The punishment for it is death, without question. In the hadith
book of Nisai, someone had commented against Abu Bakr (R), and a tabee or
Sahabah (R) asked permission to chop the mans head off. Abu Bakr (R)
replied to the effect there is no Hadd punishment except for the Messenger
of Allah (S). The Prophet (S) commanded the execution of Ka'b ibn Ashraf,
may Allah's curse be upon him. He offended ALLAH TA ALAA AND HIS
MESSENGER (S). Yes, the Prophet (S) many times forgave
those that tried to damage him (S), but this is an example personal
forgiveness, and it teaches us his (S) blessed example of forgiveness and
to learn that we should forgive those that harm us to an extent.
There are many verse of the Quran which speak about the emotional
attachment Muslims have to have with the Messenger of Allah (S), and how
the emotional aspect is an essential function of society, to complex to go
into here. It strikes and permeates through the foundations of Iman bir
Anyone the blasphemes, whether Jew, Christian or atheist, or
any other faith, off with their heads, and so be it. They have no right
to open their mouths against him (S) in our countries.
If you want to insult, be prepared to run in a Muslim country, for
heads will roll literally, and Praise be to Allah, and May Allah's
Messenger (S) be even more honoured, and may his sanctity increase among
As for the remarks by a Christian about Pakistani courts, and
Muslim countries it is quite laughable. He doesn't know jack about our
country, and how things are run over there. Christians are given their
rights, but blaspheming against our Prophet (S) is not an issue of
religious freedom, and Pakistan is NOT A SECULAR COUNTRY. This is one
thing we WILL NOT TOLERATE.
There is what you call preaching and evangelism, and then what you
call absolute nonsense.
Assalamualaikum to those who follow the Guidance
(The article to which I am responding was posted on the SRI newsgroup
on July 14, 1998).
In article <6ofg4d$2ou$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
ih...@wam.umd.edu (Asim Mehmood Awan) wrote:
> Assalamualaikum to those who follow the Guidance
> The punishment for it is death, without question. In the hadith
> book of Nisai, someone had commented against Abu Bakr (R), and a tabee or
> Sahabah (R) asked permission to chop the mans head off. Abu Bakr (R)
> replied to the effect there is no Hadd punishment except for the Messenger
> of Allah (S).
I am a Sunni Muslim of Indo-Pak origin, and I am surprised at your
assertion that the punishment for blasphemy is death without question.
At best, this is a controversial issue, with opinions of jurists on both
sides of this issue.
Before I get on with the rest of my argument, allow me to point out that
for the Muslims, the major source of Islamic guidance are the Holy Quran,
and the Sunnah of RasulAllah (PBUH). And when we say Sunnah, we refer to
the conduct of RasulAllah himself, not just any narration that is found
in a book of Hadith. The reference you cite is more a sunnah of Hadrat
AbuBakr (RA). It is not the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (PBUH).
Islam teaches that a life cannot be taken, except with justification. And
it cites THREE crimes which provide justification for taking a life.
1. A person kills another person, and grounds for qisas are clearly
2. In a justified war, i.e when conflagration with unbelievers has become
unavoidable due to their active opposition to establishment of a
society which is based on the Guidance of Allah (SWT).
3. Fasaad Fil Ard. A person, or a group of persons, incites violence with
the intent to create chaos, or to overthrow an orderly Islamic state.
To the above three, there are TWO more grounds added by the Sunnah of
4. A married man/woman commits adultery.
5. Irtidad, or reversion from Islam in an Islamic state.
Aside from these FIVE, there are NO OTHER grounds on which a person's
life is forfiet. Clearly, blasphemy against RasulAllah is NOT one of
them. Among the Islamic scholars of note in the subciontinent, Maudoodi
has taken the view that a Dhimmi cannot be killed for blaspheming against
RasoolAllah (See his treatise, Al-Jihad Fil Islam, pp. 289. Also
Risaa'el wa Masaa'el, Volume 4, pp. 183). He has cited references from
Fathul Qadeer, Vol. 4, and from Bidaya in support of his argument.
This is not to suggest that (in view of the very strong emotional
attachment of muslims to the prophet) blasphemy against RasulAllah
would not be a very serious offence in any Islamic state. Repeated
insistence at this offence may very well put a person in the third
category where his/her life is justifiably forfiet.
The Prophet (S) commanded the execution of Ka'b ibn Ashraf,
> may Allah's curse be upon him. He offended ALLAH TA ALAA AND HIS
> MESSENGER (S).
The case of Ka'b ibn Ashraf cannot be cited in support of killing
a person for balsphemy against Rasoolallah (PBUH), as it is an
exception rather than the rule. Ka'b was repeatedly using his
demagogic oratory to inflame passions and to incite the disbelievers
to wage war upon the small Islamic state in Medina, at a time when the
Muslims were very vulnerable. Aside from abusing the prophet, he composed
and recited vulgar poetry targetting the muslim women. Furthermore, his
aimed subsersive conduct was in breach of the treaty that the muslims in
Medina had with his tribe. The context which led to his murder is wholly
different from commission of a blasphemy which does not, in any other way,
puts the security of an Islamic state at risk.
< snip >
> There are many verse of the Quran which speak about the emotional
> attachment Muslims have to have with the Messenger of Allah (S), and how
> the emotional aspect is an essential function of society, to complex to go
> into here. It strikes and permeates through the foundations of Iman bir
It is understandable that muslims in an Islamic state will not take
abuse against any messager of Allah, lying down. But does it justify
blanket death penalty in all cases? In my view, there is'nt sufficient
justification based on the Sunnah of RassolAllah to justify such an
< snip >
There are other, more troubling, facets of the blasphemy issue in the context
of the Pakistani society. I am referring here to fake balsphemy charges
fabricated against vulnerable minority members for wholly unrelated reasons.
This is not only entirely un-Islamic; it is DESPICABLE. Muslims who are party
to such practices, by the very Islamic law, put their own lives in peril.
Quran prescribes the death penalty for taking the life of an innocent person.
The blasphemy law in Pakistan is also invoked to deal with the issue of the
desecration of the Holy Quran. For this too, the sanctioned penalty is
death. I have not done sufficient research to discuss this issue in the
present article. Here again, the offence is not one of the FIVE offences
for which Islam sanctions the death penalty.
Aside from emotional rhetoric, I would like to see authentic Islamic
arguments from those muslim readers who support death penalty for
blasphemy against RassoolAllah (PBUH).
In the end, I seek firgiveness of Allah (SWT) for any un-intentional
mistakes of omission and commision.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>The punishment for it is death, without question.
Blasphemy against a person, death, from this earth, like Muhammed, can't
be qualified as being blasphemy of God.
So a death-penalty is an earthly way to show worshipping of a human -as
he was god-.
So it does not differ from the punishments on insulting of the Pope in
the Dark Ages.
If you are consistent in this you have to allow the RCC to do their job
and burn them who are against the Pope.
You believe in the same principle.
>Anyone the blasphemes, whether Jew, Christian or atheist, or any other faith, off with their heads, and so be >it. They have no right to open their mouths against him (S) in our countries.
This looks very alike like one of the sayings of a pope in the Dark
If you are interested in that quote, please let me know, because I don't
think the moderators will allow me to show that expression in this
>If you want to insult, be prepared to run in a Muslim country, for heads will roll literally, and Praise be >to Allah, and May Allah's Messenger (S) be even more honoured, and may his sanctity increase among the ummah.
I really don't understand why you assume that putting shame on a person,
because of actions of his inheritance, will be transformed in praise.
Muhammed is death.
Nothing can be done for him, no more.
Also there is no gain from a death body, only disease when you touch
Also I doubt that many murdering in this case of 'insult' is made
possible because someone WANTED to insult.
It is simply too easy to assume that.
According witness reports and human-right organizations it is often more
a matter of easily getting rid of someone you don't like in the
neighbourhood, at work or at school.
> Christians are given their rights, but blaspheming against our Prophet (S) is not an issue of
> religious freedom, and Pakistan is NOT A SECULAR COUNTRY. This is one thing we WILL NOT TOLERATE.
It is simply not possible to blaspheming Muhammed.
He is death.
He is not God.
So any 'punishment' on 'blashpemy' is illogical, unrealistic, pagan
worshipping of the creature, an act of murder in the 1st degree, and
very very human.
Religion has nothing to with it.
1. Shaykh Al-Islam Abu AbduLLah Muhammad - Tanwir Al-Absar
"The Repentance of every apostate is accepted, but he who insults the
Prophet (saw) is such an infidel that his repentance will not be accepted."
2. Ghuniyah Dhil-Ahkam
" Insulting the dignity of the Holy Prophet (saw) is not like infidelity
of other types. There is a provision of acceptance for every kind of apostate ,
but this type of appostate gets no such forgivness."
3. Qaadhi `Iyadh-Ash-Shifa
" Imaam Abu Bakr ibn Mundhir said , ` Muslim `Ulama in general are unanimous
that whoever abuses the Holy Prophet (saw) will be executed. And the same has
been repoted by Imaam Malik, Imaam Layth , Imaam Ahmad, Imaam Ishaq, Imaam
Shafi` and Imaam Abu Hanifa (r.a.)
4. Fatawa Shami
" In short, there is no doubt about the infidelity and the punishment by
death of a person using abusive language against the Holy Prophet (saw). All
Four leading Imaams have the same opinion."
5. Al-Ishbah wan-Nazir
"Some people say that if someone commits an insult in the state of
intoxication, he will not be charged with infdelity because he is drunk and
incapable , nor shall he get the punishment for commiting infidelity, but
insulting the Prophet (saw) is infidelity of such a degree that even if it is
commited in the state of intoxication, it will not be pardoned. And the
verdicct on his apostacy is that his wife is removed from marriage to him at
once . Even if he professes Islam again, his wife will not establish her
relations with him. If he dies in the state of apostacy, his dead body cannot
be buried in the graveyard of the Muslims, nor can he be buried inthe graveyrad
of the People of the Book. He should be thrown into a pit like dog, The
infidelity of an apostate is worse than the infidelity of a real infidel".
(Fatwas are taken from the book Satanic Scholars, but the references that
listed are mentioned regards Apostacy by insulting the Prophet [saw] )
We are living in a time , when one utters something which he believes is
correct regarding the Prophet (saw), thinking that he is `correcting` his
Muslim brother. When actually he his creating a horrible crime which according
to some is irreversible. We ask Allah to help us not to spaek in words that
are not benfiting to the Prophet (saw) and to be careful of what is said
reagrding Him and to guard of ears and our thoughts and our actions from it.
And to Guide us into Most Beutiful Words and Opinions when His (swt) Prophet
`s (saw) name is mentioned. Ameen.
Peace and Blesing on the Prophet and His Family and His Companions.
ibn...@aol.com (IBN ADAM) wrote:
<snip list of writers on the issue of "blasphemy" or insult of
Muhammad, may Allah love and keep him always>
Well, given my American background of great respect for free speech--
"I may disagree with you, but will fight for your right to say it."
And as a kid who was taught, as a conflict reduction technique the
kid's saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will
never hurt me."
I'd have to now say "These guys were wrong in their conclusions."
No one should be killed for calling anyone else names. The very idea
is absurd to me, and I hope to you too.
Now is the time to perhaps question whether or not anyone's taqlid on
this issue is warranted or justified.... I don't think it is, for
when we look at it for what it is: name-calling can't we agree that a
death sentence is bit extreme and inordinate?
And again: we Muslims must question ourselves when someone calling
Allah or Muhammad names raises our passion to a fever pitch, but
someone starving does not.
And Allahu 'alim.
> >Blasphemy against a person, death, from this earth, like Muhammed, can't
> >be qualified as being blasphemy of God.
> 1. Shaykh Al-Islam Abu AbduLLah Muhammad - Tanwir Al-Absar
> "The Repentance of every apostate is accepted, but he who insults the
> Prophet (saw) is such an infidel that his repentance will not be accepted."
That is simply ridiculous! How can insulting the Blessed Prophet SAW be
worse than TURNING your backk on Allahu tala? I think this is a bit of an
innovation. Insulting Muhammad SAW CANNOT be worse than apostacy,
otherwise it would make him more important than God in some
respects(Astirfighrallah for the suggestion)...
What do the other sisters/brothers on SRI think? Is this sort of thought
Man shall not live by bread alone. Indeed, though it is important that we
have the means to live, life must have a purpose and this is clearly more
important. If it has no purpose then the means to live, bread, has none
The idea that man is in himself, just as he is, the final goal is a secular
idea and cannot be justified.
Once it is known what the purpose of life is, then we will know what good
and evil are since good is that which facilitates the purpose and evil is
that which obstructs it.
Freedom (of action or speech) by itself is meaningless. It cannot be a
value. Freedom of both kinds are good if they allow the fulfilment of the
purpose and bad if they do not.
As for blasphemy, it is an attitude. It may be harmful for the person who
"Verily, he who insults thee (Muhammad) shall be cut off (without
hope or results)" Quran 108:3
For instance, he who rejects the messenger rejects the message, and
the spiritual growth of the person may depend on the application of the
message. But this is not confined to the individual - if it were then there
is no problem. It affects others.
It is not merely the case that they may be offended and civil unrest and
disorder may follow depending on the intensity of the regard and love with
which they hold the messenger and his message.
One could condemn this as a sign of obsession or idolatry rather than love
because words cannot do any harm to the messenger. A person could respond with
Quran 109 or Quran 114.
But lack of reaction could be a sign of indifference to the message. Some
people are internally strong enough not to be affected by what others say.
But not all. The fact is that words carry information and this like any food
material or energy can be nutritious, catalytic or poisonous. The development
of human beings depends on this nourishment - the soul is a bundle of
information or truth.
If this attitude of blasphemy becomes widespread because people get used to
it, then the importance of the message also diminishes and soon becomes of
non-effect. This reduction of all information to the same level, a
background noise, without discrimination, is, of course not only due to
widespread blasphemy but also due to the spread of trivialities by
advertisers, propogandist and publicity agents and the proliferation of
fantasies by the media in the form of fiction, novels, plays and so on.
May I say also that Muslims take, or ought to take, their values from the
Quran. It is irrelevant for them whether or not the American culture or the
Indian, Chinese, or Arab etc cultures agree or disagree, incorporate or
reject these values or what their value systems are and what purpose they
serve. You cannot serve God and Mamon. We ought also to act from reason not
the traditions of a particular area.
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way"
_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz
______________________/ ... ha...@argonet.co.uk
AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6p81mh$9oj$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah
> " And again: we Muslims must question ourselves when someone calling
> Allah or Muhammad names raises our passion to a fever pitch, but
> someone starving does not."
>Man shall not live by bread alone. Indeed, though it is important that we
>have the means to live, life must have a purpose and this is clearly more
>important. If it has no purpose then the means to live, bread, has none
True, and I appreciate this integrated approach. It is also well
known that people will give up their bread, so to speak, for the sake
of an idea or cause. Hmmm. That might turn my original statement a
bit topsy-turvey, wouldn't it? Oh, oh!
>It is not merely the case that they may be offended and civil unrest and
>disorder may follow depending on the intensity of the regard and love with
>which they hold the messenger and his message.
And yet, this is the issue.... is it *really* such intensity of love?
If so, why are there so many hungry people?
>But lack of reaction could be a sign of indifference to the message.
Yeah. Could be. The issue is, what is the appropriate reaction?
>people are internally strong enough not to be affected by what others say.
>But not all.
Yes. Even in the States one is not free to incite a riot or encourage
>If this attitude of blasphemy becomes widespread because people get used to
>it, then the importance of the message also diminishes and soon becomes of
I guess I'd see it the other way around--- diminishment of a sense of
the importance of the message would result in increased blasphemy and
a blase response to it-- not that an increased tolerance for
offensive verbal barbs necessarily results or leads to a diminished
sense of the importance of the message.
>This reduction of all information to the same level, a
>background noise, without discrimination, is, of course not only due to
>widespread blasphemy but also due to the spread of trivialities by
>advertisers, propogandist and publicity agents and the proliferation of
>fantasies by the media in the form of fiction, novels, plays and so on.
Yes, and I think here is where we come to a kind of juncture on the
whole issue. I guess I feel I am so constantly bombarded by shrill
pitches for my attention, my adherance, my belief, my purchase that
someone screaming blasphemies is just another part of the noise!
For another, the blasphemy may stick out like a sore thumb.
But, it seems to me the issue is proper response. I do not think
death is the proper response.
As usual, interesting thoughts from H.S. Aziz.
Sorry. Was there a death threat? I was not aware of this.