Is this true? [Insulting the Prophet]

[nimrod]

I am not exactly sure about which forum is the correct one for this thread, if it is in the wrong one please move it.

This statement was made on a different thread:

In Islam, mocking the Prophet (PBUH) is not allowed. Calling [for] death to someone who insults the Prophet (PBUH) is.

Is that statement true according to the teachings of Islam?
I had assumed it wasn’t, but when no one refuted the statement I wasn’t so sure.

Thanks
Nimrod

 

[S_87]

Re: Is this true?

Hi

there is evidence that shows people in the past who kept on insulting muhammed :arabic5: was killed.
it is a great sin and the person is to be executed

aah heres a detailed explanation here

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Is this true?

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

 

[nimrod]

Re: Is this true?

Amani, Thanks for the link, I have scanned it. I will bookmark it and study it a bit closer, as my simple scanning has left me rather confused by this part;

“But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution.
Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented”.

Ansar Al-‘Adl, on a different thread I posted about some folks being killed for insulting Muhammad, your reply seem to indicate that no one was ever or had ever been killed for simply insulting Muhammad.

I will see if I can find the post and your reply.

Thanks
Nimrod

 

[nimrod]

vigilante justice

Ansar Al-‘Adl made this statement;

"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".

In regard to this thread http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-islam/20274-true.html#post300044

This source was given in one of the replies on that thread http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=22809&dgn=4

That source contains this:

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

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


Were these killings an example of “vigilante justice” or were the killers agents of the state?

I hope you can see the source of my confusion.

I am not certain of the proper forum this thread should be posted on, if this is the wrong one, please move it.

Thanks
Nimrod

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Is this true?

Ansar Al-‘Adl, on a different thread I posted about some folks being killed for insulting Muhammad, your reply seem to indicate that no one was ever or had ever been killed for simply insulting Muhammad.

Hi Nimrod,
See the following thread were all historical cases were discussed:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/15217-assassinations.html

The conclusion was that Prophet Muhammad pbuh never allowed anyone to be killed for personal insults - he was the most forgiving to the extent that he forgave one who tried to poison him, and he forgave those who persecuted his followers and drove him out of his home.

With regard to the case you mention:

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

Were these killings an example of “vigilante justice” or were the killers agents of the state?

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. . Therefore, this was something decided upon by the court. We see similar dismissals all the time in manslaughter cases in courts throughout the world. As for why the case was dismissed, this was due to the fact that the woman was under the protection of the state and had violated her pledge despite having been advised continuously against it; this woman also happened to be under the possesion of the man so it was not a case of vigilante justice either.

It should be noted that the authenticity of the narration is not certain. Shaykh Muhammad Al-Qannâs writes:

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.”​

Whether the narration is authentic or not, it provides no support for vigilante justice which is unanimously ruled unlawful in Islamic Shari'ah.

Regards

 

[nimrod]

Re: Is this true?

Ansar Al-‘Adl, perhaps my confusion comes from how you are using the word:

vig•i•lan•te
n.
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.


Definition #1 is the one I am using, what definition are you using?

Thanks
Nimrod

 

[nimrod]

Re: Is this true?

Ansar Al-‘Adl, your statement here:

“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.”

It certainly looks like you are presenting a case saying that this was a state sanctioned case of vigilantism, blessed by the highest Earthly source of Islam that has ever lived.

You have left me confused when you say Islam doesn’t sanction events such as Theo Van Gogh’s killing.

Thanks
Nimrod

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Is this true?

Hi Nimrod,

Definition #1 is the one I am using, what definition are you using?

The same.

“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.”

It certainly looks like you are presenting a case saying that this was a state sanctioned case of vigilantism, blessed by the highest Earthly source of Islam that has ever lived.

No, it was not sanctioned but after investigation the man was discharged. Do you see the difference between those two?

You have left me confused when you say Islam doesn’t sanction events such as Theo Van Gogh’s killing.

Yes it does not sanction such killings at all because they are not under an Islamic state and punishment can only be carried out by those in authority after proper investigation. Now suppose a similar crime occurred in an Islamic state, after proper investigation the accused may be discharged or the punishment suspended depending on the circumstances.

I can understand why you are confused so let me give you a very clear example. Under most legal systems there are legal defences, eg. automatism, provocation, insanity, self-defence, defence of a third party, durress etc. A man may kill another under 'defence of a third party' and after proper investigation the courts may choose to discharge the accused. This does not mean that the courts sanction vigilante justice, but it just means that due to circumstances a punishment is not imposed upon the accused.

I hope this helps.

Regards

 

[nimrod]

Re: Is this true?

Ansar Al-‘Adl “No, it was not sanctioned but after investigation the man was discharged. Do you see the difference between those two?” No I don’t understand.

From my understanding the act was sanctioned.

As to when the sanctioning occurred, the question then becomes, why couldn’t/shouldn’t have the offender been left alive till the offense was reviewed in the correct manner?

Thanks
Nimrod

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Is this true?

From my understanding the act was sanctioned.

No I disagree. See the example I mentioned. I was simply a case brought before the courts where the legal defence of the accused was accepted and consequently he received discharge.

As to when the sanctioning occurred, the question then becomes, why couldn’t/shouldn’t have the offender been left alive till the offense was reviewed in the correct manner?

Not sure what you mean, sorry.

Peace.

 

[nimrod]

Re: Is this true?

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I highly doubt that your arguments would be very convincing to an independent jury, but it does not matter. You showed what I needed you to show.

As to your last question:

The old Jewish woman had committed the offense before. If it was a capitol offense then she should have already been dead (Had her slave master been a true Muslim).

There was absolutely nothing in the reports of what occurred to indicate that the woman needed to be killed that day or night, rather than being reported to the proper authorities that day or the next day and punishment to be meted out by the proper authorities.

The Muslim took the law into his own hands, even though the Prophet was near.
The Prophet blessed this action by saying no punishment was needed.
There was no immediate need for the old Jewish woman to be killed. No one was in immediate danger.

What the Muslim fellow did is no different than what Theo Van Gogh’s killer did, with the minor exception of what country it was done in.

You your self stated that the killer of the Old Jewish slave woman was not an agent of the state.

Then you go on to state “it does not sanction such killings at all because they are not under an Islamic state and punishment can only be carried out by those in authority after proper investigation”. (Never mind the slippery slope of exactly what constitutes an “insult to Muhammad” or what some Muslims authorites consider an insult to Muhammad to be.)

Yet Muhammad never sanctioned “Vigilantly Justice”?

Do you not see how your statements are logically incompatible?

Anyway, it doesn’t matter, you have posted what I needed you to post.

Thanks
Nimrod

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Is this true?

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I highly doubt that your arguments would be very convincing to an independent jury, but it does not matter.

I think it matters. I would like to see the flaw in my argument.

The old Jewish woman had committed the offense before.

I'm not sure where you got 'old woman' from. 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 investigation of the matter, he recieved discharge. I gave you a perfectly clear example which you did not comment on:

Under most legal systems there are legal defences, eg. automatism, provocation, insanity, self-defence, defence of a third party, durress etc. A man may kill another under 'defence of a third party' and after proper investigation the courts may choose to discharge the accused. This does not mean that the courts sanction vigilante justice, but it just means that due to circumstances a punishment is not imposed upon the accused.

legal defences are regularly taken into account by the courts and often the accused will recieve absolute discharge depending on the circumstances. That's all that happened here. As for Van Gogh, he was not a servant under someone else's authority and it was not an Islamic state. If an autonomous citizen of the Islamic state commited such an offence the punishment would have to be carried out by the state, no one has the right to take the law into their own hands.

Yet Muhammad never sanctioned “Vigilantly Justice”?

No he did not.

Do you not see how your statements are logically incompatible?

I'm afraid I do not, and I'm not sure what it unclear in my explanation. This is the explanation from the Fatwa Committee of Shaykh At-Turayri:

This story – if it is authentic – is not a case where the state was not involved. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was the head of state and the judge. In this case, the man who killed the woman was summoned to court for it and was forced to testify. After he gave his testimony and the circumstances of the case were disclosed, a ruling was given by the head of state and the courts that there would be no blood money. This was, therefore, something decided by the courts. The man was not simply left to his own devices without any legal oversight. We see similar dismissals all the time in manslaughter cases in courts throughout the world.​

That is essentially what I've said.

Regards

 

[snakelegs]

Question Reeath for Insulting the Prophet

this came up in another thread.
it was about the prophet saying (in some cases) that people who insulted him should be killed. here were some links given:

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...0274-true.html (Is this true?)
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=22809&dgn=4


one of our members has as his signature:

"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"

first, is the above quote from a hadith?
it seems impossible to reconcile the man who had this on his sword with the man who said people should be killed for insulting him.

 

[snakelegs]

i wish someone would address this.
thanks.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Question Reeath for Insulting the Prophet

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.

it seems impossible to reconcile the man who had this on his sword with the man who said people should be killed for insulting him.

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.

First, let us note what the Qur'an teaches:

25:63. And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk the earth with humility and when the ignorant address them, they respond with words of peace.

41:34 The good deed and the evil deed cannot be not equal. Return an evil deed with one that is good. Then he between whom and thyself was mutual enmity shall become as though he were an intimate friend.

Next, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Khudayri cites some important ahadith on the attitude of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh:

A Jewish man once greeted the Prophet (peace be upon him) by saying: “Death be upon you.” He used the Arabic word ‘sâm’, meaning ‘death’, in a parody of the Islamic greeting for peace which is the word ‘salâm’.

Though the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew exactly what the man had said, he paid it no heed and gently replied: “And upon you.” He did so without repeating the misused word “sâm” and behaved as if he had not noticed it.

However, A?ishah, who had also heard what the man really said, immediately retorted: “And death be upon you and a curse as well!”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Take it easy, A?’ishah. Allah loves kindness in everything.” In another narration of the story, it is related that he also said: “Beware of coarseness and indecency.”

A?ishah complained to the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying: “Didn’t you hear what they said?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “Did you not hear my reply? I responded to their offensive supplication. My supplication will be answered by Allah while their supplication against me will not be answered.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Some of the Companions once asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) to pray to Allah to invoke His curse upon the pagans. He replied: “I was not sent to curse people but as a blessing. [Sahîh Muslim]

Also, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “It is not fitting for a sincere lover of truth to invoke curses.” [Sahîh Muslim]

And he said: “A believer should not invoke curses.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî with authentic line of transmission] ​

I think I answered this previously as well when I said, The conclusion was that Prophet Muhammad pbuh never allowed anyone to be killed for personal insults - he was the most forgiving to the extent that he forgave one who tried to poison him, and he forgave those who persecuted his followers and drove him out of his home..

Those whom he fought were the ones who strove to harm and destroy the Muslim community:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/15217-assassinations.html
So this notion of a violent man who called for others to be killed simply because they insulted him is in complete conflict with the character of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

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.

 

[nimrod]

Re: Your desires? or Your actions?

Folks, this has been an interesting thread. I wish I could say that in a good way.
This thread started from a thread in which some Muslims condemned fellow Muslims for carrying signs calling for the death of those they disagreed with.

One of the Muslims, on that thread said that, the protesters carrying the signs shouldn’t be looked down on because Islam allows for such things.

That prompted me to start a thread on the “Basics of Islam” forum.
“Is this True?” is the name of that thread on that forum.
Ansar and I had a bit of a discourse there, the bottom line he showed was that, yes Islam does allow for such things as Theo Van Gogh’s murder, as long as you go through the right channels.

The bottom line that resulted from this thread, in conjunction with a few other threads, is this according to what has been posted here about Islam:

It is allowed to, call for the death of anyone who insults Muhammad or Islam. (Define what is and isn’t an insult to Muhammad or Islam according to atleast some Muslims?)

Bin Ladin can be endorsed, as long as the Endorser doesn’t actually fly the planes into the buildings themselves, and Islam is fine with it.

If someone acts on their own, due to your encouragement, and does for real kill the person you are calling for to be killed (Van Gogh, the cartoonest,ect.), as long as you feel bad about that person’s death, Islam is fine with you.

Read this thread over several times, along with the one on “Basics of Islam”. The “Is this True?” thread and see if you don’t see some one from the west coming to the same conclusions I have came to.

Folks I wish I could say that I am learning to like what Islam teaches, but to be honest, the more I learn, the more I become convinced that Islam is dead set against the values I hold.

According to what I have seen posted on this site:

I have nothing to concern myself with if Islam is promoted, yet:

Islam will limit my chances of building the churches of my choice.
Islam will allow anyone to call for my death, if I happen to say the wrong thing concerning Islam or Muhammad.
Islam allows that as long as the person only encourages my killing, and doesn’t actuality kill me, that person is with in the bounds of Islam.

This thread has not been encouraging.

Read it from a non-Muslim point of view and see if you don’t agree.

Wish it was different, Thanks
Nimrod

 

[*charisma*]

Re: Your desires? or Your actions?

Greetings,

It is allowed to, call for the death of anyone who insults Muhammad or Islam. (Define what is and isn’t an insult to Muhammad or Islam according to atleast some Muslims?)

This comes from the intention of the insulter, not the actual insult itself. Now if this is prone to becoming a controversy, then why insult in the first place? Surely you can throw the matter of 'freedom of speech' into this, but speech leads to action (if it isn't already), and you can't always expect someone to just 'speak' right back, especially when they're defending their beliefs while someone is ridiculing them.

If someone acts on their own, due to your encouragement, and does for real kill the person you are calling for to be killed (Van Gogh, the cartoonest,ect.), as long as you feel bad about that person’s death, Islam is fine with you.

You just contradicted your own statement, if someone acts due to your encouragement(a bad intention) then it is considered a sin. Repetence is not "feeling bad" its not even a feeling, its an action, and no one will know if they were completely forgiven until the day of judgement, that is why we must strive to do more good deeds and continue to ask for forgiveness.

Islam will limit my chances of building the churches of my choice.
Islam will allow anyone to call for my death, if I happen to say the wrong thing concerning Islam or Muhammad.
Islam allows that as long as the person only encourages my killing, and doesn’t actuality kill me, that person is with in the bounds of Islam.

I just wonder, you are completely capable of searching for such information on your own, yet you choose to do ask people on the forum, people who can make mistakes, just so that you can be able to contradict them and say "oh islam isn't for me", yet christianity is so perfect? I have tried myself to understand christianity, but none of my answers were completely answered, as far as i know, the answers i ask for christianity can be answered through Islam. Have you ever completely read the Quran or actually strived to learn its teachings before meeting the people of Islam? I cannot have a debate with someone who is a teenager of christianity as i would with someone who is muslim, shows a great big difference between how easily understandable the religions are.

regards,

 

[Woodrow]

Re: Your desires? or Your actions?

Nimrod,

After just reading your post, i had a bit of a problem seeing how it related to your OP.

"There is scripture saying that if you lust in your heart, then you are just as guilty as the one who acted on those desires, even though you never followed through on your desires.

To put it in modern terms:

If you call for the death of someone, then you are just as guilty, in your heart, as the one that killed that someone.

Do you agree?

Thanks
Nimrod"

For myself I answered in reference to this:

"There is scripture saying that if you lust in your heart, then you are just as guilty as the one who acted on those desires, even though you never followed through on your desires."

My understanding of that scripture was if you think of a deed, you are just as guilty as if you did it. It seems most people also reponded to that. At the consensus is no if you don't dwell on the thinking and do not take any overt action. If you dwell on the thought, it becomes a deliberate action and is a sin.

I believe most of the replies here were in reference to that scripture.

Now looking back I see you gave this as an example of what that scripture meant to you.:

To put it in modern terms:

If you call for the death of someone, then you are just as guilty, in your heart, as the one that killed that someone.


That is quite a bit different from the scripture. That suggests taking an overt action and telling somebody else to do the act. At the very least that is dwelling on the thought. More then that it is actually doing a physical act pertaining to the act. If the act is wrong, asking another to do it would be just as wrong, as you are using the other person as the means to do the act.

I personaly do not think anyone who responded on this thread so your OP in that context.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Your desires? or Your actions?


The above three posts have been moved here from the thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/21605-your-desires-your-actions.html
They have been moved here as this is the thread dealing with the issue of insulting the Prophet and Islamic criminal law.


Hello Nimrod,

Ansar and I had a bit of a discourse there, the bottom line he showed was that, yes Islam does allow for such things as Theo Van Gogh’s murder, as long as you go through the right channels.

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?? The conclusion of this thread was NOT that Muslims can go kill people who they feel have insulted the Prophet - as a matter of fact the conclusion is the OPPOSITE! There is no vigilante justice in Islam. In an Islamic state, if someone commits such an offence they are to be reported to the authorities for them to deal with it. No one is allowed to go and murder them on their own personal judgement!

Bin Ladin can be endorsed, as long as the Endorser doesn’t actually fly the planes into the buildings themselves, and Islam is fine with it.

Rubbish. Muslims are going to scream themselves hoarse condemning the tragedy of 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks.

Folks I wish I could say that I am learning to like what Islam teaches, but to be honest, the more I learn, the more I become convinced that Islam is dead set against the values I hold.

I think you've made a few things manifestly clear by recieving the explanations of Islamic law in this regard and choosing to ignore them and go back to your preconceived and ill-informed misconceptions - as to what those few things are, I'll leave that for you to decide.

I've answered the rest of your claims and there is no point in repeating oneself to those who aren't interested in listening.