-
Blasphemy
Kindly explain why Prophet (PBUH) didn’t bring this person under law? I mean he took law in his own hands and killed his slave and so according to the law, he should have been punished:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) and said: Messenger 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 (ﷺ) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.
حَدَّثَنَا عَبَّادُ بْنُ مُوسَى الْخُتَّلِيُّ، أَخْبَرَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ الْمَدَنِيُّ، عَنْ إِسْرَائِيلَ، عَنْ عُثْمَانَ الشَّحَّامِ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنَّ أَعْمَى، كَانَتْ لَهُ أُمُّ وَلَدٍ تَشْتُمُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَتَقَعُ فِيهِ فَيَنْهَاهَا فَلاَ تَنْتَهِي وَيَزْجُرُهَا فَلاَ تَنْزَجِرُ – قَالَ – فَلَمَّا كَانَتْ ذَاتَ لَيْلَةٍ جَعَلَتْ تَقَعُ فِي النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَتَشْتِمُهُ فَأَخَذَ الْمِغْوَلَ فَوَضَعَهُ فِي بَطْنِهَا وَاتَّكَأَ عَلَيْهَا فَقَتَلَهَا فَوَقَعَ بَيْنَ رِجْلَيْهَا طِفْلٌ فَلَطَخَتْ مَا هُنَاكَ بِالدَّمِ فَلَمَّا أَصْبَحَ ذُكِرَ ذَلِكَ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَجَمَعَ النَّاسَ فَقَالَ ” أَنْشُدُ اللَّهَ رَجُلاً فَعَلَ مَا فَعَلَ لِي عَلَيْهِ حَقٌّ إِلاَّ قَامَ ” . فَقَامَ الأَعْمَى يَتَخَطَّى النَّاسَ وَهُوَ يَتَزَلْزَلُ حَتَّى قَعَدَ بَيْنَ يَدَىِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنَا صَاحِبُهَا كَانَتْ تَشْتِمُكَ وَتَقَعُ فِيكَ فَأَنْهَاهَا فَلاَ تَنْتَهِي وَأَزْجُرُهَا فَلاَ تَنْزَجِرُ وَلِي مِنْهَا ابْنَانِ مِثْلُ اللُّؤْلُؤَتَيْنِ وَكَانَتْ بِي رَفِيقَةً فَلَمَّا كَانَتِ الْبَارِحَةَ جَعَلَتْ تَشْتِمُكَ وَتَقَعُ فِيكَ فَأَخَذْتُ الْمِغْوَلَ فَوَضَعْتُهُ فِي بَطْنِهَا وَاتَّكَأْتُ عَلَيْهَا حَتَّى قَتَلْتُهَا . فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” أَلاَ اشْهَدُوا أَنَّ دَمَهَا هَدَرٌ ” .
Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani) صحيح (الألباني) حكم
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4361
In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 11
English translation : Book 39, Hadith 4348
-
84 Replies
-
Blasphemy
updated 4 years, 4 months ago
6 Members
·
84
Replies
-
This hadith clearly mentions that Prophet approved of killing the blasphemers.. and more so, being done by an individual, not even the state.
If this Sahih hadith is true, of course.
-
@UmerQureshi could you please guide me?
-
Can that slave woman be considered denier of completion of proof ? Thus making her test in this world to be over ?
-
Can that slave woman be considered denier of completion of proof ? Thus making her test in this world to be over ?
-
-
There are good reasons to reject any hadith, but if it is a Sahih hadith, this event may have happened.. we don’t know for sure..
-
-
@Rafo for your reference.
-
Please do not believe every hadith that you read. Let me try and check the authenticity of it with some scholar
-
I am not “believing” it. I am just saying many reputed scholars believed in it. In any case, my question to you was hypothetical..
Given that this hadith exists, and we are discussing its authenticity, it is possible it is correct .. and it is possible it is false..
In case it is false, no further questions, but if it is true, would you accept that Prophet didn’t exactly do the most correct and moral thing here?
-
-
I do not believe our Prophet sws who brought the message of the Qur’an to us and was Rahmat lil Alimeen would do such a thing so no answer is required from my side. !
-
I ask you again .. if this hadith is true .. if this hadith is true … please answer this hypothetical question.. or are you saying this hadith CAN NOT be true ?
-
what do you mean by the term “Hadith is true”?
-
When I say “if Hadith is true”, I mean if the incident narrated in this hadith indeed happened just like narrated here, just as a historical detail.
-
Then this incident goes against clear directives of Quran which of course is not a possibility, that’s why in usool-e-hadith, the content (matn) of every Hadith is scrutinized in the light of Quran, Sunnah and logic, independently of the health of chain of narration.
-
This discussion is going again in the same direction of hadith/Qur’an/Sunnah consistency, and I would accept your point that we should discuss it in the dedicated thread itself, so as to not derail it. (o/w you will think I am spamming it) . What I meant was, if Prophet did indeed do this (in your opinion, going against Qur’an and Sunnah, but in other scholars’ opinion, in doing so, he didn’t go against Qur’an and Sunnah). Whether this act is against Qur’an and Sunnah is a separate discussion.
-
-
Like I said the Hadith itself is weak by chain. If it wasn’t it would be weak by matn criticism. This type of Hadith absolutism is completely rejected by early scholars of Islam’s and is a rather new phenomena. Eg Imaam Malik
-
The hadith is weak in the eyes of some scholars.. it doesn’t prove it weak. It is classified as Sahih by reputed scholars too. We can say we are not sure .. but how are you preferring one sholar’s view over the other ?
-
As I said many scholars in the past eg Imaam Malik have found sahih by chain Hadith and have outright rejected them anyway. I prefer some scholars over others because our prophet ﴾ﷺ﴿ wouldn’t do something like this
-
So, your reason of rejecting the hadith has less to do with it being weak, but it is your opinion that Prophet wouldn’t do anything like this.. obviously other scholars don’t agree with you.. they termed it Sahih means they certainly think Prophet could do it.
I am not saying you are wrong, or they are wrong, because I don’t know who is lying or telling the truth, or making a honest mistake, but the reason to believe a historic narration can’t be your belief that a certain personality can not do a certain act.
-
My reason for this specific Hadith is two sided- chain and matn criticism.
Imaam Malik has termed many Hadith sahih- but still rejected acting upon them. You have to ask the scholar if they mean sahih just by chain or overall criticims
-
Again, we are going into the hadith science and I would like to keep it to this particular incident only.
This incident if happened, can’t be misrepresented by mistake.. as the details are quite clear.. so anyone who narrated it, either made the things up deliberately or is telling the truth.. it happened in front of many people apparently if it is true.
If the person indeed is a known and proven liar, and the scholars still called his narration sahih, it means something.
-
I sent the link above proving it da’eef. Scholars can be wrong you know
-
I read your link and the argument is primarily based on the reliability of one narrator.. this is again a personal opinion of one scholar, which other scholars did not agree..
I think in case of favourable hadiths we don’t go and analyse their sahih nature as much, but on the hadiths which don’t confirm to our view of the Prophet, we are inclined to believe they are weak.. similar thing was done in the case of Aisha’s age hadiths.
Also, in my time here on this forum…almost every other Sahih hadith has been termed unreliable.. it seems these sahih hadith books are full of false hadiths.
-
-
In this article, it is not prohibited in the time of Prophet for him to kill blasphemer.
A Muslim who blasphemes against God or the Prophet or any of God’s messengers is guilty of denying the Prophet (sws). This is apostasy, which entails that repentance be demanded of the offender. If he repents, he shall be released; if not, he shall be killed. Similarly, if anyone from amongst non-Muslims protected under pact becomes hostile by openly blaspheming against God or the Prophet (sws) or any of God’s messengers, he is guilty of violating the pact; you shall kill him too.[10]
It is this argumentation which, according to the jurists, is the foundation of the punishment for blasphemy. However, deliberation on the Qur’an and the Hadith clearly shows that, after the age of the Prophet’s Companions, this basis has become ineffective forever. In my works, Mizan and Burhan, I have argued at length that the punishment for apostasy was specific to the peoples who had been afforded conclusive evidence of truth by the Prophet (sws) himself but reverted to their denial after having accepted faith. The Prophet’s statement: مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِيْنَهُ فَاقْتُلُوْهُ (kill the one who changes his religion[11]) relates to the same peoples. The decree of the punishment for them was in accordance with the sunnat-e ilahi (the Divine way and principle) that has been described in the Qur’an in relation to the direct addressees of the rusul. It has no relation to Muslims in times after the Prophetic age.
-
Please do not believe any Hadith which is not in line with the Qur’an. I have verified. There is absolutely no punishment for blasphemy in the Qur’an so this ends this discussion.
-
I just gave the article .. where Ghamidi saab said it was permitted in the time of Prophet to kill the blasphemer but it is not permitted now..
So, how can you say Prophet didn’t approve killing of blasphemer woman ?
-
Ghamidi saab said “it was permitted in the time of Prophet to kill the blasphemer but it is not permitted now..”
Please show me these exact words, where has Ghamidi Sahab written them?
-
I didn’t quote him.. I just used his argument he presented.
-
Then you haven’t understood his argument correctly.
Please read the article again.
-
He was talking about jurist view and commented on Ibn Abbas .. but Ghamidi saab approves of apostates killing in the time of Prophet, right ? And a Muslim blasphemer is an apostate. What is the missing point here ?
-
Muslim Blasphemer is an apostate according to Jurists, not according to Ghamidi Sahab. The distinction should be clear.
-
Does Ghamidi saab not think a Muslim blasphemer was an apostate ? Does Ghamidi saab not think that a Jewish blasphemer was the denier of completion of proof ?
-
According to many writings and lectures given by Ghamidi Sahab, Apostasy only becomes a crime after one accepts Islam after itmam-e-Hujjat of Rusul and then leaves it. These were the apostates that were ordered to be killed during Prophet Muhammad’s (Peace be upon Him) time.
For blasphemy, he has explained on several occasions that state can and should make laws to prevent any kind of blasphemy just like the laws are made to protect honour of important pillars of state (like judiciary, army etc.). However, capital punishment cannot be given to anyone except for the crimes mentioned in Quran.
-
A person will become Muslim at the time of Prophet only after becoming convinced of truth, right ? If he blasphemed then, will he not be called apostate ? What else is the reason of his deliberate blasphemy if he accepts Prophet as messenger of God ?
If a Jewish person who has been given the right to live as a dhimmi, blasphemes, after being given the complete proof of truth, will he not be killed by Prophet ?
-
-
@Rafo your argument was Prophet could not have done it, but why can’t Prophet approve the killing of apostates/blasphemer on the principle of completion of proof deniers ?
-
prove this was after decision of God came into action
I’m not sure of the procedure if any when it comes to killing apostates after hujjah
-
Why should I prove it ? You should prove that Prophet couldn’t have done it ..
-
Because I don’t think the prophet would allow one man to be judge jury and executioner all at the same time. I think there would be a procedure for this. Also the chain is weak. Please refer to the website I sent
-
Please don’t give the argument of chain being weak, because it is some scholars’ opinion vs the other scholars who consider it Sahih.
-
-
Ghamidi saab’s quote on the jurist’s view :
“It is this argumentation which, according to the jurists, is the foundation of the punishment for blasphemy. However, deliberation on the Qur’an and the Hadith clearly shows that, after the age of the Prophet’s Companions, this basis has become ineffective forever.”
-
Let me tell you categorically that any Hadith which is not line with the Qur’an is not correct. There is no punishment for blasphemy in the Qur’an
-
A historical account doesn’t have to be in line with Qur’an. If there is no ruling of something in Qur’an it doesn’t mean Prophet wouldn’t have done it … Sunnah is another source.
-
Please read principles of determining sunnah from mizan
-
I am talking about a historical event and you are saying that it can’t be true, because Prophet would never have done it.. it is an assumption only.
-
The chain is weak- that is the first problem. The second problem is that other historical reports of him doing justice clash with it. So we reason and come to a conclusion
-
A person can do justice sometime and in other times act in the injustice manner..
The chain is weak .. it is your view .. and not the view of other scholars who considered it Sahih.
-
I don’t understand why you think that those scholars can’t be wrong. I have sent the link above why it is weak. Show me why the scholars thought it was sahih and we will see if they were right. You can just keep on saying scholars think it was sahih
-
I will request you to not misrepresent my statement. I didn’t say or think that these scholars can’t be wrong. All I said was, that chain being weak is not proven .. it is one scholar opinion against other scholars’ opinion on the narrator’s trustworthiness.
-
Since many scholars view the chain to be weak and this incident does not correlate with our general understanding of the character of Muhammad ﴾ﷺ﴿ we can safely conclude this event did not occur
-
I will not comment on first one, because many scholars considered it to be not weak and I am not here to analyse their reasons.
On second point, I think this event can be used to form one part of “general understanding” of the Prophet’s character.
According to many scholars, Prophet said to kill apostates, so it is not beyond his character to kill people for their choice of religion.. then it is not beyond someone to permit killing of someone who insulted him.
-
Please then provide the number of scholars who do think it is authentic compared to the number of those who don’t.
Why would a questionable Hadith with uncertain origins be part of this?
Yes but he didn’t allow one man in one night to be a judge jury and executioner
-
I don’t want to make this thread about hadith science, you can open a separate thread to discuss that..
“Yes but he didn’t allow one man in one night to be a judge jury and executioner”
He allowed his sahabas to kill apostates, not every apostate would be brought to Prophet for killing.. and if your problem is only because he allowed a person to be jury, then it is not exactly true.. he questioned him.. and on hearing the reason he said it is fine.
-
-
I do not accept any hadis which is not in line with the Qur’an Sunnah. Does the Qur’an mention this event?
-
Qur’an does not mention many historical events..
-
-
Sameer please read these instructions from the Qur’an to the Muslims regarding the blasphemy remarks made by the munafikeen and mushrikeen about Prophet sws
Surat No 2 : سورة البقرة – Ayat No 104
یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَقُوۡلُوۡا رَاعِنَا وَ قُوۡلُوا انۡظُرۡنَا وَ اسۡمَعُوۡا ؕ وَ لِلۡکٰفِرِیۡنَ عَذَابٌ اَلِیۡمٌ ﴿۱۰۴﴾
O you who have believed, say not [to Allah ‘s Messenger], “Ra’ina” but say, “Unthurna” and listen. And for the disbelievers is a painful punishment.
Surat No 4 : سورة النساء – Ayat No 140
وَ قَدۡ نَزَّلَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ فِی الۡکِتٰبِ اَنۡ اِذَا سَمِعۡتُمۡ اٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ یُکۡفَرُ بِہَا وَ یُسۡتَہۡزَاُ بِہَا فَلَا تَقۡعُدُوۡا مَعَہُمۡ حَتّٰی یَخُوۡضُوۡا فِیۡ حَدِیۡثٍ غَیۡرِہٖۤ ۫ ۖاِنَّکُمۡ اِذًا مِّثۡلُہُمۡ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ جَامِعُ الۡمُنٰفِقِیۡنَ وَ الۡکٰفِرِیۡنَ فِیۡ جَہَنَّمَ جَمِیۡعَا ۨ ﴿۱۴۰﴾ۙ
And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together –
Surat No 5 : سورة المائدة – Ayat No 57
یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الَّذِیۡنَ اتَّخَذُوۡا دِیۡنَکُمۡ ہُزُوًا وَّ لَعِبًا مِّنَ الَّذِیۡنَ اُوۡتُوا الۡکِتٰبَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِکُمۡ وَ الۡکُفَّارَ اَوۡلِیَآءَ ۚ وَ اتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ ﴿۵۷﴾
O you who have believed, take not those who have taken your religion in ridicule and amusement among the ones who were given the Scripture before you nor the disbelievers as allies. And fear Allah , if you should [truly] be believers.
Surat No 5 : سورة المائدة – Ayat No 58
وَ اِذَا نَادَیۡتُمۡ اِلَی الصَّلٰوۃِ اتَّخَذُوۡہَا ہُزُوًا وَّ لَعِبًا ؕ ذٰلِکَ بِاَنَّہُمۡ قَوۡمٌ لَّا یَعۡقِلُوۡنَ ﴿۵۸﴾
And when you call to prayer, they take it in ridicule and amusement. That is because they are a people who do not use reason.
Surat No 63 : سورة المنافقون – Ayat No 8
یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ لَئِنۡ رَّجَعۡنَاۤ اِلَی الۡمَدِیۡنَۃِ لَیُخۡرِجَنَّ الۡاَعَزُّ مِنۡہَا الۡاَذَلَّ ؕ وَ لِلّٰہِ الۡعِزَّۃُ وَ لِرَسُوۡلِہٖ وَ لِلۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ وَ لٰکِنَّ الۡمُنٰفِقِیۡنَ لَا یَعۡلَمُوۡنَ ٪﴿۸﴾ 13
They say, “If we return to al-Madinah, the more honored [for power] will surely expel therefrom the more humble.” And to Allah belongs [all] honor, and to His Messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites do not know.
I think after this it is very clear that the Qur’an does not mention ANY PUNISHMENT for blasphemy. So again please do not accept any Hadith as Sahih unless it has references in the Qur’an and in line with it.
-
Let me ask a related question.. in the time of Prophet, there must be some incidents of some people saying insulting words against him.. and since he was so much loved by his companions they must have got angry.. so it is quite possible, some of the companions must have gotten so angry on the blasphemer, that they may have physically injured him or even killed him..
Do we have any account of how Prophet dealt with these situations ? Did he punish the blasphemer or did he punish the killer of the blasphemer ?
-
You can produce evidence for these claims. We know the prophet ﴾ﷺ﴿ was generally very forgiving to ignorant people
-
I am asking the question .. not claiming anything.. it is quite natural to assume that these events may have happened.. and some companions might have got angry over the blasphemer and tried to kill him.. so would Prophet have ordered punishment for such killers ?
Sahih International: Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.
-
-
There is no punishment for Blasphemy in the Qur’an and the Prophet or his companions would not go against the directives of the Qur’an. Also the Prophet sws was a very kind man who would not take action even if he was insulted
-
Sahih International: Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.
Why does Allah curse the blasphemer in this world ??
-
It’s talking about the people of that time- they were cursed for their arrogance and stubbornness
-
Like Allah cursed the polytheists for their arrogance and stubbornness by ending their test in this world (by asking the Prophet to kill them) ? Same thing for those who insult the Prophet ?
-
-
The above Hadith is weak and if you want to examine it you have a big historical event conquest of Macca, on this occasion our prophet sws forgave every enemy even the murderer of his beloved uncle hazrat Humza alahi Assalam and you should know there must be many blasphemers there and that day he was in power but he forgave everyone.
-
How do you know he forgave everyone and what is the source of your information ? Is it the Sunnah to forgive everyone, even the murderer of our loved ones ?
-
-
Occupation of Mecca (conquest of makkah) Edit
The Muslim army entered and occupied Mecca in the year 630 CE. In 628 the Meccan tribe of Quraish and the Muslim community in Medina signed a truce called the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Despite improved relations between Mecca and Medina after the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, a 10-year peace was to be broken by Quraish who, with their allies, the tribe of Bakr, attacked the tribe of Khuza’ah who were allies of the Muslims. However, Muhammad considered the treaty broken.[citation needed] Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraish in Mecca, was aware that the balances were now tilted in Muhammad’s favour, went to Medina to restore the treaty but Muhammad refused to accommodate him and Abu Sufyan returned to Mecca empty-handed. When he learned that a Muslim army of 10,000 soldiers was marching towards Mecca, he converted to Islam and negotiated Mecca’s transfer of power to avoid a conquest.[1] Muhammad acted generously to the Meccans, demanding only that the pagan idols around the Kaaba be destroyed, now there are no idols there.
Forgiveness is up to the family of the victim that after the trail they can forgive him or can demand for his punishment.
-
What is the source that he forgave everyone .. in Ibn Ishaq’s biography, it is said that he didn’t forgive 8 people..
-
-
-
So, why don’t we see the public movement and scholars against Pakistan’s anti-Islamic law of blasphemy punishment ?
-
This is no argument against Islam itself. Some ‘scientists’ call the earth flat
-
If true Islam is followed by very few scholars, and mainstream, majority scholars follow the wrong Islam, the world will view what it views..
-
Ok
-
-
Most of people follow blindly their religious scholars same as in India like they are killing Muslim ‘drinking cow’s urine and eating cow’s waste. Why are they doing these? Only reason following blindly the same in Pakistan they only trust their scholars and not ready to listen to any other that’s way Ghamidi Sahab had to leave Pakistan.
-
There is no punishment for blasphemy in the Qur’an, Allah ordered the Polytheists to be killed but he did not order the killing of people accused of blasphemy. How do you prove some one committed blasphemy? Any one can accuse another of blasphemy for some personal vendetta
-
Allah ordered the polytheists to be killed because their test in this world was over.. why a blasphemer’s test isn’t over ?
Sahih International: Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.
-
We have made it abundantly clear this itmam e hujjat only occurs when a. Prophet is present
-
That means if Prophet killed or allowed the killing of a blasphemer, it is not exactly against Qur’an and Sunnah ?
-
Depends on the whole situation eg if he was from the muaanideen
-
What is this word ?
-
Aggressive rejectors basically
-
Can sahabas also kill such a person ?
-
Well it would be done under the prophets ﴾ﷺ﴿ command
-
-
This is Allah’s decision. First prove the Blasphemy charge. Then give the person time to repent and say tauba if true. Allah is running the world, he knows everything, his decisions are final.
-
Can you please specify which all crimes can’t be punished after Prophet’ era is over ? Are all crimes dependent only on “completion of proof” ?
-
-
A person is innocent until proven guilty.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
The discussion "Blasphemy" is closed to new replies.
