Aslamo-Alaikum
Some times I think weather death is the penalty for blasphemer. Is there any verse in the Qur’an dealing with Blasphemy?
I have read that there is death penalty for Blasphemer in Christianity and Judaism per Bible Levitians 24:10.
I shall be grateful for guidance
Re: Blasphemy
Quran actually recorded the insult words, and tell how to behave.
Re: Blasphemy
Well if you read about ‘Asma’ bint Marwan, Abu Afak, Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf](Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf - Wikipedia), Abu Rafi’ ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq, who were killed for opposing the prophet with poetry, also Khalid bin Sufyan who was killed for the sin of incitement, Banu Nadir who were invaded for criticizing the prophet, you might change your opinion. There are other examples too that convince the Sharia scholars to be convinced that insulting and criticizing the prophet is something to kill for.
Source:
List of expeditions of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Re: Blasphemy
Poetry was how people passed tales. Poetry was how people were motivated for wars.
So those poet were provoking people to revolt.
Capital punishment goes on even to day in all over the world for treason.
Before you toss around half baked theories. Have some respect for your words.
State clearly what was prophets policy:
1-to kill who bothered/insulted him?
So its easy to prove for us that you are wrong. Other wise you can go on all your life witn
online hit and run attacks, little insignificant ones.
Re: Blasphemy
^^^The examples I cited and did not cite are the ones that the Imams, Muftis and other Sharia experts use to justify killing someone for insulting the prophet. Look up the position of Hanafi, Shafai, Ahle Hadees and other Imams on this subject before you get too upset.
Re: Blasphemy
Were they killed on the orders of Muhammad (SAW)? Was there a Quranic ayat that directed them to take them out?
Kafirs were spewing hatred day one, and tortured Muslims, they never fought back once until cornered in Madina with even the surrounding forces closing in on them. Choice was either you fight or all get killed off. Jihad is a fight against genocide to preserve the faith. Not attacking people who verbally attack the faith otherwise the early Muslims could have killed many others.
Re: Blasphemy
What will happen when Ahmedis or Shias start killing Sunnis after the insults the latter gives the former everywhere? Or is blasphemy killing only allowed when someone insults us?
Ridiculous notion and a stupid thing to do in the 21st century when our image is already at its lowest.
Re: Blasphemy
That’s a lot of fighting. Never heard of any of these battles except badr and the trench.
I suppose it’s war though once you’re in it you can’t fight 50 percent you have to get intelligence and ward off attacks by offensives. What this list doesn’t talk about is the years of peaceful preaching and education and that no one in the Quraysh tribe left them alone. They were forced to walk on coal, tortured, and besieged in the desert and starved. This is how Khadijah (R) died. Even then they went to Madina and left people alone just kept preaching the faith peacefully. Then when Madina conspired with Mecca to destroy them they had to start fighting back.
That’s jihad. You do what you can but when they’re looking to kill you off completely you fight back.
ISIS and Al Qaeda and such groups are in no position. Where have they been starved and tortured to justify their attacks? Are Muslims being starved or forced to walk on coal around the world? No. Arabs have it pretty darn good with oil exports. Pakistan is very blessed with resources. Indonesia and such islands are doing fine economically. They are led by muslim leaders and there is wide availability of mosques, prayer areas etc. schools and work shut down to accommodate holidays. So please explain why in this setting anyone is launching a jihad against western powers ?
Re: Blasphemy
I repeat my post from another thread on the same topic.
When it comes to Islam everybody believes that Allah gave us free will to do good or to do bad and we will be judged by Allah on the day of judgement based on what we did on this earth during our lifetime.
Allah has stipulated punishment for certain crimes out of Allah’s divine wisdom.
Apostasy and blasphemy are not one of them or they are, please educate me.
Does this free will not encompass free speech against religion, religious figures and Allah(SWT)?
If Allah wanted swift action against apostates or blasphemous folks why would Allah not have categorically declared them crimes and prescribed a worldly punishment?
I think since they are crime against Allah or Allah’s messengers so Allah wants to deal with apostates and blasphemous folks in whatever way Allah wants to on the day of judgement.
Allah out of divine wisdom knows that no worldly punishment would be enough for apostates or blasphemous folks. Allah might forgive and let those apostates and blasphemous folks bask in eternal guilt once they are up there.
Are those who are out there to punish apostates and blasphemous folks not violating this divine code of conduct. Allah has not given these fanatics a license to go and kill apostates and blasphemous folks or did Allah give them this license?
Re: Blasphemy
1- there are no more example up your sleeves.
2-people have all kind of madness, if imam have these symptoms they need to go see a shrink.
Re: Blasphemy
If you click on that link posted above, there is a list of battles. In it are listed a brief summary of who was executed. One of the battles, for examples, states, x number of people were beheaded.
-One, I question accuracy. Because there is a hadith about one beheading that was done by an early muslim of a kaafir. That kaafir individual was a Meccan who used to mock Rasulullah A LOT, and was central in the fight against early Islam. When he was killed, he asked for mercy, and the muslim soldier still killed him. He brought the head to Muhammad (SAW) who was upset that despite asking for mercy, this individual was killed. The soldier was startled, and said that the enemy was about to kill him, and the Prophet (SAW) educated that it would have been better you had not killed him, and granted him mercy. Even if it was a trick and he killed YOU, you would have been a martyr, but now you’ll have to answer to Allah for taking the life of someone who was asking for mercy.
There are clear verses in the Quran, if the opposing side asks for mercy, you let them go. You also do not engage in war with people who are innocent bystanders and you do not engage with neutral tribes/communities who want nothing to do with the war.
So a lot of what’s listed in that wikipedia article…not sure who wrote it, but they may have an agenda to make the early muslims look more bloody than they were.
There are clear verses in the Quran that if someone doesn’t believe and you’ve talked to them, and they still don’t want to believe, then you leave them alone. There is mention of people who believe, then stop believing, and for them too, it’s very clear. You try to talk to them, they don’t listen, then Allah has promised he will take care of anyone who didn’t believe Him on Judgement Day. The absence of a worldly punishment means no one can kill another person for NOT believing in Allah. There is no punishment perscribed either for people who convert out of Islam.
Allah directed Muhammad (SAW) to do certain things, but he was also allowed to have like 9 wives, that’s not allowed for other muslim men, so there are commandments that do not transfer to other muslim leaders.
Jihad is a act that a community agrees upon. You don’t live in a muslim country and start calling jihad on other muslims who aren’t as “religious” as you.
Comon. Common sense.
Re: Blasphemy
From “Sirat Rasul Allah” written by Ibn Ishaq on the conquest of Mecca, Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami was one of the ten people to be killed along with two of his slave girls. The fault of the slave girls was that they used to sing songs ridiculing the prophet. Ibn Khatal and one of the slave girl was killed as a result.
There are other examples too.
Re: Blasphemy
This article from Dawn recently is very interesting.
The untold story of Pakistan’s blasphemy law - Blogs - DAWN.COM
The fatwas that can change Pakistan’s blasphemy narrative - Pakistan - DAWN.COM
Pakistan’s blasphemy law continues to sustain popularity and credence, with death being considered not only the most appropriate retribution for offenders, but the only one. This ideology is embraced most wholeheartedly when it comes to non-Muslims charged with blasphemy.
In my previous article when I spoke of the authentic Hanafi position on the permissibility of pardon for all blasphemers (Muslims and non-Muslims), the overwhelming response supported such a pardon for the likes of Junaid Jamshed (a ‘fellow Muslim brother who had offended some by mistake’) but held that the same principle of pardon could not be extended to non-Muslim offenders such as Asia Bibi.
This is largely reflective of the predominant public narrative on blasphemy.
Those who dissent – who speak of pardon and of waiving the death penalty, particularly for non-Muslims – are seen to be speaking from borrowed western ideologies or from a faith deemed too weak to be seen as a credible authority for the public. This has made it convenient for citizens to largely ignore those who plead for clemency, reducing these voices to a small, ineffective and irrelevant force, at best.
There was a time when this was not so – in fact, at one point, the most revered ulema (religious scholars) of South Asia had rallied together to defend the position that non-Muslims could not be awarded the death penalty for blaspheming.
This occurred in the late 19th century, when the South Asian ulema (the overwhelming majority of whom belonged to the Hanafi school of thought) were under ideological attack from the Ahl-e-Hadith.
The Ahl-i-Hadith originated as a movement influenced (and later funded) by the Wahabis of the Arabian Peninsula. This movement challenged the established Hanafi rulings on various issues, including blasphemy, alleging that these were based on opinion (ra`y) and Greek influenced analogy-driven reasoning (Qiyas), rather than on prophetic tradition (Ahadith).
In particular, they took exception to what they perceived as Hanafi lenience towards non-Muslims blasphemers (i.e. not prescribing a fixed death penalty and the provision for pardon) which they viewed as incompatible with Ahadith.
[TABLE=“class: media media–uneven one-whole palm–one-whole”]
The exact position of Abu Hanifa (the founder of Hanafi School) that ends up being a source of contention for the Ahl-i-Hadith.
These criticisms roused the Hanafi ulema to an impassioned rebuttal.
Many of them targeted the Ahl-e-Hadith from within their own framework, deconstructing several Ahadith that formed the basis of these criticisms.
One such example is a monumental, 21-volume commentary, the I’la al-Sunan (the exaltation of the normative practices [of the Prophet]) by Maulana Zafar Ahmad ‘Uthmani, aiming to demonstrate, against the charges of the Ahl-i-Hadith, that the legal doctrines of the Hanafi school were in fact solidly based in traditions of the Prophet (PBUH).
Despite monolithic individual efforts of such stature, the most profound and relevant in terms of blasphemy, in my view, was Fath Al Mubeen Tanbeeh Al Wahabin (an explicit victory and a warning against the Wahabis).
This contains a fatwa (see below) that clearly states that a non-Muslim blasphemer cannot be killed unless he/she is habitual in the offense.
This last part is an important qualifier because it differentiates single acts of blasphemy from multiple and deliberate attempts, in fact from what is considered politically rebellious blasphemy.
[TABLE=“class: media media–center media–uneven five-eighths palm–one-whole”]
The monumental fatwa endorsed by 450 scholars that shows that killing is not permissible unless adat (habituality) and kasrat (high frequency) of offenses are established.
The Ahl-e-Hadith, in challenging the Hanafi position on blasphemy presented a compilation of Ahadith which supposedly showed that blasphemous offenders (including non-Muslims) were in fact killed, and that therefore the Hanafi ruling was erroneous in this regard.
In the rebuttal, the fatwa pointed to an important flaw in the Ahle-Hadith argument — that the Ahadith thus presented all pertained to cases of repeat or habitual offenders.
There is not a single case where a non-Muslim was ever killed for committing a singular offense of blasphemy.
(Further, according to Imam Abu Hanifa, the death penalty is awarded in cases where it is categorised as siyasa (political) punishment, as opposed to sharia (divine) punishment, against elements openly rebelling against the Islamic state, using habitual blasphemy as a tool).
This legal position was approved and signed by no less than 450 of the most prestigious names in the Hanafi ulema, not just from South Asia, but around the world.
It is difficult to come up with a case study of a bigger systematic consensus (ijma) than this one. Hundreds of leading ulema of their time from South Asia have declared that non-Muslims cannot be killed for a single offense for blasphemy and their pardon is acceptable unless it becomes a habitual and high frequency offense.
But to really appreciate the magnitude of this ruling for a country like Pakistan, we must look to some of the key signatories of this stance — one of them being Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi.
Many readers might know that Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi was the founder of the Barelvi school of thought, one of the two predominant Hanafi groups, and the religious orientation to which groups like Sunni Tehreek subscribe. The founder is considered a Pir, Saint and a most revered figure, amongst his followers, and the general populace.
Ironically, four years ago this month, Punjab Governer Salman Taseer was assassinated by Mumtaz Qadri, for pleading for pardon for Asia Bibi.
Mumtaz Qadri, who is a devout Barelvi, would be surprised, I am sure, to learn that the founder and most respected figure of his sect had endorsed pardon for non-Muslim blasphemers, and the view that non-Muslims cannot be killed for a single offense of blasphemy.
Incidentally, the co-founder of the other of the two Hanafi groups (Deoband), Mahmood Hassan Deobandi – also known as the Sheikh al Hind – is also a signatory on the above.
[TABLE=“class: media media–center media–uneven five-eighths palm–one-whole”]
A partial list of signatories fath al mubeen showing the endorsement of founder of Barelvi and Deobandi thought.
Both the founders of Deoband and Barelvi have endorsed the position that a non-Muslim cannot be killed for a single offense of blasphemy and therefore must be pardoned.
It is interesting to note that as per the Hanafi thought, we might be talking about no jail time/punishment for the first offense.
[TABLE=“class: media media–uneven one-whole palm–one-whole”]
The Hanafi position clearly stating that first time offenders will only be warned, meaning that may not even be subjected to jail time.
Quite apart from this fatwa, there is another key scholar of immediate relevance in the minds and hearts of the nation who has echoed the same position as these revered names.
Maulana Maududi is a household name across the country and is the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the main religio-political parties in Pakistan.
Readers might be surprised to know that Maulana Maududi has also said that an act of blasphemy does not leave non-Muslims liable to capital punishment by the state.
[TABLE=“class: media media–uneven one-whole palm–one-whole”]
The rights of dhimmi (non-Muslims) living in a Muslim state include protection of his life even in instances of blasphemy as per Maulana Maududi.
All this nuanced handling of the issue is a far cry from the reality of its application today, where a single unfortunate, ill-informed, ill-judged alleged utterance can lead to a conviction under the law, and the death penalty.
Our law in letter and in its judicial interpretation prescribes a hudd punishment for a single offense of blasphemy.
It makes no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims, repeat vs single offences, siyasa vs sharia punishment.
It goes against hundreds of top South Asian ulema and it goes against the founders of the predominant religio-political groups in Pakistan.
The idea that the current interpretation of this law is based on a complete consensus in the religious tradition is a myth.
This is especially crucial for those currently charged under the law, held in jail and fighting for their lives, as in the case of Asia bibi.
She is not guilty of multiple offences of blasphemy.
She has begged for pardon multiple times.
According to the rulings of founder of Hanafi School, founder of Deoband thought, founder of Barelvi thought and the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, Asia Bibi should be given a pardon.
What punishment then, would our clergy, our Mumtaz Qadris, and our vigilante mobs, like to prescribe for their revered religious figures, the founders of their sects and 450 of the most prestigious scholars in South Asia and around the world, for allowing pardon for non-Muslims?
The voices of these scholars are key for the change in narrative around the blasphemy law, opening space for conversation and debate, in building tolerance, in honouring the real voices of those who have dedicated their lives to studying these positions.
Most importantly, referencing these scholars ensures that no grave injustice occurs in the fair name of our Prophet (PBUH) — an act of devotion we sorely need.
Re: Blasphemy
" Only for persons out of the whole population of Mecca were executed. One of them was Abdullah b. Khatal of Banu Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and had been deputed by the Holy Prophet to collect Zakat in the company of one of the Ansar. They had also a slave with them. 'Abdullah in a fit of rage, killed the helpless slave on account of mere trifling dispute and joined the pagan Arabs as an apostate. He also took with him the camels that he had collected as Zakat. He was never repentant at this heinous crime but employed two singing girls and incited them to sing satrical songs about the Holy Prophet. The other man who was put to death was Miqyas b. Hubaba. He was a Muslim. An Ansari accidentally killed his brother Hisham. The Holy Prophet had arranged the payment of blood money to him, which he had accepted. But his revengeful nature was never appeased, so he killed the Ansari and went to Mecca as an apostate. The Holy Prophet ordered his execution. Similarly, Huwayrith and one of his singing girls were put to death.
PS: whoi half baked stories. Wohi trying to catch muslims by element of surprise. 
You guys can never come up with some thing original!
PS2: good night.
Re: Blasphemy
^ Interesting additional information. Now that sounds more like Islam.
Re: Blasphemy
Just remember one thing PCG, you are going to get caught many time by surprise.
I suggest you read biography your self.
Remember the bottom line. Rasool-ulllah(saw) was called sahir majnoon etc etc
If he was on revenge campaign, he would whipped out half the population of mecca if not all.
Maccans who did not only insult, but made assassination attempts, went of war, put him in worst exile(no food no trade)
Physically injured him.. list is long…
How come they were all forgiven when he assumed absolute power ???
Also Ibn-Ishaq record every thing he heard.
Its imam bukhari and imam muslim who did keen investigation into the claims.
Re: Blasphemy
Blasphemy punishment is applicable to Muslims and Non-Muslims living in Islamic state.
Re: Blasphemy
Tell me if the Names Quoted by you were Mulims or Mushrikeen?