest, or to waylay people, his punishment is exile. This tradition clearly states that the law of Islam has prescribed punishment of an attacker according to the enormity of his sin and this itself shows mercy to a criminal. Moreover Islam has not restricted itself to this beneficence but also stipulated that if the attacker repents before being caught, he is exempted from punishment. He is only responsible for the property he has stolen. And Surah al-Mā’ida verse-34 proves this.

 

http://www.al-islam.org/greater-sins-volume-3-ayatullah-sayyid-abd-al-husayn-dastghayb-shirazi/thirty-fourth-greater-sin-war

 

 

If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while; Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. (33:60-61)

 

This was a part of the seera of the holy prophet of islam s.a.w.s. which cannot be ignored. so lets put things into perspective

 

Yes please put it into actual perspective!

 

“Permission is granted to those who are fighting because they have been oppressed…those who have been expelled from their homes without any just cause…” (Surah al-Hajj, 22:39-40)

 

“Fight in the way of God those who are fighting against you; and do not exceed (the limits). Verily Allah does not love those who exceed (the limits).”  (Surah al-Baqara, 2:190)

 

“Prepare against them (i.e., the enemy) with whatever force and trained horses you can in order to frighten thereby Allah’s enemy, your enemy, and others besides them who you do not know but Allah knows them.” (Surah al-Anfal, 8:60)

 

But if they (the enemies) incline to peace, then you (also) incline to it, and put your trust in Allah…” (Surah al-Anfal, 8:61)

 

 

And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. (2:55)

 You quoted the wrong verse. Anyway, what does a test from God have to do with Allah commanding Musa A.S with extraordinary mannerism. As commentated by Allamah Tabatabai in Tafsir Al - Mizan:

 

This and the preceding verses (that enumerate their transgressions and sins) are addressed to the whole Jewish nation, although the sins were committed by only some groups of them and not by all. Obviously it is because they were very much united as a nation; if one did a thing, others were pleased with it. It was because of this feeling of their national unity that one group's action is attributed to the whole nation. Otherwise, not all the Israelites had killed the prophets, nor had all of them indulged in the calf-worship, or committed other sins mentioned herein. It proves that the order, "kill your people", actually meant, kill some of your people, i.e., the calf-worshippers. It may also be inferred from the words, "you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf for worship", and the words, "that is best for you with your Creator" (which apparently is the final part of the speech of Musa).

 

The words, "so He turned to you (mercifully)", prove that their repentance was accepted. Tradition says that their repent­ance was accepted and sin forgiven when only a few of them had been killed. This forgiveness before the order was fully complied with shows that the command was given as a trial. The case is somewhat similar to the dream of Ibrahim (a.s.) and his being told to sacrifice Isma'i1; before he could reach the ultimate stage, he was told, O Ibrahim! You have indeed made the vision come true (37;104 -105) . Likewise, Musa (a.s.) told his people "turn to your Creator (penitently) and kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator", and Allah confirmed the order, yet He took the killing of some as equal to the execution of all, and informed them that their repentance was accepted, "so He turned to you (mercifully)."

 

al-Bari' . is one of the beautiful names of Allah, as Allah says: He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner; His are the most beautiful names... (59:24). This name has been used three times in the Qur'an: twice in the verse under discussion and once in Chapter 59, quoted just above. Perhaps Allah used this name here because it was most suitable in the context of the event described. While it is nearer in meaning to al-Khaliq (the Creator) and al-Mujid (the Inventor), it is derived from bara'a, yabra'u, bar'an (he separated, he separates, to separate). Allah thus separates His creation from in­existence, or He separates man from the earth. This name in this context conveys the following idea: No doubt it is very hard to repent by killing your own people. But Allah, Who now orders you to destroy yourselves by killing, is the same God who had created you. He was pleased to create you when it was good for you; and now He has decreed that you should kill your own people, and this order too is good for you. How can He decide anything for you except that which is good, and He is your Maker and Creator. The phrase, "your Creator", points to a special relation which they have with Him, and it emphasizes the fact that the given command is not for revenge; it is based on divine love, in order to purify them.

 

http://www.almizan.org/

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam shouldn't be really called Deenal Fitra if we can't even say killing a person for insulting the Nabi is wrong and murder. It ceases to be Fitra, Aqel ceases to have a role, and we ignore Fitra and Aqel over narrations. What's the difference between this religion and then religions that go against aqel and Fitra. Is Tawheed the only thing we know through Fitra and Aqel?

 

Non-Muslims have a right to be horrified from Islam when it calls death to apostates and those who insult the Prophet. It can't be said to be a moral religion...

 

It's morality is unmoral to human judgement and it's said we should submit to laws of God despite our inner morality. But that's convincing only to people who follow Islam, and not even to all of them.

 

These people instead of embracing the light of God, have embrace Rijalism and hadithism over the moral nature God has imprinted on humanity...as if God has not embraced humanity with knowledge that it's wrong to murder.

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

Islam shouldn't be really called Deenal Fitra if we can't even say killing a person for insulting the Nabi is wrong and murder. It ceases to be Fitra, Aqel ceases to have a role, and we ignore Fitra and Aqel over narrations. What's the difference between this religion and then religions that go against aqel and Fitra. Is Tawheed the only thing we know through Fitra and Aqel?

Non-Muslims have a right to be horrified from Islam when it calls death to apostates and those who insult the Prophet. It can't be said to be a moral religion...

It's morality is unmoral to human judgement and it's said we should submit to laws of God despite our inner morality. But that's convincing only to people who follow Islam, and not even to all of them.

These people instead of embracing the light of God, have embrace Rijalism and hadithism over the moral nature God has imprinted on humanity...as if God has not embraced humanity with knowledge that it's wrong to murder.

What you talking about? Use common sense

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

by the time prophet Muhammad (pbuh) won the war against non-Muslims in Mecca and entered the city, he declared that "today we are not going to revenge, but today is the day of mercy. afterward he said "there are certain places like Masjid Al-Haram as well as the house of Abu-Sofiaan in which people would be immune and would not be killed or any other punished would not take place.

 

I'd like to touch upon certain facts:

The Prophet didn't kill them, but is there a slight doubt that for instance Abu-Sofiaan did not deserve to be killed. I don't like we would have a disagreement here.

For some reasons the Prophet didn't kill him.

But we just see that he wasn't killed.

we can't judge about the event concerning what he did. He did not express that is because he merits to be alive and carry on his life.

Therefore Prophet's and Imams' acts don't tell us the reason behind that.

So probably a person who lawfully entitles to be killed , will not by the prophet's view.

So Prophet's and Imams' acts are not adequate reasons in this field.

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

Besides, many times the Prophet and Imams were not in authority to apply Shari-Allah as it is in different aspects.( The terminology used for it, is Bast Yan, بسط ید).

So we are not justified to say why they did not kill blasphemers against Prophet and Imams; that is because our Imams were not caliphs and leaders of the society that's why they couldn't apply every details  Shari-Allah and every single fact of it.

And by the time Prophet was the leader, no one dares to insult him and other sacred people; or at least we have no records out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Besides, there is a story about Imam Reza (pbuh), probably you have heard of it.

once in a session a person insulted him saying: The rain which fell down after your praying, was not related to your praying. the coincidence was just an accident. this man (pointing to Ma'moon) handed you this position or else you don't merit it.

Then Imam said I'm like Joseph whom the king gave the responsibility and power.

Imam's opponent whose name was Hajeb, answers: " you can't compare yourself with the prophet Joseph. you have to bring a different miracle. for instance you have to incarnates these two lions on the wall.

 

Imam Reza (pbuh) asked those two lions to come out of ground and kill Hajeb.

Incarnated, the two lions tore him up, then laps his blood from the ground.(عیون اخبار الرضا، vol 2, p 171)

 

What do you think about the story.

He was killed probably as a result of insulting Imam who has the divine position and was eaten by lions out of his offensive words and bad behavior.

What other reasons do you think, could apply here?

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

Besides, there is a story about Imam Reza (pbuh), probably you have heard of it.

once in a session a person insulted him saying: The rain which fell down after your praying, was not related to your praying. the coincidence was just an accident. this man (pointing to Ma'moon) handed you this position or else you don't merit it.

Then Imam said I'm like Joseph whom the king give the responsibility and power.

Imam's opponent whose name was Hajeb, answers: " you can't compare yourself with the prophet Joseph. you have to bring a different miracle. for instance you have to incarnates these two lions on the wall.

 

Imam Reza (pbuh) asked those two lions to come out of ground and kill Hajeb.

incarnated the two lions tore him up, then laps his blood from the ground.(عیون اخبار الرضا، vol 2, p 171)

 

What do you think about the story.

He was killed probably as a result of insulting Imam who has the divine position and was eaten by lions out of his bad words and acts with the Imam.

What other reason do you think, could apply here?

 

I believe in that hadith the man who accuses the Imam of not being able to create the miracle says to make the lions eat him

 

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7469

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

salam alaikum

 

i dont mind if people have a discussion on certain ijtihadi principles, keeping in mind that none of us are mujtahids

i dont mind people giving their personal views

and I apologize if I have insulted anybody

 

but to say that a certain law is against the seera of the prophet and the imams a.s., against the justice of Allah s.w.t., against logic, and to deny that the imams a.s. spoke of this law and that it was legislated, when we have many narrations that tell us they did, will necessitate the following:

  • rejection of ijma' - as explained many times, ijma' which is hujja is something in particular with certain conditions, and according to many scholars this conditions are fulfilled. but even if it is argued that the ijma' which is hujja is not present here, i have not seen any divergence/opposition.
  • rejection of multiple narrations. if we reject something so clearly mentioned in these narrations - even if we suppose that there is no tawatur - will put into doubt every hukm. if there is one hukm based on two narrations, for example, how can we accept it if we are denying something based on many more narrations? Nothing can be for sure anymore
  • ignorance of the mujtahids. because they  - according to the claims here - have not understood the seera of the prophet s.a.w.s. and the way of islam and quran. somebody on shiachat has suddenly become enlightened, and an accepted stance amongst the erudite and learned has become something which is completely against the very spirit of islam

 

nothing that has been argued refutes the claim that the death penalty is a legislated punishment for blasphemy.

 

However, one can argue how it is to be applied and in what circumstances and situations, and so and so forth.

                                       

Nobody is saying that Allah s.w.t. has mood swings, and to insinuate that from what the scholars say is disgusting. anybody who has any clear understanding of the way the sharia was introduced will see that it was introduced gradually, and it gradually became stricter against the enemies of islam, as and when islam grew in strength and prominence. many valid points have been made about this, they have been ignored. in makkah the prophet s.a.w.s could not say that the mushriks cannot come to makkah, in madina after the hijrah he cannot say this either, but after he conquered makkah in 8th year after hijrah the verse revealed in surah tawbah that the mushrikhs can no longer come to makkah and approach the haram. when those who ran away from uhud were forgiven, surah tawbah condemned those who ran away in hunayn. Does this mean that there were “mood swings”, na'oodu billah min zalik? of course not.

 

Does this mean that repentence is off the table and that Allah s.w.t. is not merciful? of course not, if somebody repents after being caught, then im all for forgiveness, but that is not the issue. the issue for me is the legislation of punishment in the first place.

 

Does this mean that this law is absolute in its nature? no not necessarily

it can be argued that it is not, as some scholars - like sheikh mufeed a.r. if i remember correctly - have said that the masoom imam a.s. has to be involved.

it can be argued that such a law only applies in a country where islam is applied without interference from the external non-muslim powers

it can be argued that it cannot apply in the lands of the non-muslim

it can be argued that it cannot apply in the time of ghayba.

it can be argued that it cannot apply when the law is in the hands of those who are not true to islam and will abuse the law for their own ends

etc

but this does not mean that such a law was not legislated in any form in the first place

 

If we refer to the most liberal ‘reformist’ scholars, such as sheikh saanei and sayyed fadhlullah, we see them speak about limited applicability of the ruling, or lack of its applicability in this era, but they do not throw it out the window completely and claim that it was never legislated in any form whatsoever in the first place.

 

finally....this forum on islamic laws is to get to understand what the mujtahids and maraje' say, so lets keep it to that.

 

the maraje' do not say to go out and kill people who blaspheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I believe in that hadith the man who accuses the Imam of not being able to create the miracle says to make the lions eat him

 

Surely it was shown to the man and he had underestimated Imam's power.

But why did Imam tell the lion to eat the man?

He has insulted Imam and wanted to humiliate him and say an Imam is not able to do it and of course he didn't tent to change his opinion.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the hard worked insights, I came back to the original positions.

 

One group being for a FOR and the other AGAINST.

 

for the uninitiated, all religions and systems have the same propositions in place. Go against it, and you will face the sword. Even democracy too. Therefore it is an illegitimate excuse to leave it.

Edited by hameedeh
Please do not insult other people in your message.
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...