REFLECTIONS: Accounting Oneself

This article will explore the issue of accounting oneself (Muhaasabat An-Nafs) according to the Tafseer of the Qur’an, the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and the statements of the Predecessors and Scholars

From the Quran

Allah (swt) states:

"O You who believe! Have taqwa of Allah and let each person (Nafs) look to what it has sent forward for tomorrow. Have taqwa of Allah. Allah is aware of what you do." [TMQ 59:18]

Ibn Katheer (rh) states in his Tafseer of the Aayah: "and let each person (Nafs) look to what it has sent forward for tomorrow": "It means: Account yourselves before you will be accounted and look to that which you have put down for yourselves in terms of righteous actions for the day of your appointment and your presentation before your Lord and know that He is knowledgeable of all of your acts and circumstances and that nothing at all is hidden from Him".

And Allah (swt) states:

"No! I swear by the self-reproaching self (a believer)."

[TMQ 75:2]

.

Al-Qurtubi (ra) said in his Tafseer of the Aayah: "And the meaning of An-Nafs Al-Lawwaamah i.e. the Nafs of the believer which you do not see him except that he blames himself. He questions himself: What did I intend by this? It is that you do not see him except that he is reproaching and admonishing himself. This is what Ibn 'Abbaas, Mujaahid and Al-Hasan amongst others said."

Al-Hasan said: "It is, by Allah, the Nafs of the Mu'min (Believer). The believer is not seen except that he is blaming himself: What did I intend in my speech? What did I intend in my food? And what do I want to achieve by talking to myself? And the Faajir (openly disobedient, rebellious) does not account himself".

Mujaahid said: "He is the one who blames that which has gone by and is regretful and blames himself, asking himself in regards to the bad: Why did I do that? And in regards to the good: Why did I not do more of that? And it is said: It has blame attached to it. It is also said: It (the Nafs) blames itself with that which other than it would find blame. So it is upon these understandings that the Lawwaamah (the one who blames himself a lot) is upon the meaning of Laa'imah (the blamer) and it is (here) a praiseworthy attribute and description."

Allah (swt) states:

"That Day man will be told what he did and failed to do. In fact, man will be clear proof against himself"

[TMQ 75:13-14]

Al-Maawardi (ra) said in his Tafseer of the first of these two Aayaat: [There are three interpretations: One is that he will be a witness against himself with the proof that has been brought against him like that which Allah (swt) states:

"We have fastened the destiny of every man about his neck and on the Day of Rising We will bring out a Book for him which he will find spread open in front of him. 'Read your Book! Today your own self is reckoner enough against you!'" [TMQ 17:13-14]

The second interpretation is that his limbs will witness against him and his actions, which was the view stated by Ibn 'Abbaas (ra) and this is in line with the meaning of the speech of Allah (swt):

"Today We seal up their mouths and their hands speak to us, and their feet bear witness to what they have earned."

[TMQ 36:65]

The third meaning is that he sees and is aware of the shortcomings and faults of others whilst being careless of his own faults in relation to what is deserved in terms of reward and punishment. The 'Haa' letter in 'Baseerah' is for the purpose of emphasis.

As for the following Aayah:

"In spite of any excuses he might offer." [TMQ75:15]

There are five interpretations: One of them is that its meaning is that even if he seeks to apologize and excuse himself on that day, then it will not be accepted from him, and this was the view of Qataadah. The second is that he will throw down his excuses i.e. that he will strip off his clothing (stripped down), which was the view of Ibn 'Abbaas. The third is that it means that he will present his argument which was the view of As-Saddiy and the fourth meaning is that he will drop his coverings, and coverings (Sutoor) in the language of Yemen means excuse or plea, which was the view of Ad-Dahhaak. And a fifth meaning can be understood which is that if he leaves the excuses and capitulates he will not be left].

From the Prophetic Sunnah

The Nabi (saw) indicated towards the meaning of the Nafs Al-Lawwaamah i.e. the Nafs of the believer who always reproaches himself when he stated the following Hasan Hadeeth recorded by At-Tirmidhi and Ahmad.

Ahmad in his Musnad and Al-Haakim in his Mustadrak related from An-Nawaas Bin Sam'aan Al-Kilaabiy who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Allah puts forward the example of straight path: there are two fences with opened gates at its sides and there are lowered curtains over the gates and there is a caller, at the end of the path, says 'hold fast to the straight path and do not go astray' and there is another caller above him, whenever he sees someone intend to open one of these gates he says 'Woe to you, never open it; because if you opened it, you would enter in it.'" So (in this example) the straight path symbolizes Islam and the two fences are what are the limits set by Allah 'Azza Wa Jalla and the doors are the prohibitions of Allah and the caller upon the path is the Holy Qur'an and the caller that is above the path is Allah's preacher in the Nafs of every Muslim."

And Anas bin Maalik (ra) related from the Messenger of Allah(saw)said: "Al-Kayyis (the one who is determined to gain as much from every opportunity) takes himself to task and works for that which is after the death and the 'Aajiz (deficient/incompetent) is the one whose Nafs follows its desires and he makes (fanciful) wishes upon Allah (i.e. he says it's ok that I have done such and such because Allah is all-forgiving etc...)" Al-Imaam Ahmad and At-Tirmidhi.

Umm Salamah (ra) said: The Messenger of Allah(saw)said: "When Allah wishes good for a servant he makes a Waa'izh (Admonisher/one to remind) from the persons Nafs which commands him (to obedience) and forbids him (from the acts of disobedience)" As-Suyootiy in Al-Jaami' As-Sagheer.

Statements of the predecessors and Scholars

Muhaasabat An-Nafs means: Strictness in reproaching it (the Nafs) and monitoring it.

Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) said: "Whoever abhors his Nafs for Allah, Allah would make him safe from His abhorrence (i.e. the anger of Allah)"

Al-Imaam Ahmad related from Abu Ad-Dardaa' (ra) that he said: "A man does not reach full comprehension or understanding until he abhors people for Allah; and he then returns to his Nafs and he abhors it with greater vehemence."

Ibn ul-Qayyim (rh) said: "It (accounting the Nafs) is distinguishing between what he has and what is upon him (meaning the servant/slave) so that what he has accompanies him and he performs that which is upon him because he is a traveller on a journey from which he will not return".

And he said: "Accounting the Nafs is done until it is known what it has and what is upon it. He does not allow it to be relaxed or abandoned in regards to these rights so that he wastes them and becomes negligent of them.".

Al-Maawardi (rh) said in regards to the meaning of Al-Muhaasabah: "That the person examines at night that which he did of actions in the day. If they were praiseworthy then he continues upon them, follows the same pattern and imitates that. If however they were not praiseworthy then he redresses if possible and does not repeat its like in the future".

In regards to the Nafs Al-Lawwaamah Sa'eed Ibn Jubair and 'Ikramah said: "It means to blame (reproach) upon the basis of the Khair and Sharr (Good and evil) and it does not mean that you have patience in the good and bad times."

Qataadah said: "Al-Lawwaamah is Al-Faajirah (unrighteousness)" whilst Mujaahid said: "He regrets that which has past and says: 'If only I had done...' or 'If only I had not done..."

May Allah (swt) make us those who hold themselves accountable. Ameen.

Q&A: Online Communication between Men and Women

In one of the sessions about what is going on in the Internet from conversations, it was stated that the online world is a virtual world, hence one is not to be punished for his words in it. It was also stated that there is even nothing wrong with talk between men and women, no matter what was said, because it does not amount to mixing... Is this true? Please clarify this matter and BarakAllahu feekum.

By: Abdullah Abdulrahman

Assalaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah

"Question about the rule on chatting of the opposite sexes on Facebook or via e-mail"

Often the youth of our time are confronted with this issue, especially teenagers. Therefore we have to inquire about the issue, so our young people do not fall into sin, and to preserve our society from a matter that constitutes a sin, perhaps even a great one.

By: Abu al-Qasim

---

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatahu

Your questions are similar, and we happened to have answered a similar question, therefore I repeat it for you:

There are people who like to philosophize, for example they focus on the question: Does communication on Facebook constitute mixing?

As if only mixing amounted to Haram, and there is nothing wrong with other than mixing!

The above focuses on the viewpoint that it is a virtual world, as if it were only a mental illusion that could imagine anything!!

Some of them are ignorant of some of the issues affecting the Hukm Shar'i (legal judgment) on communication on Facebook. They think as long as there is no mixing, there is nothing wrong with it or something like that, which appears to them either through ignorance or confusion.

The matter is not so, but the speech made in a letter from one person to another, if its occurrence from its owner and the arrival at the addressee are proven, then it takes the ruling of direct discourse from one person to another.

There is no difference between a letter being written by hand or with the help of a machine.

Also there is no difference between the letter being carried to the addressee by another person, or it being transferred to him via the Internet or Facebook or any other means. Rather it is important to prove its occurrence from the owner, and to prove its arrival at the addressee. The analysis of the reality before legal judgment (Tahqiq al-Manat) will result in one of the two alternatives.

Therefore the provision pertaining to a letter is one and man is responsible for it, because it is one of his actions, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم says:

«إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَجَاوَزَ عَنْ أُمَّتِي مَا حَدَّثَتْ بِهِ أَنْفُسَهَا، مَا لَمْ تَعْمَلْ أَوْ تَتَكَلَّمْ»

"Allah transcends over my Ummah what they say to themselves, what they do not do or say."

[Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim from Abu Hurayrah (ra) in the transmission of al-Bukhari]

Furthermore it is narrated from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم that he sent written messages to the kings and rulers to notify them of Islam, which proves that the notification via letter –and this constitutes a Hukm Shar'I – is the same as a notification in direct discourse.

Al-Bukhari reported: "Ibn Abbas said: "I was told by Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb that he was in ash-Sham among the men of Quraish who offered trade in the period which was between the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and between the Kuffar of Quraish. Abu Sufyan said: "We found the messenger of Caesar in ash-Sham... then he said: "Then Caesar called for the message from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, it was read out, containing:

«بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ، مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ، إِلَى هِرَقْلَ عَظِيمِ الرُّومِ، سَلاَمٌ عَلَى مَنِ اتَّبَعَ الهُدَى، أَمَّا بَعْدُ: فَإِنِّي أَدْعُوكَ بِدِعَايَةِ الإِسْلاَمِ، أَسْلِمْ تَسْلَمْ، وَأَسْلِمْ يُؤْتِكَ اللَّهُ أَجْرَكَ مَرَّتَيْنِ، فَإِنْ تَوَلَّيْتَ، فَعَلَيْكَ إِثْمُ الأَرِيسِيِّينَ وَ: ((يَا أَهْلَ الكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ، أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلاَ نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا، وَلاَ يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ، فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا، فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ))...»

"In the name of Allah the Merciful, from Muhammad, the servant of Allah and His Messenger, to Heracles, the leader of the Romans, peace upon those who follow guidance, further: I invite you with the call of Islam: Convert to Islam and find peace (Aslim Taslam). For if you convert, Allah will reward you twice, but if you turn away, then you will carry the sin of the Arissiyyun and:

"Oh People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah." But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]."

(Ali-Imran: 64)

Accordingly, the answer to the aforementioned question is as follows:

1. The correspondence, whether by regular mail or via Internet or on Facebook or Twitter...the ruling is a single one, it does not differ from the speech face to face. It cannot be said: "This is a virtual world and that is the real world". Rather this means sinking into ignorance and sin. If you say forbidden words to a strange woman face to face, then you are punishable by the Shari'a, and it is the same with correspondence. Therefore after the establishment of the proof of the occurrence of such a correspondence, the punishment is sought, just as if the words were said face to face.

Thus, as it is prohibited to talk to a strange woman without a need approved of in the Shari'a, it is the very same with correspondence. What is allowed in this context face to face is allowed in correspondence and what is prohibited face to face is prohibited in correspondence.

2. Unnecessary mixing is prohibited by the Shari'a, but not only mixing is haram. If you called a woman far away from you with bad words, then this is Haram, even if she is not beside you. If you sell an item to a woman in the market, looking at her with pleasure, then this is Haram, even though mixing for the sake of trade in the market is permissible. If you rode a public means of transport and spoke lewd words to a woman far away from you, even if she were not sitting next to you, then this is Haram.

Similarly, whatever you write in a correspondence, you are just as responsible for it as if you had said it face to face.

3. We call on every Muslim and Muslimah, especially the Shabab and Shabbat from the carriers of this pious, pure Da'wah, who carried it and continue to carry it amid waves reaching us head-on and from behind us, from our right and on our left, such that there is no shelter except Allah Almighty: We invite them to abide by the provisions of the Shari'a with a strong commitment. Do not only to stay away from the Haram, but even from some permissible things out of fear from the Haram that is close to it. The Sahaba stayed away from several permissible things out of fear of falling into Haram.

4. We also emphasize to every Muslim and Muslimah, especially to the Shabab and the Shabbat from the Da'wah carriers, to work diligently and with seriousness on the productive use of these modern means for the propagation of Islam in an effective way. At the same time stay wise and conscious, far away not only from all unclean ashes, but even from the dust of unclean ashes.

I ask Allah Almighty that we remain pious and pure, so that we find success in this world and the hereafter, and glad tidings to the believers.

22nd Dhul Hijjah 1434 AH

27/10/2013 CE

Your Brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

Q&A: Home Financing and Partnership in Islam: Sheikh Abu Talha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jrtqKHBkvW8

Jihad – “And Fighting has been Prescribed for You” – the Tafsir by Shaykh Ata Ibn Khalil

“And Jihad has been made obligatory for you…”

Shaykh `Ata’: Tafsir of the Noble Verse in Surat al-Baqarah

***

Allah (swt) states in the noble Qur’an: {And Jihad has been prescribed for you while it is hateful to you; perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you and perhaps you lose something and it is bad for you; Allah knows and you do not…[Q. 2:216]}.

The noble shaykh `Ata Ibn Khalil (Allah preserve him) comments: “(a) […] {jihad has been prescribed for you} and this is a command from Allah – glorified is He! – to the Muslims to fight which is a request (talab) to fight. (b) Allah then mentioned {while[1] you hate it} which is a contextual indication (qarina) that the request is decisive (talab jazim) and hence an obligation (fard) because of the word “kurh/كره” which means ‘hardship’ (mashaqqa).[2] A request that is connected to hardship is an indication that it is a decisive request [...] The meaning of the verse is:

‘Perhaps you hate the hardship that comes with Jihad but it is good for you because it is the means by which you will attain victory, might, dignity and the spread of Islam as well as the means to two great rewards: victory and martyrdom. And perhaps you love ease and not to fight and it is undesirable for you because that is a means to humiliation, indignity, your enemies overpowering you and coveting you. And so if you abandon the command of Allah due to your desires, then you will be misguided whereas if you follow the command of Allah you will be successful. It is Allah – glorified is He! – who knows matters of the unseen’…”[3]

Notes:

1. ‘For you’ meaning ‘for the believers’.[4]
2. ‘It’ refers to ‘fighting’ (jihad) which is to raise the word of Allah High.[5]
3.  ‘Kutiba’ (‘it is written’, ‘prescribed’, ‘ordained’) means farada (‘it is obligated’).[6]
4. ‘Khayr’ means ‘good’, ‘better’, ‘reward’.[7]

• Imam Ibn al-Jawzi comments:

قوله تعالى: { كتب عليكم القتال } قال ابن عباس: لما فرض الله على المسلمين الجهاد شق عليهم وكرهوه، فنزلت هذه الآية، و «كتب» بمعنى: فرض في قول الجماعة…  وإنما كرهوه لمشقَّته على النفوس، لا أنهم كرهوا فرض الله تعالى…  وقال ابن قتيبة: الكره بالفتح، معناه: الإكراه والقهر، وبالضم معناه: المشقة ومن نظائر هذا: الجهد: الطاقة، والجَهد: المشقة ومنهم مَن يجعلهما واحداً…  { وعسى أن تكرهوا شيئاً } قال ابن عباس، يعنى الجهاد. { وهو خير لكم { فتح وغنيمة أو شهادة. { وعسى أن تحبوا شيئاً } وهو: القعود عنه. { وهو شر لكم } لا تصيبون فتحاً ولا غنيمة ولا شهادة. { والله يعلم } أن الجهاد خير لكم. { وأنتم لا تعلمون } حين أحببتم القعود عنه

“And regarding Allah saying {Fighting has been prescribed for you}: Ibn Abbas said: ‘When Allah made jihad obligatory on the Muslim, it proved very difficult for them and so they detested it. The verse then was revealed.’ And the meaning of {prescribed/kutiba/كتب} is ‘obligated’ (farada/فرض) according to the opinion of the majority […] they detested it because of the hardship it entailed to themselves and their lives and not because it was an obligation from Allah […] {perhaps you hate a thing} meaning ‘jihad’ according to Ibn Abbas {and it is good for you} because you attain victory, war booty and martyrdom {and perhaps you love a thing} which is to sit back and not fight {and it is good for you} because you will gain the victory, the war booty and martyrdom. {And Allah knows} that jihad is better for you {and you do not know} in preferring to sit back and not fight…”[8]

Lessons:

1. Allah alone knows what is best for human beings because of His Omniscience; He sees all things in their entirety and context and hence their suitability, importance, necessity and need.
2. God’s commandments contain a benefit for human beings even if it is not physical, immediate or tangible or even if it cannot be grasped or understood by the human mind.
3. Jihad has immeasurable good – by putting one’s life in the utmost danger and hardship as well as the possibility of forfeiting it altogether, the status of martyrdom is attained and that is Paradise.
4. Something that hurts us does not mean it is bad for us.
5. Something easy or safe for us does not mean it is good for us.
6. Benefit and harm is not always linked to what is good and bad.

And with Allah is all Success.

S.Z.C

---

[1] The letter (و) can take the meaning of either i) ‘circumstantial’ (haliyyah) or ii) conjunction (`atf).

[2] Imam Ibn `Ashur comments: “And the wording {it has been prescribed for you/kutiba `alaykum} is of the forms indicating obligation and was discussed previously on the verse regarding wasiyyah (bequests). The article ‘al-/أل’ here denotes the genus (li’l-jins) and fighting is only with the enemy which is general in its purport and hence means ‘fighting has been made obligatory for you ‘against all the enemies of the Religion…” al-Tahrir wa ‘l-Tanwir, 2:319.

ولفظ { كتب عليكم } من صيغ الوجوب وقد تقدم في آية الوصية. وأل في (القتال) للجنس، ولا يكون القتال إلا للأعداء فهو عام عموماً عرفياً أي كتب عليكم قتال عدو الدين.

[3] Shaykh `Ata’, al-Taysir ila Usul al-Tafsir, pp.283-284.

[4] Ibn `Ashur, al-Tahrir wa’ l-Tanwir, 2:319.

[5] Ibid., 2:319.

[6] Ibid., 2:319.

[7] Ibid., 2:319-320.

[8] Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Masir fi `Ilm al-Tafsir, 1:212.

Innocence of Muslims and the West's aggression towards islam a history of bigotry, vilification and slander :

Over the past few days, we have witnessed yet another act of uncalled provocation and repulsive assault on what Muslims hold dear – the final Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (saw). The reaction from Muslims, as expected, has been one of utter disgust, anger and frustration. From Indonesia and Bangladesh, North Africa and Middle East to Europe, Muslims have protested against this latest caricature and distasteful depiction of Muhammad (saw). The film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’, essentially depicts Islam as a religion of violence and hate and Prophet Muhammad (saw) as sexually perverse, a blood thirsty and power hungry man. It dishonours Khadija (ra) and further depicts the beloved Companions of Muhammad (saw) as savage killers, hungry for wealth and bent on killing women and children. Such repulsive portrayal of Muhammad (saw) and his Companions has outraged even many non-Muslims, who condemned this film.

There are, ironically, a minority of Muslims who, predominantly due to vested interests and infatuation with their liberal masters, have chosen to condemn the protesters for protesting against this film. One such comment said, “How can we expect non-Muslims to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, when Muslim mobs around the world make liars of us all, Muhammad included?” Such self-hating Muslims fail to address the real issues at hand and instead turn the table against the victims rather than the perpetrators.

This article explores the real motives behind this type of gratuitous attacks on Islam and its sensitivities. It examines the historic context of Western cultural aggression against Islam and how it has evolved into the 21^st century. Finally, it concludes by explaining what practical actions Muslims should undertake in the face of such provocation, which has become all too common these days.

The ‘War on Terror’ (aka War against Islam)

This film should not be viewed in isolation to the West’s war against Islam, which has manifested in the past decade differently across the world, namely, as military invasion, e.g. in Iraq and Afghanistan; as proxy war, e.g. in Somalia and Sudan; as diplomatic and economic aggression, e.g. in Iran and as intellectual and cultural aggression, e.g. in the West against their own populations.

Although the history of Western attacks did not begin with 9/11, the intellectual and cultural aggression has intensified in the past decade and the West’s bigotry against Islam has become ever more apparent, as though there is now a competition amongst the ‘Islam-bashers’ about who could win the trophy for being most daring and vociferous in their hateful anti-Islamic inventions.

Just to name a few, the Danish cartoon caricatures of Muhammad (saw) were published in 2006, followed in 2010 by a Florida preacher, Terry Jones, who called for the burning of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, and in February 2012, US soldiers at Bagram prison in Afghanistan burned 315 copies of the Quran and other religious materials. All of these had similarly outraged Muslims around the globe.

Western sponsored demonization 

Since the release of Innocence of Muslims, American politicians have made token gestures, supposedly condemning the filmmakers. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the film which gave rise to the protests as “disgusting” and “reprehensible”. As though the US was granting a favour towards Muslims, the White House merely “asked” YouTube to “consider” whether the film breaches its own guidelines but Google, which owns YouTube, said in a statement that the video was “clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube”. Yet, Muslims perceive such hollow statements as meaningless, especially when viewed in the context of the West’s aggressive history vis-à-vis Islam.

Whether or not directly sponsored by Western states, such provocative misadventures by Western groups or individuals are far from autonomous acts. Clearly, such perpetrators receive tacit support and ideological encouragement to carry out these provocative deeds. Bred on a daily diet of hatred and propaganda that seek to malign Islam and Muslims, there is no doubt in the minds of Muslims that these perpetrators are sponsored by the West directly or indirectly. Allah (swt) says, “Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse”. [Surah Ale-Imran: 118]

The West’s history of bigotry and vilification

A cursory examination of the history of the West demonstrates that hatred towards Islam has been propagated for centuries. Although historically the Anglo-French colonialists had spearheaded the West’s attacks against Islam, this agenda was adopted by the US since the Second World War and today the US acts towards Islam just as her colonial predecessors did.

Much of today’s discourse in the West vis-à-vis Islam has been shaped by the Orientalist tradition. Professor Edward Said (deceased) explored the depth of Western hatred towards the East, and Islam in particular, in some of his renowned books. This Orientalist tradition perceives and portrays Islam as a primitive and barbaric civilisation, which required subjugation and control. “Orientalism was itself a product of certain political forces and activities. Orientalism is a school of interpretation whose material happens to be the Orient [i.e. the East] its Civilisations, peoples, and localities”. [Edward Said, Orientalism, 2003, Penguin Books, p-203]

The West’s vilification is partly motivated by Islam’s formidable challenge to the West’s capitalist hegemony and partly by Islam’s non-Christian roots. Hence, the West is trigger happy to depict Islam as the villain. In the context of the Orientalist intellectual discourse, “It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist and most totally ethnocentric… As a cultural apparatus Orientalism is all aggression, activity, judgment, will-to-truth and knowledge”. [Said, Orientalism, p-204]

Insofar as the West was concerned, the East, and the Muslim world in particular, was a place of barbarity and backwardness. The Whiteman had a sense of duty and mission to civilise such people and in the case of the Ottoman state, the Whiteman had a civilising program. “Since the Oriental was a member of a subject race, he had to be subjected: it was that simple”. [Said, Orientalism, p-207]

In much of Western academic and intellectual discourse, there was a consensus that certain types of biased views, statements and comments regarding the East were correct and acceptable.  As Said stated, “For most of the Middle Ages and during the early part of the Renaissance in Europe, Islam was believed to be a demonic religion of apostasy, blasphemy and obscurity … Muhammad was a false prophet, a sower of discord, a sensualist, a hypocrite, an agent of devil”. [Edward Said, Covering Islam, 1997, Vintage, p-5]

Islam’s challenge to the West meant that the West, instead of understanding Islam and its message, consistently demonised it. As far as the West is concerned, “Other civilisations of the East – India and China among them – could be thought of as defeated and distant and hence not a constant worry. Only Islam seemed never to have submitted completely to the West”. [Said, Covering Islam, p-5]

Such perceptions, coupled with the West’s relentless search for external threats, make Islam the perfect enemy. The West has been facing socio-political and economic crises in the recent past, as exemplified by the current financial meltdown. Professor Noam Chomsky asserts that in the face of such domestic calamities, “You’ve got to divert the bewildered herd, because if they start noticing this, they may not like it, since they are the ones suffering from it. Just having them watch the Superbowl and the sitcoms may not be enough … Over the last ten years, every year or two, some major monster is constructed that we have to defend ourselves against. There used to be one that was always readily available”. [Noam Chomsky, Media Control, 2002, Seven Stories Press, p-43]

Therefore, observers of today’s Western vilification ought to take into account the above historical context to appreciate why the West demonises Islam. The West cannot deal with Islam intellectually and hence resorts to slander and vilification. Demonising Islam today helps the West to perpetuate its age-old enmity towards Islam whilst deflecting attention from its domestic woes and systemic breakdown.

Freedom of speech – a familiar tale of duplicity

The oft repeated mantra of free speech has been deployed to explain why Westerners are free to abuse and insult what others may hold dear. Just as liberals have become accustomed to ridiculing Christian symbols and characters, which Christianity now silently endures, such fanatic secularists expect the same response from Muslims when they abuse Islam. However, the West does not apply the same standard of free speech when it comes to its own sensitivities. Let us examine two contemporary examples, which occurred this week.

Topless pictures of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, have been printed in a number of European magazines and newspapers. The British Royal family adopted a hard-line stance, condemning such publishers and threatening them with legal action. On this occasion, freedom of expression vanished into thin air! No doubt, the publisher will be pursued in the courts shortly.

Similarly, it was reported by the BBC that a Muslim teenager from West Yorkshire, Azhar Ahmed, was convicted this week for making “offensive remarks” about British soldiers in Afghanistan. The judge said his comments were “derogatory” and “inflammatory”. Once again, free speech could not protect Ahmed and the prosecutors did not afford Ahmed the same right to free speech.

Both of these examples demonstrate that freedom of expression is a convenient instrument the West deploys as and when necessary to achieve political aims. It is clear that every nation has sensitivities and redlines, upon which limits are imposed to protect such redlines. Alas, the West preaches to Muslims that which it does not practise at home!

The collusion of the rulers of the Muslim world

Whenever there is an unprovoked aggression against Islam and the Muslims, it is now an established practice that there is a stark contrast in reactions between the Muslim masses and their rulers, whether democrats or dictators. Whilst Muslims protest tirelessly, their rulers continue to wine and dine with Western leaders in a ‘business as usual’ like manner.

In this present uproar, not a single ruler has sincerely taken any steps to repel the current wave of aggression against Muhammad (saw). The president of Egypt, Muhammad Mursi, the so-called ‘Islamist revolutionary’, merely paid leap service by condemning this film. His prime minister, Hisham Qandil, said it was “unacceptable to insult our Prophet”. However, far from taking any positive action or severing diplomatic relations, Hisham Qandil said, the link between the US and Egypt was “a relationship that we need to make stronger based on mutual interests and respect for sovereignty”. Such comments from the rulers highlight the spineless nature of these rulers whose stance towards their colonial masters is a stark contrast to the masses who demand positive action. Little wonder that Muslims the world over feel that nobody represents their opinions.

Our response

It is evident that there is a historical context in which the present assault against Muhammad (saw) is taking place. It is further evident that the West applies duplicitous standards when it comes to their own sensitivities. However, we need to respond intellectually to these attacks whilst bearing in mind the following:

1. Islam is the truth and its intellectual strength has endured for centuries and will continue to do so. All manmade values are based on falsehood, destined to vanish. Allah (swt) says, “Nay, We fling (send down) the truth (this Quran) against the falsehood (disbelief), so it destroys it, and behold, it (falsehood) is vanished”. [Surah Anbiya: 18]
2. We must not compromise in our deen, as Allah (swt) warns us. “They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another)”. [Surah Nisa: 89]
3. Islam does not permit the destruction of property. We must continue to uphold the truth of Islam and promote its sublime values and message. However, our approach has to be candid, uncompromising and intelligent, just as Allah (swt) ordained for us, “Invite (mankind) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Quran) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better”. [Surah An-Nahl: 125]
4. Western gratuitous aggression fuelled by malice against Islam, our Prophet (saw), his family members and Companions and the Quran is not tolerable. Whilst Muslims welcome sincere debate on all aspects of Islam, insincere assaults cannot be tolerated.
5. The West continues to prosecute wars in the Muslim world in the name of freedom and democracy. We need to absolutely reject such disgusting values which permit assaults on people’s sensitivities. Moreover, we must reject those values which allow double standards.
6. The real criminals are the rulers of the Muslim world who are in collusion with their Western colonial masters. These rulers have sold Allah and His Prophet (saw) decades ago and have no desire in upholding the deen of Islam. Moreover, they do not share the sentiments of the Muslim masses and only represent the Westernised elites.
7. As long as manmade systems prevail in the Muslim world, whether in the guise of “Islamic” democrats or secular dictators, Allah and His Prophet (saw) would not be protected and Muslims and Islam will continue to be violated.
8. It is only a sincere Islamic leadership manifested through the Khilafah that can protect Islam and Muslims against repeated military and cultural aggression by the West. We must work for this cause and re-establish the Khilafah in the Muslim world.

Author: Wakil Abu Mujahid

Imam al-Qadi `Iyad: The judgements concerning those who think the Prophet imperfect or curse him :

From Kitab al-Shifa bi-Ta‘rif Huquq al-Mustafa 

by

al-Qadi al-‘Iyad (d.476)

Translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley

Note: The Qadi wrote this under an Islamic state which implemented the hudud punishments and the other Islamic laws. 

Section One: The Judgement of the Shari'a regarding someone who curses or disparages the Prophet

Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or jies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the 'ularna' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.

Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said that the bulk of the people of knowledge agree that whoever curses the Prophet is killed. These include Malik ibn Anas, al-Layth, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and it is the position of the Shafi'i school. Qadi Abu'l-Fadl said that it is based on the statement of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. His repentance is not accepted. Something similar was stated by Abu Hanifa and his people, ath-Thawri and the people of Kufa and al-Awza'i about the Muslims. However, they said that it constitutes apostasy.

At-Tabari related something similar from Abu Hanifa and his companions about anyone who disparages the Prophet, proclaims himself quit of him or calls him a liar.

Sahnun said about those who curse the Prophet, "This is apostasy in exactly the same way as heresy (zandaqa) is. Therefore there is some dispute about whether such a person should be called to repent (as a Muslim) or whether he is an unbeliever. Is he to be killed by a hadd-punishment (as a Muslim) or for disbelief?" We will make this clear in Chapter Two. We do not know of any dispute among the'ulama' of the community and the Salaf regarding the permissibility of shedding his blood.

Several people have mentioned that the consensus is that he is to be killed and considered an unbeliever. One of the Dhahirites, Abu Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Farisi, however, indicated that there is some disagreement about whether to consider someone who belittles the Prophet as an unbeliever. The best-known position has already been stated.

Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that the 'ulama' agree that anyone who reviles the Prophet and disparages him is an unbeliever and the threat of Allah's punishment is on him. The community's judgement on him is that he be killed. Anyone who has any doubts about such a person's disbelief and punishment is also an unbeliever. For a proof of this, Ibrahim ibn Husayn ibn Khalid, the faqih, uses the instance of Khalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwayra for referring to the Prophet as "your companion."'[3]

Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said, "I do not know of any Muslim who disagrees about the necessity of killing such a person if he is a Muslim."

Ibn al-Qasim reports from Malik in the book of Ibn Sahnun, the Mabsut, and the'Utibiyya and Ibn Mutarrif relates the same from Malik in the book of Ibn Habib, "Any Muslim who curses the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent."

Ibn al-Qasim said in the 'Utibiyya, "Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed. The community say that he should be killed just like the dualist. Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be dutiful to him."

In the Mabsut from 'Uthman ibn Kinana we find, "Any Muslim who reviles the Prophet is killed or crucified without being asked to repent. The Imam can choose between crucifying him or killing him." In the variant of Abu'l-Mus'ab and Ibn Abi Uways, they heard Malik say, "Anyone who curses the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed, be he Muslim or unbeliever, without being asked to repent."

Asbagh said, "He is killed in every case, whether he conceals it or makes it public, without being asked to repent because his repentance is not recognised." 'Abdullah ibn 'Abdu'l-Hakam said that and at-Tabari related something similar from Malik Ibn Wahb related that Malik said, "Anyone who says that the Prophet's cloak (or button) was dirty, thereby intending to find fault with him, should be killed."

One of our 'ulama says that people agree that anyone who curses any of the Prophets using the expression "Woe to him" or anything disliked is to be killed without being asked to repent.

Abu'l-Hasan al-Qabisi gave a fatwa that a man who called the Prophet "the porter, the orphan of Abu Talib" should be killed.

Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Zayd gave a fatwa to kill a man who was listening to some people discussing what the Prophet looked like. When a man with an ugly face and beard walked by, he said to them, "You want to know what he looked like? He looked like this passer-by in physique and beard." Abu Muhammad said, "His repentance is not accepted. He lied, may Allah curse him. That could not come out of a heart with sound belief."

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said, "Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."

He was told about a man to whom someone said, "No, by the right of the Messenger of Allah," and he replied, "Allah did such a thing to the Messenger of Allah," mentioning some ugly words. People said to him, "What are you saying, enemy of Allah?" Then he said some even harsher things and added, "I wish for a scorpion for the Messenger of Allah." When someone asked him for fatwa about this man, lbn Abi Sulayman said, "Testify against him and I will be your partner," i.e. in killing him and getting the reward. Habib ibn ar-Rabi' said that is because trying to explain away the literal expression is not accepted because it is clear contempt and lack of respect for the Messenger of Allah. His blood is permitted.

Abu 'Abdullah ibn 'Attab gave a fatwa about a tax-collector who said to a man, "Pay and complain to the Prophet. If I ask or am ignorant, the Prophet was ignorant and asked," to the effect that he be killed.

The fuqaha' of Andalusia gave a fatwa that Ibn Ha tim, the scholar of Toledo, be killed and crucified because there was testimony that he made light of what is due to the Prophet. In the course of a debate, he called him "the orphan" and the in-law of the lion (i.e. 'Ali)," and claimed that his doing-without (zuhd) las not intentional. He alleged that if he had been able to have good things, he would have eaten them. He said other similar things.

The fuqaha' of the Qayrawan[4] and the companions of Sahnun gave a fatwa for the killing of Ibrahim al-Ghazari, a poet and master of many sciences. He was one of those who attended the assembly of Qadi Abu'l-'Abbas ibn Talib for debate. He was accused of objectionable things like mocking Allah, His Prophets and our Prophet. Qadi Yahya ibn 'Umar and other fuqaha' summoned him and commanded that he be killed and crucified. He was stabbed and crucified upside down. Then he was brought down and burned. One of the historians related that when the post to which he was tied was lifted up, the body turned around away from qibja. It was a sign to all and the people said, "Allah is greater!" Then a dog came and licked his blood. Yahya ibn 'Umar said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, spoke the truth," and he mentioned a hadith in which the Prophet said, "A dog will not lick a Muslim's blood."[5]

Qadi Abu 'Abdullah ibn al-Murabit said, "Whoever says that the Prophet was defeated is asked to repent. If he repents, it is all right. If not, he is killed because it detracts from the Prophet. Such a disparaging remark could not be said about the Prophet by anyone with understanding of his affair and certainty about his inviolability."

Habib ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that the school of Malik and his companions is that anyone who says anything disparaging about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.

Ibn 'Attab said that the Book and Sunna require that someone who intends to even slightly harm or disparage the Prophet, either by allusion or clear statement, must be killed.

Anything like this which is something that the 'ulama' consider to be a curse or disparagement necessitates that the one who says it be killed. Neither the early or later people disagree about that, but they disagree about the basis for killing him as we have indicated. We will make this clear later.

This is also my position regarding the judgment of anyone who belittles him or insults him about having been a shepherd, oversight, forgetfulness, sorcery, any wound he received, the defeat of one of his armies, injury by an enemy, the intensity of his illness or his being attracted to his wives. The judgement of all this is that the one who intends to disparage him by it is killed. The position of the'ulama' is as we have already stated and it will be proved by what follows.  

The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed.

Allah says, "Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment." (33:57). He said something similar about those who kill the believers. Part of the curse on them in this world is that they are killed. Allah says, "Cursed they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and all slain." (33: 61) He mentions the punishment of those who fight, "That is humiliation in this world for them." (5:45) "Killing" (qatl) can have the meaning of "curse".[6] Allah says, "May the conjecturers be killed!" (51:11) and "May Allah fight them! How they are perverted!" (9:30) i.e. may Allah curse them.

This is because there is a difference between their harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgement against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe - the death penalty.

Allah says, "No, by your Lord, they will not believe until they have you judge between them in what they disagree about." (4:65) He removes the badge of belief from those who find an impediment in themselves against accepting the Prophet’s judgement and do not submit to him. Anyone who disparages him is opposing his judgement.

Allah says, "O you who believe, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet and be not loud in your speech to him as you are loud to one another lest your actions fail." (49:3). Such an action only comes about through disbelief and the unbeliever is killed.

Allah says, "When they come to you, they greet you with a greeting which Allah never greeted you with." Then He says, "Jahannam is enough for them, an evil homecoming." (58:9)

Allah says, "Among them are those who harm the Prophet and say that he is all ear,"

(9:61) and, "Those who harm the Messenger of Allah have a painful punishment." (9:63)

Allah says, "If you ask them, they will say, 'We were only plunging and playing.' Say, 'What, were you then mocking Allah, His signs and His Messenger? Make no excuses. You have disbelieved after your belief."' (9:67-68) The commentators say, "You have disbelieved" refers to what they have said about the Messenger of Allah.

We have already mentioned the consensus. As for the traditions, al-Husayn ibn 'Ali related from his father that the Messenger of Allah said in respect of this matter, "Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him."[7]

In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, "Who will deal with Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger." He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than idol-worship. It was for causing harm. Abu Rafi,' who used to harm the Messenger of Allah and work against him, was also killed.

Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.

In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid said, "I will," so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.

Similarly the Prophet commanded that a group of unbelievers who used to injure and curse him, like an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt, be killed. He promised that a group of them would be killed before and after the conquest. They were all killed except for those who hurried to become Muslim before they were overpowered. Al-Bazzar related from Ibn 'Abbas that 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt cried out, "O company of Quraysh, why is it that I alone among you am to be killed without war?" The Prophet said, "For your disbelief and your forging lies against the Messenger of Allah."

'Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.

It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.

It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.

Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did not distress the Prophet.

Al-Mujahir ibn Abi Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of the Ridda[8]chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, "If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others."

Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma[9] satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, "Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I will, Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, "Two goats will not lock horns over her."[10]

Ibn 'Abbas said that a blind man had an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he had shed her blood with impunity.[11]

In the hadith of Abu Barza as-Aslami it says, "One day I was sitting with Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and he became angry at one of the Muslim men." Qadi Isma'il and other Imams said that the man had cursed Abu Bakr. An-Nasa'i related it as, "I came to Abu Bakr and a man had been rude and answered him back. I said, 'Khalif of Allah, let me strike off his head!' He said, 'Sit down. That is not for anyone except the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.'

Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr said, "No one disagreed with him." So the Imams take this, as a proof that anyone who does anything that might anger, harm or curse the Prophet in any way should be killed.

There is also the letter of 'Umar ibn 'Abdu'l-'Aziz to his governor in Kufa. He had asked his advice about killing a man who had cursed 'Umar. 'Umar wrote back to him, "It is not lawful to kill a Muslim for cursing anyone except the Messenger of Allah. Whoever curses him, his blood is lawful."

Harun ar-Rashid asked Malik about a man who had reviled the Prophet and he mentioned to him that the fuqaha' of Iraq had given a fatwa that he be flogged. Malik became angry and said, "Amir al-Mu'minin! There is no continuation for a community after it curses its Prophet! Whoever curses the Companions of the Prophet is to be flogged."

I do not know which of those Iraqi fuqaha' gave Harun ar-Rashid that fatwa. We have already mentioned that the school of the people of Iraq[12] is that he be killed. Perhaps they were among those who were not known for knowledge or those whose fatwas were unreliable or idiosyncratic, or it is possible that what the man said was not taken to be a curse and there was a dispute as to whether or not it was a curse or he had retracted it and repented of it. None of these things were mentioned to Malik at all. However, the consensus is that anyone who curses him is to be killed as we have already stated.

That he is to be killed can be deduced by reflection and consideration. Anyone who curses or disparages the Prophet has shown clear symptoms of the sickness of his heart and proof of his real convictions and belief. That is why most of the 'ulama'judge him to be an apostate. This is what is transmitted by the people of Syria from Malik, al-Awza'i, ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and the people of Kufa.

The other position is that it is not a proof of disbelief, and so the person in question is killed by the hadd-punishment but he is not adjudged to be an unbeliever unless he persists in his words, not denying them nor refraining from them. To be judged an unbeliever, his statement must either be a clear statement of disbelief, like calling the Prophet a liar, or originate from mocking words and censure. His open avowal of what he said and lack of repentance for it is an indication that he finds it lawful and this constitutes disbelief, so there is no disagreement that he is an unbeliever. Allah says about people like this, "They swear by Allah that they did not speak. They said the words of disbelief. They disbelieved after their Islam." (9:76)

The commentators said that this refers to the statement, "If what is said by Muhammad is true,[13] we are worse than monkeys."

It is said that it refers to what one of them[14] said, "Our likeness with respect to that of Muhammad is only as the words of the one who says, 'Feed your dog and it will devour you.' When we return to Madina, the mighty will drive out the weaker."

It is said that even if the one who says this conceals it, the same judgement applies to him as to the heretic and he is killed because he has changed his deen.The Prophet said, "Strike off the heads of all who change their deen."

Because upholding the Prophet's honour is an obligation owed by his entire community and anyone who curses a free man of his community is given a hadd-punishment, the punishment of someone who curses the Prophet is that he is to be is killed because of the immensity of the worth of the Prophet and his elevation over others. 

The reasons why the Prophet pardoned some of those who harmed him It might be asked why the Prophet did not kill the Jew who said to him, "Death be upon you" when this is a curse,[15] and why he did not kill the other man[16] who said in this respect, "This is a dividing out by which the face of Allah is not intended." When he annoyed the Prophet by saying that, the Prophet said, "Musa was harmed by worse than this,"[17] and was patient. And why he did not kill the hypocrites who used to harm him often.

Know that at the beginning of Islam the Prophet used to court people's friendship and he made their hearts incline to him. He made them love belief and adorned it in their hearts and he treated them gently to encourage them. He said to his Companions; "You are sent to make things easy. You were not sent to scare people away." He said, "Make things easy and do not make them hard. Soothe and do not scare away."[18]

He said, "Let it not be said that Muhammad killed his Companions."[19] The Prophet cajoled the hypocrites and unbelievers, was cheerful in their company and lenient to them and endured their harm. He was patient when they were coarse. But it is not permitted for us to be patient with them in such cases. Allah says, "You will continue to come upon some act of treachery on their part, except for a few of them, so pardon them and overlook." (5:15) Allah says, "Repel with that which is better and the one between whom and you there is enmity will be as if he were a close friend." (41:35) That was because people at the beginning of Islam needed to be brought close. People are unanimous about that.

Once Islam was firmly established and Allah had given it victory over all otherdeens, any such detractor that the Muslims had power over and whose affair was well-known was put to death. A case in point is that of Ibn Khatal and others whom the Prophet said should be should killed on the Day of the Conquest and those among the Jews and others whom it was possible to kill by assassination. There were others who were captured but rectified their behaviour before they came into the Prophet's company and joined the group of those who manifested belief in him. Among such people who had harmed him were Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf,[20] Abu Rafi',[21] an-Nadr ibn al-Harith[22] and 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt.

The same applied to another group who could have been killed with impunity like Ka'b ibn Zuhayr[23] and Ibn az-Zaba'ra[24] and others who harmed the Prophet but then surrendered and met him as Muslims.

The inward parts of the hypocrites were veiled and the Prophet judged according to the outward. Most of these things were uttered by them in secret and among people of their own sort. Then they swore by Allah that they had not said them and uttered words of belief.

In spite of this, the Prophet desired to make them return to Islam. The Prophet was patient with their faults and their coarseness as all the Resolute Prophets[25] were patient until many of these people returned both inwardly and outwardly to Islam and were as sincere in secret as they appeared openly. Then Allah helped many of them and some of them established the deen as wazirs, helpers, defenders and Ansar as the traditions attest.

Because of this, some of our Imams have questioned whether their statements[26] were confirmed enough with the Prophet to raise a complaint. A single person who did not have the rank of testimony might have transmitted them -such as a child, a slave or a woman. Taking life is only permitted when there are two just witnesses. This can be applied to the affair of the Jews' greeting.[27] They twisted it with their tongues and did not make it clear.

Don't you see how attention was drawn to this matter by A'isha. If the Jew had clearly enunciated it, she would not have been the only person to recognise it. That is why the Prophet informed his Companions about what the Jews were doing and the lack of sincerity in their greeting and the deceit it contained through the twisting of their tongues and how they were really attacking the deen. He said, "When a Jew greets one of you, he says, 'Death be upon you,' so say 'and upon you'."

Similarly, one of our companions in Baghdad[28] said "The Prophet did not kill the hypocrites in spite of what he knew about them. It has not been related that a clear proof was established regarding their hypocrisy. That is why the Prophet left them alone. Furthermore, the matter was secret and inward while their outward was Islam and belief and they were among the people of the dhimma and treaty and proximity. People were also new to Islam and could not distinguish the bad from the good. It is known that some of the Arabs who are mentioned as being suspected of hypocrisy are among the group of believers and the Companions of the Messenger and the helpers of the deen according to outward judgement of them. If the Prophet had killed them for their hypocrisy when it had not emerged from them because he knew what they concealed in themselves, those who were hostile would have found something to go on about, fugitives would have been suspicious and the impetuous would have spread lies. More than one person would have been alarmed and feared the company of the Prophet and coming into Islam. The claimant would have made false claims and the wrong-acting enemy would have thought that he was killed out of enmity and desire for revenge." Malik ibn Anas also said something to this effect.

That is why the Prophet said, "Let it not be said that Muhammad killed his Companions." The Prophet said, "Those are the ones whom Allah has forbidden me to kill." This is not the same as applying the outward judgements to the Companions - such as the hadd-punishments for fornication, killing and similar things when the crimes were evident and people in general knew about them.

Muhammad ibn al-Mawwaz said, "If the hypocrites had openly shown their hypocrisy, then the Prophet would have killed them."

Qadi Abu'l-Hasan ibn al-Qassar and Qatada spoke regarding the commentary of Allah's words, "If the hypocrites do not stop and those in whose hearts is illness and those that make havoc in the city, We will urge you against them and then they will only be your neighbours a little. Cursed they will be wherever they are found, they will be seized and all killed. The sunna of Allah..." (33:60-62) and said that it means when they openly display hypocrisy.

Muhammad ibn Maslama related in the Mabsut from Zayd ibn Aslam that Allah's words, "O Prophet, strive against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh to them," (9:75) abrogates what came before it.

One of our shaykhs said that perhaps the words of the bedouin who said, "This is a dividing out by which the face of Allah is not intended," and "Be just!" were not understood by the Prophet as an attack or suspicion. He saw them as an error of opinion regarding the matters of this world and as striving for the best interests of people. He did not think anything of them and saw them as belonging to the kind of harm which should be forgiven and endured. That is why he did not punish him.

Something similar is said about the Jews for saying, "Death be upon you." There was no clear curse in it nor supplication except for death which all men must meet. It was said that what they meant was, "May you dislike your religion," "death" meaning boredom and disgust. This is a supplication for the deen to become boring which is not a clear curse. Therefore al-Bukhari has a section called, "The Chapter on when the dhimma or other people curse the Prophet by allusion." One scholar has said that the allusion is not a curse, but rather to cause harm. We have already stated that cursing and harm are the same in respect of him.

Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr deals with this hadith[29] by quoting some of what has already been mentioned. It is not mentioned in this hadith whether this Jew was one of the people of the dhimma and those subject to treaty or from those with whom the Muslims were at war. Things established by proof are not abandoned in favour of mere probability. The most suitable and evident reasons for the Prophet not punishing him was the intention to seek friendship and trying to bring such people around to the deen - perhaps they would believe. That is why al-Bukhari puts the hadith of "The Sharing-out and the Khawarij"under the title "Chapter: Whoever gave up fighting the Khawarij in order to create friendship and so that people might not harbour an aversion to him."

The Prophet forebore what the Jews had done when he was bewitched and poisoned, which is more terrible than being cursed, until Allah helped him and gave him permission to kill those Jews who had acted against him and to drive them out of their fortresses and to cast terror into their hearts. He prescribed emigration for those of them he wished, removed them from their houses and demolished their homes at their own hands and the hands of the believers. He openly cursed them and said, "Brothers of pigs and monkeys." He said that the swords of the Muslims could be used against them[30]and removed them from their neighbourhood and caused their land, homes and property to be inherited by others[31] so that the word of Allah would be uppermost and the word of those who rejected underneath.

People might say that it has come in the sound hadith[32] from 'A'isha that the Prophet never took revenge on his own behalf for anything that happened to him unless the respect of Allah was violated, then he took revenge for the sake of Allah. Know that this does not necessarily mean that he did not take revenge against those who cursed him or harmed him or called him a liar. These actions contravene some of the inviolable things of Allah and so the Prophet took revenge for them. What he did not take revenge for was those things which were connected to bad behaviour in word or action toward himself or his property which were not intended to harm him, but were merely part of the natural coarse and ignorant disposition of the bedouins or the insolent nature of man in general, such as the bedouin pulling his cloak until it made a mark on his neck or the man raising his voice in his presence or the bedouin arguing about the Prophet buying his horse to which Khuzayma testified. Another example was when two of his wives supported one other against him and other such things which it is best to overlook.

One of our 'ulama' has said that it is haram to harm the Prophet by any action, even if it is an allowable (mubah) action. In respect of men other than the Prophet, permitted actions are allowed, even if they harm someone. A proof is found in the general statement, "Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Next." (33:58)

In the hadith about Fatima, the Prophet said, "She is part of me. What harms her harms me. I do not make haram what Allah has made halal, but the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the daughter of the enemy of Allah[33] can never be together with the same man. "[34]

Another example of his forbearance might have been something said by an unbeliever to harm him at a time when the Prophet still hoped that he would later become Muslim, such as when he forgave the Jew who had bewitched him, the bedouin who wanted to kill him and the Jewess who poisoned him -although it is also said that he killed her.

He forgave this sort of harm to himself from the People of the Book and the hypocrites, desiring to bring about their friendship and that of others as we have already confirmed. Success is by Allah. 

[1] al-Bukhari and Muslim

[2] Al-Hakim, al-Bazzar and Abu Ya'la.

[3] This took place during the Ridda [see note 8 below] war. Malik ibn Nuwayra was one of those who refused to pay zakat.

[4] The great mosque and early centre of Islamic learning located south of Tunis.

[5] The source of this hadith is not known.

[6] "Qatalahu Allah"(May Allah kill him) or "qutila" (May he be killed) are curses.

[7] At-Tabarani and ad-Daraqutni. 

[8] Apostasy or defection of the Arab tribes after the death of the Prophet.

[9] A tribe allied to the Aws. She was 'Usma bint Marwan.

[10] An expression meaning there will be no disagreement about the matter.

[11] Abu Dawud, al-Hakim and al-Bayhaqi.

[12] i.e. the Hanafis.

[13] About the conquest of the fortresses of Syria. This was spoken by al-Jallas ibn Suwayd who later repented of what he had said.

[14] 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy, known as the leader of the hypocrites in Madina.

[15] Al-Bukhari and elsewhere.

[16] Dhu'l-Khusawsira.

[17] Al-Bukhari.

[18] Ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhari and Muslim, and an-Nasa'i from Anas.

[19] To 'Umar in the story of Ubayy ibn Salul.

[20] A Jewish enemy who was assassinated.

[21] A Jew from Khaybar.

[22] Captured at Badr and put to death.

[23] A poet who later wrote a famous poem for the Prophet.

[24] Another poet who became Muslim when Makka was conquered.

[25] The Resolute Prophets are said to be five: Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, 'Isa and Muhammad, or those mentioned in Suas 7 and 26 who are Nuh, Hud, SaIih, Sulayman, Lut and Nuh, or the eighteen Prophets mentioned in Sura 6, or all the Messengers except for Ayyub.

[26] When the Jews said, "Death be upon you."

[27] i.e. only one person reported what the Jews had said.

[28] Perhaps Qadi 'Abdu'l-Wahhab al-Baghdadi al-Maliki.

[29] About what the Jew said.

[30] The Banu Qurayza.

[31] The Banu ’n-Nadir.

[32] In al-Bukhari and elsewhere.

[33] Referring to Juwayriyya, the daughter of Abu Jahl, who had been offered in marriage to 'Ali.

[34] Al-Bukhari.

[35] Muslim and al-Bukhari from 'Ali.

[36] A member of the clan of the Prophet.

[37] i.e. the time of the author, Qadi 'lyad.

[38] Al-Harun ar-Rashid's son.

[39] The chief qadi there at that time.

[40] In what he said about the Mu'tazilites in his Kitab ar-Ri'aya.

[41] A sect originating in Khorasan who followed Jahm ibn Safwan. He said that the Garden and the Fire were not eternal and that belief was gnosis, not affirmation. He also believed in total predestination and that man was totally compelled in all he did with no choice whatsoever.

[42] Or that man creates his actions, which is the position of the Mu'tazilites and the Qadariyya.

[43] Muslim and aI-Bukhari from Jabir.

[44] Probably Jeremiah.

[45] Malik, Jbn Hanbal, al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud and at-Tirmidhi from Jbn 'Umar.