Noe å brenne for?

Muhammed og has menn angrep de mange fortene i Khaybar-dalen, det ene etter det andre, mens de hele tiden skrek: Å, du som har fått seier – drep! Drep!.

Fortene falt, ett om gangen, helt til muslimene kom frem til fortet Khamus, som bukket under til slutt. Jødenes leder, Kinata b al-Rabi, og hans fetter ble ført ut. Muhammed anklaget han dem for å skjule Banu ‘l-Nadir’s skatt. Jødene protesterte og sa de ikke hadde noe mer igjen. Da (og her siterer jeg fra den høyt aktede Muhammed-biografien til Ibn Hisham), «overleverte Muhammed Kinan til al-Zubayt, en av Muhammeds egne menn, og sa: «Torturer ham til du får det ut av ham». Al-Zubayt tente bål å brystet hans til han utåndet. deretter overleverte apostelen Muhammed ham til Muhammed b Maslama, som begge hogg hodet av ham som hevn for sin bror Mahmud b Maslama. (s 164 ff i Warraq: Hvorfor jeg ikke er muslim).

Vet du hva?  Jeg viste ovenstånde tekst til en kvinne i 30-årene. Halvt akademiker, halvt artist. Tror hun er vakker og begavet. Rundt 160 høy. Middels slank. Attraktiv for mange, skremmende for bare altfor få.

Reaksjonen kom raskt og hylete. Hun gikk i fistel. I strupen på meg, formelig. Hun er en klar histrionisk figur, en grenseboer. En grensepsykopat, hvis mulig. Hun sa at jeg var brutal, fob og ond.

Selvsagt. For dette er nærmest blitt et vanemønster for mange, og et banemønster for folk flest, på sikt. (Obs, legg merke til neologismen). Et banebrytende-banemønster, ja.

Vet du hva … Hun skyter altså på budbringeren i stedet for på komponisten, for si det sånn. Hun er en fare for seg selv. Og viser et symptom. Betenkelig og urovekkende i seg selv.

Du husker kanskje at du så da isis-soldater brant en jordansk soldat – en pilot – levende. I et bur. Du husker kanskje begynnelsen på snutten. Du så dem komme leiende på ham, i lenker og håndjern; han selv ante antakelig ikke hva som skulle skje. Vi så dem legge ut krutt i en lang linje, helt bort til buret og så tente de på, (etter å ha helt litt bensin over den stakkars mannen, som så ut til å ta det hele med stoisk ro, helt til flammene tok tak i den røde fangedrakten hand, nede ved føttene).

Du husker det kanskje tydeligere i dette selvsamme øyeblikk. Beklager at jeg minner deg på det.

Nå var en hel haug islamske lærde straks ute med å fordømme denne brenningen, og Jordan tok sin hevn. Men det fins eksempler på at lærde ved al-Azhar universitetet i Kairo gikk ut og sa at ISIS faktisk ikke gjør noe som strider mot islam (per se, som jeg vil uttrykke det).

Men like vel. Til og med Qaradawi fordømte brenningen. Han har sgt at islam neppe hadde overlevd hvis ikke islam hadde hatt hjemler for å ta livet av apostater.

Jeg bare nevner det, se linkene under.  

Fra en hadith om suren Woman: … their hands and feet were cut …when the captives asked for water, no water was given them … and their eyes were branded with heated iron …

Repentance, om vers 14: : … doing so will heal the hearts of the people who are believers …

The Cave, sure 29, hadith: “indeed we have prepared fire for unbelievers” …

Et must, for dem som vil komme videre, ved å gå et hakk bakover:

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/04/fundamentet-er-undergrav-og-ordene-drept.html

Det nye vi’et tror ikke lenger på – den kristne – Gud

Det tror ikke at gud kan ha noen Sønn

Det tror ikke på at Jesus sto opp fra de døde og kom for å gi deg nåde –

og frelse deg.

Akkurat slik som muslimene tror, ifølge Koranen.

Derfor har de ingen grunn til å mene at å brenne Koranen har noe for seg; de tror tvert imot at de har alle de beste grunner for å fordømme koranbrenning. At koranbrenning ikke er forbudt, er helt irrelevant. «Du skal ikke misbruke ytringsfriheten», hører jeg dem si. I 2006 – under karikaturstriden - kunne man høre på arabisk tv at «ytringsfriheten er hellig for dem”, sagt som noe klanderverdig, forkastelig og truende, i seg selv blasfemisk. (Noen norske mente da i fullt alvor at det var et faktum at de ikke hadde sagt dette …  ).  

Hvor mange som står i Statskirken i dag tror på Gud? Kanskje 60%? Noe sånt. Hvor mange vet hva «hellig» betyr? Antakelig færre enn 50%  -omtrent like mange som mener at det bør innføres lovforbud mot koran-brenning. Hvor mange av de 30% prosentene som ikke vil ha noe forbud? Kanskje mellom 4 og 5%.

Og dette viser at spørsmålet om hellighet faktisk nå avgjøres av estetikk, ikke av etikk; spørsmålet avgjøres av de som føler at det er mest emosjonelt korrekt å mene det de mener. Fordi folket er avkristnet og Statskirken likeså. 

I gamle dager, det vil si for bare noen få år siden, trodde folk at de tilhørte «forsamlingen av de hellige». Ikke alle våget å tro på dette, den gang, men det lå et håp i luften der, om at muligheten for å komme til himmelen så avgjort var til stede. Mange følte ubehag og forsto ikke hva det betød å si «tilgi meg, jeg, et syndig menneske». I dette lå det noe truende. Hvem vil vel være en synder?

I dag tror man heller slik: Du tilhører ingen hellig forsamling; du har ikke behov for å være hellig, i en hellig forsamling av gudstroende. (Vi kan si: Godtroende). Derfor er det feil å brenne hellige bøker. Å brenne hellige bøker er som å brenne seg selv eller ikke å ha empati. Å tro at Allah og Gud er ulike guder, er en styggedom og en forbannelse. Vi skal ikke tro vi er noe og spesielt ikke at vi er hellige.

Hvis du ikke tror dette, er du på vei mot rasisme, mot dette å ikke utstå f eks muslimer; dvs du føler da ikke korrekt når det gjelder muslimer; du er mot dem kun fordi de tror på «gud», hvilket er en helligbrøde i og for seg, du som ikke holder noe annet hellig enn deg selv og den «kameratflokken» du til enhver tilhører og de normer og regler denne flokken opererer etter.

Å innbille seg at man tilhører «den hellige forsamlingen» er nedlatende overfor muslimer, ja, rasistisk. Det er intolerant og «gud» er ond, i motsetning til hva vi er. Vi som ikke er hellige og ikke vil være det, og ikke forstår hva det betyr, og ikke vil vite av hvilket ansvar og hvilken frihet den virkelige hellighet innebærer. Å forsøke å helliggjøre muslimene, nei, det går ikke. Det vil vi ikke ha noe av og ikke noe med. Derfor er det «vi» - det nye store Vi’et som ikke tror – vi nye som er «hellige» i virkeligheten … . Det nye store Vi’et utgjør som alle vet ikke «dem», fordi «dem» ikke vil tilhøre oss, det nye store støre Vi’et. Så hvordan hører alt sammen?

Vi’et elsket alt annet, og alle andre - enn det tidligere og for lengst foreldede vi’et. Og slik gjorde det nye store Vi’et seg til en ny permanent forsamling av hellige, en gruppe som krevde særbehandling av alle, bortsett fra de som tilhørte det gamle vi’et, som absolutt ikke må særbehandles og derfor må man nedlegge forbud mot ytringsfriheten.

Men hvordan kan det nye store Vi’et være «hellig» når det ikke har en Gud som kan rettferdiggjøre det? Jo, det må frelse seg selg. De må helliggjøre seg selv. Men hva hvis bare Gud er hellig?

Vel, slike spørsmål overlater man trygt til barnebarna.

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/02/det-nye-viet-et-vi-av-tilskuere-og.html

Ja, slik kan vi tro at folk virkelig tror.

49% mener det burde være lovforbud med koranbrenning. Bare 30% vil ikke ha slikt forbud. Men de vet ikke hva «hellig» betyr. Er Allah hellig? Ja, det må de mene, siden de ikke vil brenne - den hellige -Koranen.

Men er Allah hellig? https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2012/04/allah-er-ikke-hellig.html

Se for øvrig under følgende liste av linker om hvordan spørsmålet takles fra islamsk side. Nyt hvordan de drøfter og kommer frem til sine konklusjoner. Se hvor kasuistisk det hele er, hvor stramt og snevert det blir. Men det er dette vi nå skal inkorporere i vår nye hellighet. Via lovpåbud, ikke mindre.

Liste:

En relevant og nylig innlagt fra min side:

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/04/brenne-den-som-brenner.html

Mer bakgrunn: Om bl a pietismen og Geneva, og en luretekst:

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/11/11-synden-og-syndene-i-islam-og.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/04/karen-armstrongs-illusjoner-om-oss-om.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2014/07/allah-hu-achbar.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2016/01/allah-hu-achbar-virkelig.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2017/12/nade-i-islam-id-eid-og-jule-og.html

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2018/05/naden-i-islam-og-i-kristendommen-en.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2016/11/allah-hvem-sier-du-han-er-allah-skapt.html

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2012/04/allah-er-ikke-hellig.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/02/er-du-spr-kan-du-avtale-gud.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/11/et-lite-kosmos-eller-avbilde-for-i-dag.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/01/kjrligheten-godheten-og-livets-tre.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/07/treenigheten-og-vare-dagers-totalitre.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/12/definsjon-av-hypermagi-og-hypermagiker.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2015/08/sosialkonomiske-teser-om-den-tragiske.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2018/11/sosialkonomiske-teser-om-godhet.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2016/09/uthengelsen-av-rollnes-og-storhaug-en.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/04/en-palett-av-gratis-godhet-takk.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2015/09/hjelperen-den-rasjonelle-den-flsomme-og.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2012/11/kristendommen-er-heldigvis-klart.html

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/06/synden-og-syndene-i-kristendommen-og.html

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/07/3-syndene-og-synden-islam-kristendom.html

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/12/var-muhammed-muslim.html

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/08/6-synden-og-syndene-i-islam-og.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/03/emosjelle-dramtikere-uten-sans-for.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/10/hvem-sier-du-at-jeg-er-et-lite-dykk-i.html

Kan man forstå kristentroen … ?

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2011/01/er-antijihad-na-blitt-kristent.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2010/12/var-narcissisme-og-islams-ddelig.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2012/09/knefallet-et-syndefall.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/10/reza-aslan-keiseren-og-jesus-kristus.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/04/pasken-er-over-oppstandelsen-ikke.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/11/er-alle-troer-like-tolerante-eller-like.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/02/andy-bannister-om-bla-allahs-identitet.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2013/01/jdinnen-og-mediamenneske-mona-levin-i.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/11/nar-gud-gud-og-allah-diskuteres-i-den.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2010/12/jesus-som-gud-i-koranen.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2011/01/er-antijihad-na-blitt-kristent.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/01/no-god-but-god-sant.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/02/himmel-pa-jord-i-henhold-til-islam.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/03/om-en-metafysikk-i-krigens-tid.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/03/rikets-tilstand-religion-over-magi.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/10/hva-er-tro-hva-er-frihet-det-store.html

https://quranicwarners.org/hadiths#top

http://www.parsquran.com/eng/articles/fire.htm

 https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/11/heksebrenniing-og-koran-brenning.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-jordan-clerics-idUKKBN0L815F20150204

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/burning-of-jordanian-pilot-by-isis-is-a-crime-in-islam

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/227776/why-did-the-sahaabah-use-burning-with-fire-as-a-punishment-for-some-crimes

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/227776/why-did-the-sahaabah-use-burning-with-fire-as-a-punishment-for-some-crimes

Question

Didn’t the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “No one punishes with fire except Allah”? Therefore isn’t burning haraam according to Islamic teachings? But in fatwa no. 38622 you stated that ‘Ali, Abu Bakr and Khaalid ibn al-Waleed burned those who committed the sin of homosexuality; were they not sinning by doing that? Even if we assume that someone is killed in a retaliatory punishment (qisaas), isn’t qisaas by burning haraam?

Summary of answer

To sum up: what may be stated definitively is that the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) did not deliberately go against the prohibition on punishment by burning. What has been narrated from some of them (concerning that) is either not saheeh (sound), or it is saheeh but they are excused for what they did on the basis of ijtihaad, because they were qualified to engage therein.  If the mujtahid strives his utmost to issue a correct verdict and fatwa but makes a mistake, he is rewarded and is not regarded as having sinned.  It was narrated from ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, that he heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “If a judge passes a judgement having striven to reach a decision, and he gets it right, he will have two rewards. If he passes a judgement having striven to reach a decision and he gets it wrong, he will have one reward.”  Narrated by al-Bukhaari (7352) and Muslim (1716).  For more information, please see Sharh al-Kawkab al-Muneer (4/491-492)  And Allah knows best.

Answer: Praise be to Allah.

It is proven in the texts that punishment by burning with fire is haraam. 

It was narrated from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) burned some people. News of that reached Ibn ‘Abbaas and he said: If it were me, I would not have burned them, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” And I would have executed them as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3017). 

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent us on a mission and said: “If you find So and so, and So and so, then burn them with fire.” Then the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, when we were about to leave: “I had commanded you to burn So and so, and So and so. But verily no one punishes with fire except Allah. So if you find them, execute them.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3016) 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

With regard to the hadith concerning this topic, what appears to be the case is that the prohibition in it indicates that this act is haraam. 

End quote from Fath al-Baari (6/150). 

This prohibition on punishing anyone by burning with fire is general in application, but the majority of scholars made an exception in the case of burning with fire by way of retaliatory punishment (qisaas) and making the punishment fit the crime. If someone burns another person then it is permissible, according to this view, to punish him by burning him, by way of retaliatory punishment. 

They quoted as evidence for that the verses in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”

[al-Baqarah 2:194]

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)”

[an-Nahl 16:126]. 

The basic principle says that acting upon two sound texts that have not been abrogated is better than overlooking one of them. 

For more information, please see fatwa no. 147416 

Therefore the majority of fuqaha’ think that it is permissible to burn with fire by way of retaliatory punishment. 

Ibn Mulaqqin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

One group of scholars said: Whoever burns is to be burnt. This is also the view of Maalik, the scholars of Madinah, ash-Shaafa‘i and his companions, Ahmad and Ishaaq. 

End quote from at-Tawdeeh li Sharh al-Jaami‘ as-Saheeh (18/61) 

Secondly: 

With regard to what is mentioned in fatwa no. 38622 about ‘Ali, Abu Bakr and Khaalid ibn al-Waleed burning those who committed the crime of homosexuality, it may be said in response to that: 

The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), especially the most prominent figures among them, such as the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs and others, have been commended by Allah in the Qu’ran and their virtues have been proven in the Sunnah. All of that is because of their assiduous compliance and obedience to the commands of Islam, their steadfastness in adhering to them, and their efforts to call people to the faith, until they met Allah, may He be exalted, when they were like that. 

In the case of those who are of such high standing, if we come across a verdict or fatwa of theirs that appears to contradict an Islamic text, then in this case we must follow the steps outlined below: 

Firstly: we should establish the soundness or otherwise of what is attributed to them. It is not permissible to attribute anything to a person unless we are certain that it is soundly proven. 

 

The incidents of killing with fire that are attributed to the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) are not all soundly narrated. With regard to what is mentioned in fatwa no. 38622, to which you referred, this fatwa was to explain the views of the scholars concerning the punishment of one who commits the immoral act of homosexuality, in which we quoted all the views concerning the method of punishment for this immoral act. 

Burning was mentioned, quoting those who said that it was proven in reports from the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), such as Ibn al-Qayyim, who stated definitively that this incident was proven, as was quoted from him in the fatwa. 

But there are those who disagreed with Ibn al-Qayyim and regarded the report of this story as da‘eef (weak), such as al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him), who said in as-Sunan al-Kubra (17/219): This is mursal. End quote. 

It is well known that mursal is one of the types of da‘eef hadiths. 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

With regard to burning, Ibn Abi’d-Dunya narrated via al-Bayhaqi and via Ibn al-Munkadir that Khaalid ibn al-Waleed wrote to Abu Bakr, telling him that he had found a man among one of the Arab tribes with whom men would have intercourse as with a woman. Abu Bakr called the Sahaabah together and asked them about that, and the one who had the strictest view was ‘Ali, who said: We think that we should burn him with fire, and the Sahaabah agreed on that. 

I say: This is da‘eef jiddan (very weak). If it were saheeh, it would constitute definitive proof. 

End quote from ad-Diraayah fi Takhreej Ahaadeeth al-Hidaayah (2/103) 

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd commented on this report as follows: 

The verdict of the leading scholars is that it is a mursal hadith, as was stated clearly by al-Bayhaqi and ash-Shawkaani. 

End quote from al-Hudood wa’t-Ta‘zeeraat ‘inda Ibn al-Qayyim (p. 175) 

To sum up, this incident is not soundly or definitively proven. 

Secondly: in cases where a fatwa or verdict is soundly attributed, as in the story of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): 

It was narrated from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) burned some people. News of that reached Ibn ‘Abbaas and he said: If it were me, I would not have burned them, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.”

And I would have executed them as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3017). 

In an incident such as this, there must have been a reason that made ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) issue the verdict of burning. There may have been the following reasons: 

1. Perhaps the hadith prohibiting burning did not reach him. The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) were just like any other people: one of them may have missed out on some knowledge, according to his situation, as Abu Bakr and ‘Umar missed out on some issues of knowledge that others had learned, even though they were superior to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all), and others also missed out on some issues of knowledge and hadiths of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), as is well known.

Al-Haazimi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

It was narrated from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali burned some people who had apostatised from Islam. News of that reached Ibn ‘Abbaas and he said: I would not have burned them with fire, for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” And I would have executed them as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then execute him.”. 

He said: News of that reached ‘Ali and he said: Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!

This hadith is proven and saheeh. 

They said: The fact that ‘Ali was surprised by the words of Ibn ‘Abbaas indicates that news of this abrogation had not reached him; when it did reach him, he adopted that view. Were it not for that, he would have objected to what Ibn ‘Abbaas said. 

End quote from al-I‘tibaar fi’n-Naaskih wa’l-Mansookh min al-Athaar (p. 194) 

2. Perhaps he had forgotten the hadith that prohibited it, and did not remember it, and the one who forgets is excused and is not sinning.

There are similar cases in the biographies of the Sahaabah in which one of them forgot a hadith and others reminded him. 

Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Adam al-Ethiopi said: 

It may be that he said it – i.e., when ‘Ali said “Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!” – by way of approving of what he said, and that Ibn ‘Abbaas remembered what ‘Ali had forgotten. 

End quote from Dhakheerat al-‘Uqba fi Sharh al-Mujtaba (31/385). 

3. Perhaps he understood the prohibition as meaning that it was merely disliked, not prohibited, as was the view favoured by some of the scholars.

Az-Zarqaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!” It may be that he did not agree with his objection, and thought that the prohibition meant that it was makrooh (disliked), because ‘Ali thought that burning was permissible, as did Khaalid ibn al-Waleed and others, adopting a stern stance towards the disbelievers, and by way of inflicting a severe punishment on them. 

End quote from Sharh al-Muwatta’ (3/193-194) 

It is on the basis of reasons such as these that we may interpret the report that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) burned those who committed the immoral act of homosexuality, if the report is proven to be sound. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

It should be noted that not one of the leading scholars – who are widely accepted among the ummah – deliberately went against the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in his Sunnah in any matter, minor or major. 

They are unanimously and definitely agreed that it is obligatory to follow the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and that the opinion of anyone may be accepted or rejected, except the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). 

But if one of them holds a view, and there is a saheeh hadith to the contrary, then he must have an excuse for not following the hadith. All excuses fall into three categories: 

1. That he did not believe that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that.

2. That he did not believe that he was referring to that issue when he said it.

3. That he believed that that ruling had been abrogated.

These three categories are main categories and there may be sub-categories. 

End quote from Raf‘ al-Malaam ‘an al-A’immah al-A‘laam (p. 8-9)

To sum up: what may be stated definitively is that the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) did not deliberately go against the prohibition on punishment by burning. What has been narrated from some of them (concerning that) is either not saheeh (sound), or it is saheeh but they are excused for what they did on the basis of ijtihaad, because they were qualified to engage therein. 

If the mujtahid strives his utmost to issue a correct verdict and fatwa but makes a mistake, he is rewarded and is not regarded as having sinned. 

It was narrated from ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, that he heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “If a judge passes a judgement having striven to reach a decision, and he gets it right, he will have two rewards. If he passes a judgement having striven to reach a decision and he gets it wrong, he will have one reward.” 

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (7352) and Muslim (1716). 

For more information, please see Sharh al-Kawkab al-Muneer (4/491-492) 

And Allah knows best.

-

Faith in Allah الإيمان بالله

… Burn their houses for missing prayer? By Abu Amina Elias for FaithinAllah.org

Question:

Some people claim the Prophet burned down people’s houses because they were absent from prayer. Is it true?

Answer:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

There is a tradition of the Prophet which states that he wanted to burn down the houses of the hypocrites – those who pretended to be Muslims in order to infiltrate and harm the Muslim community – because they would habitually miss the congregational prayers. However, he only expressed that he wanted to do so but he did not actually do it.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنَّ أَثْقَلَ صَلَاةٍ عَلَى الْمُنَافِقِينَ صَلَاةُ الْعِشَاءِ وَصَلَاةُ الْفَجْرِ وَلَوْ يَعْلَمُونَ مَا فِيهِمَا لَأَتَوْهُمَا وَلَوْ حَبْوًا وَلَقَدْ هَمَمْتُ أَنْ آمُرَ بِالصَّلَاةِ فَتُقَامَ ثُمَّ آمُرَ رَجُلًا فَيُصَلِّيَ بِالنَّاسِ ثُمَّ أَنْطَلِقَ مَعِي بِرِجَالٍ مَعَهُمْ حُزَمٌ مِنْ حَطَبٍ إِلَى قَوْمٍ لَا يَشْهَدُونَ الصَّلَاةَ فَأُحَرِّقَ عَلَيْهِمْ بُيُوتَهُمْ بِالنَّارِ

Verily, the most burdensome of prayers upon the hypocrites are the night prayer and dawn prayer. If they knew the blessings that are in them, they would come to them even if they had to crawl. Certainly, I felt like ordering the prayer to be established and commanding a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would go with some men with firewood to the people who were absent from the prayer and I would burn their houses with fire.

Source: Sahih Muslim 651, Grade: Sahih

The narration clearly discusses the hypocrites who were infamous for pretending to be Muslims while hiding their intention to destroy the Muslim community.

Allah said:

إِذَا جَاءَكَ الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَدُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُهُ وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَكَاذِبُونَ اتَّخَذُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ جُنَّةً فَصَدُّوا عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُمْ سَاءَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

When the hypocrites come to you they say: We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah. Allah knows that you are His Messenger and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars. They have taken their oaths as a cover, so they divert people from the way of Allah. Verily, it was evil that they were doing.

Surah Al-Munafiqun 63:1-2

Although the Prophet knew they were hypocrites, he still did not punish them. Rather, he only “felt like” (hamamtu) punishing them with fire but he did not act upon his feelings. In fact, the Prophet prohibited the Muslims from using fire as punishment.

Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لَا تُعَذِّبُوا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ

Do not punish with the punishment of Allah the Exalted.

Source: Musnad Ahmad 1904, Grade: Sahih

Furthermore, the Prophet set an important example of tolerance and forbearance by not punishing the hypocrites.

Jabir ibn Abdullah reported: A man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and he said to him, “O Muhammad! Be just!” Umar ibn Al-Khattab said, “O Messenger of Allah, allow me to kill this hypocrite!” The Prophet said:

مَعَاذَ اللَّهِ أَنْ يَتَحَدَّثَ النَّاسُ أَنِّي أَقْتُلُ أَصْحَابِي إِنَّ هَذَا وَأَصْحَابَهُ يَقْرَءُونَ الْقُرْآنَ لَا يُجَاوِزُ حَنَاجِرَهُمْ يَمْرُقُونَ مِنْهُ كَمَا يَمْرُقُ السَّهْمُ مِنْ الرَّمِيَّةِ

I seek refuge in Allah that the people would say I am killing my companions. Verily, this man and his companions will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats. They will exit Islam just as an arrow goes through its target.

Source: Sahih Muslim 1063, Grade: Sahih

In this narration, Umar asked the Prophet for permission to kill a man whom they knew was a hypocrite. They knew he did not really believe in Islam, that he would twist the meaning of the Quran, and that his followers would  distort Islam’s ethical and spiritual teachings, but despite this the Prophet did not harm him because he intended to set a precedent of tolerance.

In conclusion, the Prophet did not burn down anyone’s house for missing the prayer. Rather, he only felt as if he wanted to do so to the hypocrites who intended to harm the Muslim community. Despite knowing who the hypocrites were, he did not harm them in order to set an example of patience and forbearance.

Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.

https://www.abuaminaelias.com/did-the-prophet-burn-down-peoples-houses-for-missing-the-prayer/

 

Why did the Sahaabah use burning with fire as a punishment for some crimes?

Publication : 01-05-2016

Question

Didn’t the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “No one punishes with fire except Allah”? Therefore isn’t burning haraam according to Islamic teachings? But in fatwa no. 38622 you stated that ‘Ali, Abu Bakr and Khaalid ibn al-Waleed burned those who committed the sin of homosexuality; were they not sinning by doing that? Even if we assume that someone is killed in a retaliatory punishment (qisaas), isn’t qisaas by burning haraam?

Summary of answer

To sum up: what may be stated definitively is that the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) did not deliberately go against the prohibition on punishment by burning. What has been narrated from some of them (concerning that) is either not saheeh (sound), or it is saheeh but they are excused for what they did on the basis of ijtihaad, because they were qualified to engage therein.  If the mujtahid strives his utmost to issue a correct verdict and fatwa but makes a mistake, he is rewarded and is not regarded as having sinned.  It was narrated from ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, that he heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “If a judge passes a judgement having striven to reach a decision, and he gets it right, he will have two rewards. If he passes a judgement having striven to reach a decision and he gets it wrong, he will have one reward.”  Narrated by al-Bukhaari (7352) and Muslim (1716).  For more information, please see Sharh al-Kawkab al-Muneer (4/491-492)  And Allah knows best.

Answer

Praise be to Allah.

It is proven in the texts that punishment by burning with fire is haraam. 

It was narrated from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) burned some people. News of that reached Ibn ‘Abbaas and he said: If it were me, I would not have burned them, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” And I would have executed them as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3017). 

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent us on a mission and said: “If you find So and so, and So and so, then burn them with fire.” Then the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, when we were about to leave: “I had commanded you to burn So and so, and So and so. But verily no one punishes with fire except Allah. So if you find them, execute them.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3016) 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

With regard to the hadith concerning this topic, what appears to be the case is that the prohibition in it indicates that this act is haraam. 

End quote from Fath al-Baari (6/150). 

This prohibition on punishing anyone by burning with fire is general in application, but the majority of scholars made an exception in the case of burning with fire by way of retaliatory punishment (qisaas) and making the punishment fit the crime. If someone burns another person then it is permissible, according to this view, to punish him by burning him, by way of retaliatory punishment. 

They quoted as evidence for that the verses in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”

[al-Baqarah 2:194]

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)”

[an-Nahl 16:126]. 

The basic principle says that acting upon two sound texts that have not been abrogated is better than overlooking one of them. 

For more information, please see fatwa no. 147416 

Therefore the majority of fuqaha’ think that it is permissible to burn with fire by way of retaliatory punishment. 

Ibn Mulaqqin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

One group of scholars said: Whoever burns is to be burnt. This is also the view of Maalik, the scholars of Madinah, ash-Shaafa‘i and his companions, Ahmad and Ishaaq. 

End quote from at-Tawdeeh li Sharh al-Jaami‘ as-Saheeh (18/61) 

Secondly: 

With regard to what is mentioned in fatwa no. 38622 about ‘Ali, Abu Bakr and Khaalid ibn al-Waleed burning those who committed the crime of homosexuality, it may be said in response to that: 

The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), especially the most prominent figures among them, such as the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs and others, have been commended by Allah in the Qu’ran and their virtues have been proven in the Sunnah. All of that is because of their assiduous compliance and obedience to the commands of Islam, their steadfastness in adhering to them, and their efforts to call people to the faith, until they met Allah, may He be exalted, when they were like that. 

In the case of those who are of such high standing, if we come across a verdict or fatwa of theirs that appears to contradict an Islamic text, then in this case we must follow the steps outlined below: 

Firstly: we should establish the soundness or otherwise of what is attributed to them. It is not permissible to attribute anything to a person unless we are certain that it is soundly proven. 

The incidents of killing with fire that are attributed to the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) are not all soundly narrated. With regard to what is mentioned in fatwa no. 38622, to which you referred, this fatwa was to explain the views of the scholars concerning the punishment of one who commits the immoral act of homosexuality, in which we quoted all the views concerning the method of punishment for this immoral act. 

Burning was mentioned, quoting those who said that it was proven in reports from the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), such as Ibn al-Qayyim, who stated definitively that this incident was proven, as was quoted from him in the fatwa. 

But there are those who disagreed with Ibn al-Qayyim and regarded the report of this story as da‘eef (weak), such as al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him), who said in as-Sunan al-Kubra (17/219): This is mursal. End quote. 

It is well known that mursal is one of the types of da‘eef hadiths. 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

With regard to burning, Ibn Abi’d-Dunya narrated via al-Bayhaqi and via Ibn al-Munkadir that Khaalid ibn al-Waleed wrote to Abu Bakr, telling him that he had found a man among one of the Arab tribes with whom men would have intercourse as with a woman. Abu Bakr called the Sahaabah together and asked them about that, and the one who had the strictest view was ‘Ali, who said: We think that we should burn him with fire, and the Sahaabah agreed on that. 

I say: This is da‘eef jiddan (very weak). If it were saheeh, it would constitute definitive proof. 

End quote from ad-Diraayah fi Takhreej Ahaadeeth al-Hidaayah (2/103) 

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd commented on this report as follows: 

The verdict of the leading scholars is that it is a mursal hadith, as was stated clearly by al-Bayhaqi and ash-Shawkaani. 

End quote from al-Hudood wa’t-Ta‘zeeraat ‘inda Ibn al-Qayyim (p. 175) 

To sum up, this incident is not soundly or definitively proven. 

Secondly: in cases where a fatwa or verdict is soundly attributed, as in the story of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): 

It was narrated from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) burned some people. News of that reached Ibn ‘Abbaas and he said: If it were me, I would not have burned them, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” And I would have executed them as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3017). 

In an incident such as this, there must have been a reason that made ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) issue the verdict of burning. There may have been the following reasons: 

1. Perhaps the hadith prohibiting burning did not reach him. The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) were just like any other people: one of them may have missed out on some knowledge, according to his situation, as Abu Bakr and ‘Umar missed out on some issues of knowledge that others had learned, even though they were superior to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all), and others also missed out on some issues of knowledge and hadiths of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), as is well known.

Al-Haazimi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

It was narrated from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali burned some people who had apostatised from Islam. News of that reached Ibn ‘Abbaas and he said: I would not have burned them with fire, for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” And I would have executed them as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then execute him.”. 

He said: News of that reached ‘Ali and he said: Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!

This hadith is proven and saheeh. 

They said: The fact that ‘Ali was surprised by the words of Ibn ‘Abbaas indicates that news of this abrogation had not reached him; when it did reach him, he adopted that view. Were it not for that, he would have objected to what Ibn ‘Abbaas said. 

End quote from al-I‘tibaar fi’n-Naaskih wa’l-Mansookh min al-Athaar (p. 194) 

2. Perhaps he had forgotten the hadith that prohibited it, and did not remember it, and the one who forgets is excused and is not sinning.

There are similar cases in the biographies of the Sahaabah in which one of them forgot a hadith and others reminded him. 

Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Adam al-Ethiopi said: 

It may be that he said it – i.e., when ‘Ali said “Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!” – by way of approving of what he said, and that Ibn ‘Abbaas remembered what ‘Ali had forgotten. 

End quote from Dhakheerat al-‘Uqba fi Sharh al-Mujtaba (31/385). 

3. Perhaps he understood the prohibition as meaning that it was merely disliked, not prohibited, as was the view favoured by some of the scholars.

Az-Zarqaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!” It may be that he did not agree with his objection, and thought that the prohibition meant that it was makrooh (disliked), because ‘Ali thought that burning was permissible, as did Khaalid ibn al-Waleed and others, adopting a stern stance towards the disbelievers, and by way of inflicting a severe punishment on them. 

End quote from Sharh al-Muwatta’ (3/193-194) 

It is on the basis of reasons such as these that we may interpret the report that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) burned those who committed the immoral act of homosexuality, if the report is proven to be sound. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

It should be noted that not one of the leading scholars – who are widely accepted among the ummah – deliberately went against the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in his Sunnah in any matter, minor or major. 

They are unanimously and definitely agreed that it is obligatory to follow the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and that the opinion of anyone may be accepted or rejected, except the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). 

But if one of them holds a view, and there is a saheeh hadith to the contrary, then he must have an excuse for not following the hadith. All excuses fall into three categories: 

1. That he did not believe that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that.

2. That he did not believe that he was referring to that issue when he said it.

3. That he believed that that ruling had been abrogated.

These three categories are main categories and there may be sub-categories. 

End quote from Raf‘ al-Malaam ‘an al-A’immah al-A‘laam (p. 8-9)

To sum up: what may be stated definitively is that the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) did not deliberately go against the prohibition on punishment by burning. What has been narrated from some of them (concerning that) is either not saheeh (sound), or it is saheeh but they are excused for what they did on the basis of ijtihaad, because they were qualified to engage therein. 

If the mujtahid strives his utmost to issue a correct verdict and fatwa but makes a mistake, he is rewarded and is not regarded as having sinned. 

It was narrated from ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, that he heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “If a judge passes a judgement having striven to reach a decision, and he gets it right, he will have two rewards. If he passes a judgement having striven to reach a decision and he gets it wrong, he will have one reward.” 

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (7352) and Muslim (1716). 

For more information, please see Sharh al-Kawkab al-Muneer (4/491-492) 

And Allah knows best.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/227776/why-did-the-sahaabah-use-burning-with-fire-as-a-punishment-for-some-crimes

-

 Burn their houses for missing prayer? By Abu Amina Elias for FaithinAllah.org

Question:

Some people claim the Prophet burned down people’s houses because they were absent from prayer. Is it true?

Answer:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

There is a tradition of the Prophet which states that he wanted to burn down the houses of the hypocrites – those who pretended to be Muslims in order to infiltrate and harm the Muslim community – because they would habitually miss the congregational prayers. However, he only expressed that he wanted to do so but he did not actually do it.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنَّ أَثْقَلَ صَلَاةٍ عَلَى الْمُنَافِقِينَ صَلَاةُ الْعِشَاءِ وَصَلَاةُ الْفَجْرِ وَلَوْ يَعْلَمُونَ مَا فِيهِمَا لَأَتَوْهُمَا وَلَوْ حَبْوًا وَلَقَدْ هَمَمْتُ أَنْ آمُرَ بِالصَّلَاةِ فَتُقَامَ ثُمَّ آمُرَ رَجُلًا فَيُصَلِّيَ بِالنَّاسِ ثُمَّ أَنْطَلِقَ مَعِي بِرِجَالٍ مَعَهُمْ حُزَمٌ مِنْ حَطَبٍ إِلَى قَوْمٍ لَا يَشْهَدُونَ الصَّلَاةَ فَأُحَرِّقَ عَلَيْهِمْ بُيُوتَهُمْ بِالنَّارِ

Verily, the most burdensome of prayers upon the hypocrites are the night prayer and dawn prayer. If they knew the blessings that are in them, they would come to them even if they had to crawl. Certainly, I felt like ordering the prayer to be established and commanding a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would go with some men with firewood to the people who were absent from the prayer and I would burn their houses with fire.

Source: Sahih Muslim 651, Grade: Sahih

The narration clearly discusses the hypocrites who were infamous for pretending to be Muslims while hiding their intention to destroy the Muslim community.

Allah said:

إِذَا جَاءَكَ الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَدُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُهُ وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَكَاذِبُونَ اتَّخَذُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ جُنَّةً فَصَدُّوا عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُمْ سَاءَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

When the hypocrites come to you they say: We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah. Allah knows that you are His Messenger and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars. They have taken their oaths as a cover, so they divert people from the way of Allah. Verily, it was evil that they were doing.

Surah Al-Munafiqun 63:1-2

Although the Prophet knew they were hypocrites, he still did not punish them. Rather, he only “felt like” (hamamtu) punishing them with fire but he did not act upon his feelings. In fact, the Prophet prohibited the Muslims from using fire as punishment.

Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لَا تُعَذِّبُوا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ

Do not punish with the punishment of Allah the Exalted.

Source: Musnad Ahmad 1904, Grade: Sahih

Furthermore, the Prophet set an important example of tolerance and forbearance by not punishing the hypocrites.

Jabir ibn Abdullah reported: A man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and he said to him, “O Muhammad! Be just!” Umar ibn Al-Khattab said, “O Messenger of Allah, allow me to kill this hypocrite!” The Prophet said:

مَعَاذَ اللَّهِ أَنْ يَتَحَدَّثَ النَّاسُ أَنِّي أَقْتُلُ أَصْحَابِي إِنَّ هَذَا وَأَصْحَابَهُ يَقْرَءُونَ الْقُرْآنَ لَا يُجَاوِزُ حَنَاجِرَهُمْ يَمْرُقُونَ مِنْهُ كَمَا يَمْرُقُ السَّهْمُ مِنْ الرَّمِيَّةِ

I seek refuge in Allah that the people would say I am killing my companions. Verily, this man and his companions will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats. They will exit Islam just as an arrow goes through its target.

Source: Sahih Muslim 1063, Grade: Sahih

In this narration, Umar asked the Prophet for permission to kill a man whom they knew was a hypocrite. They knew he did not really believe in Islam, that he would twist the meaning of the Quran, and that his followers would  distort Islam’s ethical and spiritual teachings, but despite this the Prophet did not harm him because he intended to set a precedent of tolerance.

In conclusion, the Prophet did not burn down anyone’s house for missing the prayer. Rather, he only felt as if he wanted to do so to the hypocrites who intended to harm the Muslim community. Despite knowing who the hypocrites were, he did not harm them in order to set an example of patience and forbearance.

Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.

https://www.abuaminaelias.com/did-the-prophet-burn-down-peoples-houses-for-missing-the-prayer/