Blasphemy Laws - Opinions, Please

[Badran]

A little more context:

56. Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.
57. Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
58. And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.
59. O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.
60. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:
61. They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
62. (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.

The Holy Quran - Yusuf Ali Translation

Not only is the verse addressing certain people, but also the conditions those people meet, are not what we're simply talking about here.

Aside from that, since like i mentioned many times here that in my opinion a verse condemning a certain act does not mean that we are instructed to interfere and stop or punish people doing it, i see no reason to address the rest of the verses.

False accusations however like i mentioned are different, and i can see the logic behind punishing someone who does that in certain cases.

As for some of the supposed Hadiths posted, aside from the fact that i don't accept all Hadiths, i can't understand how can someone accept both sets of hadiths addressing this which convey different messages.

An explanation for the logic or reasoning behind killing someone for insulting the prophet (pbuh) for example will be welcomed too. Unless its okay to kill people without understanding why. That is, accepting a supposed notion that we should kill certain people, without understanding why.

 

[Gharib]

i thank sister Starsoul for her posts, they get the message across. Jazak Allahu Khairan

 

[Gharib]

something about blasphemy:


The scholars said: Denying what is commonly known among the Muslims to be a part of the Religion is blasphemy. For something to be commonly known to be part of the Religion means that it is a matter that is known by all Muslims, both the laypeople and the scholars alike. In other words, it is not something known only by scholars. This is like the obligation of the five prayers, fasting Ramadan, the permissibility of buying and selling, and the unlawfulness of drinking alcohol and stealing.

 

[Badran]

I just want to put two stories again right after each other, to demonstrate how in my opinion its impossible for both of them to be true:

Once, a person was verbally abusing Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) while the Prophet (peace be upon him) was curiously watching with a smile. After taking much abuse quietly, Abu Bakr responded to a few of his comments. At this, the Prophet exhibited his disapproval, got up and left. Abu Bakr caught up with the Prophet and wondered, 'O Messenger of Allaah, he was abusing me and you remained sitting. When I responded to him, you disapproved and got up.' The Messenger of Allaah responded,
'There was an angel with you responding to him. When you responded to him, Satan took his place.' He then said ..

'O Abu Bakr, there are three solid truths: If a person is wronged and he forbears it (without seeking revenge) just for the sake of Allaah almighty, Allaah will honour him and give him the upper hand with His help; if a person opens a door of giving gifts for cementing relationships with relatives, Allaah will give him abundance; and, if a person opens a door of seeking charity for himself to increase his wealth, Allaah will further reduce his wealth.'


Reported from Abu Huraira in Mishkaah and Musnad Ahmad.

Here the prophet exhibited disapproval just because Abu Bakr replied to the man. Even though the man was verbally abusing him.

Al-Hafiz Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin `Abdur-Rahman bin Ibrahim bin Duhaym recorded that Damrah narrated that two men took their dispute to the Prophet , and he gave a judgment to the benefit of whoever among them had the right. The person who lost the dispute said, “I do not agree.” The other person asked him, “What do you want then” He said, “Let us go to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq.” They went to Abu Bakr and the person who won the dispute said, “We went to the Prophet with our dispute and he issued a decision in my favor.” Abu Bakr said, “Then the decision is that which the Messenger of Allah issued.” The person who lost the dispute still rejected the decision and said, “Let us go to `Umar bin Al-Khattab.” When they went to `Umar, the person who won the dispute said, “We took our dispute to the Prophet and he decided in my favor, but this man refused to submit to the decision.” `Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the second man and he concurred. `Umar went to his house and emerged from it holding aloft his sword. He struck the head of the man who rejected the Prophet’s decision with the sword and killed him. Consequently, Allah revealed, the aforementioned verse. [Context taken from Tafseer Ibn-e-Kathir]

Here the man supposedly only disagreed with the prophet (pbuh).

From where exactly did we learn that punishments are carried out like this, or that there is a punishment in the first place? Where was he asked to repent? Why did Umar just decided to take care of the punishment himself without an authorization from the prophet (pbuh)?

What does it mean to react this way when someone disagrees with the prophet?

They couldn't take him back to the prophet in order for the prophet (pbuh) to talk to him and convince him with the supposed verdict, is this how a prophet whose job is to convince people with the truth through wisdom and being kind reacts to disagreement?

This either means that Umar killed a man and that the prophet approves of this simply because the man disagreed with him. Or that Umar did this but the prophet would not approve of this, which means that Umar is no where near what we understand him to be. Or that the story is simply not true.

Thats how i see it anyway.

 

[Starsoul]

I just want to put two stories again right after each other, to demonstrate how in my opinion its impossible for both of them to be true:

Here the prophet exhibited disapproval just because Abu Bakr replied to the man. Even though the man was verbally abusing him.

Are you mistaken between the Honour of a Prophet and that of the companion? What is not clear to you? These two examples explain two entirely different things to us.

1. We, as muslims are to respond as the Prophet encouraged Hazrat Abu bakar to, at the event that you mentioned. This is an example of interpersonal relationship between people.

2. If you understand that a Prophet is much higher in degree in matters of respect and His position is absolutely undeniable as a blessing for the whole world ( all endowed by Allah swt) and then it is by the will of Allah that the Love of Prophet is mandatory for us to reach the sweetness of eeman, and discouraging His disrespect, is by the decree of Allah, not solely by the decree of The Prophet. The Prophet did whatever Allah swt willed.

You must understand that these are things that Allah swt requires of us, because He knows that our eeman isn't complete without this faction, and the Prophet does just that, he maintains, follows what Allah swt has decreed, some people seem to suggest that the Prophet did not want this or that, read the Quran, The Prophet does exactly as Allah swt requires of Him. The act is (astaghfirulah) free from any ostentatious pomposity, It is a requirement to grow in eeman as has been said the Quran, why confuse it with other things?

The respect of the Prophet is greater than that of the companions, and none such penalty was ordained for the said offense intended towards the companions, if you deem it a decision of the companions, they could very well have structured it for themselves, wouldnt they? They were the people who had been blessed forth as the people of the heaven, an insult projected in their way holds the place of Gunahe-Kabira (grave sin), but not the same as that of blasphemy against the prophet.

Why did you not ask the question about Abu lahab, who was a staunch critic of Islam and Allah (SWT) cursed upon him, Himself, with ruinous destruction in the world and an everlasting torment in the here-after in Sura Lahab? though abu lahab was the uncle of the Prophet? does it not make it clear to you that the respect meted out to a Prophet is beyond the realms of interpersonal relationships and is an integral part of our faith?

The Prophet had to bear it, it was not for his eeman to be tested, it was for us. For him it could've been easy to silence his opponents, he could've prayed anything to Allah to bring upon wrath on those people, if only it wasn't meant for muslims to raise their love and respect for the Prophet (saww)by Allah swt.

And thats the message, we are discouraged from returning disrespect to people, who disrespect us, But Allah swt requires us to stand up against blasphemy against the Prophets, simple as that. It has various degrees and there are articles of scholars about which degrees imply what.

Here the man supposedly only disagreed with the prophet (pbuh).

From where exactly did we learn that punishments are carried out like this, or that there is a punishment in the first place? Where was he asked to repent? Why did Umar just decided to take care of the punishment himself without an authorization from the prophet (pbuh)?

You probably haven't read the Prophetic rules about all the Prophets who have come with the divine message. The Blasphemy consists primarily of the fact that if a person who does not take the decision of the Prophet as final, will be destroyed, by the will of Allah. In this case the Prophet gave a decision about a feud between two people and the muslim, who was a munafiq, exposed himself by going against the Prophet's decision. It isn't about dis-agreement, it was a matter of justice.

This commandment was well known and well understood by even the Torah following the Jews of that time, who were at Makkah. Nobody made as much of a move against this act at that time since they all well understood that blasphemy against the Prophets meant huge destruction.

Offcorse norms of today have changed and a tolerant pluralistic society encourages insult, slander and loose talk about anyone you wish because the system of dajjal protects all your anti-God acts to give a false sense of freedom to you so that you may escape the wrath of Allah on the day of judgement?

What does it mean to react this way when someone disagrees with the prophet?

They couldn't take him back to the prophet in order for the prophet (pbuh) to talk to him and convince him with the supposed verdict, is this how a prophet whose job is to convince people with the truth through wisdom and being kind reacts to disagreement?

This either means that Umar killed a man and that the prophet approves of this simply because the man disagreed with him. Or that Umar did this but the prophet would not approve of this, which means that Umar is no where near what we understand him to be. Or that the story is simply not true.

Thats how i see it anyway.

Thats how you will see it, because you do not have the level of eeman of Hazrat Umar (RA) and you aren't even desirous of it, as it seems. He was among the top 10 companions of the Prophet who were promised heaven in their lifetimes, I guess you mean to say that you stand more higher ground in your understanding and love of Islam than he did.

That pretty much says it all.

 

[Badran]

Are you mistaken between the Honour of a Prophet and that of the companion? What is not clear to you? These two examples explain two entirely different things to us.

Whats not clear to me, is how does one accept that the prophet never reacted to insults himself, disapproved of when companions reacted to people verbally abusing them, and at the same time, accept that the prophet was okay with killing people for disagreeing with him, or with his judgement.

1. We, as muslims are to respond as the Prophet encouraged Hazrat Abu bakar to, at the event that you mentioned. This is an example of interpersonal relationship between people.

And the prophet himself did not react to insult aimed at himself, which is an example we're supposed to follow.

2. If you understand that a Prophet is much higher in degree in matters of respect and His position is absolutely undeniable as a blessing for the whole world ( all endowed by Allah swt) and then it is by the will of Allah that the Love of Prophet is mandatory for us to reach the sweetness of eeman, and discouraging His disrespect, is by the decree of Allah, not solely by the decree of The Prophet. The Prophet did whatever Allah swt willed.

You must understand that these are things that Allah swt requires of us, because He knows that our eeman isn't complete without this faction, and the Prophet does just that, he maintains, follows what Allah swt has decreed, some people seem to suggest that the Prophet did not want this or that, read the Quran, The Prophet does exactly as Allah swt requires of Him. The act is (astaghfirulah) free from any ostentatious pomposity, It is a requirement to grow in eeman as has been said the Quran, why confuse it with other things?

Yes thank you, i know we're supposed to respect prophets.

The respect of the Prophet is greater than that of the companions, and none such penalty was ordained for the said offense intended towards the companions, if you deem it a decision of the companions, they could very well have structured it for themselves, wouldnt they?

What do you mean?

Why did you not ask the question about Abu lahab, who was a staunch critic of Islam and Allah (SWT) cursed upon him, Himself, with ruinous destruction in the world and an everlasting torment in the here-after in Sura Lahab? though abu lahab was the uncle of the Prophet? does it not make it clear to you that the respect meted out to a Prophet is beyond the realms of interpersonal relationships and is an integral part of our faith?

What does the story of Abu Lahab has to do with this?

God speaks of his punishment in the afterlife. So what do you mean by referencing this story? Are you trying to show how bad it is to do such things?

In that case, yes i agree. Its bad to do such things.

The Prophet had to bear it, it was not for his eeman to be tested, it was for us. For him it could've been easy to silence his opponents, he could've prayed anything to Allah to bring upon wrath on those people, if only it wasn't meant for muslims to raise their love and respect for the Prophet (saww)by Allah swt.

Yes, and he didn't silence his opponents like you said.

And thats the message, we are discouraged from returning disrespect to people, who disrespect us, But Allah swt requires us to stand up against blasphemy against the Prophets, simple as that. It has various degrees and there are articles of scholars about which degrees imply what.

I agree, we should stand up to it. However killing people for it neither is comprehendable logically or following with the examples we're given.

You probably haven't read the Prophetic rules about all the Prophets who have come with the divine message. The Blasphemy consists primarily of the fact that if a person who does not take the decision of the Prophet as final, will be destroyed, by the will of Allah. In this case the Prophet gave a decision about a feud between two people and the muslim, who was a munafiq, exposed himself by going against the Prophet's decision. It isn't about dis-agreement, it was a matter of justice.

If you want to say he was punished for apostasy, we should leave it for another thread. But as an aside, also the punishment which took place in that story doesn't follow the proper procedures.

If you want to say however that he was punished for refusing the verdict, and thus delaying justice, i would understand that, except that his punishment was death, which is unbelievable to me. I would welcome your explanation of how did he deserve death here.

This commandment was well known and well understood by even the Torah following the Jews of that time, who were at Makkah. Nobody made as much of a move against this act at that time since they all well understood that blasphemy against the Prophets meant huge destruction.

Again, we'll need to differentiate between the different levels of supposed blasphemy.

Offcorse norms of today have changed and a tolerant pluralistic society encourages insult, slander and loose talk about anyone you wish because the system of dajjal protects all your anti-God acts to give a false sense of freedom to you so that you may escape the wrath of Allah on the day of judgement?

I said nothing about encouraging anything.

I assume also of course you don't mean 'me' when you say 'you' and 'your', right?

Thats how you will see it, because you do not have the level of eeman of Hazrat Umar (RA) and you aren't even desirous of it, as it seems. He was among the top 10 companions of the Prophet who were promised heaven in their lifetimes, I guess you mean to say that you stand more higher ground in your understanding and love of Islam than he did.

That pretty much says it all.

Thanks for the false and unfair analysis.

I think we should stick to the topic from now on though.

 

[beenie]

Wow Badran, I think you said it perfectly here.
I'm not sure how, if we are to follow the example of our Prophet, we get the idea to punish or even kill people who insult him. Sure, we are offended and should speak out against these things, but where does punishment/killing come into play if our own beloved Prophet didn't sanction it?

I can't believe we Muslims can casually judge others' level of imaan.