Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for May, 2010

Ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

Question: I heard on a tape that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be executed even if he shows that he has repented. Should he be killed as a hadd punishment or because of kufr? If his repentance is sincere, will Allaah forgive him or will he go to Hell and his repentance will be of no avail?


Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues:

1 – The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16

This ruling is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

In the Qur’aan it says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur’aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.’


If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?’


Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed”

[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]

This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir, whether he was serious or joking.

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.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas which we will quote below.

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

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.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)

It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her.

Al-Nasaa’i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, ‘Shall I kill him?’ He rebuked me and said, ‘That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .’” (Saheeh al-Nasaa’i, 3795)

It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs.

The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be accepted or not?

The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

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.

They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas said: “On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn Abi Sarh… As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, and when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of ‘Abd-Allaah.” He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said: “Was there not among you any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?” They said, “We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?” He said, “It is not befitting for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes.”

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334)

This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes repentant.

‘Abd-Allaah ibn Sa’d was one of those who used to write down the Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115.

With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious, because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious, because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which still stand despite his repentance.

If it is said, “Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?” The answer is:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.

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.

And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.

Islam Q&A
Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Biography of Hafiz Ibn Kathir


By the Honored Shaykh `Abdul-Qadir Al-Arna’ut, may Allah protect him.


He is the respected Imam, Abu Al-Fida’, `Imad Ad-Din Isma il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir Al- Qurashi Al-Busrawi – Busraian in origin; Dimashqi in training, learning and residence.
Ibn Kathir was born in the city of Busra in 701 H. His father was the Friday speaker of the village, but he died while Ibn Kathir was only four years old. Ibn Kathir’s brother, Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab, reared him and taught him until he moved to Damascus in 706 H., when he was five years old.

Ibn Kathir’s Teachers

Ibn Kathir studied Fiqh – Islamic jurisprudence – with Burhan Ad-Din, Ibrahim bin `Abdur- Rahman Al-Fizari, known as Ibn Al-Firkah (who died in 729 H). Ibn Kathir heard Hadiths from `Isa bin Al-Mutim, Ahmad bin Abi Talib, (Ibn Ash-Shahnah) (who died in 730 H), Ibn Al-Hajjar, (who died in 730 H), and the Hadith narrator of Ash-Sham (modern day Syria and surrounding areas); Baha Ad-Din Al-Qasim bin Muzaffar bin `Asakir (who died in 723 H), and Ibn Ash-Shirdzi, Ishaq bin Yahya Al-Ammuddi, also known as `Afif Ad-Din, the Zahiriyyah Shaykh who died in 725 H, and Muhammad bin Zarrad. He remained with Jamal Ad-Din, Yusuf bin Az-Zaki AlMizzi who died in 724 H, he benefited from his knowledge and also married his daughter. He also read with Shaykh Al-Islam, Taqi Ad-Din Ahmad bin `Abdul-Halim bin `Abdus-Salam bin Taymiyyah who died in 728 H. He also read with the Imam Hafiz and historian Shams Ad-Din, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaymaz Adh-Dhahabi, who died in 748 H. Also, Abu Musa Al-Qarafai, Abu Al-Fath Ad-Dabbusi and ‘Ali bin `Umar As-Suwani and others who gave him permission to transmit the knowledge he learned with them in Egypt.
In his book, Al-Mu jam Al-Mukhtas, Al-Hafiz Adh-Dhaliabi wrote that Ibn Kathir was, “The Imam, scholar of jurisprudence, skillful scholar of Hadith, renowned Fagih and scholar of Tafsfr who wrote several beneficial books.”
Further, in Ad-Durar Al-Kdminah, Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar AlAsqalani said, “Ibn Kathir worked on the subject of the Hadith in the areas of texts and chains of narrators. He had a good memory, his books became popular during his lifetime, and people benefited from them after his death.”
Also, the renowned historian Abu Al-Mahasin, Jamal Ad-Din Yusuf bin Sayf Ad-Din (Ibn Taghri Bardi), said in his book, AlManhal As-Safi, “He is the Shaykh, the Imam, the great scholar `Imad Ad-Din Abu Al-Fida’. He learned extensively and was very active in collecting knowledge and writing. He was excellent in the areas of Fiqh, Tafsfr and Hadith. He collected knowledge, authored (books), taught, narrated Hadiths and wrote. He had immense knowledge in the fields of Hadith, Tafsir, Fiqh, the Arabic language, and so forth. He gave Fatwds (religious verdicts) and taught until he died, may Allah grant him mercy. He was known for his precision and vast knowledge, and as a scholar of history, Hadith and Tafsir.”

Ibn Kathir’s Students

Ibn Hajji was one of Ibn Kathir’s students, and he described Ibn Kathir: “He had the best memory of the Hadith texts. He also had the most knowledge concerning the narrators and authenticity, his contemporaries and teachers admitted to these qualities. Every time I met him I gained some benefit from him.”
Also, Ibn Al-`Imad Al-Hanbali said in his book, Shadhardt Adh-Dhahab, “He is the renowned Hafiz `Imad Ad-Din, whose memory was excellent, whose forgetfulness was miniscule, whose understanding was adequate, and who had good knowledge in the Arabic language.”
Also, Ibn Habib said about Ibn Kathir, “He heard knowledge and collected it and wrote various books. He brought comfort to the ears with his Fatwds and narrated Hadiths and brought benefit to other people. The papers that contained his Fatwds were transmitted to the various (Islamic) provinces. Further, he was known for his precision and encompassing knowledge.”

Ibn Kathir’s Books


1 – One of the greatest books that Ibn Kathir wrote was his Tafsir of the Noble Qur’an, which is one of the best Tafsirs that rely on narrations [of Hadiths, the Tafsir of the Companions, etc.]. The Tafsfr by Ibn Kathir was printed many times and several scholars have summarized it.
2- The History Collection known as Al-Biddyah, which was printed in 14 volumes under the name Al-Bidayah wanNihdyah, and contained the stories of the Prophets and previous nations, the Prophet’s Sfrah (life story) and Islamic history until his time. He also added a book Al-Fitan, about the Signs of the Last Hour.
3- At-Takmil ft Ma`rifat Ath-Thiqat wa Ad-Du’afa wal Majdhil which Ibn Kathir collected from the books of his two Shaykhs Al-Mizzi and Adh-Dhahabi; Al-Kdmal and Mizan Al-Ftiddl. He added several benefits regarding the subject of Al-Jarh and AtT’adil.
4- Al-Hadi was-Sunan ft Ahadfth Al-Masdnfd was-Sunan which is also known by, Jami` Al-Masdnfd. In this book, Ibn Kathir collected the narrations of Imams Ahmad bin Hanbal, Al-Bazzar, Abu Ya`la Al-Mawsili, Ibn Abi Shaybah and from the six collections of Hadith: the Two Sahihs [Al-Bukhari and Muslim] and the Four Sunan [Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa i and Ibn Majah]. Ibn Kathir divided this book according to areas of Fiqh.
5-Tabaqat Ash-Shaf iyah which also contains the virtues of Imam Ash-Shafi.
6- Ibn Kathir wrote references for the Hadiths of Adillat AtTanbfh, from the Shafi school of Fiqh.
7- Ibn Kathir began an explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhdri, but he did not finish it.
8- He started writing a large volume on the Ahkam (Laws), but finished only up to the Hajj rituals.
9- He summarized Al-Bayhaqi’s ‘Al-Madkhal. Many of these books were not printed.
10- He summarized `Ulum Al-Hadith, by Abu `Amr bin AsSalah and called it Mukhtasar `Ulum Al-Hadith. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir, the Egyptian Muhaddith, printed this book along with his commentary on it and called it Al-Ba’th Al-Hathfth fi Sharh Mukhtasar `Ulum Al-Hadith.
11- As-Sfrah An-Nabawiyyah, which is contained in his book Al-Biddyah, and both of these books are in print.
12- A research on Jihad called Al-Ijtihad ft Talabi Al-Jihad, which was printed several times.

Ibn Kathir’s Death

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asgalani said, “Ibn Kathir lost his sight just before his life ended. He died in Damascus in 774 H.” May Allah grant mercy upon Ibn Kathir and make him among the residents of His Paradise.

Read Full Post »

The Meaning of Islaam and Eemaan


by Abu ‘Abdilkareem


Courtesy Of: Islaam.com

Do the terms Eemaan and Islaam ever mean the same thing? Or do their meanings always differ?
When the terms Islaam and Eemaan are mentioned in the same verse or hadeeth their meaning differs. When mentioned separately they mean one and the same. Understanding this aspect of our `aqeedah can help us better understand texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Here is how:
The terms Islaam and Eemaan were precisely defined in the hadeeth of Jibreel `alayhis salaam by the pillars they comprise. This famous hadeeth narrated by Muslim explains that Islaam is to testify that there is nothing worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad (sallallaahu `alayhi wa `alaa aalihi wa sallam) is the Messenger of Allaah, to perform prayer, to give the zakaat, to fast the month of Ramadhaan and to perform Hajj, if one has the means to do so. Eemaan, on the other hand, is to believe in Allaah, and His Angels, and His Books and His Messengers, and in the Last Day, and the qadar (divine pre-ordainment), good and evil consequences thereof.
More generally, one could say that Eemaan is construed to mean testifying and belief, while Islaam represents external submission, such as affirmation by tongue and action by limbs. Whoever has faith, he has Islaam, and whoever has Islaam, he has some degree of faith. This is the reason why when one of these two terms is mentioned, the other is taken for granted and is included in it. When it is said in the Qur’aan, “Verily the Deen with Allaah is Islaam.” [3:17] or “Whoever seeks religion other than Islaam it will never be accepted from him.” [3:85], the meaning of Faith is included in the term Islaam.
There cannot be Islaam without any faith and it cannot be that Allaah accept  Islaam with no Eemaan at all. So when one is mentioned, the other one is included. Also, one cannot have Eemaan without Islaam. An evidence from the Qur’aan that Eemaan is of higher degree than Islaam and that when both are mentioned together, they mean two different things is the verse in Soorat ul-Hujuraat: “The bedouins say: ‘We believe.’ Say: ‘You believe not but you only say: ‘We have surrendered (in Islaam).’” [49:14] One cannot claim for himself a high level of faith and a strong commitment to Islaam in accordance with the descriptions of true believers in the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
The Eemaan that is negated in the above verse is the complete Eemaan, or what some scholars, such as Ibn Taymeeyah in Al-`Aqeedat ul-Wasitiyyah, termed “al-Eemaan al- Mutlaq” [Absolute Eemaan], which could be defined as Eemaan that does not lack in any of its roots and branches, its internal or external aspects, and an Eemaan that is proven in the heart, on the tongue and with the limbs. Those who are Muslims, but their Eemaan al-Mutlaq is negated still have Eemaan, however their Eemaan is deficient.
Therefore the term Islaam still includes the meaning of both Islaam and Eemaan. Another example where the absolute Eemaan is negated is the hadeeth: “When an adulterer commits illegal sexual intercourse, then he is not a believer at the time he is doing it, and when a drinker of an alcoholic liquor drinks it, and when a thief steals, then he is not a believer at the time of stealing, and when a robber robs, and the people look at him, then he is not a believer at the time of doing robbery. [al-Bukhaaree] Therefore, when Islaam is mentioned without Eemaan, it includes Eemaan – as action without faith is hypocrisy – but it does not necessarily include al-Eemaan al-Mutlaq.
The Qur’anic descriptions of those who are mu’minoon [as in the beginning of soorat ulmu’minoon] necessarly include the meaning of muslimoon. Those who are Muslims necessarily have some degree of faith, and Islaam that Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta`aalaa) accepts also necessarily includes Eemaan, as for instance in the hadeeth that mentions the questioning in the grave: “…They continue, ‘What is your religion?’ He [believer] answers: ‘Islaam is my religion.’” [from an authentic hadeeth mentioned by al-Albaanee in Ahkaam ul-Janaa’iz] The term ‘Islaam’ here necessarily includes the meaning of Eemaan as well. And the following hadeeth includes both the meaning of Eemaan and Islaam: “The best believers according to their Eemaan are those with the best character.” [At-Tabaraanee, Saheeh Jaami` us-Sagheer #1129]

Read Full Post »