Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Mohamed Approve of This?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did Mohamed Approve of This?

    A non Moslem website posed the following narrations and I wanted to know if they were true or not, for I am aware that some narrations are considered weak by Moslems and some are strong.

    Here it is...

    Sunan Abu Dawud

    Book 38, Number 4348:

    Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

    A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
    He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
    He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
    Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

    Sunan Abu Dawud

    Book 38, Number 4349:
    Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
    A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.



    These are some of the most horrifying things that someone can read. How can Mohamad be a prophet of mercy and accept this?

    Muslims previously told me that this is blasphemy and insulting Islam is punishable by death. I was willing to accept that when some Moslems told me that it is punishable by the state and that witnesses are required to prove that the person actually did do this.

    But for them to die in that horrible way as shown above!! There are no witnesses. Also, this shows vigilantism. For those Moslems killed those women without having authority to do so. So that means that any Moslem today can go and kill any person they feel insults Mohamed and don't require witnesses to prove that they even did!

    I'm sorry but this is too difficult for anyone to swallow.

    Forgive me, if i am offending any Moslems here. It is not my intention. But these kind of things are not easy for me to grasp.

  • #2
    Truthseeker,

    The point is their act described as "I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit." What kind of person is this who refuses to obey her master and keep abusing and disparaging ?!

    Also, in the other report, "A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him." So, why sympathy with such people ?

    Notice that this had become a habit of these people, they used to abuse the Prophet (saws) and became accustomed to do this. Such people are not worthy of living and entertaining the Mercy of Allah.

    No doubt that abusing the Holy Prophet (saws) is much more painful and damaging than waging destructive war against Muslims. When the Caliph al-Rashid asked Imam Malik regarding a man who abused the Prophet (saws), Malik said: "What is the use of the Ummah if their Prophet is abused?! Whosoever abuses the Prophets is killed!"

    قال ابن القيّم رحمه الله (زاد المعاد 3/386 ـ 387): وفيها ـ أي قصة فتح مكة ـ تعيين قتل الساب لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وأن قتله حدٌ لا بُدَّ من استيفائه، فإن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يُؤمِّن مقيس بن صُبابة، وابن خطل، والجاريتين اللتين كانتا تُغنيان بهجائه، مع أن نساء أهل الحرب لا يُقتلن كما لا تقتل الذرية، وقد أمر بقتل هاتين الجاريتين، وأهدر دم أمِّ ولد الأعمى لما قتلها سيدها، لأجل سبِّها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وقتل كعب بن الأشرف اليهودي، وقال: (من لكعب بن الأشرف، فإنه آذى الله ورسوله)، وكان يسبّه، وهذا إجماع من الخلفاء الراشدين، ولا يُعلم لهم من الصحابة مخالف، فإن الصدِّيق رضي الله عنه قال لأبي برزة الأسلمي وقد همَّ بقتل من سبَّه: لم يكن هذا لأحد غير رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ومرَّ عمر رضي الله عنه براهب، فقيل له: هذا يسبُّ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقال: لو سمعته لقتلته، إنا لم نعطهم الذِّمة على أن يسبُّوا نبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم.
    ولا ريب أن المحاربة بسبِّ نبينا أعظم أذيّةً ونِكاية لنا من المحاربة باليد، ومنع دينار جزيةٍ في السَنَة، فكيف يُنقض عهده ويُقتل بذلك دون السبِّ، وأي نسبة لمفسدة منعه ديناراً في السنة إلى مفسدة منع مجاهرته يسَبِّ نبينا أقبح سبٍّ على رؤوس الأشهاد، بل لا نِسبة لمفسدة محاربته باليد إلى مفسدة محاربته بالسبِّ، فأولى ما انتقض به عهده وأمانه سبُّ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا ينتقض عهده بشيء أعظم منه إلا سبَّه الخالق سبحانه، فهذا محض القياس، ومقتضى النصوص، وإجماع الخلفاء الراشدين رضي الله عنهم، وعلى هذه المسألة أكثر من أربعين دليلاً. انتهى
    In Uhud, when the polytheists attacked the Prophet (saws), he asked, "Who will sell his life to us?" Ziyad ibn al-Sakan with five of al-Ansar got up. They kept on fighting to defend the Prophet (saws) and all were killed one after the other.....
    Abu Dujanah shielded the Prophet (saws) with his body. Arrows were hurled at his back as he leaned over him, until many struck him. [Sirat Ibn Hisham]

    May you be ransomed with my father and my mother and my whole life, O Messenger of Allah!

    Comment


    • #3
      I hope one of knowledgeable brothers or sisters translates the above, as well as the following texts:

      قال القرطبي في الجامع( 2 /256)
      (اتفق أئمة الفتوى على أنه لا يجوز لأحد أن يقتص من أحد حقه دون السلطان، وليس للناس أن يقتص بعضهم من بعض وإنما ذلك للسلطان أو من نصبه السلطان لذلك ولهذا جعل الله السلطان ليقبض أيدي الناس بعضهم عن بعض) انتهى

      وقال كذلك (2/245-246) ( لا خلاف أن القصاص في القتل لا يقيمه إلا أولو الأمر ،فرض عليهم النهوض بالقصاص وإقامة الحدود وغير ذلك، لأن الله سبحانه خاطب جميع المؤمنين بالقصاص ثم لا يتهيأ للمؤمنين جميعا أن يجتمعوا على القصاص فأقاموا السلطان مقام أنفسهم في إقامة القصاص وغيره من الحدود) انتهى
      In Uhud, when the polytheists attacked the Prophet (saws), he asked, "Who will sell his life to us?" Ziyad ibn al-Sakan with five of al-Ansar got up. They kept on fighting to defend the Prophet (saws) and all were killed one after the other.....
      Abu Dujanah shielded the Prophet (saws) with his body. Arrows were hurled at his back as he leaned over him, until many struck him. [Sirat Ibn Hisham]

      May you be ransomed with my father and my mother and my whole life, O Messenger of Allah!

      Comment


      • #4
        I already said that I am okay with the punishment of death as a penalty if instituted by a state. That guy was a vigilantee, what witnesses did he have to prove that those people actually did insult Mohamed? Why the brutal way in killing the person? These people are ignorant, atleast put them in prison or something. Its not like they know they are insulting a Prophet. Seems close minded to me.

        The point is that Islam allows people to kill anyone whom they think is insulting their Prophet.

        Indeed, how you people call this a religion of peace, mercy and tolerance is beyond me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Your argument has been already answered that those abusers used to insult the Prophet (saws) repititively day and night.

          Regarding death punishment, scholars agree that its implementation is up to the Sultan or to whomsoever he approves. But the reports refer to cases in which a Muslim had killed another person, should we outrightly kill the Muslim or should we listen to his excuse and defense?

          As for mercy, it is certainly merciful to eliminate criminals from any society. Mercy does not mean that criminals must live together with innocent and peaceful people without punishment. What would harm those criminals if they kept their hatred and malice inside their heart insead of vomiting it everytime and in every occasion?! But they refused to hide their venom and insisted on expressing it, so who is to blame: the criminal or the punisher?
          In Uhud, when the polytheists attacked the Prophet (saws), he asked, "Who will sell his life to us?" Ziyad ibn al-Sakan with five of al-Ansar got up. They kept on fighting to defend the Prophet (saws) and all were killed one after the other.....
          Abu Dujanah shielded the Prophet (saws) with his body. Arrows were hurled at his back as he leaned over him, until many struck him. [Sirat Ibn Hisham]

          May you be ransomed with my father and my mother and my whole life, O Messenger of Allah!

          Comment


          • #6
            Oh, so lets say that a Muslim kills a non Muslim one day and when asked why he killed that person he says that the person insulted Mohamed. BINGO, the Muslim wins!!!! The non Muslim could be innocent for all we know. No investigation, no nothing.

            Especially taking into consideration the brutal way in which that lady was killed. That is awful. If you weren't biased towards your religion you would admit and see how grotesque that above situation really is.

            Plus, is that hadith authentic? Have hadith scholars declared that hadith sound and authentic?

            Comment


            • #7
              So, all that matters to you is the way of killing and lack of investigation, but the death penalty itself is fine with you. Am I right?

              Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

              As for authenticity . . .
              ** The first one which is related by Ibn 'Abbas is authentic according to:
              1) Ibn Daqiq al-'Eid in al-Ilmam 2/744.
              2) Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani in Bolough al-Maram n. 363.
              3) Al-Shawkani in al-Darari al-Mudi'ah n. 406 and Nail al-Awtar 7/379.
              4) Al-Albani in Irwa' al-Ghalil 5/91, al-Ta'liqat al-Radiyyah 3/336 and Sahih al-Nisa'i n. 4081.
              5) Al-Wadi'i in al-Sahih al-Musnad n. 601.

              **The second one related by 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is authentic according to:
              1) Abu Dawood since he kept silent about it and did not show any flaw regarding its authenticity.
              2) Al-Shawkani in Nail al-Awtar 7/380.
              3) Al-Albani in Irwa' al-Ghalil 5/91 and Mishkat al-Masabih n. 3481.

              However, it was rated as weak by al-Albani in Da'if Abi Dawood 3462.

              And Allah knows best.
              In Uhud, when the polytheists attacked the Prophet (saws), he asked, "Who will sell his life to us?" Ziyad ibn al-Sakan with five of al-Ansar got up. They kept on fighting to defend the Prophet (saws) and all were killed one after the other.....
              Abu Dujanah shielded the Prophet (saws) with his body. Arrows were hurled at his back as he leaned over him, until many struck him. [Sirat Ibn Hisham]

              May you be ransomed with my father and my mother and my whole life, O Messenger of Allah!

              Comment


              • #8
                Assalam aleikom,

                Mashaa'Allah I have really benefited from this forum, so I thought I might contribute a little.

                The hadiths quoted by "truthseeker" do not give any support for vigilantism or taking the law into one's own hands because...

                A) Taking the law into one's own hands is unanimously condemned; IslamQA shows:
                Originally posted by IslamQA - Q#8980
                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.

                Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 2/245, 246.
                and...

                B) The Prophet Muhammad pbuh took action as the head of the state and summoned the man and asked why he killed his slave and the man gave his legal defense. As mentioned in 'Awn al-Ma'bood sharh Sunan Abi Dawud, the Prophet Muhammad saws knew that he was saying the truth because of divine revelation and therefore his verdict was that the man was not to be punished. By divine revelation he knew perfectly the situation of the woman and what she deserved. So this situation could not occur anymore because no one can receive wahy to know if the person is telling the truth or not. If anyone does something wrong they must refer it to the state and not take matters into their own hands.

                Comment


                • #9
                  بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم و الصلاة و السلام على خير المرسلين

                  I would like to clarify some points so this discussion, inshallah, comes out beneficial for everyone, since I believe the brothers misunderstood the question of truthseeker. smile

                  1) The main argument of truthseeker is that how is it possible to kill those two people who abused the prophet ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) without having witnesses there!!! He based his argument on the above Hadiths he quoted.

                  I believe the answer, which My beloved brother Al-Atharee answers your question. Thus, I will just list some extra points, inshallah, so I say and asking Allah’s assistance:

                  The First hadith:

                  1) The Prophet ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) is the head of the state; the ruler who has the authority of decision making.

                  2) At the time the incident was todl to the Prophet he called for the man to question him (court if you wish to call it in nowadays terms)

                  3) The prophet ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) let the man defend himself and he accepted his defense because of a revelation that confirmed the story of the man as explained in the A'wn Al-Ma'bood.

                  4) It happens that in some cases a crime happens without having any witnesses so the judge acts upon to what he has. ( This is explained now as an addition info although it is enough to know that the prophet confirmed the facts related to the incident as he received divine revelation about it)

                  5) Scholars agreed that such punishment has to be implemented by the ruler or the one in authority to prevent the harm caused if people acted from their selves.

                  Second Hadith:

                  1) It is obvious from the wordings of the Hadith that that Jews did that in public and he was known of doing such thing. Thus, witness is not an issue at all here.

                  Conclusion:

                  The punishment for slandering, cursing or abusing the prophet ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) is death. However, this punishment has to be implemented by a ruler or people in authority as normal people cannot do apply this rule by themselves to avoid any harm and abusing for such matter. Furthermore, to conclude such ruling of death penalty witnesses have to be provided.

                  Waallahu A'lam
                  Seeking Knowledge & Learning Fiqh Is Only Praised When It Is For The Purpose Of Acting Upon It, Not For The Sake Of Discussions & Arguments

                  Why Posts Are Deleted?
                  [Subscribe] Oasis.of.Serenity

                  If I do not greet back in writing then know I do it verbally because sometimes I am too busy and just want to answer the question.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Masha Allah brothers Moumen, Al-Atharee, and child of islam

                    I was away on travel and when I read the question posted by truthseeker [May Allah make us and him sincere truth seekers (smile)] I intended to write an answer similar to the ones the brothers gave when I returned.

                    Now I am glad I didn't write an answer at the time since the way you put it is much better then I would have ever wrote (smile).

                    I am also glad that you, truthseeker, asked this question since it seems to be very popular.

                    Here are some scholars that dealt with this question, it is in arabic though for an added benefit to my Arabic speaking brothers and an added encouragment for those who don't know Arabic to learn the language (smile):

                    1) http://www.islamtoday.net/questions/...t.cfm?id=42720

                    2) http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/S...Option=FatwaId

                    3) http://www.h-alali.net/f_print.php?i...a-0010dc91cf69

                    Salam 4 now

                    Hopefully truthseeker, you will let us know if the answers the brothers [May Allah reward them] gave you answers your question.

                    Regards

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Assalamu Alaykum

                      It appears as if Sheikh Albani contradicted himself in Erwaa' al ghaleel and Sunan Abi Dawud in his grading of that second narration. or not?

                      As for the first narration from Ibn Abbaas. We must remember that it is ahad gharib. And there is also a questionable narrator in the chain by the name of uthman al shahhaam...

                      Ya'ya Bin Saeed al-Qattan comments that his traditions are sometimes accepted and sometimes not. (Meezanul-I`tidal vol.5 page 76 CD ed.) Nisaai is reported to have said that he (Uthman-al-Shaham) was not reliable. (Meezanul-I`tidal vol.5 page 76 CD ed.) Bukhari didn't take any report from him and he is dealt with among Zuafaa in Al-kamil-fi-Zuafaa.

                      However, he did narrate one hadith in Saheeh Muslim http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...earchLevel=QBE I dont think we can say with absolute confidence that this narration is authentic.
                      www.call-to-monotheism.com

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X