Is "Smite Their Neck" acceptable in Islam for those who are perceived as enemy?

[BarbaraTherese]

I do not understand at all what the Muslim religion is all about, not at all. Not knowing I neither condemn nor condone.

What I do know is that in our culture, shared by many nations, to murder the innocent is a capital offence. If a group declares war on our culture including the premeditated murder of innocent people, then we are at war with them. In other words we seek to stop them. We either fight for our freedom or we turn to pacificism. (fight or flight and the other alternative if all are willing is communication) In that is the quandry. The Catholic Catechism does outline conditions for a ‘just war’.

Frankly I see parallels with Naziism…it seems these terrorist wish to rule the world and impose their beliefs on the rest of us which we must accept or die…it seeks to slaughter not a race as with the Nazis, but those adhering to other religions. Nazis wished to eradicate a race…terrorists it seems alternative religions.

Well anyway, that is the excuse they seem to be using. In a nutshell they are seeking absolute power, which was the same as the Nazi’s. The war they are waging in type…has changed the face of war as we know it. So did World War 1. World War 11 revealed a war in which the innocent were premeditatively slaughted on a mass scale. Vietnam revealed a war where the enemy could not be identified often and included in their military women and children…terrorism has identified a war where the oppressor is potentially living in our neighbourhood and even more unidentifiable often and where the innocent are very much a target and on home soil.

Barb
Arguing points of religion could be (not necessarily!)like sitting outside a paddock while the horses bolt arguing over who is to close the gate and why when sitting in the group is a person who plans to open the gate no matter who closes it nor why.

 

[r.gonzales]

Allah willing, this will be my last post on this paricular issue as the explicit verses from the Quran, as well as the testimony of prophet muhammad’s companions are more than sufficient in proving the fact that he was illiterate. as well, this issue regarding prophet muhammad’s literacy/illiteracy has taken this thread way off topic.

firstly, deExupery, you’re the one who kept on about the meaning of the word “iqra” looking at it from an english perspective… and btw, i should mention here in reply both to you and to reuben’s earlier comment about me making the meaning of the words ‘read’ and ‘illiterate’ rather complicated, the english dictionary defines the word “recite” as, “repeating from memory; reading out loud in public” (ref: dictionary.com if you wish). as i mentioned, in the arabic language, there is no difference between reading and recitation, both are “qiraa’ah” coming from the root word qara’a. and surely, one who is illiterate can still perform “qiraa’ah” out loud from one’s memory without having to look at a manuscript or book.

secondly, seeing that your “logical conclusions” keep changing ever so slightly as the discussion goes on, it leads me to think that you’re either confused about things or that you just wish to prolong this discussion. let’s look at each of your “logical” conclusions as the discussion’s progressed:

your first set of “logical conclusions”:

DeExupery:

1. One is what cute has already said:

If allah knew he was illiterate why the so called angel asked him to read when he first met this angel?

Jibril said: Iqra, means Read. It should mean: (a) Jibril brought something to read by Mohammed (b) Mohammed could read.
Remember that Jibril said Iqra until 3 times.

1. Logical opinion:
   Mohammed was the righthand of Khadijah (before marriage) in her trade. If I am not mistaken, he sometimes even lead the trade. If he couldn’t read and write do you think it’s not easy for anyone who deals with him to trick him?

regarding the second point here, it’s already been shown that you don’t have to be literate in order to conduct business transactions, you just need to be able to count and calculate. so the fact that prophet muhammad used to work for khadeejah conducting business transactions for her does not negate the fact that he did not know how to read or write.

as for the first point, there is nothing mentioned in the recorded accounts of this incident that suggests that jibreel had brought something with him. rather, as is stated in the authentic hadeeths narrating the event, he simply appeared before prophet muhammad and said to him, “read”, to which prophet muhammad replied, “i cannot read (maa ana bi qaaree - which literally translates to ‘i am one who reads’ or ‘i am not a reader’).” this occurred twice, with jibreel taking prophet and squeezing him after he replied until as prophet muhammad said, “the strain had an effect on me” (he did not choke him, as you so erroneously state). after which, jibreel revealed to him the first five verses of soorah al-'alaq, “read in the name of your Lord who created. He created man from a clot. read, and your Lord is the Most Noble. the One who taught by the pen. He taught man what he did not know.” (96:1-5). more discussion will follow after presenting the evolution of your “logical conclusions”.

your second “logical” conclusion:

DeExupery:

If Mohammed PBUH was illiterate and Jibril forced him to read again and again, it means that Allah and Jibril didn’t know anything about Mohammed PBUH.

this is also not a logical conclusion to what transpired when these verses were revealed, as what transpired does not necessitate that Allah or jibreel was ignorant of prophet muhammad’s illiteracy. in fact, other verses found within the Quran itself, as mentioned above, explicitly state that prophet muhammad was illiterate. more discussion to follow…

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

which then evolved to:

DeExupery:

1. If Mohammed is forced to read and he said he can’t read, then Jibril and Allah is not all knowing. They even didn’t know anything about the man they chose to become a messenger.
2. If Mohammed is forced to recite and he said he couldn’t then he lie, because he could speak and if he only needed to repeat after Jibril, it didn’t take a genius to do so. Many people in the world can recite in arabic even if they can’t speak arabic. And Mohammed PBUH spoke arabic.
   So, the verses doesn’t support of Mohammed illiteracy, logically.

as mentioned just previously, point #1 is an illogical conclusion.

as for your second point, this also is not a logical conclusion stemming from your lack of knowledge regarding the meaning of the word iqra’ in the arabic language. also, these verses were not revealed until after jibreel had told the prophet to read twice with prophet muhammad replying that he could not read each time. prophet muhammad was not expecting jibreel to appear before him. he was completely surprised and shocked by what happened, which is why he came running home to his wife khadeejah seeking comfort after the incident. there is nothing to suggest that prophet muhammad lied to jibreel, nor is it necessitated by the circumstances of the incident. more discussion to follow…

and:

DeExupery:

it doesn’t mean that Mohammed PBUH is illiterate. It could be that:

1. Jibril didn’t bring any book or didn’t say any word to recite, except saying Iqra.
2. Mohammed PBUH was too scared because he was choked by Jibril.

neither of these are substantiated or even suggested by the texts describing the event. nor are they facts as found in recorded history.

now, let’s take a look at some of your “logical” conclusions:

1. if prophet muhammad was indeed illiterate, then the incident means that Allah and/or jibreel were ignorant of this fact.
   as i mentioned, this is not a logical conclusion to what transpired when these verses from soorah al-'alaq were revealed. Allah or jibreel being ignorant of prophet muhammad’s illiteracy is not necessitated by jibreel telling prophet muhammad to read when he couldn’t.

as is a known fact, Allah does things according to His perfect and complete wisdom. and part of that is to set examples and teach lessons for the people who are to come later. for example, Allah says regarding a punishment that He inflicted upon a disobedient peoples, “and so We made it (i.e., the punishment) a warning for what is ahead of it (lit. between its hands) and what is behind it and an admonision for the pious.” (2:66). this incident recorded in authentic hadeeths is just one of the proofs that show us that prophet muhammad was illiterate, as prophet muhammad explicitly told jibreel twice that, “i am not one who reads.” this is one lesson we are taught by this incident.

in his expanation of this hadeeth in fath al-baaree, ibn hajar mentions that prophet muhammad’s statement, “i am not one who reads” means, “illiterate, not proficient in the reading of books.” this is further confirmation in addition to verses like 29:48, which says, “you did not recite any book previous to it, nor did you write it with your right hand.” and 7:157-158, which says, “those who follow the messenger, the illiterate prophet who they find written with them the tawrah and the injeel, commands them with good and prohibits them from evil, makes the good things lawful for them and makes forbidden for them the evil things. he unburdens them of their covanent and the shackles that were upon them. so those who believe in him, venerate him, support him ad follow the light that he was sent with, those are the successful ones. say: o people, surely, i am Allah’s messenger to you all, the One who the heavens and the earth belong to. there is no deity [worthy of worship] except Him. He gives life and causes death. so believe in Allah and His messenger, the illiterate prophet who believes in Allah and His words. and follow him in hopes that you be guided.”

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

this along with the statement authentically reported from the prophet’s cousin, 'abdullah bin 'abbaas, “he is your prophet. he was illiterate; he does not write, nor read, nor calculate.” make it abundantly clear that prophet muhammad was illiterate.

as for jibreel’s saying, “read”, ibn hajar states:

our shaikh, al-bulqeenee, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the story indicates that jibreel’s intent with this was that the prophet, may Allah send greetings and peace upon him, say the wording that he said, and that is “read”. and surely, he did not say, “read” until its end (i.e., the entire first verse of this chapter), in order that he not thinkth his word, “say” is also from the Quran (i.e., he didn’t tell prophet muhammad, “say: read in the name of your Lord…” so that prophet muhammad doesn’t think that the word “say” is part of the verse).

so what was intended was that prophet muhammad repeat what jibreel was saying, as “read” is the beginning of the first verse of the chapter, "read in the name of your Lord who created.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Ummi or Umiyy can mean either unlettered or illiterate. There are many ahadith that clearly state or suggest that Muhammad could read and write, it is clear Muhammad being Ummi means he was ‘unlettered’, not illiterate.

please, read what you just wrote here and try to see how ignorant it sounds. you may want to read this as well to see what i’m trying to get at: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unlettered

and rodrigo, you may want to read up on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61916

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r. gonzales:

please, read what you just wrote here and try to see how ignorant it sounds. you may want to read this as well to see what i’m trying to get at: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unlettered

Puh leeze - I can get other definitions as well. You bring an online dictionary and it’s proof of nothing. I bring the sahih hadiths that clearly state that Muhammad could read and write. So, are you saying the sahih hadiths are wrong? Yes or No.

Here is another dictionary definition:

unlettered - WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) :

unlettered
adj 1: having little acquaintance with writing; “special tutorials
to assist the unlettered sector of society” [syn:
analphabetic]
2: lacking general education or knowledge; “an ignorant man”;
“nescient of contemporary literature”; “an unlearned group
incapable of understanding complex issues”; “exhibiting
contempt for his unlettered companions” [syn: ignorant,
nescient, unenlightened, unlearned]
onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/unlettered

This proves exactly what I’m saying; Ummi means EITHER unlettered (as in ignorant of things in books) or illiterate.

Since the sahih hadiths I provided prove Muhammad could both read and write, he couldn’t be illiterate, could he? So he must be unlettered ( as in ignorant of things in books).
r. gonzales:

and rodrigo, you may want to read up on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61916

I see your apologetic about the sahih hadith being ‘crappy translations’.

r.gonzales:

perhaps instead of relying on crappy translations, you should learn how to read arabic and see if what you’re reading is correct and also read the explanations of the things you’re reading to further ensure that you’re understanding things correctly.

You went on to disprove Bukhari 7:88 on the fact that the translator translated ‘zawway’ to mean ‘write the marriage contract’.

Note I don’t rely on 7:88 because I already know zawwaj means marriage.

Tell your apologetics to someone who doesn’t know Islam. It doesn’t wash with me. You can hoodwink some people by claiming that they don’t speak Arabic but you can’t hoodwink everyone.

As for your apologetic that Muhammad only dictated to a scribe and that he couldn’t himself read or write:

Sahih al-Bukari (The Book of Knowledge) No. 115 - Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah: Ibn 'Abbas said, "When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, ‘Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.’

Now, this is an unambiguous statement from Muhammad that he can write. No scribe mentioned here, bud.

Next…

 

[Reuben_J]

Edris:

As for Khadija’s cousin Waraqa Ebn Nawfal, yes he was a Christian, But the Prophet pbuh met him only once he sat with him for no more than a couple of hours at maximum. It was when the Prophet pbuh received the first revelation of “iqra’”, and went back to home frightened, Khadija (may God bless her) told him my cousin know of such things, so let’s go to him and ask him, so they went to Waraqa, because Angel Gabriel, the first time didn’t tell the prophet pbuh anything that he will be a Prophet, and that Gabriel was an Angel. And this is all the conversation that took place between Muhammad pbuh and Waraqa

Narrated 'Aisha(R): Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3
Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, “Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!” Waraqa asked, “O my nephew! What have you seen?” Allah’s Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, “This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out.” Allah’s Apostle asked, “Will they drive me out?” Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, “Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly.” But after a few days Waraqa died.

Waraqa died just a couple of days after the Prophet pbuh met him, Yet the revelations continued for another 23years, so there is noway that Waraqa could’ve taught the Prophet pbuh all the Qur’an in two or three hours.

Peace

There is no evidence that can make us conclude that Muhammad met Waraqa only once. There were definitely more meetings. The issue was important for Muhammad and beside Waraqa was his wife first cousin. In the then close knitted Arabic tribal society, it just didn’t make sense they met only once and just for three hours! The single meeting mentioned might be documented doesn’t mean that there were none others.

 

[Reuben_J]

Edris:

“In Bible, as long as I know, we come to heaven to reunite with our Creator, and we live pure as an angel.
Of course it’s very different.”

what about the disbelievers, are they going to hell and live there as angels too?. Or they will reunite with Satan and live as devils.?

Live as devils? News to me.

Edris:

Couple of days ago, I had an interesting discussion with some of my Christian friends, i asked them what is the fate of the animals, are they going to heaven or hell, or what will happen to them. And I started hearing many stories like for example, there is a heaven for animals, another said, no there will a heaven for every kind of animal like for example cats will be living together, monkeys together in a heaven just prepared for them. It seemed to me that they had no clue of what’s gonna happen . Of course in Islam we know what their fate will be and trust me it’s not gonna be heaven or hell…?

Yeah, really?

Then again you can try Genesis and see what it says.

 

[Edris]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Here are some of the ahadiths that prove Muhammad was not illiterate:

Sahih al-Bukari
كتاب (The Book of the Virtues of Madinah)

No. 1756 - Narrated 'Ali: We have nothing except the Book of Allah and this written paper from the Prophet (where-in is written Medina is a sanctuary from the 'Air mountain to such and such a place, and whoever innovates in it an heresy or commits a sin, or gives shelter to such an innovator in it will incur the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted. And the asylum (of protection) granted by any Muslim is to be secured (respected) by all the other Muslims; and whoever betrays a Muslim in this respect incurs the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, and none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted, and whoever (freed slave) befriends (take as masters) other than his manumitters without their permission incurs the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, and none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted.

---

To claim the Quran is divine because Muhammad was illiterate is to claim Muhammad was stupid. Even children know how to read and write. The Quraysh may have been 7th century barbarians but that does not mean they were uncultured. Poetry was much admired and highly popular at that stage.

Do the Muslims who claim the Quran is divine because Muhammad was illiterate also concede the Odyssey and the Iliad are divine because Homer was blind (hence was functionally iliterate)?

As brother Gonzales mentioned this discussion is starting to get borring. He already explained the word “iqra’” in arabic and what it stands for, a zillion times so far; but it seems to me we have people here who are literate yet “stupid”.

As for hadith #1756, the answer to your claim is in the hadith itself, “…the Book of Allah and this written paper from the Prophet…”. From the Prophet pbuh true, but not wrriten by the Prophet, instead both the Book of Allah (Qur’an) and the paper both were written by the companions.

The Prophet pbuh used to send letters to the leaders of the tribes, he also sent letters to Negus, king of Abyssinia (Ethiopia); Vicegerent of Egypt, called Muqawqas; Chosroes, Emperor of Persia; Caesar, King of Rome; etc… , None of the letters was written by the Prophet pbuh himself instead he dictated the content to the scribes and they wrote down the letters. When the messenger from the Prophet pbuh deliver the letter to a king they will say “this letter is from Prophet Muhammad pbuh” and the letters will read “From Muhammad, Messenger of Allah to…” But doesn’t mean that Muhammd pbuh wrote the letter himself.

The letters sent by the Prophet pbuh and the replies from the kings are in this link witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch5s2.html You can read through them cause they summarise the message of Islam. Specially the last letter which was sent to the King of ‘Oman, Jaifer, and his Brother ‘Abd Al-Jalandi, here ‘Amr bin Al-’As (the messenger from Prophet Muhammd pbuh) engaged in a dialogue with 'Abd Al-Jalandi it basically shows the main concept of Islam.

As for the rest of the hadiths you quoted, I think brother Gonzales has said more than enough about the “iqra’” and “literacy” issues.

Peace

 

[r.gonzales]

firstly, i although i haven’t read the entire book, i can say that your friend has erred on quite a few of his points.

i should note here that the ms word document i linked you to is not formatted properly, with paragraphs and sentences being cut off in the wrong places such that it looks like separate paragraphs when they’re not and the same paragraphs when they’re not. also, the headings and subheadings found in the hardcopy i have are not included in this ms word copy of the book, which would make it difficult for someone to get the contexts of the quotes without having read the whole book. you should inform your friend that whenever he encounters the symbol #, it means that it is the end of one paragraph and the beginning of another. the symbol ^ denotes either the beginning of a Quranic verse or the end of one.

The first part of the quotation found in Mark Gabriel’s book (“Believers when in a weakened stage in a non-Muslim country should forgive and be patient with people of the book (i.e., Jews and Christians) when they insult Allah and his prophet by any means.”) looks to me as not being the opinion of ibn Taymiyya (IT) , but rather it is found in his book as a quotation of opponents to his view that all insulters of Mohd should be killed.

this is not the case at all. and there is nothing in the text of the book to indicate that it’s not from ibn taimiyyah’s own words. this is probably due to not being familiar with ibn taimiyyah, his writing style and the method in which he dealt with issues. more discussion on what your friend said below after i comment on other parts of what you quoted from him…

On page 2 , Ibn Taimiyah ( hereforth: IT ) states four points he wants to make in his book. Point 1 is that “every insulter (of Mohamad) should be killed, whether he is a muslim or a kaffir” (disbeliever) .

correct, on page two of the word document i linked to, ibn taimiyyah states:

the first issue:
that whoever insults the prophet, whether muslim or unbeliever, his killing is obligatory.

this is the first issue ibn taimiyyah begins his book with. he mentions the concensus regarding the punishment for the one who insults the prophet (s) whether muslim or unbeliever, brings supporing statements regarding the ruling of the crime. then he goes on to mention the opinions of various imams from the past regarding it, as well as the various different aspects related to the topic.

To support point one, he gives several proofs or answers (to those who might oppose his views) from page 2 to page 106.

page 106 is where he brings the second issue. now, from the first issue up until this point, there appears 180 some odd subheadings, all pertaining to various things related to this first issue; such as the concensus regarding the first issue (i.e., the obligation of killing the one who insults the prophet), various opinions of different imams from the religion, what constitutes insulting the prophet, violations of covenants/treaties, the disbelief of the one who abuses the prophet, stories of certain incidents during the prophet’s time such as the story about the person who was treating aboo bakr rudely, the story of ka’b bin al-ashraf and others, as well as various discussions concerning them and their implications, and many more.

 

[r.gonzales]

con’t…

On page 100, IT says that some experts in islam cite a counter-example where some Jews insult the prophet, but he does not kill them.

IT replies to this by saying that “this happened in the days when islam was weak , when Allah had warned the muslims that they would hear harmful words from the dhimmis and the polytheists, and commanded them to be patient and pious. Then this was abrogated , when (muslims became) strong, by the order to fight them until they pay the jizya with humiliation, and the humiliated cannot do harmful deeds openly”. (= say insults against M).

Then IT discusses whether this is really an abrogation or not, IT being of the opinion that there was actually no abrogation because the initial order from allah was to forgive until he (allah) came with other orders about giving the edge to islam and fighting for its cause until victory.

firstly, i’d like to point out that what your friend mentions regarding when islam was weak is wrong. this is why: the word dhimmee refers to those from ahl adh-dhimmah - which means people of protection. this term is given to those who live under muslim rule and pay the jizyah tax, which ensures the protection of their blood, families and wealth, hence the term ahl adh-dhimmah. obviously, if the muslims are in power and have implemented the jizyah, then they are not in a weakened state. they would be in the position of “the people of strength” mentioned in the correct quote from ibn taimiyyah i posted earlier.

as for the portion of the book being summarized by your friend, then it actually occurs quite a bit after the portion that gabriel quoted from and appears under the subheading, “types of the jews’ harm to the prophet and the cause for why he did not punish them for it” and is found on page 246 in my hardcopy. the portion gabriel quoted from is found on page 93 abouts, corresponding to page 229 in the hardcopy i have printed by maktab al-islaamee.

Maybe there is something I have missed in the 261 pages of this book ! (though I have checked every occurrence of “ahl al kitab” = people of the book)

tell your friend he should have been looking for the word مستضعف (mustad’af - oppressed) or أوتوا الكتاب (ootool-kitaab - those given the book).

I believe that his mistake is that he may have allowed himself to make a (hasty) summary and present it as a direct quote.
BUT, when IT presented the objection “and some people say the order to forgive remains (valid) when it (forgiveness) is needed, because the muslim is too weak to fight, or because he (the muslim) is in a time or a place where he cannot fight”. He did not say what he thought of it, but the impression the reader has is that he agrees with it, but wants to underscore that it does not ruin his theory.

again, here’s the original quote that was chopped by gabriel:

so whoever was from the muslims in a land in which he was put in a weakened state, or during a time in which he was in a weakened state, then he should act by the verse of patience, forgiveness and {pardon} from whoever of those who were given the Book (i.e., the jews and the christians) and the polytheists who harms Allah and His messenger. as for the people of strength, then certainly they act by the verse of fighting the leaders of disbelief who attack the religion and by the verse of fighting those who were given the Book until they give the jizyah from a [willing] hand while they are subdued.

so if it is said Allah, exalted is He, has said, “do you not see those who were forbidden from secret counsels - until - and if they came to you greeting you by what Allah did not great you with and they say within themselves, ‘if Allah will not punish us for what we say.’ sufficient for them is hell; they will be burned by it. the outcome is wretched.” (58:8) then, He informed that they greet the messenger with a rejected greeting and he informed that the punishment in the hereafter suffices them for it. so it is known that punishing them in the worldly life is not obligatory.

this quote is preceded a section where ibn taimiyyah speaks of the fear and humiliation the jews of madeenah felt after the killing of ka’b bin al-ashraf, and is followed by a section containing numerous hadeeths regarding the jews greating prophet muhammad with “as-saamu 'alaikum” meaning, “poison be upon you.” followed by ibn taimiyyah bring examples of prophet muhammad’s forebearance, which is then followed by a section where ibn taimiyyah discusses the cause for prophet muhammad’s patience towards this harm. and as is clear from the text, this quote which was chopped and altered by gabriel is from ibn taimiyyah’s own words.

 

[JoelRichardson]

R. Gonzales,

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the book.

A few questions:

One, do you agree with Ibn Taimiyah’s thesis? Is the killing of every “insulter” of Muhammad absolutley obligatory? And B: Do you think that I have done this in my book?

And two, just out of curiosity, Mark Gabriel cites his quote from page 221 of Ibn Taymiyah’s book. Since you have a hard copy, although it may be a different version, could you check this one last time, just in case. Still holding out hope.

Shokroon Jayzeelah,

Bless you,

Joel

 

[r.gonzales]

JoelRichardson:

One, do you agree with Ibn Taimiyah’s thesis?

as i’ve said, i haven’t read the entire book. so i can’t say whether i agree completely or not. however, i will say that i agree with his view that insulting the prophet is disbelief (as is insulting Allah or any other prophet that was sent by Allah) and for a muslim who commits such an act, is apostasy from the religion, as insulting Allah or His prophets and messengers (from muhammad all the way down to adam) is one of the things that nullifies one’s islam and renders his faith null and void. there are however many different things that come into play relating of this topic that add to the complexity of the issues discussed by ibn taimiyyah in this book, some of which ibn taimiyyah has discussed in other places. one such thing are the issues pertaining to faith and disbelief. another thing, related to that is the issues pertaining to takfeer which is somewhat similar to excommunication in christianity (takfeer is the declaration that someone is an unbeliever) and yet another is the issues surrounding ignorance being an excuse.

JoelRichardson:

Is the killing of every “insulter” of Muhammad absolutley obligatory?

as i mentioned, i haven’t read the book in its entirety, nor have i read much on this particular issue, so to formulate an opinion based on the limited knowledge i have regarding it wouldn’t exactly be an opinion based upon study and research. what i can say in general is that Allah has legislated certain punishments for certain crimes and the application of these punishments upon those guilty of the crimes is obligatory. however, with each situation, there are variables that will allow for such things to be carried out or prevent them from being carried out. first and foremost from these variables is the existence of an islamic state to implement islamic laws and carry out the legislated punishments if need be. no individual muslim is allowed to be judge, jury and executioner when he sees a crime being committed. he must take the affair to the authorities, and if there are none, then it is not upon him to take vigilante type measures to ensure that justice be served.

as for:

JoelRichardson:

And B: Do you think that I have done this in my book?

i’m not entirely sure what you mean by “this”. i can only assume that you’re referring to the clipping of statements and misinterpretions and taking out of context of texts. if i’m correct in this assumption, i have to say that with the last few posts concerning this statement from ibn taimiyyah and its misquotation, you seem to be sincere in your earlier claim to be someone seeking for the truth (and i say seem because i cannot peer into your heart to see your true intentions). so, while you may not be guilty of intentionally taking these texts and twisting their meanings and interpretations by clipping and adding things here and there, i will say that you are guilty of taking things out of context and of being unable to verify what you take from your sources, whether knowingly or not - and i’m of the impression that you’ve done these things unknowing, trusting what your sources say and presenting things as they’ve been presented to you.

JoelRichardson:

And two, just out of curiosity, Mark Gabriel cites his quote from page 221 of Ibn Taymiyah’s book. Since you have a hard copy, although it may be a different version, could you check this one last time, just in case. Still holding out hope.

being that ibn taimiyyah’s works are widespread and published by many, there’s bound to be some differences in referencing his works. as i’ve mentioned, the print i currently have with me is the one published by maktab al-islamee, which has had verifiction one on it by someone named 'isaam faaris al-harastaanee and referencing of the hadeeth by muhammad ibraaheem az-zughlee (not sure about the spellings of their “family” names). page 221 of the print i currently have with me has nothing close to what was quoted by gabriel on it, with the only thing in the vicinity of it matching what was quoted by gabriel being what i found and posted a translation of here (and that appears on page 229). and i checked again just prior to posting this just to make sure.

being that this book is about one who insults the prophet, its ruling and the various aspects of discussion surrounding it, it makes no sense for ibn taimiyyah to say that muslims should lie to the people of the Book as gabriel inserted into the quote.

 

[Booklover]

r.gonzales:

as for the first point, there is nothing mentioned in the recorded accounts of this incident that suggests that jibreel had brought something with him. rather, as is stated in the authentic hadeeths narrating the event, he simply appeared before prophet muhammad and said to him, “read”, to which prophet muhammad replied, “i cannot read (maa ana bi qaaree - which literally translates to ‘i am one who reads’ or ‘i am not a reader’).” this occurred twice, with jibreel taking prophet and squeezing him after he replied until as prophet muhammad said, “the strain had an effect on me” (he did not choke him, as you so erroneously state). after which, jibreel revealed to him the first five verses of soorah al-'alaq, “read in the name of your Lord who created. He created man from a clot. read, and your Lord is the Most Noble. the One who taught by the pen. He taught man what he did not know.” (96:1-5). more discussion will follow after presenting the evolution of your “logical conclusions”.

con’t…

He asks him to read and has nothing for him to read! I’m sorry but the whole thing is ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense to ask someone to read “nothing”.

As I’ve said before, if the Quran were the word of God, which I for one do not believe for one second, it would still be the truth if Mohammed were illiterate or not! And using the whole “illiterate” business to prove its authenticity is absurd!

 

[Reuben_J]

JoelRichardson:

Is the killing of every “insulter” of Muhammad absolutley obligatory?

r.gonzales:

as i’ve said, i haven’t read the entire book. so i can’t say whether i agree completely or not. however, i will say that i agree with his view that insulting the prophet is disbelief (as is insulting Allah or any other prophet that was sent by Allah) and for a muslim who commits such an act, is apostasy from the religion, as insulting Allah or His prophets and messengers (from muhammad all the way down to adam) is one of the things that nullifies one’s islam and renders his faith null and void. there are however many different things that come into play relating of this topic that add to the complexity of the issues discussed by ibn taimiyyah in this book, some of which ibn taimiyyah has discussed in other places. one such thing are the issues pertaining to faith and disbelief. another thing, related to that is the issues pertaining to takfeer which is somewhat similar to excommunication in christianity (takfeer is the declaration that someone is an unbeliever) and yet another is the issues surrounding ignorance being an excuse.

No offence meant. I thought the kind of question posed by Joel above could be answered by most Muslims anytime without digging deep into serious references. Like if you ask any Christian whether it’s punishable by death to insult Jesus, he/she would be able to tell you.

After reading your explanation (you beat about the bush too much) you imply to admit that there is punishment for insulting Muhammad. The degree of the punishment varies depending on the severity or each case uniqueness.

Having confirm that, Muhammad/Islam’s teaching is in contradiction to Jesus’ turning the other cheek.

Observers of Islam would surely wonder why do you need punishment for something you don’t agree with.

 

[Edris]

Reuben J:

No offence meant. I thought the kind of question posed by Joel above could be answered by most Muslims anytime without digging deep into serious references. Like if you ask any Christian whether it’s punishable by death to insult Jesus, he/she would be able to tell you.

After reading your explanation (you beat about the bush too much) you imply to admit that there is punishment for insulting Muhammad. The degree of the punishment varies depending on the severity or each case uniqueness.

Having confirm that, Muhammad/Islam’s teaching is in contradiction to Jesus’ turning the other cheek.

Observers of Islam would surely wonder why do you need punishment for something you don’t agree with.

“So bear patiently (O Muhammad) what they say, and glorify the praises of your Lord before the rising of the sun, and before its setting, and during some of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day that you may become pleased with the reward which Allâh shall give you” (Qur’an 20:130)

“And indeed We have set forth for mankind, in this Qur’ân every kind of parable But if you (O Muhammad) bring to them any sign or proof, (as an evidence for the truth of your Prophethood),** the disbelievers are sure to say (to the believers): “You follow nothing but falsehood, and magic”**; Thus does Allâh seal up the hearts of those who know not [the proofs and evidence of the Oneness of Allâh ie those who try not to understand true facts that which you (Muhammad) have brought to them]; **So be patient (O Muhammad) Verily, the Promise of Allâh is true, and let not those who have no certainty of faith, discourage you from conveying Allâh’s Message ** (which you are obliged to convey)” (Qur’an 30:58-60)

“So bear with patience (O Muhammad) all that they say, and glorify the Praises of your Lord, before the rising of the sun and before (its) setting (ie the Fajr, Zuhr, and 'Asr prayers)” (Qur’an 50:39)

“Therefore be patient (O Muhammad) as did the Messengers of strong will and be in no haste about them (disbelievers) On the Day when they will see that (torment) with which they are promised (ie threatened, it will be) as if they had not stayed more than an hour in a single day (O mankind! This Qur’ân is sufficient as) a clear Message (or proclamation to save yourself from destruction) But shall any be destroyed except the people who are Al-Fâsiqûn (the rebellious, disobedient to Allâh)” (Qur’an 46:35)

"Whether We show you (O Muhammad) part of what We have promised them or cause you to die, your duty is only to convey (the Message) and on Us is the reckoning" (Qur’an 13:40)

Peace

 

[Reuben_J]

"** So bear patiently (O Muhammad) what they say**, and glorify the praises of your Lord before the rising of the sun, and before its setting, and during some of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day that you may become pleased with the reward which Allâh shall give you" (Qur’an 20:130)

“And indeed We have set forth for mankind, in this Qur’ân every kind of parable But if you (O Muhammad) bring to them any sign or proof, (as an evidence for the truth of your Prophethood),** the disbelievers are sure to say (to the believers): “You follow nothing but falsehood, and magic”**; Thus does Allâh seal up the hearts of those who know not [the proofs and evidence of the Oneness of Allâh ie those who try not to understand true facts that which you (Muhammad) have brought to them]; **So be patient (O Muhammad) Verily, the Promise of Allâh is true, and let not those who have no certainty of faith, discourage you from conveying Allâh’s Message ** (which you are obliged to convey)” (Qur’an 30:58-60)

“So bear with patience (O Muhammad) all that they say, and glorify the Praises of your Lord, before the rising of the sun and before (its) setting (ie the Fajr, Zuhr, and 'Asr prayers)” (Qur’an 50:39)

“Therefore be patient (O Muhammad) as did the Messengers of strong will and be in no haste about them (disbelievers) On the Day when they will see that (torment) with which they are promised (ie threatened, it will be) as if they had not stayed more than an hour in a single day (O mankind! This Qur’ân is sufficient as) a clear Message (or proclamation to save yourself from destruction) But shall any be destroyed except the people who are Al-Fâsiqûn (the rebellious, disobedient to Allâh)” (Qur’an 46:35)

"Whether We show you (O Muhammad) part of what We have promised them or cause you to die, your duty is only to convey (the Message) and on Us is the reckoning" (Qur’an 13:40)
Peace

You have to excuse me for my dullness. But is this the answer to “Is the killing of every “insulter” of Muhammad absolutley obligatory?” in Islam?

Is insult similar to blasphemy? And those who do to Muhammad are to be treated patiently?

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Gonzales,

I don’t have time to read your long explanation, so I will answer on Monday, after reading and making a summary.

Fox

P.S. But Rodrigo has shown many verses in Sahih Hadits. What is your commment concerning that?

 

[manx]

Reuben J:

Having confirm that, Muhammad/Islam’s teaching is in contradiction to Jesus’ turning the other cheek.

Maybe I am a bad Christian because sometimes, I don’t see any justice in just “turning the other cheek”. Btw, are we suppose to take this literally? An insult is an insult. Specially when it is done to someone you deeply love. Maybe this is where the Muslims are coming from. Maybe they love their Prophet so much -even more than themselves.

 

[Reuben_J]

manx:

Maybe I am a bad Christian because sometimes, I don’t see any justice in just “turning the other cheek”. Btw, are we suppose to take this literally? An insult is an insult. Specially when it is done to someone you deeply love. Maybe this is where the Muslims are coming from. Maybe they love their Prophet so much -even more than themselves.

I agree. We are all bad Christians. Is there anyone here who are good Christians? I want to meet you.

But we can always try to be good Christians though.

I post this somewhere before:-

Turning the Other Cheek
Q: What does it mean to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)?
A: Jesus’ complete statement is “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Of course, any striking is a painful blow, but the striking in this case is meant as a gross insult (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). If a right-handed person strikes someone’s right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand. A fist striking you would be on the left cheek. So this teaching by Jesus is not about self-defense, but about an attack on your dignity.
In the eastern culture slapping someone is considered an insult of the highest order. But Jesus says that His disciples should gladly be willing to endure the insult again.
Christians are permitted to defend themselves and their families (Exodus 22:2; Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1; 25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16) and to use God-ordained authority to keep evil from harming them or others (Proverbs 28:8; Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29).
However, **what is forbidden is the taking of vengeance ** (Romans 12:17-21), bitterness (Ephesians 4:31), and retaliation (1 Peter 2:23). These are absolutely forbidden by Jesus and the apostles.

Jesus teaches us we can be forgiven of sin against the Son of Man but not against the Holy Spirit. Don’t know whether that verse of any relevance here.

There is no excuse whatsoever for another human to kill a person who insult the prophet who was dead and long gone. If ever there is punishment, it will be in the hereafter, judgement by God for our action on earth.

God bless.