Ansar Al-‘Adl “What?! I can't believe you would make such a blatantly false statement - did you think that the thread had disappeared and no one could verify this??”
I do my very best to not make blatantly false statements.
You may feel that everything you have posted on this thread is “the” logical conclusion that anyone would come to, but I would beg to differ:
From the link in post #2 on this thread;
“Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438
Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar’i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr”.
As for the argument you presented supporting your own conclusions:
“No doubt Islam has forbidden attacks on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh but no one is authorized to take action except the government authorities”.
“The man was not an agent of the state so the Prophet Muhammad pbuh summoned all the people together for proper investigation of this incident. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the head of the state. After suitable investigation, the Prophet gave the ruling that no blood money was due and he dismissed the case”.
Those two statements are not reconcilable.
Muhammad blessed the actions of an ordinary citizen killing another person for insulting Muhammad. This incident was thoroughly looked into by Muhammad.
You did go on to offer so examples of defenses, but you failed to show which one Muhammad cited in forgiving/endorsing what the man did:
“Under most legal systems there are legal defenses, eg. Automatism, provocation, insanity, self-defense, defense of a third party, duress etc. A man may kill another under 'defense of a third party' and after proper investigation the courts may choose to discharge the accused”.
Your citing of possible defenses, without relating how those defenses were used in the mans defense leaves a lot open to interpretation.
Which legal defense did you have in mind that might apply to the case at hand?
What would keep the same defense from being used in the case of Theo Van Gogh’s murderer?
What I meant by this; “the question then becomes, why couldn’t/shouldn’t have the offender been left alive till the offense was reviewed in the correct manner?”, is what was the pressing need for the woman to be killed in her sleep, rather than brought before Muhammad and then dealt with?
Finally you post “She was the servant girl of the man and thus under his authority. Yes, he killed her and took matters into his own hands. And for that he was called to account before the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, he was subjected to the law as well. After an investigation of the matter, he received discharge”.
All you are saying there is that the killer of Theo Van Gogh was even more justified in the killing. At least the woman’s killer had access to the proper Islamic authorities, yet he was ruled justified in taking the law into his own hands. Theo Van Gogh’s killer didn’t have that same option, so if he took the law into his own hands he was even more justified.
As to why the post of mine you moved was related to this thread:
If you incite actions (such as Van Gogh’s death) by marching in the streets with signs calling for a person’s death then (According to Christian values) you are just as guilty as the one who did the killing.
If you preach hatred and use the Qur’an to endorse the flying of airplanes into buildings then you are just as guilty as those who fly the planes.
Calling for death is just that, calling for someone’s death, even if it is done in the name of Islam.
Both actions are the same in the above examples; it is just a matter of degree.
If Islam is truly against such things, it should be more vocal in condemning it.
Perhaps now you can understand why I would not want my country to become a country where as simple insult to Muhammad would “one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir”.
Never mind the slippery slope of exactly what is and what isn’t an insult to Muhammad.
I saw the cartoons. They were for the most part pretty mild compared to what other subjects have been subjected to.
I highly doubt your arguments on this thread would be very convincing to a non-biases’ person.
You seem to think that the IslamQA site is presenting a different view from mine; allow me to dissuade you of that mistaken assumption with a quote directly from IslamQA:
If the ruler does not do what is required of him of carrying out punishments prescribed in sharee’ah, then no one of the Muslim masses has the right to do that, because punishments first require proof that this person deserves this punishment, then they require the authority to carry them out.
If the door is opened for people to carry out the shar’i punishments, chaos will reign in society and no one’s life or wealth will be safe.
...it is not for individuals to carry out this hadd punishment without the command of the ruler or his deputy, because carrying out the hadd punishments without the authority of the ruler may lead to mischief, and destroy any sense of security in the society, and undermine the position of the ruler (SOURCE)
No one should carry out the hadd punishments without the permission of the ruler. If there is no ruler who rules according to sharee’ah then it is not permissible for the ordinary people to carry out the hadd punishments. Whoever does that is sinning, because carrying out the hadd punishments requires examining the matter and requires shar’i knowledge in order to know the conditions of proof.
The ordinary people have no knowledge of such things, and the carrying out of one of the hadd punishments by the ordinary people leads to many evils and the loss of security, whereby people will attack one another and kill one another or chop off one another’s hands on the grounds that they are carrying out hadd punishments.
Al-Qurtubi said:
There is no dispute among the scholars that qisaas (retaliatory punishments) such as execution cannot be carried out except by those in authority who are obliged to carry out the qisaas and carry out hadd punishments etc, because Allaah has addressed the command regarding qisaas to all the Muslims, and it is not possible for all the Muslims to get together to carry out the qisaas, which is why they appointed a leader who may represent them in carrying out the qisaas and hadd punishments. (SOURCE)
So all the comments from IslamQA on the death for blasphemy are speaking within the context of the Islamic state as they themselves have clarified on their site with quotes like the above.
This demolishes any claim that some people view that it is permissable for Muslims to take the law into their own hands.
Muhammad blessed the actions of an ordinary citizen killing another person for insulting Muhammad.
Blessed? After investigation he found it was not appropriate to apply the punishment in this case - this is known in western countries as absolute discharge:
absolute discharge is a sentence that carries no penalty nor conditions and leaves no criminal record. It is used in cases where a defendant pleads or is found guilty of a crime but where it is not thought appropriate to punish him or her. A related sentence is a conditional discharge in which the offender must fulfill the requirements of probation before the discharge becomes absolute. (SOURCE
You did go on to offer so examples of defenses, but you failed to show which one Muhammad cited in forgiving/endorsing what the man did:
“Under most legal systems there are legal defenses, eg. Automatism, provocation, insanity, self-defense, defense of a third party, duress etc. A man may kill another under 'defense of a third party' and after proper investigation the courts may choose to discharge the accused”.
The only reason why the man's case was dismissed is because
-the slave was under his legal authority
-despite several warnings to desist, she continued to insult the Prophet Muhammad pbuh
This is why it was not considered appropriate to punish the man.
What would keep the same defense from being used in the case of Theo Van Gogh’s murderer?
He wasn't the citizen of an Islamic state, first of all. Secondly, he was not under anyone's legal authority. Thirdly, warnings and requests were provided first in the case of that man, and when she did not listen he took such action.
What I meant by this; “the question then becomes, why couldn’t/shouldn’t have the offender been left alive till the offense was reviewed in the correct manner?”, is what was the pressing need for the woman to be killed in her sleep, rather than brought before Muhammad and then dealt with?
To have her brought before the Prophet pbuh would have been more appropriate, but likewise, having done what he did, it was deemed that it wouldn't have been appropriate to punish him either,
Theo Van Gogh’s killer didn’t have that same option, so if he took the law into his own hands he was even more justified.
Nonsense. Theo Van Gogh was not under an Islamic state, nor was he under a Muslim's legal authority.
If Islam is truly against such things, it should be more vocal in condemning it.
Islam has been the most vocal in condemning such actions, non-muslims just shut their ears to it and focus only on what they want to see. Take this thread for example. Your entire argument in based on a single hadith in a tertiary source, not even universally accepted amongst Muslim scholars. I quoted Shaykh Al-Qannâs who said:
Some scholars do not see the hadîth of the blind man as being authentic. One of the narrators of this hadîth is `Uthmân al-Shahhâm. Even though some scholars declared him as trustworthy, one of the senior hadîth critics, Yahyâ b. Sa`îd al-Qattân, did not trust him. Also, Imam al-Nasâ’î said: “He is not strong.”
The Muslim scholars have unanimously said that there is no vigilante justice in Islam, and I quoted that even from the site you were arguing from. And concerning this single hadith we explained how it is interpreted by Muslims as well. Why do you bother asking Muslims if you don't even want to accept what we tell you about our religion?? You insist that the hadith means something that no Muslim scholar has ever upheld, and then you ascribe your interpretation of it to Islam! It is unfortunate that people can be so close-minded.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
Hi Nimrod,
There is no vigilante justice in Islam. All punishments are to be carried out by the Islamic state and under the trial and investigation by courts. No doubt Islam has forbidden attacks on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh but no one is authorized to take action except the goverment authorities.
Regards
I wish more Muslims said this when the media features us on vox pop thingies.
Hi Snakelegs,
First of all, sorry if I cannot always provide an immediate response. Quite often I am very busy and even on the forum there are dozens of posts to respond to daily, in addition to the numerous private messages I recieve. I appreciate your patience in awaiting a response.
well, i took much longer than you! (i was waiting til i had more time to do further research but it hasn't happened.)
If we actually examine the textual evidence, we find that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the most forgiving to those who insulted and abused him and the most gentle of all people.
yes, this is what i thought and this is how i pictured the prophet. i have, however read some hadiths to the contrary, where he seems to either be calling for death for those who insult him or saying the murderers were justified (no blood money)
Those whom he fought were the ones who strove to harm and destroy the Muslim community:
makes sense
Having said that, those who agree to live as citizens of an Islamic state have agreed to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors and not to insult or attack the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, for example. There is no doubt that Islam prohibits this and someone who opposes the law in this regard is to be punished.
So there is an important distinction here. On one hand there is the Prophet's personal moral attitude in dealing with those who attacked him, and on the other hand there is the issue of citizens of a state following the laws of the state and agreeing to such prohibitions. The former is an issue of moral character while the latter is an issue of state governance.
Peace.
this i don't understand. why, if the prophet himself could forgive insults, would islamic states call for execution of those who insult him?
also, i don't know of any islamic country where the population has the power to agree or disagree with laws. or even a choice as to living in an islamic state.
and the thing that puzzles me the most is the mentality that thinks either the prophet or islam need "protection" of this kind - aren't both strong and secure? how can they be threatened by people saying bad things -or for that matter, drawing hideous cartoons? this really puzzles me.
and last, do you know where this comes from?
"Forgive Him Who Wrongs You;
Join Him Who Cuts You Off;
Do Good To Him Who Does Evil To You;
And Speak The Truth Even If It Be Against Yourself.
Inscribed On The Prophets (PBUH) Sword"
thanks!
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
yes, this is what i thought and this is how i pictured the prophet. i have, however read some hadiths to the contrary, where he seems to either be calling for death for those who insult him or saying the murderers were justified (no blood money)
this i don't understand. why, if the prophet himself could forgive insults, would islamic states call for execution of those who insult him?
In the case of the former it was a personal issue while in the case of the latter it is a societal issue. The Islamic state is interested in the protection of society from all evil and corruption and hence the prohibition of reviling the religion or the Prophets. If these laws are not enforced then the society will not be protected from such harm. The Islamic state does not have the authority to choose when to forgive someone for insulting the Prophet pbuh. Nevertheless, each case must be investigated to determine the appropriate punishment.
also, i don't know of any islamic country where the population has the power to agree or disagree with laws. or even a choice as to living in an islamic state.
Not sure what you mean here.
and the thing that puzzles me the most is the mentality that thinks either the prophet or islam need "protection" of this kind - aren't both strong and secure?
They do not need protection but that doesn't mean Muslims will not oppose any such attacks.
and last, do you know where this comes from?
I'm afraid I don't know the source for this narration; perhaps you should ask the person who posted it?
Peace.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
In the case of the former it was a personal issue while in the case of the latter it is a societal issue. The Islamic state is interested in the protection of society from all evil and corruption and hence the prohibition of reviling the religion or the Prophets. If these laws are not enforced then the society will not be protected from such harm. The Islamic state does not have the authority to choose when to forgive someone for insulting the Prophet pbuh. Nevertheless, each case must be investigated to determine the appropriate punishment.
this is what i can't seem to grasp. in an islamic country, why or how is society harmed if somebody says something negative about islam or the prophet? is their faith so weak that it needs to be protected from this somebody? i have a real hard time understanding that and can't seem to see it any other way than weakness.
Not sure what you mean here.
you had written: "on the other hand there is the issue of citizens of a state following the laws of the state and agreeing to such prohibitions." my point was just that as far as i know, in no muslim countries are the citizens empowered to agree or disagree with anything.
They do not need protection but that doesn't mean Muslims will not oppose any such attacks.
of course most muslims would oppose such attacks. but it is a stretch from opposing them to executing them for it.
I'm afraid I don't know the source for this narration; perhaps you should ask the person who posted it?
i can't remember and i can't find it. i like the quote.
Peace.
peace to you also.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
FORUM RULE: No attacks against Islam in any form will be tolerated on this discussion board. Do not misquote other issues - if you wish to refer to another issue paste the link to the thread so that the member may read for themselves and make their own judgement concerning the issue.
Murder is categorically forbidden in Islam, (Qur'an 17:33). If you didn't mean 'murder' then why did you use that word? Why do you always try to take every opportunity to portray Islam in a negative light, implying that the Prophet advocated murder which you know yourself is false. We discussed insulting the Prophet pbuh in an Islamic state in
another thread but you still persist in conveying false impressions about Islam. The Prophet pbuh NEVER said that people should be killed for insulting him. On the contrary, he taught his followers forgiveness.
The Prophet said: 'Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins.' (Sunan At-Tirmidhî)
The Prophet said: 'Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil.' (Sunan At-Tirmidhî)
You will not find a single saying of the Prophet pbuh where he says, 'Kill the person who insults me'.
Instead, when a person opts to live in a Muslim state, they have taken a peace covenant with the Muslims that they will live amongst the peacefully and not publicly reviling the Muslims or slandering the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. That is a violation of the peace treaty, and when someone violates the laws some punishment in some form is necessary, not necessarily execution as you claimed.
And yes, according to Christian belief, Jesus DID say that people who insult him should be killed. According to Christians, Jesus is God, and God clearly says in the Old Testament that the blasphemer is to stoned to death.
Jesus taught that someone who insults him should be stoned to death in the pre-NT times, while Muhamamd pbuh preached only forgiveness.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
this is what i can't seem to grasp. in an islamic country, why or how is society harmed if somebody says something negative about islam or the prophet? is their faith so weak that it needs to be protected from this somebody? i have a real hard time understanding that and can't seem to see it any other way than weakness.
It has nothing to do with the faith of the society members. Whether I am a strong person or a weak person does not change your fault in stabbing me. You cannot justify punching someone by saying, "Oh, but they're a strong person!" You cannot justify bombing a building by saying, "But the building was very well fortified!"
Likewise, irrepsective of the faith of society members, someone in an Islamic state who publicly reviles the religion or the Prophet pbuh has broken their covenant to live at peace with their fellow society. Their violation of the law merits a punishment as denunciation.
my point was just that as far as i know, in no muslim countries are the citizens empowered to agree or disagree with anything.
When Muslims choose to live in a non-muslim country we choose to live by the laws here. The same is true for non-muslims living in an Islamic country.
Regards
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
If someone repents from apostasy they are free, right?
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
And yes, according to Christian belief, Jesus DID say that people who insult him should be killed. According to Christians, Jesus is God, and God clearly says in the Old Testament that the blasphemer is to stoned to death.
Jesus taught that someone who insults him should be stoned to death in the pre-NT times, while Muhamamd pbuh preached only forgiveness.
"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)"
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
So there is an important distinction here. On one hand there is the Prophet's personal moral attitude in dealing with those who attacked him, and on the other hand there is the issue of citizens of a state following the laws of the state and agreeing to such prohibitions. The former is an issue of moral character while the latter is an issue of state governance.
I don't understand though, if the Prophet never put that man to death how can it be allowed to put blasphemers to death?
"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)"
I don't understand though, if the Prophet never put that man to death how can it be allowed to put blasphemers to death?
The issue of one violating their covenant with the state to abide peacefully in the society merits some form of punishment. Whether the offence is deserving of a severe or lesser punishment is to be determined by the courts in consideration of the circumstances, evidence and nature of the offence. It was the Prophet's choice to pardon and forgive the personal insults of others in the hopes that they would reform themselves, however, he also decided when a punishment was appropriate for those who violated their covenant with the state. For example, the Prophet pbuh forgave Hâtib ibn Abî Balta'ah for attempting to send a secret letter to the enemies of the Muslims in Makkah. This is clearly a treasonous act, yet given the circumstances and the situation of Hâtib, the Prophet pbuh chose to forgive him.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
My dad was telling me that a man from our village killed a Sikh man because he mocked the Prophet saw and after that he was given a title by the people.
But i suppose this needs to be looked into context and consider what has been said and by whom
Muslims are going to scream themselves hoarse condemning the tragedy of 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks.
I wish that were universally true of all Muslims. I recall seeing many Muslims cheering and celebrating when they received the original news of 9/11, although I can't recall what country it was in, other than being a Muslim country.
I wish that were universally true of all Muslims. I recall seeing many Muslims cheering and celebrating when they received the original news of 9/11, although I can't recall what country it was in, other than being a Muslim country.
Peace
Some Frenchies toasted over it on champagne, its not only Muslims
Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread but I just read somewhere that the Verse [6:108] which goes along the lines of {Revile Not Whom they Invoke Besides Allah...} actually means that you can not insult someone else's religion. As in, scholars have stated that this also means you can't insult the Jewish and Christian Faiths. Is this true? What is the punishment if it is?
Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread but I just read somewhere that the Verse [6:108] which goes along the lines of {Revile Not Whom they Invoke Besides Allah...} actually means that you can not insult someone else's religion. As in, scholars have stated that this also means you can't insult the Jewish and Christian Faiths. Is this true?
Yes, Muslims are commanded to debate respectfully and by means of logical argumentation rather than petty insults or foul language.
What is the punishment if it is?
Any punishment a state chooses to impose for this would necessarily be discretionary (ta'zîr).
format_quote Originally Posted by Ulysses
Killing anyone in the name of any religion or religious leader is heretical.
Killing anyone in the name of religion is baseless. Imposing punishments for those who violate the laws of the state in which they choose to reside is essential for the maintenance of law and order in society. Please ensure that you read the full thread so that you understand what the issue really is.
Regards
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
Killing anyone in the name of religion is baseless. Imposing punishments for those who violate the laws of the state in which they choose to reside is essential for the maintenance of law and order in society. Please ensure that you read the full thread so that you understand what the issue really is. Regards
That really is quite edifying to read, and it makes me think that there are solid basis for Islam and secularism to reconcile and live in peaceful coexistence. Thanks for saying something that reassures me that Islam is not simply about turning a blind eye to zealotry and ethnocentrism. That made my day.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet] (OP)
![Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet]](https://www.islamicboard.com/images/sigseparatorblue.png)
![image06 1 - Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet]](https://www.islamicboard.com/images/imported/2018/05/image06-1.gif "image06 1")
Hide
![Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet]](https://www.islamicboard.com/images/smilies/improved/welcome.gif)
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.![Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet]](https://www.islamicboard.com/images/smilies/thumbs_up.gif)
Posting Permissions
![Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet]](https://www.islamicboard.com/images/Rehal.png)
![Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet]](https://www.islamicboard.com/images/newlogo/IBbannerMasjid2.png)
![ViralAd050412 1 - Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet]](https://www.islamicboard.com/images/imported/2018/05/ViralAd050412-1.jpg "ViralAd050412 1")
Bookmarks