Author Topic: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?  (Read 7642 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2016, 02:40:41 AM »
BACK ON TOPIC:


 Yes, (عقل) in this hadith means Diyya (blood money). Check these translationlations of the hadith:

http://sunnah.com/urn/2114680

http://sunnah.com/urn/1327460


It was narrated from 'Amr bin Shu'aib, from his grandfather, that :
the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ruled that the blood money for the people of the book is half of that of the blood money for the Muslims, and they are the Jews and Christians.
حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا حَاتِمُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَيَّاشٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، ‏.‏ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَضَى أَنَّ عَقْلَ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابَيْنِ نِصْفُ عَقْلِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَهُمُ الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَى ‏.‏
Grade   : Hasan (Darussalam)   


 Thanks a lot for calling me Mr.Arabic authority since a 13 year old's Arabic is better than yours.


Good Point.  But here is where your school is wrong, and my school, about only believing what doesn't clash with the Glorious Quran from Hadiths to be closest to the Truth, to be right:

1-  Consider the prohibition of donkey meat.  The Glorious Quran clearly and indisputably allowed it.  Yet, there are false narrations on the Prophet that say he prohibited it.  Therefore, the Quran is correct, and the hadiths here are false:

[006:146]  For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their willful disobedience: for We are true (in Our ordinances).

‏6:146 وعلى الذين هادوا حرمنا كل ذي ظفر ومن البقر والغنم حرمنا عليهم شحومهما الا ماحملت ظهورهما او الحوايا او مااختلط بعظم ذلك جزيناهم ببغيهم وانا لصادقون

So livestock animals that didn't have split hooves were forbidden upon the Jews, among other things, due to their disobedience.  So it was more of a punishment.  Therefore, horses and donkeys are not really forbidden meat.  To Muslims, there is no specification regarding livestock animals, except for pigs, on whether they have split hooves or not.  They're all lawful (halal), again, except for pigs.  Please visit:

www.answering-christianity.com/quran/bloodatonement_rebuttal.htm#halal_meat
www.answering-christianity.com/eating_healthy_in_quran.htm



2-  Now to your point, similarly, the Glorious Quran made no mention of Jews and Christians' blood money being half of the Muslims.  This is only found in the false hadiths that clash with the Glorious Quran.  This is because Allah Almighty twice mentioned the following punishment:

Free a believing slave.
Pay blood money to the slain person's family.
--OR--
Fast 2 consecutive months if he can't afford the these expenses.


He mentioned it once for the slain believer, and once open for anyone who was innocently killed who had a MEETHAAQ (COVENANT) ميثاق with the Muslims.  This also includes the pagans.  Not just Jews and Christians.  I have given ample Noble Verses that fully prove this.  I only trust the Glorious Quran.  I don't trust bediouns' fabrications on the Prophet and his companions.  Again, please visit:

www.answering-christianity.com/punishment_for_killing_non_muslim.htm


And last and not least, please visit:

What parts of the Hadiths and Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?  (www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm)

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2016, 05:49:28 AM »
Why does the half diyya concept has to unequivocally be contradicting the Qur'an? Why can't both concepts of less blood-money and equal blood-money be true at the same time, the difference being just for different times and conditions? The hadith, as far as I know, does not indicate that the half-diyya law was a part of God's unchanging Shariah. It could simply have been a law relevant to its time and people. If it is accepted that this wasn't part of Shariah, then it is up-to the Muslim societies to decide whether they want to continue the law or change it for what they believe to be better.

From what I read:

Quote
He [Ghazálí] also holds to the principle that traditions can be overridden when conditions change. We have already seen this illustrated in the case of jihád and shúrá, but there are other examples as well. So, for example, ‘Uthmán equalized the amount of diya (blood money) for dhimmís (protected minorities) in order to assure their security, although diya for a dhimmí had stood at half that of a Muslim. On the basis of the precedent set by ‘Uthmán, according to Ghazálí, the modern Pakistani law equalized diya for men and women, despite traditions that set the diya for women at half. On the basis of the equal value of all life, diya for everyone is equal under Hanafi law.
Source: Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, Cambridge University Press, Page: 123

Re: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2016, 05:57:26 AM »
Just wanted to ask, what is the evidence from original Islamic sources that concludes insulting a companion of the Prophet means apostasy?

And exactly why do you think that "almost all of the scholars who benefit this ummah ... [are] from Saudi Arabia"? A person who lives in a particular region is more likely to know the scholars of that region. I, personally, at the moment cannot think of even a single Saudi scholar's name, partly because they have difficult names to remember, but many notable names who come from my part of the world. Additionally, most of the really famous Islamic personalities that I have come to know of, such as Ahmad Deedat, Dr. Zakir Naik, Nauman Ali Khan, Abdullah Green, Dr. Shabir Ally, Yasir Qadhi, none of them hail from Saudi Arabia.



 Insulting a Sahabi isn't apostasy but a major sin which deserves strict beating and punishment. 

"The best scholars who explained this issue quite well was Sheikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah bestow mercy on his soul) in the last portion of his book, "Al Sarim Al Maslul `Ala Shatim Al Rasul" (3/1055-1113) where he said: "As for those who insult the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) whether from his family or others, Imam Ahmad said: they should be beaten harshly, but he did not declare their disbelief nor he said they must be killed.""

 Source: http://en.alukah.net/Shariah/0/182/

 However, the reason to why I declare Osama as an apostate is because he declared Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) as a hypocrite and a kafir.

"I say Muawiyah is a cursed hypocrite."

 Their are many times in where he insults Muawiyah, just type it in the search bar. 

The Kuwaiti Fiqh Encyclopedia reads:

“Whoever insults the Companions, or insults one of them, then if he attributes to them something that does not slander their trustworthiness or their religion, such as describing some of them to be stingy or to lack courage, knowledge, or asceticism, and so on, then such a person does not go out of the fold of Islam, according to the agreement of the scholars, but he deserves to be disciplined.

However, if he accused them of something that undermines their religion or their trustworthiness, such as accusing them of adultery, then the scholars agreed that a person who accuses ‘Aa’ishah  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  her (the wife of the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention )) of adultery, which is something which Allaah declared her innocent of, then such a person goes out of the fold of Islam, because he is denying the text of the Quran.

With regard to the rest of the Companions, the scholars differed in opinion about the one who slanders them. The majority of the scholars said: A person does not go out of the fold of Islam due to insulting one of the Companions, even ‘Aa’ishah in other than what Allaah declared her innocent of.

Also, a person goes out of the fold of Islam if he declares that all the Companions are disbelievers or says that the Companions renounced Islam after the death of the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) or says that they had become dissolute; because this is a denial of what is explicitly said in the Quran in many contexts regarding the fact that Allaah is pleased with them and His praise of them. Making such a statement implies that those who transmitted the Quran and Sunnah to us are disbelievers or dissolute or that this nation, which is the best nation on earth, and the best of which are the first generation, that most of them were disbelievers or dissolute, which in turn implies that this nation is the most evil one among other nations and that its predecessors [the first generation] are the most evil people. That the person who says such a thing is a disbeliever is something that is known in religion by absolute evidence.”

 So we can say easily that Osama is an apostate and I pray that he repents soon. Also, the prophet (peace be upon him) said the following:

In Saheeh al-Bukhaari (6104) and Saheeh Muslim (60) it is narrated from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a man declares his brother to be a kaafir, it will apply to one of them.”  According to another report: “Either it is as he said, otherwise it will come back to him.”

 As for the Saudi scholars they are many. Too much maybe. Keep in mind that I do not mean to brag about anything. I'm only doing this to debunk Osama's claim of that "Saudi Arabia didn't contribute to Islam in any way". Here is a small list of  Saudi scholars that I can remember at the moment:

Abdulaziz bin Baz
Ibn Uthaymeen Al-Tamimi
Abdullah ibn Abdulrahman ibn Jibreen
Aaidh al-Qarni
Muhammad Al-Areefi
Saleh Al-Munajjid
Salman Al-Oudah
Abdulaziz Al-Tareefi
Saleh Al-Fawzaan
Saleh Alluhidan
Saud Al-Shuraim
Rabee al-Madkhali
Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais
Al-Kalbani

 Those are the ones that I know of. Second, it was wrong of me to say Saudi. What I meant was Salafi scholars in the Arabian gulf  (Kuwait,Saudi Arabia,UAE,etc). Third, it is impossible for you not to come across the works of these scholars on the internet. They are even on Osama's website! Especially Ibn Uthaymeen, Bin Baz, Al-Munajjid, and Al-Sudais (since he is a famous Quran reciter). Fourth, it is true that in general people know the scholars in their area the most. Fifth, Their is a difference between "scholar" and "apologist". For example, Shabir Ally and Ahmed Deedat aren't scholars, but apologists. From what I saw, the apologetics scene seems to thrive amongst Pakistanis, Indians, and western converts to Islam.  But just because there are many scholars here that doesn't mean that everyone is religiously educated. Sadly many people over here are liberals who barely know anything about Islam. They fight the Sharia law, which by the help of Allah is still there even though the Kufar fight it, in the name of Islam. And their numbers seem to be increasing.





Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2016, 06:11:48 AM »
Quote
Why does the half diyya concept has to unequivocally be contradicting the Qur'an? Why can't both concepts of less blood-money and equal blood-money be true at the same time, the difference being just for different times and conditions? The hadith, as far as I know, does not indicate that the half-diyya law was a part of God's unchanging Shariah.

Because the concept of half diyya (blood money) clashes with the Glorious Quran, and ignores the part about the PAGAN TRIBE (who would care more about their pagans than their Muslims) having a covenant with the Muslims, and the Muslims are obligated to honor it.  And it is Allah Almighty who Said to pay 100% of the Diyya in this case. 

Please pay attention in the article to this section:

(c)-  What is the blood money to the disbeliever from a tribe with Covenant?  The full 100% blood money value is for any member from the pagan tribe, regardless of his religion.

The link again is:

www.answering-christianity.com/punishment_for_killing_non_muslim.htm



I am not compromising the Glorious Quran for the doomed-to-Hell infidels.  I want to make this point very clear.  But I do have a serious problem with much of the garbage that exist in the "hadiths" that are imposed upon Islam as legitimate Laws.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2016, 06:39:16 AM »
@Muhammad101.  I am trying to respect you as much as I can, but you are too defiled and corrupted with the cult of satan that you follow.  Since you are too desperate to prove that I am an apostate, then I want you and your scums to answer this for me:

Which was a Muslim and which was an apostate between Ali and Muawiyah?


They both couldn't possibly be Muslims according to your logic.


I also don't recall I ever declared Muawiyah or any specific person to be a kafir or an apostate.  Each individual will be THOROUGHLY JUDGED by Allah Almighty.  But this doesn't mean that he wasn't corrupt and a scum like your cult of scums.  And it doesn't mean that your cult isn't a cult of satan.




The HORN OF SATAN:

And again, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said that the horn of satan will come from Saudi Arabia:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac11.htm#links

I advise you to renounce this cult of hypocrites and satan, where they openly declare that if ruler steals, then he can't be punished, and he would still be a ruler upon the Muslims.  And even if he commits zina in front of the Kaaba and drinks alcohol.  He still wouldn't be punished nor would his rule be invalid.

What kind of a dog hypocrite would bark and vomit such blasphemy for a fatwa??  Yet, it's issued by your top scholars.

Osama

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2016, 10:19:17 AM »
The red section which apparently is supposed to "prove" Osama's apostasy is regarding all the Comapnions (or at-least, most of them). How is that related to Osama? Additionally, while distrusting all of the Companions should logically make a person not believe in Islam too but I wanted evidence from original Islamic sources about the opinion of the Prophet on the matter. As you know, Saheeh al-Bukhaari (6104) and Saheeh Muslim (60) applies to you too, here.

... And similarly it is "impossible" for you not to "across the works of" the scholars that I mentioned, "on the internet". What exactly does that prove? Why can't a person be both, a "scholar" and an "apologist"? Shabir Ally has done specialization in "Quranic Exegesis". Yasir Qadhi is a graduate from Medina University, Nauman Ali Khan knows enough to be teaching Qur'an Arabic. Whether, they are "apologists" or not, a lot of people wouldn't have a problem with calling them "scholars" too. I personally have never seen a "scholar" who fights the Sharia Law. Note that debating and criticising whether or not a particular law is actually a part of "God given laws that have to remain unchanged until the Judgement day", is not fighting the Sharia Law.

Regarding the half-diyya issue, as the Hanafis apparently use the relevant verse to prove equal compensation, so I don't have a problem with this interpretation; but as I don't know Arabic, I do not understand why the word just "compensation" has to unequivocally and in all scenarios mean "100% equal compensation"?

Re: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2016, 11:36:32 AM »
@Muhammad101.  I am trying to respect you as much as I can, but you are too defiled and corrupted with the cult of satan that you follow.  Since you are too desperate to prove that I am an apostate, then I want you and your scums to answer this for me:

Which was a Muslim and which was an apostate between Ali and Muawiyah?


They both couldn't possibly be Muslims according to your logic.


I also don't recall I ever declared Muawiyah or any specific person to be a kafir or an apostate.  Each individual will be THOROUGHLY JUDGED by Allah Almighty.  But this doesn't mean that he wasn't corrupt and a scum like your cult of scums.  And it doesn't mean that your cult isn't a cult of satan.




The HORN OF SATAN:

And again, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said that the horn of satan will come from Saudi Arabia:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac11.htm#links

I advise you to renounce this cult of hypocrites and satan, where they openly declare that if ruler steals, then he can't be punished, and he would still be a ruler upon the Muslims.  And even if he commits zina in front of the Kaaba and drinks alcohol.  He still wouldn't be punished nor would his rule be invalid.

What kind of a dog hypocrite would bark and vomit such blasphemy for a fatwa??  Yet, it's issued by your top scholars.

Osama

 So according to you Sunnism is a "corrupted". Almost all Sunni scholars consider themselves to be Salafi. I will deal with the Salafi issue at a full scope later on. I'm just gonna quickly address your points right now:

Regarding Muawiya and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them):

https://islamqa.info/ar/140984

 It is in Arabic so you should understand it fully. You should also read this:

https://islamqa.info/en/186682


 The horn of Satan claim has been refuted and dealt with. I will deal with it at a much bigger scope later on. As for your last statement:

 I had already dealt with this before, however my reply was quite weak. But before I reply, I would like the source of this claim please. And it should not be from Shiite scholars since they are known for fabricating things for their own benefit. This reply was not meant to be a good one, but a quick one.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills a non-Muslim?
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2016, 01:21:43 PM »
As always, monkeying around like your cult of hypocrites and liars do.  It gets even more ludicrous when we read your cult's interpretation and weaseling around the Prophet's Saying to Ammar Bin Yaser, who was one of the closest and greatest  of the companions:

تَقْتُلُهُ الفِئَةُ البَاغِيَةُ، يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الجَنَّةِ، وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ  (link)

"The group of the transgressors will kill him (Ammar bin Yaser).  He calls them to Heaven, and they call him to Hell."  This is in Bukhari and other volumes.


Notice this renowned salafi monkey, Uthman Al-Khamees عثمان الخميس, only responding to the FIRST PART OF THE HADITH only:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG9Qj3xudgU
Video title on youtube: الشيخ عثمان الخميس شبه عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية

تَقْتُلُهُ الفِئَةُ البَاغِيَةُ،
"The group of the transgressors will kill him, Ammar bin Yaser."

Then he monkied around these Noble Verses:

[049:009] If peace breaks down between two groups of believers, and they begin to fight, (call a truce and) bring them to terms. If one of the groups is the transgressor (بغت), (all of you should) fight the group that is unjust, until it complies and returns to the commands of Allah. Once that happens, make peace between the groups fairly and equitably. Indeed Allah loves those who are just.

[049:010] (All) the believers are brothers. Therefore, promote peace and conciliation between two brothers; and fear Allah. Perhaps you may receive mercy.


He basically tried to say that both groups were equally guilty and that they shouldn't have fought, because Muslims should "....promote peace and conciliation between two brothers...." (49:10).  But have the dajjal mentioned the second part of the Hadith, then his dog-yapping and time-wasting lecture would've all fell, because:




1-  ONE CALLS TO HEAVEN.
2-  THE OTHER CALLS TO HELL.



يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الجَنَّةِ، وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ

And Noble Verse 49:9 commands ".....If one of the groups is the transgressor (بغت), (all of you should) fight the group that is unjust, until it complies and returns to the commands of Allah...."

(بغت) is the same word as البَاغِيَةُ.

The two groups were not equal!  And Muawiyah beares the guilt for misleading his group and deceiving them, so that he would ultimately become the caliph.  He didn't care at all about fighting the legitimate Caliph, Ali, who was chosen by the Muslims, and shedding the Muslims' blood.




I once had a heated debate on Paltalk over this Hadith with one salafi harlot.  Do you guys know what their answer to this Hadith is:

1-  بَاغِيَةُ، in Quran and Arabic means to transgress.  And no person that exists on this earth that is not guilty of this, because nobody is perfect.

2-  Hasan gave up the Caliphate to Muawyiah and accepted him to be his Caliph.



Response to the Salafi Prostitutes:

Yes, while it is true that بَاغِيَةُ، is a word that has different levels of transgression and guilt, but here the Prophet defined it clearly:

1-  Ammar, a precious and dear Believer, will be murdered.  So we're talking about a murder crime here to one of the greatest believers, and all of the precious believers that were murdered along with him:

[004:093]  If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.

2-  The other group calls to Hell, while Ammar and his group call to Heaven.

You can't equate this to cursing someone, or hitting someone.  بَاغِيَةُ، in these cases is different in levels.  YES, ALL GUILTY.  BUT THE GUILT in Ammar's case is murdering Ammar and the believers.  Not slapping Ammar in the face unjustly, for example.



Kindergartens or Prostitutes?

But since we're dealing with prostitutes, we have to speak on intellectual level that is lower than the kindergartens.  Except, the kindergartens are innocent Angels, while the salafi khabeeths are corrupt hypocrites and prostitutes for satan.


As to Hasan accept Muawiyah as his caliph, here is the problem with this:

1-  Again, we're not dealing with innocent kindergartens here.  We're dealing with masters in hypocrisy and lies, the salafi prostitutes.

2-  Ali fought Muawiyah, and Muawiyah caused for the Muslims to forever be split.

3-  Using the prostitutes' logic, Ali was wrong and Hasan (his oldest son) was right.

4-  Hasan gave up the caliphate to bring Mercy upon the Muslims and to end the bloodshed.  NOT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THE CALIPH OF HELL AND HYPOCRITES WAS LEGITIMATE TO BE A CALIPH!




THE HORN OF SATAN:

Again and again and again, I remind everyone.  The Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him, said that the horn of satan will emerge from Saudi Arabia.  It is indeed the land of the masters in hypocrisy and lies.  Visit:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac11.htm#links


I am adding this piece here to the Islam STUNNING Prophecies section, because the Prophet, peace be upon him, indeed spoke stunning Prophecies that did come to pass later one.

Osama