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

  • Veteran Member

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.

 

You actually bring a very valid point. But this example is all in context with certain conditions and this law is upon muslims. Same with apostasy, its understandable when you fully examine the conditions. However insulting the prophet even while you are a Muslim, and receiving a death penalty isnt just. Disobedience is worse than insult and hypocrisy is above that, yet we never saw the prophet killing for such reasons or God commanding that in the Quran. Your example saying "it is like apostasy" is qiyas therefore invalid. Care to answer the scenario I posted in my reply to Najashi? Since you are all up for such a notion and you live in the west.

 

We have MANY examples of people coming to our Imams A.S without knowing they are the Imams A.S and being cursed and insulted at, yet what did the Imams A.S do? They asked, are you alone in this town? Do you have food and a place to stay? My God, what mercy, and then we see your understanding. It boggles my mind.

 

One day our 4th Imam, Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) was sitting in the company of his followers when a man, who was related to him, approached and began insulting Imam Zainul Abiddin (as). This man's name was al-Hassan Ibn al-Muthanna. Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) ignored the man and when he had left said to his companions:

"You heard what that man said to me, I would like you to come with me to hear my reply to him."

The companions of Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) then said:

"We will come with you, although we wanted you or us to say something (an equal response) to him."

Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) proceeded to the man's home reciting:

"And those who when they commit an indecency or do injustice to their souls remember Allah and ask forgiveness for their faults; and who forgives the faults but Allah, and (who) do not knowingly persist in what they have done." Noble Qur'an (3:135)

His companions hearing this concluded that Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) would say only kind words to the man. Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) reached al-Hassan Ibn al-Muthanna's house and said:

"Tell him this is Zainul Abideen." The man heard this and came out prepared for an encounter. He was sure that Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) came only to revenge his actions. When al-Hassan al-Muthanna appeared. Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) said:

"My Brother! You have come to me and have said something's. If you have said that which truly lies in me, I seek forgiveness from Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì; and if you have accused me of that which I am innocent, I ask Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì to forgive you!"

When the man heard the words of Imam Zainul Abiddin (as) he kissed his forehead and said:

"Indeed I accused you of that which you are innocent of. These words describe me."

 

Imam Muhammad ibn `Ali ibn al-Husayn had the title of Baqir, that is to say ‘One who analyzes’. He was called Baqir al-`Ulum meaning one who analyzes the knowledge. A Christian, in a mockery and ironic way playing on words of Baqir, misinterpreted to Baqara called him, “You are Baqara (cow)!” Without expressing any annoyance or anger, the Imam replied calmly, “No, I am not baqara but I am Baqir.” The Christian said, “You are the son of a lady-cook.” The Imam said in reply, “It was her job, which is not considered an insult or disgrace to her personality.” The Christian said, “Your mother was black, immodest and had an abusive tongue.” The Imam said, “If whatever you attribute to my mother is true, I pray Allah to forgive her and absolve her sins, and if it is a lie, may Allah forgive you for your lies and slander.”

Observing such a clemency from a person who had the authority to submit a non-Muslim to different persecutions was sufficient to provoke a revolution in the soul of the Christian and invite him towards Islam. Later on, he embraced Islam.[1] Al-Manaqib: 207/4.

 

When a Syrian saw him mounted on a horse, he began to abuse him. The Imam observed forbearance and did not react to his abusive language. When the fellow finished ranting to his heart's content the Imam said to him, “O gentleman! If you are in need, we can help you. If you have lost your way we can guide you. If you need a riding animal we can provide you with it. If you are hungry we can serve you food. If you require clothes we can offer them to you. If you are poor we can make you self-sufficient. If you are a visitor we can host you.”

Hearing these statements the Syrian began to weep and said, “Today I confess that you are the rightful caliph of God. I used to harbor great avarice against you and your respected father, now no one is dearer to me than you.

 

There is many more such cases! Read this book and share it to others and then you will understand why I cannot accept such an ideology. Our Prophets and Imams A.S came to perfect mankind's morals.

 

Forbearance of the Holy Imams A.S

Edited by PureEthics
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

بِسْم الله الرحم الرحيم

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.

Mau'awiyia and Abu Sufyan were among the Tulaqaa, that is; those who had no choice but to submit to Islam after the Muslim army defeated them and conquered Mecca. Like most of the Munafiqeen, they used Islam as a cover out of fear that the prophet would not behead them, but in reality, those people were not Mumineen(just as the case with Abdullah Ibn Ubay who displayed Islam, but in reality was a Munafiq in which Surat Al-Munafiqeen was about him). Moreover, had they not outwardly shown their submission to Islam, the prophet ص would had them executed, so they saw Islam as their only alternative to avoid being killed. As for the other enemies of the prophet ص who rejected the call to Islam, the prophet ص ordered them to be killed. Among them were non-combatants who insulted, satirized and reviled the prophet ص when he lived with them under the oppression of the Quraysh in Mecca before his migration to Medina. For example:

Al-Huwaryth bin Nuqayd الحريري بن نقيذ

While living in Mecca before his migration to Medina, the prophet ص was constantly reviled and insulted by Al-Huwaryth bin Nuqayd. After the conquest of Mecca, he refused the call of Islam by the prophet ص and become a Muslim like the Tulaqaa so the prophetص ordered his execution and Imam 'Ali ع beheaded him.

Ka'ab bin Zuhayr كعب بن زهير

He was a poet who made defamatory and insulting poems against the prophet ص. After the conquest, he rejected the call of Islam from the prophet ص , so the prophet ordered his execution. However later, he reconsidered his position and decided to become a Muslim like the rest of the Tulaqaa and as s result the prophet ص forbade his blood.

Hibar bin Al-Aswad هبار بن الأسود

He was among the Mushrikeen of Mecca that staunchly opposed the prophetص. When Zainabر; daughter of the prophet ص migrated from Mecca with other Muslims to reach the prophet ص in Medina, while leaving Mecca, Hibar, taunted Zainabر and pushed her off her camel. As a result of that, after the conquest, the prophet ص ordered for his execution, however, like Abu Sufyan, his son and other Munafiqeen, he decided to become a Muslim so the prophet ص forbade his blood. Had he not became a Muslim, the prophet ص would have had him beheaded for assaulting Zainab and eventually insulting him.

http://www.aqaedalshia.com/alhelli/aqaed/15.htm

http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/ahl/?mod=sire&id=34

We have MANY examples of people coming to our Imams A.S without knowing they are the Imams A.S and being cursed and insulted at, yet what did the Imams A.S do? They asked, are you alone in this town? Do you have food and a place to stay? My God, what mercy, and then we see your understanding. It boggles my mind.

That's correct. And the punishment cannot be establishment on them for this specific case because they were ignorant of the authority that the A'immahع posssesed, hence the Hujjah has not been established in front of them to be seen as guilty. Once however the truth has reached them after being informed and they deliberately rejected it, (as with the case of these three people mentioned above who the prophet ص ordered for their execution), then their case is different.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

بِسْم الله الرحم الرحيم

Mau'awiyia and Abu Sufyan were among the Tulaqaa, that is; those who had no choice but to submit to Islam after the Muslim army defeated them and conquered Mecca. Like most of the Munafiqeen, they used Islam as a cover out of fear that the prophet would not behead them, but in reality, those people were not Mumineen(just as the case with Abdullah Ibn Ubay who displayed Islam, but in reality was a Munafiq in which Surat Al-Munafiqeen was about him). Moreover, had they not outwardly shown their submission to Islam, the prophet ص would had them executed, so they saw Islam as their only alternative to avoid being killed. As for the other enemies of the prophet ص who rejected the call to Islam, the prophet ص ordered them to be killed. Among them were non-combatants who insulted, satirized and reviled the prophet ص when he lived with them under the oppression of the Quraysh in Mecca before his migration to Medina. For example:

Al-Huwaryth bin Nuqayd الحريري بن نقيذ

While living in Mecca before his migration to Medina, the prophet ص was constantly reviled and insulted by Al-Huwaryth bin Nuqayd. After the conquest of Mecca, he refused the call of Islam by the prophet ص and become a Muslim like the Tulaqaa so the prophetص ordered his execution and Imam 'Ali ع beheaded him.

Ka'ab bin Zuhayr كعب بن زهير

He was a poet who made defamatory and insulting poems against the prophet ص. After the conquest, he rejected the call of Islam from the prophet ص , so the prophet ordered his execution. However later, he reconsidered his position and decided to become a Muslim like the rest of the Tulaqaa and as s result the prophet ص forbade his blood.

Hibar bin Al-Aswad هبار بن الأسود

He was among the Mushrikeen of Mecca that staunchly opposed the prophetص. When Zainabر; daughter of the prophet ص migrated from Mecca with other Muslims to reach the prophet ص in Medina, while leaving Mecca, Hibar, taunted Zainabر and pushed her off her camel. As a result of that, after the conquest, the prophet ص ordered for his execution, however, like Abu Sufyan, his son and other Munafiqeen, he decided to become a Muslim so the prophet ص forbade his blood. Had he not became a Muslim, the prophet ص would have had him beheaded for assaulting Zainab and eventually insulting him.

http://www.aqaedalshia.com/alhelli/aqaed/15.htm

http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/ahl/?mod=sire&id=34

 

Again was Abu Sufayan not a killer? So how is it the prophet forgave such a man just because he "become" a Muslim and killed others for insulting him? Where is the law that people must submit to Islam after a war? Your first example doesnt make sense, and how authentic are these sources? By whose standards? Who translated it from the arabic? and How accurate is the arabic?

 

he refused the call of Islam by the prophet ص and become a Muslim like the Tulaqaa so the prophetص ordered his execution and Imam 'Ali ع beheaded him.

 

 

So he refused the call of Islam, but then became a Muslim and the prophet killed him even though he became a Muslim? Are you kidding me? Your second example proves my point, if killing someone for insulting the prophet was law, why did he forgive him? Because he became a Muslim he was forgiven even though there is no chance such people truly changed and still hated the prophet? Makes no sense. The last example seems wrong, he wasnt saved because he became Muslim, but because Muhammad A.S accepted his forgivess:

 

As for Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, he was the person who frightened Zainab - the Noble Prophet's (s.a.w) daughter, who had been sent towards Madinah by her husband, Abu al-Abbas Ibn Rabi' - on the way to Madinah as a result of which she suffered a miscarriage. Subsequent to this act of his, the Noble Prophet (s.a.w) had declared it permissible to shed his blood.

After the conquest of Mecca he approached the Noble Prophet (s.a.w), expressed regret over his misdeed and, seeking forgiveness, said: “O' Prophet of Allah! We were of the polytheists, however Allah, by means of you, guided us aright and delivered us from perdition, so disregard my ignorance and that which you have heard about me, and pardon me!”

The Noble Prophet (s.a.w) said: “I pardon you. Allah has exhibited kindness towards you in that He has guided you into Islam; with the acceptance of Islam, bygones become bygones.”10

 

Such a hypocrite like Abu Sufyan is impossible to change, and even though his conversion to Islam was just to save his life, the prophet still knew his intention and did not kill him, yet supposedly he will kill others for insulting him. I find that absurd. Your a killer and a hypocrite who insults the prophet, and you lie and say you are a Muslim, and which the prophet knows it is all a garb, and your life is saved. But someone who insults the prophet still gets killed? That makes sense....

 

 

 

By the way, please answer my scenario asked of you. You know the fatwa, and you have certainly heard direct insults, what did you do?

بِ

That's correct. And the punishment cannot be establishment on them for this specific case because they were ignorant of the authority that the A'immahع posssesed, hence the Hujjah has not been established in front of them to be seen as guilty. Once however the truth has reached them after being informed and they deliberately rejected it, (as with the case of these three people mentioned above who the prophet ص ordered for their execution), then their case is different.

 

Huh? Where does the fatwa state such a condition? And reading the hadiths you will see they were not ignorant. They knew they were Imams and insulted them regardless. Besides, if that is the case, then everyone is unconditionally ignorant, who ever insults the prophet, therefore no such law can be in reality implemented. You can only say anyone who insults our prophet is ignorant, else why insult our prophet. Besides, that is not what your fatwa said.

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

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Najashi (and others interested)

 

 

 

I believe the situation is more obscure.

I have written the following to illustrate this.

Mine is a fallible pen, so please forgive its flaws. 

 

The mere application of the word 'insult' to a particular case is insufficient to apply the ruling of sabb ul nabi.

As far as I understand, for each of those accounts which you rightfully cite, to call their crimes as 'insult' is to put it mildly. 

The individuals involved were part of a propaganda campaign and had caused fitna and had engaged in muhariba with their words and played the part of a modern wartime media, and some of these individuals had committed other wrongs too, such as murder.

 

However, there is a report, claiming the authority of Imam al-Sadiq [a], where even comparing the Prophet as being on par with the Umayyads leads to the death penalty. 

According to this report, the mere belief that this is so is sufficient to apply the ruling. 

This suggests that, if belief can be sabb, then a fortiori so is mild insult, because the term sabb is more appropriately applied to insult than belief.

Yet comparison per se is not something considered as 'insulting'. At worst, it is just false. 

So a false comparison of the Prophet can lead to the death penalty. 

Quite a ruling! 

In any case, one cannot reject this report just because it is harsh and intolerant. It needs an argument

As mentioned, a violent interpretation of tashayyu' is available for the person inclined towards it.

Just as a non-violent interpretation is.

For example, the report might be erroneous. 

al-Majlisi has said it is qawi kal-hasan, strong like fair - in other words, mu'tabar and valid.

But does this mean it is authoritative to kill a person for merely saying that the Prophet is equal in virtue to the Umayyads? 

It is a very strange ruling. 

Killing a person who has the shahadatayn on his lips is not a simple affair. 

Will he become a murtad for a false belief, even as he obeys the Prophet?

Worse, will he or a non-Muslim who makes this claim fall under the rubric of sabb ul nabi

Indeed some non-Muslims may even make the comparison in favour of the Umayyads altogether. 

One orientalist has praised and preferred Mu'awiya over Amir al-Mu'mineen [a]. Has he committed sabb of Ali [a]?

And yet the report is there and is not, by Majlisi's standards, da'if.

But the report is khabar wahid

 

Some fuqaha believe that khabar wahid has no hujjiyya in matters dealing with the blood of Muslims. 

This is because it is a great burden to rely on a singular report to condemn people to death, because singular reports have a zanni status, i.e. conjectural, and the sihha and soundness of a report does not prove its truth. Hence, we might be killing someone unjustly, thinking we are doing our duty. 

If someone acts on this report and the report turns out to be false, Allah may condemn the killer for taking life so lightly and not preferring the Muslim's (and the ignorant's) right to life, which is certain, over this isolated report which is conjectural. 

Consequently, we would be justified in suspending judgement on this particular report, and so we would no longer make the argument that, just because mere belief is sabb, so a fortiori is mild insult. 

 

There is also another report which simply states that a person from the tribe of Hadhil was committing sabb ul nabi

The report goes on to say that when the news came to the Prophet, he asked who would get rid of this man for him, and two of the Ansar did, who went to meet the person, and without any preliminary, asked him if he is so-and-so son of so-and-so, and when he confirmed, they struck his neck. 

This report is sahih and sound. 

It is also khabar wahid, and so the above principle reapplies.

 

However, it might be objected that there is tawatur of meaning, i.e. successive reports to the effect that mere insult of the Prophet is punishable by death, even if each particular case is khabar wahid. 

This tawatur of meaning would only be true if the meaning of these other reports sufficiently indicate that mere insult of the Prophet is punishable by death.

Therefore, it needs to be seen whether those instances, some of which you correctly cite, are sufficient to prove that anything which we customarily call 'insult' is punishable by death if directed at the Prophet.

All the other cases I have seen are cases which were more serious than just being insulting to the Prophet. They were part of a political campaign in the context of a war for the destruction of the Muslim community. 

As to mild insults and expressions of contempt, there are many teachings in the Koran and the life of the Prophet, both from Mecca and Medina, and from the Imams, both when they were in power and when they were not, which are non-violent and indeed proofs of their merciful character and signs of their resplendent virtue.

Hence, for those examples you cite and others like it, one can deny the interpretation that contradicts those teachings in the Koran and the life of the Prophet, and only affirm the interpretation that does not contradict them. 

In other words, if one interprets those examples in context, the subject would not be 'insulting the Prophet', but 'insulting the Prophet as psychological warfare'.

This would be the qadr mutayaqqan, or the minimum of which we can be certain with respect to the subject of the ruling.

The difference between the two is that the former is unsystematic, scattered and personal, while the second is systematic, concentrated and in the context of fighting the Prophet. 

So, from what you have said akhi karim, I do not see the tawatur of meaning which I think you are claiming. 

And if there is no tawatur, the khabar wahid would be insufficient to prove the case of killing a life for being insulting to the Prophet - not least because there are implicit indications to the contrary in the Koran and the Tradition. 

 

However, I have elsewhere argued against this principle that khabar wahid is insufficient to prove when there is a Muslim's (or person's) life at stake. See here and here.

That said, the two are distinct, despite my argument.

The question is, what can khabar wahid prove

The case of testimony is about proving the misdaq of a subject, i.e. proving that a particular person falls under a legal category and so the relevant legal ruling applies to them. 

The case here is about proving the ruling itself. 

Conflating them is mistaken, but so is assuming they are different. 

It might be a 'distinction without a [legal] difference'. 

This would be a matter for discussion in Principles of Jurisprudence, where usuli arguments need to be evaluated by the measure of 'aql and nass.

 

There is a final point, which I think is significant. 

The forgiveness shown by the Prophet and the Ahlulbayt might have been cases where the person wronged forgives the wrongdoer as the next of kin forgive a murderer and lift qisas. Only the next of kin have that right, here. Similarly, one might object that forgiveness for insulting the Prophet can only be issued by the Prophet himself, and otherwise we are bound to the law. 

 

In sum, the consensus of the fuqaha is not based on an open-and-shut case, and to treat it like that is to close the doors of ijtihad.

But any departure from the consensus needs to be rooted in the sources of Shari'a.

In fact, the consensus has already been broken; there are imami mujtahids that have rejected the famous view on similar grounds.

Ultimately, this comes down to politics, i.e. whom are you willing to include into your list of fuqaha and why?  

 

 

 

There is a handful of hadith I haven't investigated yet. 

Personally, I am investigating this to satisfy my own mind on this issue, because I think it is crucial to be clear on the interpretation. It is crucial, because it has practical ramifications; it basically determines the sort of person one is, and the sort of things a person is capable of doing.

 

Anyway, if you have anything that can illuminate further, please share. 

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
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

(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)

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

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

pure

 

I understand your position. 

I did not mean that you are not giving evidence

But I also understand if others do not accept your arguments.

 

ace

 

Brother, please see below. 

 

abduljabbar

 

Inshallah you are in good spiritual and physical health.

You mention a number of views as 'fanciful' or 'ridiculous'. These I put down to your brotherly love for me and enthusiasm in discussion.

But by spicing your points with words that put down your interlocutor places an extra, unnecessary psychological barrier between them and the truth you wish them to apprehend. 

 

 

*

 

In my previous post, I discussed two issues:

 

The first issue I discussed was the question of what constitutes sabb ul nabi, and whether we have sufficient evidence to say that any kind of insult by anyone carries the death penalty, or that anyone who hears someone insulting the Prophet, if they could they should kill them without permission of the Imam. 

This is because there is a lot of evidence that sabb ul nabi is punishable by death.

The other issue I discussed was whether this lot of evidence brings certitude or conjecture, and then to draw out the implications

 

 

*

 

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

 

You also mention a number of reports.  

They are clearly not mutawatir verbally. 

The number of mu'tabar reports that treat the issue of insulting the Prophet can be counted on the fingers of a single hand. 

Now, the number varies depends on one's evaluation of certain controversial narrators.

If I have counted correctly, should we want to take the maximum precaution and only accept those whose transmissions are generally accepted, the number would be about 2 to 3, each with a different matn. I know that one mujtahid counts just two. 

On these 2 or 3, there is the problem of khabar wahid as previously mentioned. 

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

The Muslims are not bound by their past scholars, even in their consensus based on the evidence

The duty of the scholars is to critique the past fatawa through the prism of the evidence, and where they find the fatawa wanting, to overturn them.

 

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?

 

*

 

Having said all this, I am undecided.

Logically, I do not think the case for denying the ruling for sabb ul nabi is strong either. 

There are the reports for sabb of Ali [a] as well.

On the other hand, the support for the details of this ruling, e.g. the definition of its subject or the method of application, are very shaky. 

Personally, I am considering the opinion that sabb ul nabi in non-Muslim lands is a moot point today, because of its consequences, the avoidance of which is wajib for the Muslims. But that is neither here nor there.

As confessed before, I suspend judgement, and argue that it is the correct thing to do.

 

*Note: On the numbers I provide, please verify them for yourselves, and correct my count if you find I have overlooked something.

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
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

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

ace

 

You are right. 

A few exceptions do not change laws.

But is the evidence we have for mercy an exception to the reports on the ruling of sabb ul nabi, or something else? 

I think a good case can be made that it is not an exception, but that the reports on the ruling of sabb ul nabi is takhsis of the general rule of the forbearance which hitherto had been the only law. 

If so, then the crime of sabb ul nabi must be interpreted more specifically than insulting the Prophet, broadly construed.

After all, one hadith considers the very denial of Imamate as an instance of sabb, full stop.

If so, then let us begin applying the ruling more closer to home.

The report is weak, however, and it is interpreted in the context of other hadith relating to the aamma. 

Similarly, one should interpret sabb ul nabi in the context of the Koran and the rest of the evidence in the Tradition. 

The details for the ruling in the reports are unreliable, even granting the ruling's reality, so it seems correct to fill in these details in light of the Koran and the rest of the evidence in the Tradition.

 

*

 

There is a point in the protest of an honest believer who says, I was guided to this religion because of the forgiving nature I perceived in its Prophet; why should I not reconsider if I find that my perception was flawed?

The point is important. It might not be sufficient, and I don't think it is, but it is very strong. 

People love the Ahlulbayt because they exhibit lovely characters, such as mercy and selflessness.

True, Islam is a religion of Justice as well.

But if a man was insulted unfairly and slandered, and he killed someone for it, he would not be called merciful or forgiving or just, and Islamic courts would punish him for his guilt, and execute him.

We have to be fair. 

How can we in all conscience, without hypocrisy, sincerely and fairly, deny him the epithets of mercy or forgiveness or justice and support his execution, yet attribute these epithets, in their absolute sense, to the Prophet who, according to the famous opinion, would kill anyone whose crime was just that he insulted or slandered him?

I understand that God will punish in the hereafter. 

But God punishes the wrongdoer even if the Prophet shows mercy and forgives.

God punishes the munafiqin as well, but the punishment of God does not translate into law, and does not curb the Prophet's clemency and forbearance. 

After all, mercy and forbearance is for cases where punishment is deserved. God saves us from our deserved punishment by being Merciful.

Does the Mercy to Mankind execute someone who mocks him? The warmongers of the world today who have no mercy to ordinary life would still not kill a person who offended them. This Mercy to Mankind cannot be just a slogan; it must mean something. The famous opinion threatens to deprive it of meaning.

Instead of love, we would fear the Prophet. Instead of admiring his forbearance, we would be cowed into submission by his silencing of his opponents with death.

A person who is asked to abandon one of two things: the excellence of the Prophet's virtue and the Koranic ideal or the consensus opinion of the fuqaha based on a tiny set of fallible transmissions, is pressured by his faith to abandon the latter. For them, the excellence of the Prophet and the teachings of the Koran are more essential and far less dispensable than an unbinding opinion or a handful of chains.  

This does not prove the matter, of course; I am merely explaining the opposite motives and reasons, and though they are not conclusive, they are strong.

These involve, in the ultimate analysis, very deep questions. 

It is obvious to me that this is not just a fiqhi issue; it is a kalam issue also, and so one cannot solve the overall issue without solving both aspects. 

Religion is not only about legal issues, akhi karim. It's first and foremost about virtues such as sincerity, fairness, reasonableness and reflection. 

I think it is a huge mistake, religiously speaking, to ignore the difficult questions.

It would be insincere, unfair, unreasonable and blind.  

In the Jewish Tradition, there are many distortions, as there has been in the hadith, and God tried the Jews with the distortions of their Tradition, to ascertain whether they would reflect and reject the distortions of the rabbis or not. 

The Koran is unaltered.

But there is no reason why the Muslims will not be tried with the hadith - with the forgeries or the vagueness of the hadith - and they will differ therein.

In such times, we should take care to be in accordance with the Koran, as the Imams [a] have cautioned, and evaluate our reports on its holy scales. 

Ultimately, Allah knows.

 

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
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

(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)

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

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

ace

 

Inshallah akhi.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

 

tawheed

 

My own belief is that nobody is entitled to insulting the Prophet, but that there is good Koranic and Traditional reason to believe that the Prophet's own reaction would be to forbear and be magnanimous, and that the reasons for punishing with death any insult are not conclusive.

Hence, my suspension of judgement.

 

abduljabbar

 

I do not believe that saying something seems unjust or seems illogical is mocking. 

If so, then perhaps you would like to kill me, because I think some of these hadith seem illogical, for example that the moment one believes somebody has insulted the Prophet, then they should strike them to death immediately if they can get away with it, and if not them, the next person, without a competent judge, without permission of the Imam, when in fact there are many hadith that even suggest that the very implementation of hudud requires the permission of an Imam. 

I do not choose what seems to me to be illogical, nor do you choose what seems to you to be correct, and to express what seems is sincerity, not mockery. 

However, to say that something seems is not to say that something is; and that is why we have the strong encouragement to do tawaqquf rather than deny a hadith

 

*

 

You are right to mention the lexical meaning of 'sabb' as being 'shatm'. 

But as you yourself suggested, this crime might have more to do with psychological warfare and the like.

However, the word 'sabb' does not include in it this extra, contextual, meaning. 

Thus, the lexical meaning is to be considered, but it does not determine in and of itself the exact subject of this ruling. 

 
*
 

Akhi karim reminds about the two types of consensus, and I thank him for it.

I should say that I understand that it has been the way of the fuqaha not to assume that the consensus has hujjiyya when there is independent evidence from the Koran and the Sunna, unless it can be argued cogently that the consensus reveals the statement of the Imam. 

good example is the different treatment of the impurity of well-water between the early and the later periods. 

Of course, even the consensus we do have is a significant indicator, but it is insufficient, and we are still required to do ijtihad and decide how it accords with the Koran, the Tradition as a whole, and the chains and narrators and the texts of the hadith themselves. 

So, there is no reason to be overwhelmed by the consensus

It is a reason to be cautious, but not a reason to declare a similar ruling. 

 

*

 

So, we move onto the hadith themselves. 

From wasail, in 2 or 3 chapters which contained hadith related immediately to sabb ul nabi, I think there were only 6 or 7 with connected chains. 

A scholarly analysis I read also mentions 6 connected chains that are relevant to this subject.

Of course, this in itself might be open to ijtihad; e.g. the reports about the aftermath of the conquest of Mecca are not included.

However, Shaykh Subhani, when teaching this in his kharij, is also silent on those reports - maybe because it is not clear that these are purely cases of sabb ul nabi

So, suppose this is correct and there are just 6 or 7 connected chains.

If one is to rely on tawatur - in this case tawatur of meaning - then one must rely on connected chains, and so must ask oneself does 6 or 7 constitute tawatur.

If somebody is convinced that they may kill a person on the tawatur of meaning of those hadith, having studied everything that has a bearing on this deduction, then I agree, they must rule that it is the right thing to do.

If someone finds it inconclusive, then I disagree that they ought to surrender to the early consensus.

I think they should do tawaqquf

 

*

 

I understand you make two points about the Koran.

 

The first point is that the Meccan and Medinan verses are different, and so one should not reject a hadith if it comes into conflict with the Meccan part alone. 

The point is of course very valid. 

However, already this is only one interpretation, and it does not disprove the validity of the interpretation that there are some Meccan parts which are still valid, because they are universal.

This reenforces my belief that this matter is not an open-and-shut case, and there is room for arguments

 

 

I respectfully disagree with the second point, which you derive from the verses you quote.

You seem to suggest that because they show the Prophet was commanded to be wrathful, it is an error to depend on the verses that show a policy of mercy. 

However, the verses you mention are not pertinent to the subject of insulting the Prophet. 

They are about fighting the Prophet and God and 'corrupting the earth', so they are not the point of comparison for the reports on sabb ul nabi.

Perhaps the misunderstanding is that by invoking the 'Koranic ideal' of mercy, I was appealing to vague notions, such as the 'spirit' of the Book or a sort of 'feel' of the verses.

Not at all. 

I was being exact. 

I meant that all the verses in the Koran which rule on this subject call for forbearance, avoidance, forgiveness or other non-violent reactions. 

This is held consistently, not only in the Meccan period, but also the Medinan period. 

The Meccan verses are manifest  that insults should not be returned with violence. 

Now, of course, there is the question of abrogation, because any violence was generally forbidden during the Meccan period, while some violence was permitted in Medina. 

But just because the ruling for some things, such as persecuting the believers, had changed in favour of a violent reaction, it does not follow that the ruling of all things had changed in favour of a violent reaction, and it requires proof and cannot be assumed

And, we find that there is a clear case of sabb ul nabi in the Medinan verses, mentioned twice, in al-Baqara 104 and al-Nisa 46, where the Jews were openly mocking the Prophet, and the Koran does not prescribe an earthly punishment and the exegesis that we have does not mention that the Prophet called for their death.

 

The nearest thing is only a single isolated report, weak and from the Tafsir associated with Imam al-'Askari.

Imam al-Kazim [a] is mentioned as the speaker of this hadith. 

In it, three things of special importance are mentioned: first, that the person who threatened to kill the insolent Jew was Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a companion; second, that Imam al-Kazim interprets the 'grievous punishment' mentioned in the verse as being earthly on the condition they continue in their enmity with their insults; and third, that Sa'd states his reason for not actually killing the Jews: he does not want to precede the Prophet or 'his brother and his trustee, Ali b. AbiTalib, his guardian over the affairs of the umma and his representative', because he finds preceding them abhorrent.

 

From aspects of both fiqh ul hadith and dirayat ul hadith, as well as otherwise, this report is problematic.

 

First, it is isolated. 

Second, it is from a greatly weakened source. 

Third, I have looked in a number of major tafsir books, and there is no other exegesis on this verse that comes close to saying anything this report is saying, they do not talk about any earthly punishment, but they do explicitly say that this was 'sabb' and 'shatm' of the Prophet, and so there is no doubt that the verse in question is directly relevant to sabb ul nabi.

Fourth, even if we accept this weak report, it does not mention the Prophet allowing killing or any earthly punishment for their insults, and in fact, the explicit indication is that there was no such ruling.

Fifth, even if we accept this weak report, and even if we accept, on the alleged word of Imam al-Kazim, that there is earthly punishment, there is no indication that this earthly punishment is to be administered by human beings and will not be simply a punishment from God.

Sixth, even if we accept this weak report, and even if we accept that there is earthly punishment, and even if we accept that it is to be administered by human beings, the hadith does not mention what the punishment is, and so it cannot be used as evidence for the death penalty for sabb ul nabi

Seventh, from a purely academic point of view, the content of the hadith is questionable, because it has Sa'd expressing the wilaya of 'Ali [a] in a situation where it would be irrelevant, and so, from a purely 'historical' perspective, there is the motive of forgery.

Eighth, skimming Ibn Kathir, the Sunni hadith he provides do not mention any earthly punishment, and in fact mentions the report where the Jews would say 'death unto you' which sounded like 'salam alaykum', and so the Muslims were told to respond with simply 'alaykum', so that whenever they would say 'peace' then peace would be returned, and whenever they would say 'death' then death would be returned, which constitutes a sort of evidence that there was no command to kill.

 
*

 

I am also unconvinced that this non-violent reaction is exceptional or based on fragments of the Sunna. 

Except for the ones we are discussing, every other hadith which I have read that actually portrays the Prophet or the Imams being insulted, states that they did not react violently and were often forgiving and magnanimous, and shows that this behaviour was instrumental in the conversion of some of these rude offenders. 

These are concrete cases, showing the Infallibles in practice, and are manifestly consistent with the Koran, and I would not be surprised if they outnumber the reports that rule for killing the insulting individual.

Now, perhaps it is unfortunate that in our so-called fiqhi compilations, e.g. wasail, these other cases are not mentioned under the title sabb ul nabi, and we are left with a one-sided picture. 

The very compilation of hadith under a title is ijtihad, and although Shaykh Hurr al-'Amili is an akhbari, he could not escape doing ijtihad in selecting what is relevant and what is not. 

However, in the words of our Imams, this division of religious material into 'aqidaakhlaqad'iya and fiqh does not occur, and a Faqih is someone who understands the subtleties of their words and has mastered the indications of the Koran and the Hadith as a whole. 

There is no reason not to add all these other concrete cases to the conventional collection of reports, and once this is done, it would become legitimate to ask, 'is there a conflict of evidence?' and it would be arguable that there is, and so it would become a matter of ijtihad to resolve this conflict.

 

I will mention one such hadith which is to be found in wasail, but unfortunately not under sabb ul nabi, even though it is arguably quite relevant:

 

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنِ ابْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ دَخَلَ يَهُودِيٌّ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ص وَ عَائِشَةُ عِنْدَهُ فَقَالَ السَّامُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص عَلَيْكُمْ ثُمَّ دَخَلَ آخَرُ فَقَالَ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ فَرَدَّ عَلَيْهِ كَمَا رَدَّ عَلَى صَاحِبِهِ ثُمَّ دَخَلَ آخَرُ فَقَالَ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ فَرَدَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص كَمَا رَدَّ عَلَى صَاحِبَيْهِ فَغَضِبَتْ عَائِشَةُ فَقَالَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ السَّامُ وَ الْغَضَبُ وَ اللَّعْنَةُ يَا مَعْشَرَ الْيَهُودِ يَا إِخْوَةَ الْقِرَدَةِ وَ الْخَنَازِيرِ فَقَالَ لَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص يَا عَائِشَةُ إِنَّ الْفُحْشَ لَوْ كَانَ مُمَثَّلًا لَكَانَ مِثَالَ سَوْءٍ إِنَّ الرِّفْقَ لَمْ يُوضَعْ عَلَى شَيْ‏ءٍ قَطُّ إِلَّا زَانَهُ وَ لَمْ يُرْفَعْ عَنْهُ قَطُّ إِلَّا شَانَهُ قَالَتْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَ مَا سَمِعْتَ إِلَى قَوْلِهِمْ السَّامُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَقَالَ بَلَى أَ مَا سَمِعْتِ مَا رَدَدْتُ عَلَيْهِمْ قُلْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَإِذَا سَلَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ مُسْلِمٌ فَقُولُوا سَلَامٌ عَلَيْكُمْ وَ إِذَا سَلَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ كَافِرٌ فَقُولُوا عَلَيْكَ 

 

It is musnad and sahih

It claims to be from the blessed mouth of Imam al-Baqir [a] who mentions that a Jew entered the presence of the Prophet and Ayesha was with him, so he said 'death be upon you', which sounds like 'salam alaykum'. 

So the Prophet said, 'alaykum', i.e. 'upon you'. 

And then another came in and said the same, and the Prophet replied as before, and this event happened a third time. 

So Ayesha became wrathful, and said 'upon you be death! and wrath! and curse! O company of Jews! O brethren of apes and pigs!'

So the Prophet said, 'Ayesha, if vulgar expressions had a form, it would be an ugly form, while gentleness, wherever placed, adorns that thing, and whenever lifted from that thing makes it ugly.' 

She said, 'O Apostle of God, did you not hear they said 'death unto you'?'

He said, 'Yes, I did. Did you not hear that I responded and said 'unto you'?'

And then the Prophet, or the Imam, propounds the rules of saying 'salam' to Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

Now, if according to some hadith, even the denial of Imamate is 'sabb', even the comparison of the Prophet with the Umayyads as being on par with them in virtue is 'sabb', then a fortiori, saying 'death unto you' is 'sabb' surely.

It is crucial to note that the event related in this hadith happened in Medina.  

It is absolutely relevant to the subject of sabb ul nabi.

It shows the Prophet's reaction to offence, and it categorically rejects any sort of harshness. 

It would be deeply disturbing if the Prophet would consider that gentleness is the morally right approach to insult on one day, but killing the morally right approach on the next. 

Virtue does not become vice and the same subject does not merit a different ruling over time, unless conditions change, which thereby change the nature of the subject itself.

However, this hadith gives a principle, which applies to the subject of insulting the Prophet simpliciter, and that is gentleness.

Ayesha, who spoke defiantly and rudely in the Prophet's defence was calmed down and taught a lesson in virtue. 

A fortiori, if Ayesha had drawn a sword and slaughtered the three Jews, the Prophet would not have praised her.

Thus, what he have here is the Prophet teaching a principle of virtue and an appropriate response to insolence. 

This is as much Shi'i law and fiqh as anything else; except that Shaykh Hurr has decided to differentiate the two. 

But one is not bound to ignore a valid principle, just because Shaykh Hurr did not include this hadith under the chapter of sabb ul nabi

Nor is it clear that this policy was ever abrogated.

It is arguable that moral laws, being universal, cannot be abrogated.

The issues around abrogation are very intricate and complex, involving the sciences of kalam, tafsirhadith, and history.

However, on the mere possibility that there was abrogation, is there sufficient evidence for it, as there is for other laws the abrogation of which is less controversially held?

And if there is no separate evidence, will we consider 6 or 7 reports, where maybe only 2 or 3 are mu'tabar, as sufficient to abrogate the Koran, especially the Meccan parts, and the Tradition?

Indeed, there is a very good reason to deny abrogation of the Koran by anything but the Koran.

Those who advocate it say, the Koran abrogated its earlier verses on war by bringing another verse on war but with a different ruling.

But there is no Koranic abrogation of the Meccan verses on encountering insults. 

Does this not already weaken the case for killing the one who mocks?

I think it does, even if it is inconclusive.

 

 

*

 

Now, to wax a bit lyrical:

Here, then, is a sahih hadith, directly related to sabb ul nabi, showing how religion should be practiced, by showing how it was practiced by its greatest practitioner.

Ayesha's vulgar words are rejected, and what is taught is sublime virtue: that gentleness, wherever placed, adorns, and whenever lifted makes ugly. 

Subhanallah!

How can one resist such a prophet?

This Prophet converted Arabia, without a doubt! And not with the sword. 

 

The Koran says, It is by Allah’s mercy that you are gentle to them, had you been harsh and hardhearted, surely they would have dispersed from around you. Therefore, excuse them; Plead for forgiveness for them and consult them in the affairs

 

The lesson of this verse is not that the Prophet would never implement harsh laws. 

The Koran mentions the hadd for zina and then warns the believers not to be swayed by feelings of compassion to lift the law.

So emotion has no place in deciding right from wrong.

There is a lesson to this verse, however, and it is that the Prophet had certain objective sublime characteristics which attracted people and still do after centuries.

I believe one should be very careful not to champion an image of a prophet that repels rather than attracts, a personality that is harsh and hardhearted rather than gentle and forbearing. Because that would surely be false

 

 

*

 

To summarise:

The aforementioned sahih, confirmed by the Koran, not only the Meccan but also the Medinan verses, and corroborated by similar reports of mercy, leads me to ask:

Why is it not legitimate to declare a conflict in evidence and therefore a need for ijtihad and either tawaqquf or a preference of one view over the other?

And why is it wrong to suspend judgement when, in this conflict of evidence, the matter of blood is involved, even if it is the blood of an insolent hellbound individual?

Not to mention all the other questions surrounding the details of the conventional ruling of sabb ul nabi.

Our duty is not to kill hellbound people, but life must be respected at all costs, no matter whose, except in the limited case known with certitude to be allowed by the Holy Lawgiver.

As far as I see, this issue is very open to scholarly dispute.

Alas, these other hadith which call for the death penalty exist and cannot be easily ignored. 

But if a scholar or a layperson is not convinced that these are actually from the Ahlulbayt, it is one's right to suspend judgement.

 
Allah knows. 
Allah keep us from going astray.
 
My apologies for this long read. 
 

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
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...