Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AhmadFarooq

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... 21
« on: April 16, 2017, 01:29:48 AM »
I remember reading once somewhere that none of the people killed in Pakistan for alleged blasphemy, had even been convicted by a court. All of those killings happen to be extra-judicial murders.

« on: April 16, 2017, 01:29:32 AM »
Scholars broadly categorise sins into two groups, sins against God and sins against man. Some particular scholars - in my personal experience only those who support the alleged unforgivable nature of blasphemy and apostasy - claim that the Prophet had the right to forgive sins against God. I personally haven't come across a direct statement from the Prophet mentioning such. I don't see how "Mercy to mankind" should imply any "authority to forgive sin".

« on: April 15, 2017, 01:56:21 PM »
News link:

Incidents like these are why Pakistani Muslims from a particular background as compared to Muslims of other nationalities, are more likely to criticise the alleged unforgivable nature of blasphemy.

« on: April 15, 2017, 09:46:00 AM »
"Didn't the Prophet have the right to forgive sin?"

What is the evidence for such a claim? The only Muslims I have personally seen believing that the Prophet had the right to forgive sins are those who argue in support of the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy in all situations. This is done in order to prove that the individuals committing apostasy or blasphemy during the Prophet's time were forgiven because of the Prophet and not because they were forgivable offences in Sharia'.

Is there any reference of adulterers being forgiven?

« on: March 17, 2017, 10:12:49 AM »

This claim or one similar to it is not only made by "anti Islamic sites" but by "extremist" Muslims themselves too. One of the more interesting comments I read on the internet happened to be from a Muslim who was supporting the death penalty for blasphemy in Shariah by using evidence from an anti-Islamic site (although he probably didn't know that).

First of all, Ibn-Ishaq's work is a biography of the Prophet and not a Hadith book which requires much more stringent tests of authenticity. There are more than a few accounts from the biography that are either controversial or openly rejected.

Regarding the unforgivable nature of insults, you can start by taking a look at this thread,


« on: January 31, 2017, 08:40:09 PM »
One of the two suspects arrested by Canadian police had been a Muslim. FOX was probably cashing in on this to fulfil their and their viewers confirmation biases. This suspect, however, was released and concluded to actually have been only a witness to the incident. From what I know, the channel "FOX News" is registered as an "entertainment" channel instead of a "news" channel like others. This allows FOX News to not get held up-to the same editorial standards and subsequently get punished as other news channels do.

« on: January 08, 2017, 02:11:50 AM »
Regarding "Muslims had just relocated to Medina and weren't even under attack by their Meccan adversaries":

« on: December 12, 2016, 07:19:40 AM »
If I'm not mistaken, just because Zakir Naik got an award from a Saudi ruler, you derived that he serves the Saudi king. If this is true, you took a huge fallacious leap.

From what I've seen, Zakir Naik, because of his position, has been a target of several misrepresentations (probably the reason for statements such as "exponent of the Salafi ideology, and, by some, as a radical Islamic televangelist propagating Wahhabism”).

The one  obvious evidence that I can give which shows his distance from "Wahhabism" or "Salafism" or blindly serving Saudis, is his denial of the Hadd punishment for apostasy. He used to believe in it once but has given up that understanding since a long time ago.

The following is from my personal knowledge and understanding which could be faulty.

Regarding the "...scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed." The punishment was judged because of the Muslim's apostasy and not because blasphemy was unanimously considered a capital offence. The issue of apostasy is a different subject discussed at some other place on this forum.

Regarding the woman who was strangled and no blood money was prescribed for her murderer, although this is, as far as I know, the strongest evidence for prescribing the capital punishment, it still falls short because of the fact that nowhere in the narration, is the Prophet or the companions commanding the punishment. The incident happened and the issue was what is to be done now, not whether the incident was right or wrong.

I haven't come across the opinions of critics regarding the Sunan al-Nasaa’i narration and not being a scholar I will try not to make any conclusions on it, although I do have reservations on deriving Sharia commands, especially as significant as Hadd punishments, from such indirect events.
Regarding, "It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs." in my humble opinion, this is a fallacious (non-sequitur) conclusion.

Regarding the Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas event, this event is used to support the death penalty for both apostasy and blasphemy. Supporters of the death penalty believe that apostasy and blasphemy are part of Sharia as Hadd punishments i.e. their punishment cannot be lessened, divinely ordained by God, it has to exist until the day of judgement and no one can ever be pardoned from this punishment. Critics use this same narration to argue against the Hadd status of these crimes, by pointing out how the Prophet clearly forgave those crimes. The supporters, from their point-of-view, resolve this discrepancy by arguing that Prophet Muhammad had the special God-given right to forgive even Hadd punishments. Critics do not accept this understanding.

See the following links for a different understanding even by some classical scholars,

(As far as I know) only those scholars who support death penalty for blasphemy.
For example, they give the example of Ka'ab (or whatever his name was) who used to insult and lie about the Prophet. He was given the death penalty by Prophet Muhammad at the conquest of Makkah. These particular "scholars" use this to prove the punishment of death for blasphemers.

A more detailed look at the events shows us that Ka'ab (again not sure about the exact name) was first a Muslim, then he got angry with his slave, murdered him, apparently fearing retribution from the Muslims, he joined the Makkans and also instigated them to fight the Muslims.

Therefore, depending on the conclusion/agenda a group of "scholars" want to push forward, the same event is looked upon from different angles.

I personally have not come across a single reliable narration that unequivocally shows that a person was given the death penalty specifically for only insulting the prophet. While on the other hand, there are many occasions that we know of, when the blasphemers were not prescribed the death penalty. The forgiveness of the whole city of Makkah - which included many who, forget about insulting, actually fought the Prophet - is an interesting event in this regard. The argument that these "scholars" are apparently giving is that trying to actually murder the Prophet is something for which forgiveness can be asked for (and given) but not insulting him. Additionally, it isn't as if the Kuffar tried to kill the Prophet but insulting him was where they drew the line. It is very much likely, they insulted the Prophet too. So, according to the death penalty supporters, fighting or fighting+insulting the Prophet is forgivable but when the Prophet is just insulted, it is unforgivable.

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Why too many muslims left Islam?
« on: November 20, 2016, 01:15:36 AM »
Wikiislam is a popular Islam critical (or as some argue, anti-Islamic) website, so their impartiality is under question. See for a comparatively objective analysis on the website.

Regarding Muslims leaving Islam, it is difficult to ascertain the veracity of such claims, nonetheless from a purely logical standpoint, even if the claims were true it does not disprove Islam. Even if every single person on the planet stops believing in Islam, how does that logically disprove the truthfulness of the religion?

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Do they found Dajjal's Island ?
« on: November 02, 2016, 05:06:27 AM »
Regarding the tashahud issue:

There are very few religious issues that Muslim scholars pretty much don't differ about at all. As far as I have read, the obligatory parts of prayers (like the tashahud) are among those issues. The reason being that such practices were being performed by thousands of Muslims in Makkah, Medina and other areas, therefore there was little doubt about how these religious practices were supposed to be performed.

If the evidence or proof regarding the obligatory parts of salat is not enough for a Muslim, then if I'm not mistaken, the evidence or proof for the reliability of the Qur'an (from a purely historical point-of-view) should also not be enough for that Muslim.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... 21

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube