Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open
 
Top Members

Protecting one's honour

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
Maria al-Qibtiyya, Akaabir
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
21,823
Brother
9,546
abu mohammed's avatar
#16 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:00
Umar123 wrote:
I haven't read much into this topic. Kindly contribute more to this thread, so all of us can understand when it is ok.


Please note this is a general post and I'm not claiming anything other than posting "general information"



The general rule is that the honors of Muslims are protected and their inviolability is confirmed. "And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, they bear (on themselves) the crime of slander and plain sin." [Surat Al Ahzab: 58].

"O you who believe! Let not a group scoff at another group, it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor let (some) women scoff at other women, it may be that the latters are better than the formers. Nor defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. How bad is it to insult one's brother after having Faith [i.e. to call your Muslim brother (a faithful believer) as: "O sinner", or "O wicked"]. And whosoever does not repent, then such are indeed Zlimn (wrong-doers, etc.)." [Surat Al Hashr: 11].

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands."[1].

It was reported in Al Adab Al Mufrad with an authentic chain of transmission on the authority of `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "A true believer is not involved in taunting, frequently cursing (others), in indecency, or in abusing." [2]



This Hadith denotes that leaving slander, cursing, indecency and abusing is obligatory and committing any of these bad qualities is forbidden, and abstaining from these qualities is obligatory. [3]



Moreover, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said explicitly: "It is enough evil for a Muslim to look down upon his Muslim brother." "A Muslim is inviolable to his Muslim brother in regard to: his blood, honor, and property;"[4] this inviolability is highly confirmed. The Messenger (peace be upon him) said: "Verily! Your blood, property and honor are sacred to one another (i.e. Muslims) like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this month of yours and in this city of yours. It is incumbent upon those who are present to inform those who are absent."[5]



Thus, the Prophet correlated between these three matters [blood, property, and honor] which must be protected by the Shari`ah and it is beautiful to glorify the sanctity of blood and money, and it is bad to neglect the third [i.e., honor].

When slandering a Muslim of that seriousness, the Prophet (peace be upon him) explained the ruling of the one who violates it; therefore, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (an evil doing)." [6]



This Hadith and other Hadiths denoted that slandering a Muslim is one of the major sins. Al Haythamy said in Az-Zawajir `An Iqtiraf Al Kaba'ir: Major sin No. 289, 290, and 291 are: Insulting and slandering a Muslim, a man is being a cause for cursing and slandering his parents even if he does not do that himself, but by cursing a Muslim. [7]Many scholars said that cursing a Muslim is a major sin and when a Muslim is insulted, the insulter should be punished; some people reported consensus for this ruling. The Shafi`y and the Hanbaly school of Fiqh said: Hinting is like clear insult. [8]



Some scholars said: "Cursing and slandering a Muslim in his honor without right is forbidden by the consensus of scholars and its doer is dissolute." [9]



Because of the seriousness of insulting a Muslim's honor with the tongue, scholars said: Insulting a Muslim by cursing is not permissible even if it is done by the ruler as a kind of rebuke. Some jurists said: "It is not permissible for the ruler or someone else to rebuke someone by cursing, obscene insult, or cursing his parents. However, it is permissible to rebuke a person by saying: O oppressor, aggressor, and so on." [10]



It is not permissible for the owner to punish his slave by insult. Imam Ahmad said: It is not permissible to insult the slave's unbelieving parents, a person should not get used to insult and curse, and the one who is of bad manners [insulting and slandering his slaves] shall not enter Paradise.



"So, whoever commits a forbidden vile thing has committed a forbidden matter for which he shall be punished. This discretionary punishment is left to the view of the ruler according to his view, within the limit of interest, and according to the Shari`ah.



The conditions of people are different because each one has what suits him." [11]



Words which slander honors are of two types:

1- Words which slander the honor of the insulted only and does not harm anyone else; and that is of two types: Lying and obscene words.



2- Words which may harm others; and that is of four types Backbiting, tale bearing, corrupting the relationship between people, and insult.

Perhaps false accusation is more affecting to the hearts, therefore Allah forbade it by imposing a prescribed punishment for it and calling the slanderer a Fasiq (dissolute)." [12]



Insult as mentioned by Ibn Wahban is either by bad qualities which a Muslim has or by bad qualities which are not present in him, either in his presence or while he is absent.



If the person has none of these bad qualities, it will be a mere lie and falsity which make a person Fasiq whether it was said in his presence or in his absence. If this insult was said in his presence, the sayer shall be a Fasiq. However, if the insult is said in his presence, it is a bad manner and only low people who do so because they have no shyness or good manners. "Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (an evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief)." [13] If we know this origin, it will be known that all ugly talks such as false accusation or less is considered an insult which is not permissible, moreover its sayer should be punished.



Ibn Hazm reported from some of the Prophet's Companions that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) lashed a man because he insulted another by saying: "O son of the crazy man." [14]



Because of what has been mentioned earlier, the jurists spoke about the estimation of these discretionary punishments such as what has been mentioned in Al Masa'il Al Malqutah. [15]The author said: If a man said to another: O traitor, or O bull, or O donkey, or O son of a donkey, he shall be punished as Ibn Rushd said [p. 78].



● He who says to a man: O criminal, he shall be beaten twenty-five lashes. Likewise if someone says to him: O oppressor, and he was not as such, he shall be beaten 40 lashes.



● If someone says to another: O robber, he shall be beaten twenty-five lashes [p. 81].

● Whoever speaks badly about a scholar should be punished 40 lashes [p. 82].



● Whoever says to a person, O debaucher, shall be punished with 80 lashes [p. 83].



● Anyone harms a Muslim with his tongue should be punished by equivalent punishment: His head may be lashed by a whip, his head may be lashed by a stick, or his back may be lashed by a stick according to the status of the sayer and the status of the insulted person [p. 83].



● If someone says to another person: Allah is greater than you, he shall be punished unless the insulted pardons his opponent [p. 84].



● A person should be punished for all kinds of insults, such as: O dog, pig, donkey, or something of the like [p. 84].



A ruler may punish an aggressor as part of applying the Shari`ah of Allah and reconciling between two opponents. This call for the application of Shari`ah is to stop sedition and guarding tongues by the power of the ruler. However, the one who wants to apply the Sunnah should be impartial and should not retaliate for himself. "And indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them." [Surat Ash-Shura: 41] and that does not contradict Allah's Command: "Show forgiveness, enjoin what is good, and turn away from the foolish (i.e. don't punish them)." [Surat Al A`raf: 199].



This command is precise according to the correct view of scholars. Ibn Al Qayyim (may Allah bestow mercy on his soul) said: (and turn away from the foolish) means: If the foolish insults you, do not insult him back. Allah (may He be Exalted) says: "and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness." [Surat Al Furqan: 63].



According to this view, it is not abrogated, but the meaning is: turn away while displaying the proof to him and in the meantime do not retaliate for yourself." [16]

So, the two Ayahs exhort to exchange bad deeds with good deeds, and do not exhort to leave the ruling of Allah in regard of the prescribed punishments or discretionary punishment, moreover the Ayahs link between exhortation and pardon if it is correlated with reform. Allah (may He be Exalted) says: "The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof; but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is with Allh. Verily, He likes not the Zlimn (oppressors, polytheists, and wrong-doers)." [Surat Ash-Shura: 40].



It is important to differentiate between the person who is used to insult people and he who insults people by accident. The one who insults by accident should be pardoned, and his slip is forgiven because he is deterred by good treatment and guidance and often he hastens to apologize as long as he is conscientious even if he is not one of the knowledge seekers. However, if he is used to insult people, submitting him to court is a kind of deterring the criminal.



Of the positions which may be permissible to insult a person in without using false accusation, calling him as a disbeliever, and cursing his parents. Allah (may He be Exalted) says: "The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof; but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is with Allh. Verily, He likes not the Zlimn (oppressors, polytheists, and wrong-doers)." * "And indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them." [Surat Ash-Shura: 40 - 41].



So, it is permissible to retaliate with justice although pardon is better. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "When two persons indulge in hurling (abuses) upon one another, it would be the first one who would be the sinner so long as the oppressed does not transgress the limits." [17]



Of the positions, which are permissible to decrease the rank of the opponents in, is describing him with injustice, lewdness, and so on; these qualities may be applied to a certain person who commits oppression or lewdness on two conditions:

1- To do that for a purpose not for humor or mockery at his honor. Al Qarafy said: "I asked a group of scholars about those who narrate the Prophet's saying: "There is no backbiting regarding a lewd."



They said to me: The Hadith is not valid, and it is not permissible to mock at the debaucher's honor. This is the summary of the disagreement concerning the permissible and impermissible backbiting." [18]



2- The insulted should have the qualities which the offender said about him, but if these qualities are not present, it is not permissible. Shaykh Al Islam said: "I always forbid people to attribute a certain person to disbelief, lewdness, or sin, unless you know that the proof was set against someone who does so. I say that Allah has pardoned this nation in regard to its mistakes either in sayings or actions." [19]The permissibility of these kinds does not mean that the field is open for backbiting. However, if backbiting was done by a person who is not entitled to issue a judgment and does not have power over people, the opponent has the right to sue him.





[1] Reported by Al Bukhari in his Sahih from the Hadith of `Abdullah ibn `Amr 1/13 [10] and Muslim from the Hadith of Jabir 1/65 (41).


[2] Al Adab Al Mufrad, 1/116 (312).


[3] See: Al Iman Al Kabir P. 10 and the next pages, and it is mentioned in Al Majmou` 7/14 and the following pages.


[4] Sahih Muslim 4/1986 (2564).


[5] Reported by Al Bukhari and Muslim from the Hadith of Abu Bakrah, see Sahih Al Bukhari 1/37 (67) and Muslim 3/1305 (1679).


[6] Reported by Al Bukhari and Muslim 1/27 (48) and Muslim 1/81 [64].


[7] 2/92 and the following pages.


[8] Islamic Jurisprudence Encyclopedia 24/141.


[9] Islamic Jurisprudence Encyclopedia 21/272.


[10] See Islamic Jurisprudence Encyclopedia 16/328.


[11] Islamic Jurisprudence Encyclopedia, 10/230.


[12] Adab Ad-Dunya wad-Din, P. 323 - 324.


[13] Reported by Ibn Nujaym in Al Bahr Ar-Ra'iq 7/89 - 90.


[14] See Al Muhalla 12/222 - 223, the Hadith was graded as weak by Ibn Hazm because of three reasons: 1- It is a Mursal Hadith (the Companion is not mentioned in the Hadith). 2- It was reported from the way of Salim ibn Ghaylan At-Tajiby whom is unknown and not a trustworthy.

3- Yunus ibn `Abdul-A`la was more memorizing than Suhnun who reported the Hadith. The more correct view is that it is a good Hadith. As for it is being a Mursal Hadith, the chain of transmission is authentic and the ambiguity of the Companion does not harm and the general rule of such Hadiths is the continuation of the chain of transmission according to the majority of scholars. As for the memorization of Yunus ibn `Abdul-A`la is better than Suhnun, it is true, however Suhnun did not reported it alone. The Hadith was reported by Hammad ibn Yahya from Ibn Wahb. That was mentioned in Ma`rifat As-Sahabah of Abu Nu`aym. As for Salim ibn Ghaylan, see the comment of Ibn Hajar in Lisan Al Mizan 1180, the profile of Isma`il ibn Muhammad As-Saffar. Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud, An-Nasa'y, Ibn Hibban, and others graded Salim as trustworthy. Adh-Dhahaby said: He is trustworthy. Ibn Hajar said: He is okay.




[15] Al Masa'il Al Malqutah Min Al Kutub Al Mabsutah of Abrahim ibn Farhun.


[16] Madarij As-Salikin, 2/305.


[17] Muslim 4/2000 (2587).


[18] Anwar Al Bruq Fi Anwa` Al Furuq 4/208.


[19] See Al Majmu` 3/229.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+2 -0Like x 1Winner x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
10,313
Brother
8,647
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#17 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:04
Akaabir wrote:
View original post


W-Salam,

Did you actually read my response or did you merely asked for the thread to be closed because there were "some words and sentences" in my response?

Because your response clearly shows that you either didn't read it OR didn't understand it and YET you asked for the thread to be closed. Do you want to start this discussion again.

I will go through 7 volumes of Malfoozat again (this is what I did) which was deleted by Maulana Yasin (HA) PROVIDED that you are also up to the same scrutiny and you also answer every question with absolute detail which is put to you?

Deal? I will go first and you go second.

Jazakallahu Khayran
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
21,823
Brother
9,546
abu mohammed's avatar
#18 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:08
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post


The brother asked for it to be closed because he felt his reply was sufficient and yours wasn't (in his humble opinion)

We don't need to drag other threads into (even though its all inter related) Lets try and stick to the Current Topic in specific please
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Akaabir's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
121
Brother
-30
Akaabir's avatar
#19 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:09
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post


As for waajib ruling regarding the topic at hand, I request your respected self to clear two matters for me as clearly I seem to be misundertanding the issue.

1) Can you post the relevant section of bayaan quran where it is clearly written that defending ones honour is wajib.

2) Was Imam Sha'rani RA a hanafi alim? Or is his ruling that you quoted a hanafi daleel? I might be mixing imam sha'rani you quoted with the famous Shaikh Abdul Wahhab Sha'rani RA who was a shafi.

3) Maulana Yasin mentioned very clearly that the thread is hidden and users can request their post and it will be provided. So you dont have to go through 7 volumes of malfoothat. You need to request your post and you need to post the relevant section of bayan ul quran.

JazakAllah khair
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
21,823
Brother
9,546
abu mohammed's avatar
#20 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:10
Quote:
I will go through 7 volumes of Malfoozat again (this is what I did) which was deleted by Maulana Yasin (HA) PROVIDED that you are also up to the same scrutiny and you also answer every question with absolute detail which is put to you?


The post is still available upon request. You may PM Maulana Yasin for it.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Agree x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Akaabir's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
121
Brother
-30
Akaabir's avatar
#21 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:14
abu mohammed wrote:
View original post


I requested a daleel from brother muadh khan and he provided his daleel (regardless of whether I misunderstood it or didnt accept it). Hence the purpose of the thread was served. Pretty straigth forward request to close the thread so as not to dwelve Into forcing down our daleel or opinion down the others throat. As we say in urdu 'manwa kar choron ga' - I will make you accept it whether you like it or not.

Was it an unfair request for the closure of the thread?
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
10,313
Brother
8,647
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#22 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:16

Akaabir wrote:
View original post

You are my elder and I will be willing to go through all of your relevant questions provided that you return the same courtesy to me and also undertake to answer questions in the same detail.

Is that fair? Are you willing to give this undertaking that you are also guided by the same rules and regulations as you hold me to? Is this in agreement with Islamic Shariah.

Secondly it has now been roughly 72 hours and my comments are still not visible on the blog. You and another Guest user have asked me to respond but there is no communication from our dear respected elder Hazrat Deoband (Damat Barakathum Mudda Fuyuzuhum), is he ok? Would you like to repost my comments again as they may be lost?

Thirdly, no I am not expecting you to agree to a Daleel but I expect you to have the comptency to understand it. Your reference to Imam Sha'rani (RA)'s Madhab shows that you have no idea what I wrote but decided to request thread closure anyways!

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
dr76's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
2,146
Brother
5,688
dr76's avatar
#23 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:16
(salam)

(bism1)


The following is posted in academic interest as in line with bro Abu Muhammed..

Hazrat Jaabir Bin Abi Talha Ansari رضي الله عنه Narrates from Rasulullah (saw) :

" The person who pulls his hand away from helping any Muslim when his honour is being attacked and his Modesty being damaged.. Then Allah سبحانه وتعالى will deprive him of his help when he shall be hopeful ( and needy) of the Help of Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

And the person who helps any Muslim when his honour is being attacked and his modesty being damaged.. Then Allah سبحانه وتعالى shall help him when he shall be hopeful (and needy) of the help of Allah سبحانه وتعالى ."

(Abu Daud, Ibn Abi Duniya)

(Source)

wa Assalam..
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Akaabir's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
121
Brother
-30
Akaabir's avatar
#24 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:25
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post


Point added:

As for waajib ruling regarding the topic at hand, I request your respected self to clear two matters for me as clearly I seem to be misundertanding the issue.

1) Can you post the relevant section of bayaan quran where it is clearly written that defending ones honour is wajib.

2) Was Imam Sha'rani RA a hanafi alim? Or is his ruling that you quoted a hanafi daleel? I might be mixing imam sha'rani you quoted with the famous Shaikh Abdul Wahhab Sha'rani RA who was a shafi.

3) Maulana Yasin mentioned very clearly that the thread is hidden and users can request their post and it will be provided. So you dont have to go through 7 volumes of malfoothat. You need to request your post and you need to post the relevant section of bayan ul quran.

4) Yes he is okay.

JazakAllah khair
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Yasin's avatar
London, UK
5,853
Brother
247
Yasin's avatar
#25 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:27
umar123 wrote:
View original post


Maybe this could help?


report post quote code quick quote reply
+8 -0Winner x 4Creative x 4
back to top
Rank Image
muslim11's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
690
Sister
603
muslim11's avatar
#26 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:32
Waiting for conclusion...
The weather is too hot today..
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
10,313
Brother
8,647
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#27 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:39
This post has been reported. It could be due to breaking rules or something as simple as bad use of bbcodes which breaks the page format. We will attend to this soon.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Yasin's avatar
London, UK
5,853
Brother
247
Yasin's avatar
#28 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 10:52
This post has been reported. It could be due to breaking rules or something as simple as bad use of bbcodes which breaks the page format. We will attend to this soon.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+4 -0Like x 4
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
21,823
Brother
9,546
abu mohammed's avatar
#29 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 11:11
Respected Broher Akaabir (without the additional titles) :)

I apologies If I have misunderstood something mentioned in the OP.

I'm not an Administrator of the site, "just" and Authorizer. I'm not a Maulana (as has been said somewhere by someone).

I wrote in the OP

Quote:
If I have misunderstood something then I ask for forgiveness in advance.[/quote]

Khair, nevermind InshaAllah.

Akaabir wrote:
Jazakallah for your input and digging up old graves[/quote]
I'm sorry you felt that way and apologies if I hurt you in any way. The thread/post mentioned was just about 24 hours old and fresh, therefore I wouldn't call it digging up old graves unlike what has been happening with others.

Akaabir wrote:
I will still attempt to reply to your imagination that my demands of daleel of hanafi madhab from muadh khan makes it incumbent on mufti as desai to present the daleel of hanafi madhab to every tom dick and harry.[/quote]
I kind of agree, especially after reading brother Deobands post, but then theres this too www.muftisays.com/forums/27-sharing-portal/7518-the-shayk...

Akaabir wrote:
Regardless; I will still attempt to reply to your imagination that my demands of daleel of hanafi madhab from muadh khan makes it incumbent on mufti as desai to present the daleel of hanafi madhab to every tom dick and harry. This is what basically you are saying and in reply to this you will now jump to the eifel tower from taj mahal in aagra and come up with something new to divert the topic again.

Muadh Khan uses the fatwa/view/opinion of hazrat hakeem ul ummat when asked for daleel of hanafi madhab shows that he does accept it as a daleel. Now mufti as desai has presented the fatwa of hazrat hakeem ul ummat ra as the daleel of his fatwa/view/article. This should be sufficient for Muadh Khan in the least. Shariah demands him to be just in all his actions with uniformity. Any further questioning would defy his own usool and show his incapability as a muslim to honour his own character through his own words.

The above was an explanation to a vile comment made by your respected self as an attempt to drag me into this and clear up your conscience or maybe yours nafs or ego? (Notice the question mark please).


Question mark noted :) If you believe my comments were "vile" then please accept my apology as I didn't feel it would have hurt you or your honour. It has nothing to do with my nafs or ego :) Just couldn't put the two together. I guess it was/is my lack of understanding if I am/was wrong, hence the apology at the end of the post.

[quote="Akaabir"]The clear reply to your comment should be what I stated above. My views and my actions are not incumbent on mufti sahib. By what stretch of your imagination have you concluded that mufti sahib should conform to my demands which I demanded from my respected brother muadh khan? Please reply to my question

Of course, and I wasn't trying to imply that either. To me it seemed like Maulana Thanvi's statement was being rejected (somewhat) on one side by yourself, and on the other hand, Mufti saab uses the same Maulana to classify something as Haram. That's all. I didn't mean to say anything else.

[quote]Addeenun naseehah. As a muslim brother, your junior and as a mere mamoor in your imarat I reserve the right to advise you. You as an admin of the forum should not be biased. It is against islamic morality and islamic system that you as admin create rifts between muslims by digging up bodies and swtiching them with fake parts to create doubts. This is not what islamic system of justice demands of you. You should try to disperse the hostile environment and demand justice from everyone.

I try to be as neutral as possible. The obvious errors are marked in red. The blue bits, well, SubhanAllah.

[quote]I might have honestly missed or misunderstood the reference of your quote below

Quote

So why is defending ones honour not wajib based on the teachings of maulana ashraf ali thanvi..

End of quote

Maybe I should have worded it much better. I only typed what I felt as a rhetorical question.

Not much via the PM, but since I said it, I will send a little something for clarification inshaAllah.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+3 -0Like x 3
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
10,313
Brother
8,647
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#30 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 11:22
This post has been reported. It could be due to breaking rules or something as simple as bad use of bbcodes which breaks the page format. We will attend to this soon.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top