Topic: Obligatory Knowledge

[samsparky]

...and that MuHammad, Sallallaahu ^alayhi wa sallam, is the last of the prophets and the best of all the children of Adam.

Prophet MuHammad ? ? ? is the last prophet Allaah sent.

No prophet will come after him.

Although Prophet ^Eesaa ? will descend from the sky before the Day of Judgement, he received the Revelation of Prophethood before MuHammad ? ? ?, and when he descends he will rule with the Laws of Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?.

The last revealed prophet is Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?, as was clearly stated in the Qur’aan in Surat al-AHzaab, Verse 40 which specifically says that Prophet MuHammad ? ? ? is the last of the prophets:

? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ? ?                            
(ma kana mouhammadoun aba ahadin min rijalikoum walakin rasoula allahi wakhatama alnnabiyyin)

It means: [MuHammad is not the father of any of your men, rather he is the Messenger of Allaah and the seal of the prophets.]

Anyone who claims that a prophet will be revealed after Prophet MuHammad ? ? ? is a blasphemer.

For example there are some who claim that a man by the name of Ghulaam AHmad received Prophethood after Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?.

Ghulaam AHmad is from Qaadiyaan and lived about 100 years ago.

He claimed Prophethood for himself, and some misguided people believed him.

His followers are known as the Qaadiyaaniyyah.

Sometimes, they refer to themselves as AHmadiyyah.

They are blasphemers for believing in the religious permissibility of some people receiving the Revelation after Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?.


Moreover our Prophet, MuHammad ? ? ?, is the best of all the prophets.

After him in status are Prophets Ibraaheem ? , then Musa ? , then ^Eesaa ? , then NuH ? .

May Allaah raise their ranks all.

[samsparky]

Moreover, it is obligatory to believe that every prophet of Allaah must be attributed with truthfulness, trustworthiness, and intelligence.

This means that every prophet of Allaah is truthful.

A prophet does not lie—not even one single lie—neither before Prophethood nor after Prophethood.

Every one of them is trustworthy.

He does not betray, neither before Prophethood nor after Prophethood.

Every one of them is intelligent and able to produce the proofs to discredit the blasphemous creeds and the unlawful doings.

The prophets are the most intelligent of all the creations.

Consequently, lying, dishonesty, vileness, stupidity, and dullness are impossible to be among their attributes.

A prophet does not commit any vileness, such as using obscenities frequently.

He does not act in a stupid manner; it is impossible that any of the prophets of Allaah be attributed with dullness.

As well, the prophets of Allaah are clear of repulsive attributes which detract others from them—whether in their manners or in their bodies.

Hence, they are clear of all diseases which disgust others.

They are clear of cowardice, rather they are the bravest.

They are clear of withholding the message which Allaah ordered them to convey.

They must also be attributed with impeccability, i.e., they are protected from ever committing blasphemy, enormous sins (kabaa’ir) and the small, abject sins before and after Prophethood.

No prophet of Allaah ever committed blasphemy—neither before nor after Prophethood.

What some claim about Prophet Ibraaheem ? , i.e., that at one point in time he worshipped the star, then the moon, then the sun, is a total fabrication.

Prophet Ibraaheem ? never worshipped other than Allaah.

The verse in the Qur’aan some try to use to back their false statement does not have that meaning.

When Prophet Ibraaheem ? said “haadhaa Rabbee?!” (referring to the sun, moon, and star) he was not stating his agreement with his people in worshipping those things.

Rather his statement was to negate and oppose what they said.

This is a form of expression in Arabic, called negative interrogative, (? ?) (i.e., a way of expressing one’s strong denial of a matter by posing a question which clearly shows that the matter is ridiculous or totally unacceptable.)

 

[samsparky]

…Likewise, prophets are protected from committing enormous sins, both before and after Prophethood.

Hence, when Musa عليه السَّلاَم killed that kaafir (non-Muslim) in Egypt, it was not an enormous sin.

Musa عليه السَّلاَم neither intended to kill that man when he hit him nor thought he would die as a result of his punch.

The reason Prophet Musa عليه السَّلاَم regretted his action was that he fought before he was ordered by Allaah to do so.


Prophets are also protected from committing small, mean sins, like stealing a morsel of bread or stealing a single grape.

These are small sins, but they reflect a certain meanness.

Prophets do not commit such sins both before and after Prophethood.

From this, we know that the sin of Prophet Adam عليه السَّلاَم was not an enormous sin.

Rather, it was a small sin, that does not include meanness, as was stated by Imaam al-Ash^ariyy and others.


On the other hand, they might commit other small sins. However, they are immediately guided to repent before others imitate them.

Prophets are not protected from committing a small sin which is not a mean one.

However, should a prophet commit such a sin, he is immediately guided to repent of it before others follow him in doing it.

As such, we know that the claim of some that Prophet Yousuf wanted to fornicate with the woman of al-^Azeez is totally untrue.

Wanting this is a mean act and is non-befitting of a prophet.

The ayah 24 of Surat Yousuf which some use to try to back their false statement regarding Yousuf does not mean that Prophet Yousuf wanted to fornicate with her.

In reality, this verse means that the woman attempted to adulterize with Prophet Yousuf and that had he not been protected by Allaah, Who would later bestow Prophethood on him, he would have attempted to fornicate.

This means that he did not attempt in the first place, because Allaah protected him by having eternally chosen him for the status of Prophethood.

Looking lustfully at a marriageable woman is a matter the prophets do not commit, let alone committing the sin of attempting fornication.

Hence, Prophethood was not bestowed upon the brothers of Yousuf, who, excluding Binyaameen, committed the mean deeds mentioned in the Qur’aan. The Asbaat are the descendants of Yousuf’s brothers who were chosen for Prophethood.

The saying of some that the brothers of Yousuf (other than Binyaameen) were given Prophethood is a false statement.

Binyaameen was the youngest of Yousuf’s brothers and his brother from both his father and mother.

The others were Yousuf’s brothers from his father’s side only.

Binyaameen did not participate with them in the sinful deeds they did.

This is why Binyaameen was famous to have received Prophethood.


Yousuf’s brothers wanted to kill Yousuf unjustly.

They threw him in a well.

Then they sold him, claiming he was a slave, when he was truly a free man.

They humiliated their father, Ya^Qoob, who was a prophet—and this is blasphemy.

Although later they repented of these sins, none of them received the office of Prophethood.

Prophets are protected from committing such wrong doings—before Prophethood and after it.

Some of the descendents of those brothers did receive Prophethood.

Those descendents—and not Yousuf’s brothers—are the Asbaat mentioned in the Qur’aan (e.g., an-Nisaa’, 163) to be among the prophets. 

[samsparky]

Chapter 2
Types of Apostasy (Riddah)

It is obligatory upon every Muslim to preserve his faith in Islaam and protect is against whatever invalidates, abolishes, and interrupts it, namely, apostasy (riddah); we seek refuge with Allaah, ta^aalaa, from it.

Every Muslim is ordered to preserve his faith in Islaam by protecting himself from apostasy.

Apostasy is for one to blaspheme after having been a Muslim.

By this, one invalidates one’s faith in Islaam, and becomes a non-Muslim.

If a Muslim apostatizes, then he is no longer a Muslim.

He is a blasphemer—specifically an apostate—even if his two parents are Muslim.

The meaning of what an-Nawawiyy and others said is: “Apostasy is an abhorrent type of blasphemy.”

It is an abhorrent type of blasphemy for one to apostatize after having been Muslim.

This does NOT mean that every act of apostasy is the worst type of blasphemy; rather it means that dealing with an apostate has much stricter rules than dealing with an original blasphemer (the original blasphemer is the one who was born and raised as a blasphemer).

For example, it is permissible for the Muslim caliph to engage in a specific peace treaty with a group of original blasphemers. Then, once the treaty is concluded according to the rules of Islaam, it becomes forbidden for the Muslims to kill any of those original blasphemers covered under the treaty.

The apostate, however, cannot make such a peace treaty with the caliph.

Moreover, it is unlawful for the caliph to ignore the apostate’s case.

Rather, he must order him to return to Islaam.

If, after three (3) days, the apostate does not re-embrace Islaam, then the caliph must have him killed.

Unlike the case of the original blasphemers, any marriage contract of the apostate is invalid.

On the other hand, Muslims consider the marriage contract between original blasphemers to be valid if it was conducted in a valid manner according to them.

In this age, it has become common to speak carelessly to the extent that some people utter words which turn them out of Islaam, without even deeming such words sinful even though they are blasphemous.

Sadly, these words realistically describe our times.

Nowadays, out of negligence or extreme ignorance of the Rules of the Religion, many people identified as Muslims utter blasphemous statements.

Many among them do not know that such statements are blasphemous.

Some may believe that uttering those words is not even sinful.

Consequently, they say them as easily as they take a sip of water, and blaspheme without realizing the very abhorrent status they reached.

May Allaah protect us from it.

This is asserted by the saying of the Prophet, Sallallaahu ^alayhi wa sallam:

<<A person might utter a word that he thinks harmless, which results in his falling the depth of seventy (70) years into Hellfire. >>

This falling distance of seventy (70) years leads to the bottom of Hellfire where only blasphemers will reside.

This Hadeeth was related by at-Tirmidhiyy who classified it as a Hasan Hadeeth (A Hasan Hadeeth is one of two types of Hadeeths that can be relied upon in deducing judgements. The other type is the SaHeeH Hadeeth. A Hasan Hadeeth is a strong Hadeeth, but its level of strength is less than that of the SaHeeH one).

Al-Bukhaariyy and Muslim related a Hadeeth with a similar meaning.

This Hadeeth is an evidence that it is not a condition for a person to fall into blasphemy that he must have learned the judgement of the uttered blasphemous words or that he must have liked or believed their meaning-as falsely stated in the book called Fiqh-us-Sunnah.

[samsparky]

The proof that the intentional uttering of even a single explicit blasphemous word is blasphemy and causes one to apostatize from Islaam –whether or not one intended to blaspheme- is the Hadeeth of the Prophet ? ? ?:

((? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ??))

It means: <<A person might utter a word that he thinks harmless, which results in his falling the depth of seventy (70) years into Hellfire. >>

This Hadeeth was related by Imaam at-Tirmidhiyy in his book, Al-Jaami^ (Also known as As-Sunan).

At-Tirmidhiyy established this Hadeeth as having the Hasan classification.

Al-Bukhaariyy and Muslim narrated the same Hadeeth with different words and established its SaHeeH classification:

(( ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ? ))

This narration of the Hadeeth means: <<A person might utter a word that he thinks harmless, which results in his falling in Hellfire a distance farther than what is between east and west. >>


Both of these narrations stand as an evidence that a person blasphemes for simply uttering a word of blasphemy, even if the person did not hold the conviction in the meaning of the word.

Simply uttering a blasphemous word intentionally is blasphemy, even if one did not believe in what that word means.

[samsparky]

The person who curses Allaah is a blasphemer, whether or not he believes in what he says, and whether or not he feels delighted about saying it.

The case is not as Sayyid Saabiq* claimed in his book, Fiqh-us-Sunnah.

*Sayyid Saabiq the author of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, is from Egypt. He lived in Saudi Arabia for some time. He died in 1999. Despite their fame, his books contain many erroneous judgements.

Sayyid Saabiq said that for the person to be judged as a blasphemer because of a blasphemous word he said, it is a condition that he believes the meaning of the word in his heart and feels delighted about saying it.

Sayyid Saabiq’s statement contradicts the Hadeeth of the Prophet ? ? ? previously mentioned.

Moreover, his statement contradicts the Qur’aan, because Allaah told us in the Qur’aan that escaping the judgment of blasphemy because one did not feel the delight in one’s heart when one uttered the word of blasphemy is a condition only for the person who utters blasphemy under the threat of death or the like if he does not do so.

In Surat an-Nahl, Verse 106, Allaah said:

{ ?? ? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ?? }

This ayah means: [He who blasphemes after having believed will be severely punished by Allaah. Excluded is the one who is forced to blaspheme while one’s heart is certain with faith and one is not pleased with blasphemy].


Sayyid Saabiq belied the Book of Allaah by claiming that the case of the one who is not being threatened with death to blaspheme is the same as the one who is threatened with death to blaspheme.

Sayyid Saabiq’s inconsistency is blatant.

In order to pass his judgment on the person who unrightfully killed another person, would the judge ask him whether or not he was delighted when he killed that person?

The judge would not!

Would the judge ask a thief whether or not he was delighted about his thievery to pass a suitable judgement on him?

The judge would not!

If it is the case that the judge would not ask about one’s state of heart in unrightful killing and stealing—sins which are much less than blasphemy—then it is evident that the delight in the heart is not a criterion in judging as a blasphemer the one who wilfully utters a blasphemous word.


Anger is not an excuse for one to escape the judgment of falling into blasphemy.

Concerning this matter, Imaam an-Nawawiyy said: “If a man was angry with his child or young slave and hit him severely, then another person asked him, ‘How could you do this? Aren’t you a Muslim?’ and to that his deliberate answer was ‘No’, he blasphemed.”

This was said by Hanafiyy scholars as well as others.


The person does not escape the judgment of blasphemy for uttering a blasphemous statement because he was angry when he uttered that statement.

If a person utters blasphemy intentionally, he will be judged as a blasphemer whether or not he was angry at the time he uttered the statement.

A person would be excused only in such a case if his anger overwhelmed him to the point that he was no longer sane when he uttered the blasphemy.

For example, if a person was so angry that he could no longer differentiate between a door and a person—and while in this state, he uttered blasphemous words without being aware of what he was saying, he would be excused from committing blasphemy.

However, generally, anger does not cause a person to reach this state.


How do some people say one is excused if one utters blasphemy because one is angry?

Allaah did not exclude this case in the Qur’aan.

The Prophet ? ? ? did not exclude this case in the Hadeeth.

Those who erroneously make anger an exceptional case are excluding what Allaah did not judge as an exception in the Rules revealed by Him and conveyed by the Prophet ? ? ?.
Such a claim implies that the basic rules revealed to the Prophet ? ? ? were not complete—rather there is a need for one to change these rules—and this, in itself, is blasphemy.


In his book, RawDat-uT-Taalibeen, Imaam an-Nawawiyy explicitly mentioned the case of anger.

He said, “If a man was angry with his child or young slave and hit him severely, and another person, (feeling pity for that child or slave) asked the first, ‘How could you do this, aren’t you a Muslim?’ (implying that a Muslim should not act like that) and to that his deliberate answer was, ‘No,’ he blasphemed.” 

This is a very clear statement from Imaam an-Nawawiyy that the person who utters a blasphemous statement (in a fit of anger) is not excused because of that anger.

Other scholars among the Hanafiyys, Shaafi^iyys and Maalikiyys mentioned the same aforementioned rule.

[samsparky]

An-Nawawiyy and other scholars of the four schools (madh-habs), classified apostasy into three categories: apostate beliefs, apostate actions, and apostate sayings. Each category of apostasy is divided into many subdivisions.

Scholars from the four schools (madh-habs) classified apostasy into three categories: apostate beliefs in the heart, apostate actions committed by the various body parts, and apostate sayings uttered with the tongue.

The Shaafi^iyy Imaam, an-Nawawiyy, classified apostasy as such in his book, al-Minhaaj, as did the Shaafi^iyy Imaam, Ibn-ul-Wardiyy, in his book, al-Haawi.


Committing blasphemy of any one category, either on its own or in conjunction with blasphemy of another category, takes the person out of Islaam.

It is not a condition that blasphemy of one category be committed in conjunction with blasphemy of another category for that judgement to hold.

1) Examples of the first category of apostasy, i.e., the apostate beliefs, are:

• Having the doubt in Allaah, His Messenger, the Qur’aan, the Day of Judgement, Paradise, Hell, Reward, or Punishment, or having the doubt in similar matters upon which there has been scholarly consensus (Ijmaa^);

 The person who doubts in Allaah, even for a moment, becomes a blasphemer.

Doubting in Allaah means one no longer holds the unequivocal conviction that Allaah exists.

The same judgment applies if one doubts whether or not Allaah’s Existence is without a beginning, without an end, or without a place.

By the same token, one should be certain that Allaah is not like the creation in any way, and doubting it is blasphemy.


The one who doubts about the truthfulness of the Message of Prophet MuHammad ? ? ? is a blasphemer.

The person who doubts the Qur’aan is a blasphemer.

The one who doubts whether or not the Day of Judgment will occur is a blasphemer.

The one who doubts whether or not the believers will be rewarded in Paradise or the blasphemers will be tortured in Hellfire is a blasphemer.


On the other hand, one needs to differentiate between the doubt that takes the person out of Islaam and the mere involuntary thought that may come to a person whose heart remains firm on the proper belief.

It is not blasphemy if a blasphemous thought merely comes to a person’s mind if it does not make the person doubt in the proper belief.

In the contrary, one is rewarded for hating such a thought and rejecting it.


Ijmaa^ is defined as the scholarly consensus of the mujtahids* on an Islamic matter in any era.

*Mujtahids refer to the top qualified scholars, such as ash-Shaafi^iyy, Maalik, AHmad Ibn Hambal, Abu Hanifah and the like. They are the ones who are qualified to deduce Islamic judgments from the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth. Hence, the agreement of a group of Muslims (whether laymen or non-mujtahid scholars) does not constitute Ijmaa^.

It is blasphemy to doubt the truthfulness of any matter which all Muslims (the scholar and laymen alike) know the Prophet ? ? ? conveyed.

An example would be the weighing of the deeds in the Hereafter.

It is known to the Muslim layman and scholar alike that the Prophet ? ? ? informed that the person’s deeds are weighed in the Hereafter.

So, whoever doubts whether or not the deeds are weighed in the Hereafter is judged as a blasphemer, unless he did not know that this is a matter in the Religion because he is a new Muslim (or like a new Muslim).

• Believing the world is eternal by kind and elements or by kind only;

It is blasphemy to believe that something other than Allaah is eternal.

Everything other than Allaah had a beginning to its existence.

Muslim scholars judged as blasphemer the one who believes the world is eternal.

Among them (i.e. scholars that mentioned this judgment):

1. al-Mutawalli (a prominent scholar of the Shaafi^iyy school);

2. Qaadi ^IyaaD (one of the most famous Maalikiyy scholars; d. 544 AH);

3. Ibnu Daqeeqil-^Eed (It was said he attained the level of mujtahid, and was famous in teaching both the Maalikiyy and the Shaafi^iyy schools; d. 702 AH);

4. The famous Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-^Asqalaaniyy; and many others.

• Renouncing one of the attributes of Allaah, ta^aalaa, known by necessity* He is attributed with-such as His Knowing about everything;

There are certain attributes known among the Muslim laymen and scholars alike to be attributes of Allaah, like Life, Power, Knowledge, Will, etc.

To deny Allaah is attributed with any of these attributes is blasphemy.

For example, the one who doubts that Allaah has Power over all things, or doubts that Allaah is attributed with Speech (al-Kalaam), Hearing, or Sight is a blasphemer.

On the other hand, one does not blaspheme if, for example, one never thought about Allaah being attributed with Hearing, provided one does not hold a contrary belief.

• Ascribing to Allaah what is known by necessity does not befit Him-such as being a body;

There are certain attributes which both the knowledgeable Muslim and the layman know Allaah is clear of, i.e., attributes which are non-befitting to Him.

The one who attributes to Allaah any of these attributes is a blasphemer.

For example, the person who says Allaah is a body or has bodily attributes is attributing to Allaah what every Muslim knows does not befit Him.

Similarly blasphemes whoever says Allaah is an illumination, or is attributed with colour, because these claims entail likening Allaah to the creations.

Likewise, the one who says Allaah is a body, but not like other bodies, is a blasphemer.


The author of the famous Hambaliyy book al-KhiSaal related that Imaam AHmad Ibn Hambal judged as a blasphemer the person who says, “Allaah is a body, not like other bodies.”

The one who says, “Allaah is a body” is attributing to Allaah a non-befitting attribute and his qualifying phrase, “not like other bodies,” does not clear him of having committed blasphemy.

A body by definition is something which has a format and a shape and takes up space.

All these are attributes of the creation, and are not befitting to ascribe to the Creator.

*Issues which are known by necessity are the issues that are known to the laymen and the scholars alike, without any need of deduction.

[samsparky]

•Legitimating what is commonly known among the Muslims to be unlawful (Haraam)-such as adultery and fornication (zinaa), sodomy (liwaaT), killing (qatl), stealing (sariQah), and taking the money of others by force (ghaSb);

There are certain unlawful matters which all the Muslims, scholars and laymen alike, know are unlawful.

Examples are: murder, stealing, taking someone else’s money by force, and similar acts.

The one who claims lawful any such unlawful matter blasphemes.

So, one blasphemes if one claims that it is lawful to drink alcohol, to eat pork, or to commit adultery or fornication.

This judgment does not apply to the one who has recently embraced Islaam and did not yet learn the judgment of these matters.

In such a case, he is not judged as a blasphemer, rather he is taught what is correct.

•Deeming unlawful (Haraam) what is commonly known among the Muslims to be lawful (Halaal)-such as selling and marriage;

There are matters in the Religion of Islaam which both the knowledgeable person and the layman know are lawful, or permissible.

If a person claims that any of these matters is unlawful, he blasphemes.

For example, all Muslims know that marriage is lawful in Islaam.

So the one who claims that marriage is forbidden in Islaam blasphemes.

Another example of a blasphemous statement is for one to claim that it is unlawful to slaughter an edible animal to eat it.

•Renouncing the obligation of the matters commonly known among the Muslims to be obligatory-such as the five Obligatory Prayers or one of their prostrations, Zakaah, Fasting (Sawm), Pilgrimage (Hajj), and Ablution (WuDoo’);

There are certain matters in Islaam which both the knowledgeable Muslim and the layman know are obligatory.

Praying the five Obligatory Prayers is an example of such a matter; both the Muslim scholar and the layman know that this is a daily obligation.

Therefore, one blasphemes if one claims that it is no longer obligatory upon him to pray them or claims that once a person reaches a certain level of alleged ‘purity’, he no longer has to pray.

Likewise blasphemes the one who claims paying Zakaah is not an obligation on the wealthy people, or fasting RamaDaan is not an obligation on the Muslims.

•Deeming obligatory the matters commonly known among the Muslims not to be obligatory;

There are matters in the Religion of Islaam which the knowledgeable Muslim and the layman alike know are not obligatory.

An example of such matters are the two optional rak^ahs which one prays before the Dawn Prayer (SubH).

The Prophet ? ? ? urged the Muslims to pray these two optional rak^ahs before the Dawn Prayer, and doing so is a sunnah (optional but rewardable).

However, to claim these two rak^ahs are obligatory when one knows the Muslims deem them sunnah is blasphemy.

•Renouncing the legitimacy of what all Muslims know is legitimate;

There are matters in the Religion of Islaam that both the knowledgeable Muslim and the layman know are rewardable, like performing the Witr Prayer*.

So the one who claims any of these matters are not rewardable blasphemes.

For example, one blasphemes by saying that praying the Witr Prayer does not involve any reward, because this entails belying the Prophet ? ? ?.

The same case applies to any matter which is commonly known among the Muslims to be part of the Religion.

If a person knowingly claims that such a matter is not part of the Religion, he blasphemes.

*The Witr Prayer is an optional prayer. One can pray the Witr Prayer after praying the ^Ishaa’ Prayer until the appearance of the dawn. One prays an odd number of rak^ahs, i.e., one, three, five…etc.


Furthermore, the person blasphemes if he says that one of the aforementioned rules is an injustice from Allaah while knowing that it is a rule in the Religion.

Such was the case of the poet, Abul-^Alaa’ al-Ma^arriyy, who dispraised marriage and slaughtering animals for food.

It is also like those we see today who dispraise the fact that the Muslim man may marry four women, or those who dispraise that the woman is obligated to wear a head cover.

All that is blasphemy.

We accept whatever the Messenger of Allaah ? ? ? brought.

Whatever disagrees with the Prophet’s teachings is rejected.

•Intending to blaspheme in the future; intending to do any of the aforementioned;

Intending to blaspheme in the future means one has the determination in one’s heart to blaspheme sometime in the future.

Such a person blasphemes immediately.

So, if someone says, “I will blaspheme after one million years,” he blasphemes immediately even if he does not believe that he will live that long.

Also, the person who hesitates whether or not to blaspheme becomes a blasphemer immediately.

Likewise, the person becomes a blasphemer immediately if he makes his committing blasphemy contingent upon the occurrence of a certain event.

The true believer is the one whose heart is firm with belief.

He is one who does not want to quit being a believer at any time or for any reason.

•Hesitating whether or not to blaspheme-but not the mere involuntary thought of it;

There is a difference between the involuntary blasphemous thought which might come to a person whose heart remains firm on the correct belief and the hesitation which results in his doubting that belief.

Hesitating whether or not to blaspheme is blasphemy, because it means one no longer has a firm conviction in one’s belief.

•Denying the companionship of our Master Abu Bakr, may Allaah raise his rank;

The person who believes in his heart that Abu Bakr is not the Companion of the Prophet blasphemes.

The scholars specified Abu Bakr’s companionship in this judgment, and not ^Umar’s or ^Aliyy’s because Allaah mentioned the companionship of Abu Bakr in the Qur’aan.

Ayah 40 of Surat at-Tawbah:

{ ? ?? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ?? ?} 

                               
mentions that while in the cave with Abu Bakr enroute to al-Madeenah, Prophet MuHammad ? ? ? said to his Companion, “Do not be sad. Allaah supports us.”

It is known by necessity that Abu Bakr is the Companion mentioned in this verse.

Hence, denying his companionship is belying the Qur’aan and the consensus of the whole nation.

[samsparky]

•Denying the Message of whomever is recognized by all Muslims as a messenger or a prophet;

Denying the Prophethood of any of the prophets whom all the Muslims (scholars and laymen alike) know to be prophets is blasphemy.

For example, denying that Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and MuHammad were prophets is blasphemy.

However, one does not blaspheme for denying the state of Prophethood of a prophet because he has never heard of his Prophethood.

For example, if a person did not know that Shith was a prophet, and because of his ignorance said, “Shith was not a prophet of Allaah,” he would not be judged as a blasphemer.

The scholars had different opinions as to whether al-KhaDir was a prophet or just a highly pious Muslim.

Most of the scholars hold the opinion that he was a prophet, and this is the correct saying according to the religious proofs.

However, the one who claims that al-KhaDir was a waliyy (a highly pious Muslim) but not a prophet does not blaspheme.

•Renouncing, out of stubbornness, a letter of the Qur’aan which is known by all Muslims to be of it; adding out of stubbornness, a letter to the Qur’aan which is known by all Muslims not to be of it;

If, out of stubbornness, a person insists on adding a letter or more to the text of the Qur’aan which he knows is not part of it, he commits blasphemy.

Likewise, blasphemes the person who renounces even one letter of the Qur’aan when he knows it is part of the Qur’aan.

On the other hand, the one who deletes a part of the Qur’aan, by mistake, such as he did not memorize it properly is not judged as a blasphemer.

However, if one recites the Qur’aan, before learning the proper recitation, and as a result commits a mistake, then one commits an enormous sin.

Abu Daawud narrated from the Prophet ? ? ?:

((? ?? ? ?? ? ? ?)) ?? ? ((? ?? ? ?))

It means: <<There are six people that I damned, Allaah damned, and every prophet damned. >> Then among the six he mentioned, <<the one who adds to the Book of Allaah. >>

This Hadeeth applies to the person who adds to the Qur’aan whether he does that knowingly or out of ignorance.

•Belying a messenger or ascribing a non-befitting attribute to him; making a messenger’s name diminutive with the purpose of degrading him;

Any matter which involves belying a messenger or ascribing to him a non-befitting attribute, or any attempt to degrade or humiliate a prophet is blasphemy.

Examples are for a person to believe any one of the prophets was ignorant, cowardly, or untrustworthy.

•Believing in the possibility of the Prophethood of someone after our Prophet MuHammad, Sallallaahu ^alayhi wa sallam.

Prophet MuHammad ? ? ? is the last of the prophets of Allaah.

It is blasphemy for one to believe that it is permissible for any person to be revealed as a prophet after Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?.

It makes no difference whether he believes it is possible for a prophet who is a messenger to be revealed to after Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?, or a prophet who is not a messenger—either case is blasphemy.

For example, the Qaadiyaaniyys believe in the Prophethood of a man from India named Ghulaam AHmad, who lived approximately 1250 years after the Revelation of Prophet MuHammad.

Some of the Qaadiyaaniyys say about him that he was not an “independent prophet,” rather he was a prophet who followed the Rules of Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?.

Still this is blasphemy, because they attributed prophethood to someone after Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?.

By that, they have belied the Qur’aan, the Prophet of Allaah, and all the Muslim nation (ummah).

This is blasphemy.

[samsparky]

2) The second category of apostasy is the apostate actions, such as prostrating to an idol, the sun, or the moon, or prostrating to any other creation with the purpose of worshipping it.

Other blasphemous actions include assisting anyone to blaspheme and throwing religious materials in the trash.

As for prostrating to a human being out of salutation, it is sinful in our Shar^ (laws). However, it was permissible in the Shar^ (laws) of the previous prophets, such as the prostration of the angels to Adam, which was to salute him.

As for prostrating to an idol, the sun, or the moon, it is absolutely blasphemy.

Similarly, absolute blasphemy is the prostration to the devil performed by some people who learn witchcraft.

The second category of apostasy is “apostasy of actions.”

It includes the blasphemous acts committed by the different parts of the body.

An example of apostasy of actions is prostrating to an idol.

The one who prostrates to an idol is judged as a blasphemer without considering his intention in his action.

Likewise the person who prostrates to the sun, moon, the devil, or the fire commits apostasy (of action) because all these actions are known to be done only by non-Muslims to worship other than Allaah.


On the other hand, the case of the person who prostrates to another human is more detailed.

If his intent in his act is to worship that person, then he is a blasphemer.

However, if he prostrates to that person just to salute him, then it is not blasphemy.

In the laws of previous Muslim nations, it was permissible for a Muslim to prostrate to another Muslim to greet him and to reflect that he is honoured and held at a high status.

This was the case when the angels prostrated to Prophet Adam ? .

However, in the laws revealed to Prophet MuHammad ? ? ?, prostrating to another Muslim became forbidden.


Another blasphemous action is knowingly throwing the Holy Qur’aan in the garbage.

Even if the person says, “My intent was not to degrade or humiliate the Qur’aan,” he is not excused, because the action itself involves degradation and humiliation.

On the other hand, if the person is not aware that the book he threw in the garbage was the Book of the Qur’aan, he does not blaspheme for doing so.

This rule applies to other Islamic material as well.


The general rule governing the case of apostate actions is: “Any action which all Muslims know or agree that only a blasphemer does is blasphemy. In other words, to commit an action which all Muslims agree that it is only committed by a blasphemer is blasphemy.”

An example is the case of a person who wears the religious attire specific to the blasphemers, or wears their symbol of blasphemy and mixes with them in their places of worship.

This person is committing an act which is commonly known to the Muslims to be an act done only by blasphemers.

Hence, the person is judged as a blasphemer for doing it.

3) The third category of apostasy is the apostate sayings, which are too many to be counted.

Most of the cases pertaining to blasphemy are of this kind, as the Prophet ? ? ? informed.

In the Hadeeth related by aT-Tabaraaniyy, the Prophet ? ? ? said:

((?? ?? ?? ? ? ))

This Hadeeth means: <<Most of the sins of the children of Adam are due to their tongues. >>

Some examples are:

To say to a Muslim, ‘O blasphemer’, ‘O jew’, ‘O christian’, or ‘O you without religion’, meaning that the religion of the addressed Muslim is blasphemy, Judaism, Christianity, or not a religion.

However, if one says such words to a Muslim with the purpose of only likening him to those non-Muslims in behaviour, then it is not blasphemy;

It is narrated by al-Bukhaariyy, Ibn Hibbaan, and others that the Prophet ? ? ? said:

(( ?? ?? ?? ? ?? . ? ?? ? ?? ?))

It means: <<If a person addresses his fellow Muslim by telling him, “You are a blasphemer,” then one of the two is a blasphemer. It is either that what the addresser said is true, or the addresser himself becomes a blasphemer. >>

However, if by his statement, the person wanted to only liken that Muslim to the non-Muslim in his behaviour, then he would not be judged as a blasphemer.

This means, if he says to a Muslim, “O you non-Muslim,” and by saying that he meant that his acts are so mean that they resemble the way the non-Muslim acts, then he does not blaspheme for that.

However he is not entitled to say that; saying such words to a Muslim is unlawful, even with this intention.

To mock one of the Names of Allaah, ta^aalaa, His Promise, or His Threat, while knowing such matters have been attributed to Him, subHaanah;

Mockery is to say statements with the purpose of belittling something or someone.

The one who mocks Allaah, or mocks the Promise or the Threat of Allaah blasphemes.

For example, one blasphemes if he mocks one of the Names of Allaah while knowing this is a Name of Allaah.

If someone says he would prefer to end up in Hell because he will have more fun with the sinners there, he blasphemes for mocking Paradise, a Promise of Allaah.

Similarly, mocking the Threat of Allaah (Hellfire) is blasphemy.

However, if a person mocks a matter because he is unaware that this is a Threat of Allaah, he does not blaspheme.

So, a person does not blaspheme if he does not believe that there are large scorpions in Hellfire to torture the blasphemers because he never heard of that matter. Moreover, he does not have the intention to belittle the Threat of Allaah.

Out of belittlement or out of stubbornness to say, ‘If Allaah ordered me with such a matter, I would not do it’; or to say: ‘If the Qiblah were changed to another direction I would not pray towards it’; or to say: ‘If Allaah gave me Paradise I would not enter it’.

If one says any of the three specific aforementioned statements, or statements similar to them in content whether out of stubbornness or belittlement, one blasphemes.

Stubbornness is to refuse to admit the truthfulness of something one knows is true.

To say: ‘If Allaah punished me for leaving out prayers despite my sickness, He would wrong me’;

To say, ‘Allaah would be unjust in punishing me for not praying because I am so sick’, is blasphemy.

This statement is blasphemy because it attributes to Allaah injustice, which is an attribute of imperfection.

This belies the verses of the Qur’aan, the sayings of the Prophet ? ? ?, and the judgement of the sound mind.

Allaah said:

{?? ? ? }

Surat FuSSilat, Verse 46 means: [Certainly, Allaah is not unjust to His slaves.]