Is blasphemy a pardonable offense?

[Pakistani E]

Sahih Bukhari : Read, Study, Search Online

i have already studied it briefly, its your turn now, especially if you are going to copy paste it.

 

[Dubious]

i have already studied it briefly, its your turn now, especially if you are going to copy paste it.

Even his copy paste shows the punishment was for murder and looting....Seriously some people will stoop as low as possible in attempts to attack a religion and a country even if they need to look like fools!

Ignorance REALLY IS a bliss!

 

[Pakistani E]

Even his copy paste shows the punishment was for murder and looting....Seriously some people will stoop as low as possible in attempts to attack a religion and a country even if they need to look like fools!

Ignorance REALLY IS a bliss!

yes, and the sad thing is we have equally ignorant people like @Zarvan on our side providing them ammunition through their ignorance.

 

[Sneaker]

In Makkah when Jihad was not made compulsory every body was forgiven but in Madinah many were eliminated for this crime even two of them were taken prisoners in Battle of Badar they were those two who used to thorn camels intestines on back of RASOOL SAW and laugh when he used to be in Makkah when they were walking back to Madinah RASOOL SAW them and ordered Hazrat ALI RA to take them out and he did than two poets in Madinah were also eliminated for same reason. Everything in Islam has limits including patience you can't be patient on every thing some one come attacks your family you can't sit on side and be patient you hit back with full power and even if you end up finishing the attacker for Muslims than is far less trouble and pain than some one abusing HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW.


Punishment for Blasphemy in the Light of Religious Scriptures



Pakistan is the land of hot issues it would not be a false statement at all. Whether it is the religious, political, economic or social issues; Pakistan is the place you will find on top of all. Lately, the issue of blasphemy has arisen when a session court (lower court) sentence Asiya Bibi (who was Christian by faith) to death after finding her guilty her of sacrilegious comments.

The debate of repealing this law has come out of blue this time after 2-3 decades of legislation regarding. There are several opinions regarding this blasphemy act 295 (c) of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. There are oodles of angles to this law, whether it be religious, democratic, political or human right.

We have gathered some evidences from the Quran, Hadith, Sunnah and history (compiled by historians) for the exact punishment for blasphemy. This will also answer the most asked question “What Muhammad (S.A.W) would have done?” “How he would have responded?” and many supplementary questions like “What Quran says?”, “Is there any evidence in Hadith?” and “What other religions say about blasphemy?”

Let’s start from a Quranic verse:

The above verse of Surah e Ahzab (Chapter 33:6) shows the right of a Allah’s Apostle Muhammad (S.A.W) on Muslims. It is clear from the word of GOD that Muhammad (S.A.W) has more right over our lives and closest of relations.

The following Reference of Holy Quran Chapter 4 V 65 was revealed when a man was beheaded by the Hazrat Umar (R.A) due to non compliance of judgment given by Holy prophet Mohammad (S.A.W).

Context of Revelation (Chapter 4, V 65):

Al-Hafiz Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin `Abdur-Rahman bin Ibrahim bin Duhaym recorded that Damrah narrated that two men took their dispute to the Prophet , and he gave a judgment to the benefit of whoever among them had the right. The person who lost the dispute said, “I do not agree.” The other person asked him, “What do you want then” He said, “Let us go to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq.” They went to Abu Bakr and the person who won the dispute said, “We went to the Prophet with our dispute and he issued a decision in my favor.” Abu Bakr said, “Then the decision is that which theMessenger of Allah issued.” The person who lost the dispute still rejected the decision and said, “Let us go to `Umar bin Al-Khattab.” When they went to `Umar, the person who won the dispute said, “We took our dispute to the Prophet and he decided in my favor, but this man refused to submit to the decision.” `Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the second man and he concurred. `Umar went to his house and emerged from it holding aloft his sword. He struck the head of the man who rejected the Prophet’s decision with the sword and killed him.

Consequently, Allah revealed, the aforementioned verse.[Context taken from Tafseer Ibn-e-Kathir]

Let’s get to another verse where Allah (SWT) announces the punishment for enemies (of ALLAH and His Apostle) and who so ever attributes disgrace to Allah and His Apostle Mohammad (S.A.W).

May we present another verse from the Quran where Allah immediately answers to the sacrilegious comment made by the blood relative (uncle) of Allah’s Apostle Mohammad (S.A.W).

Context of Revelation

Abu Lahab (Father of Flame) was the nickname of ‘Abd Al-’Uzza, the Holy Prophet’s uncle and his inveterate enemy and persecutor. He was so called either because his complexion and hair were ruddy or also because he had a fiery temper. The Surah recalls an incident during the early preaching of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W). On being commanded by Allah (S.W.T) to call together his relatives and to deliver to them the Divine Message, the Holy Prophet, one day, stood on mount Safa and called the different Meccan (Makkah’s) tribes by name, the tribes of Luwayy, Murrah, Kilab and Qusayy and his near relatives, and told them that he is God’s Messenger, and that if they did not accept his Message and did not give up their evil ways, Divine punishment would overtake them. The Holy Prophet had hardly his speech, when Abu Lahab stood up and said, ‘Ruin seize thee, is it for this that thou hast called us together’ (Bukhari).

Another precedent from the Holy Quran where Allah (SWT) directly replied to Waleed bin Mughaira, who called Mohammad (S.A.W) Majnoon (Insane) by uncovering the hidden truth regarding his illegitimate birth upon him.

Now let’s move to the evidences from Hadiths.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 372:

Narrated Al-Bara:
Allah’s Apostle sent ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Utba with a group of men to Abu Rafi (to kill him). They proceeded till they approached his castle, whereupon Abdullah bin Atik said to them, “Wait (here), and in the meantime I will go and see.” ‘Abdullah said later on, “I played a trick in order to enter the castle. By chance, they lost a donkey of theirs and came out carrying a flaming light to search for it. I was afraid that they would recognize me, so I covered my head and legs and pretended to answer the call to nature. The gatekeeper called, ‘Whoever wants to come in, should come in before I close the gate.’ So I went in and hid myself in a stall of a donkey near the gate of the castle. They took their supper with Abu Rafi and had a chat till late at night. Then they went back to their homes. When the voices vanished and I no longer detected any movement, I came out. I had seen where the gate-keeper had kept the key of the castle in a hole in the wall. I took it and unlocked the gate of the castle, saying to myself, ‘If these people should notice me, I will run away easily.’ Then I locked all the doors of their houses from outside while they were inside, and ascended to Abu Rafi by a staircase. I saw the house in complete darkness with its light off, and I could not know where the man was. So I called, ‘O Abu Rafi!’ He replied, ‘Who is it?’ I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He cried loudly but my blow was futile. Then I came to him, pretending to help him, saying with a different tone of my voice, ‘ What is wrong with you, O Abu Rafi?’ He said, ‘Are you not surprised? Woe on your mother! A man has come to me and hit me with a sword!’ So again I aimed at him and hit him, but the blow proved futile again, and on that Abu Rafi cried loudly and his wife got up. I came again and changed my voice as if I were a helper, and found Abu Rafi lying straight on his back, so I drove the sword into his belly and bent on it till I heard the sound of a bone break. Then I came out, filled with astonishment and went to the staircase to descend, but I fell down from it and got my leg dislocated. I bandaged it and went to my companions limping. I said (to them), ‘Go and tell Allah’s Apostle of this good news, but I will not leave (this place) till I hear the news of his (i.e. Abu Rafi’s) death.’ When dawn broke, an announcer of death got over the wall and announced, ‘I convey to you the news of Abu Rafi’s death.’ I got up and proceeded without feeling any pain till I caught up with my companions before they reached the Prophet to whom I conveyed the good news.”

At the conquest of Makkah:

Holy prophet Mohammad (S.A.W) announced general amnesty to all except those who were guilty of blasphemous acts and sacrilegious statements, Ibn e Khatal was one of the convict (Tareekh-e-Tabari Page 104 / History written by Al Tabari) This is evident from the following Hadith.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 582:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

On the day of the Conquest, the Prophet entered Mecca, wearing a helmet on his head. When he took it off, a man came and said, “Ibn e Khatal is clinging to the curtain of the Ka’ba.” The Prophet said, “Kill him.”

Sahih Bukahri Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.”

(Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you. “Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.”

His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as ‘Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. “have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”

Punishment in Bible for blasphemy:

The punishment for blasphemy in most of the major religions is death. It is stated in the Old Testament of the Bible, which is the authority for both the Jews and the Christians:

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: [Book of Leviticus 24:16]

A reference from Hindu Scripture:

“If a man born of a lower class intentionally bothers a priest, the king should punish him physically with various forms of corporal and capital punishment that make men shudder.” [Manusmriti 9:248]

Conclusion:

It is evident from the above references that the punishment for the act of blasphemy in any religion or any form is very severe. Hence, people who are waging a campaign against the article 295 (c) of the constitution to repeal the said law, is not aligned with Islamic, Christianity and Hinduism religious law.

The current law is compliant with the ethical and moral values of society Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In a nutshell, this law should stay in place to prevent blasphemous acts. But by no means,anyone should be allowed to use this law for personal vendetta or misuse it. Procedural changes should be made with the consent of Ulema to prevent the misuse of the underlying law.

Don't drag Hinduism in here. Bothering a priest is not Blasphemy. It is elitist, casteist for sure, but not blasphemy. That is the reason why there is no such law in India. The lesser version that limits free speech in India (like hurting religious sentiments deliberately) are also not applied uniformly against minorities as they are applied on hindus. A hindu can easily go to jail for ridiculing islam/christianity but a muslim/christian rarely goes to jail for the same reason even if it is carried out daily in the name their religious duty.

 

[Musafir117]

yes, and the sad thing is we have equally ignorant people like @Zarvan on our side providing them ammunition through their ignorance.

A wroth read by Gair Sarkari Muslim point of view.
What is the Punishment for Blasphemy in Islam? - The Review of Religions
@Akheilos

 

[TankMan]

A wroth read by Gair Sarkari Muslim point of view.
What is the Punishment for Blasphemy in Islam? - The Review of Religions
@Akheilos

Well, most people would object to and disregard that link because it cites the Ahmadiyya point of view. Personally I am not a fan of Ahmadis but in this case the Quranic references and explanations given are mostly correct. Interesting read.

 

[Musafir117]

Well, most people would object to and disregard that link because it cites the Ahmadiyya point of view. Personally I am not a fan of Ahmadis but in this case the Quranic references and explanations given are mostly correct. Interesting read.

Ahmadis were Muslims and still, if you don't follow ZAB and ZIA Two Zs

 

[TankMan]

Ahmadis were Muslims and still, if you don't follow ZAB and ZIA Two Zs

That's unfortunately debatable, due to the principle of the finality of the prophet. Anyways, this is not the correct thread to discuss it. And I am strongly against sectarian division, which is why I oppose most of the laws that have been implemented regarding Ahmadis, however, their credibility in religious matters is something that most people, including me, would challenge. (i.e: I am fine with Ahmadis existing freely but I would not follow their advice on religious matters)

 

[Musafir117]

That's unfortunately debatable, due to the principle of the finality of the prophet. Anyways, this is not the correct thread to discuss it. And I am strongly against sectarian division, which is why I oppose most of the laws that have been implemented regarding Ahmadis, however, their credibility in religious matters is something that most people, including me, would challenge. (i.e: I am fine with Ahmadis existing freely but I would not follow their advice on religious matters)

Yes! This thread not about you and me! But we are agreed almost what is right or wrong related with subject. May Allah guide us and show us the right path. Ameen

 

[TankMan]

Yes! This thread not about you and me! But we are agreed almost what is right or wrong related with subject. May Allah guide us and show us the right path. Ameen

Indeed. May Allah guide us all.

''And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you - when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided.'' [Ale' Imran 3:103]

 

[Zarvan]

I do.
From the Quran:
(Context: Allah is commanding the Prophet to convey this message to his people: ''Say, [O Muhammad] .... [7:195]'')
(Context: Allah is describing the actions of the messengers, : ''Those to whom We gave the Scripture before it..... [28:52]'')
(Context: Allah is addressing Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) directly: ''O Prophet....'')

If you don't consider these clear commands from the Quran to be evidence, that means you don't believe in the Quran. In that case, you're in no position to lecture others about Islam.

As for your evidence,

They were in a battle - that means they were guilty of waging war against the Muslims ; not just blasphemy.

As for the poets, Ka'b bin Ashraf and Abu Rafi, they were killed because they were actively trying to incite violence against the Muslims and politically supported the Quraysh. Here's what Ka'b bin Ashraf did:



He made a treaty to attack the Muslims and was actively working on destroying them (not just insulting), which is what made him wajib ul qatal. Blasphemy was not his only crime.

Abu Rafi:




Again, he had also helped the enemies and had waged war against the Muslims, not just blasphemy.



The context doesn't tell us what the judgement was about or why Hazrat Umar killed that man - saying that he killed him just because he disobeyed the prophet is simply a guess.

He could have deserved it for spreading corruption, whatever his crime or dispute was about and for violating and opposing the laws - remember that Prophet Muhammed (s.a.w) and Hazrat Umar were in positions of authority, similar to judges and courts.

This is again, just a guess. So there's no point using this verse and its context to justify killing people for blasphemy.


The verse quoted here says: ''The punishment of those who WAGE WAR against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief......''
Again, not blasphemy - this verse CLEARLY says 'wage war'. Misquoting it to justify death penalty for 'attributing disgrace' is tantamount to lying.


Here's what the rest of the Surah says:

''His wealth and his children (etc.) will not benefit him!
He will be burnt in a Fire of blazing flames!
And his wife too, who carries wood (thorns of Sadan which she used to put on the way of the Prophet (Peace be upon him), or use to slander him) .
In her neck is a twisted rope of Masad (palm fibre).''

Clearly, Abu Lahab was guilty of a lot more than just blasphemy. And this Surah is clearly referring to Allah's punishment for Abu Lahab, it is not commanding us or Prophet Muhammad to do it to him. It is saying 'this is what Allah has in store for him'
By taking one ayah out of context, you are misquoting the Quran.


I've already answered about Abu Rafi:



He had also helped the enemies and had waged war against the Muslims, not just blasphemy.


No, he announced amnesty to everyone who laid down their weapons, as is proven by this Sahih Hadith:
''Who enters the house of Abu Safyan will be safe, who lays down arms will be safe, who locks his door will be safe''
[Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith #4396]
Sahih Muslim is more authentic and accurate than the history of Al Tabari.


No, it is not. Ibn e Khatal was not inside his home or laying down his arms, which means he was still an active combatant. He was not killed for blasphemy, he was killed for waging war.


Here's what Ka'b bin Ashraf did:



He made a treaty to attack the Muslims and was actively working on destroying them (not just insulting), which is what made them wajib ul qatal. Blasphemy was not his only crime.

I have rebutted all your evidence and provided my own evidence, which is backed by direct commands from the Quran. Thus, it is safe to conclude that Islam does not allow for killing as a punishment for blasphemy.


What evidence do you have for this?

Agreed by whom, our 'esteemed scholars'? The same scholars who spend most of their time calling each other kaffir?
Their agreement is not 'all',they do not represent the opinions of all, 1.7 billion, Muslims.

You have wrongly quoted ayats and Kaabs and all others were killed for Blasphemy even in time of four Caliphs few people were killed for abusing Hazrat MUHAMMAD SAW

Among prisoners taken during Battle of Badr two one was Nazr Bin Haris and Uqba bin Abi Maueet were killed they were the one who used to spit and abuse and throw filthy things like camel intestines on RASOOL SAW in Makkah @TankMan @Akheilos

 

[Srinivas]

The same hadith you quoted says:
''Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")

No, the sin was murder, theft and waging war against the prophet, according to the very source you have provided. All these crimes combined are what called for a greater punishment.
Additionally, some commentators even say that the criminals in that case had done the same to their victims, which is why they were given a proportional punishment.

Yes the punishment for murder is death, But in this case those guys were tortured brutally, the additional punishment is for mocking and also leaving Islam. These things enraged Prophet.

They don't contradict - they show that different circumstances call for different courses of action. In certain circumstances, a good response would be different than it would be in different circumstances. For example, a doctor may prescribe one medicine for back ache and another for a bullet wound - you wouldn't say to him ''but... but.. you're contradicting yourself!''.

UNBELIEVERS: To be persecuted or forgiven?

First verse:
(9:29)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth ....."

Verse contradiction the first Verse:
(45:14)
"Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not hope for the Days of Allah; It is for Him to recompense (for good or evil) each people according to what they have earned"

In my view the two Verses can be taken seen in the context of the role played by the Prophet

During the Meccan period he is a preacher and a messenger, but in Medinan period he is the head of the state as well.
So he has to take care of both faith and state.
From the above two verses it is evident that, Prophet during Meccan period showed tolerance but when he became the head of the state .i.e after becoming a politician he ordered assassinations and also asked to wage war against infidels.

When Faith is mixed with State Politics there will always be contradictions !

Be it Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or anything nothing comes above the Quran....

Sahih Bukhari was born some 200-300 yrs after Prophet's death...He didnt WRITE the Hadith he COLLECTED THEM! And AT THE END OF HIS HADITH BOOKSSS (yea more than 1) he writes the following (also written behind EVERY SAHIH BOOK): If any Hadith collected contradicts the Quran throw that hadith away and follow the Quran....He didnt even need to write that but maybe Indians need to read it!

The Sin was KILLING AND LOOTING as I showed from what you quoted!
Not until the punishment is written in the Quran, it is changeable!


Show me where its CONSIDERED A BIGGER SIN!
now do you see where BS comes from? ^^ Hint Indian Hindus!
Please stop embarrassing your ignorant self!

The Hadith we are discussing was supported by many sources from the times of Prophet reason why Sahi Bukhari considered this hadith as authentic.

Although there is intolerance in Islam,Blasphemy law was created by British !!

 

[PurpleButcher]

some logical reasoning by Dr. Ghamdi

watch after 5 mins first 5 mins are already shown in part 1

Dr. Nauman on the recent JJ controversy and blasphemy

 

[Musafir117]

Mr Ghamdi is a great scholar with super knowledge about Sharia, unfortunately he chose to stay out of Pakistan coz of he is on target list of extremists.

 

[AXO4D]

@TankMan @Akheilos
THE THEORY OF ABROGATION

Question:

Muslims believe in the theory of abrogation, i.e. they believe that certain earlier verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses revealed later. Does this imply that God made a mistake and later on corrected it?

Answer:

1. Two different interpretations

The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:

“None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute
something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

[Al-Qur’an 2:106]

A reference to this is also made in chapter 16 verse 101 of Surah Nahl. The Arabic word mentioned is ‘Ayat’ which means ‘Signs’ and which can also mean ‘revelation’. This verse of the Qur’an can be interpreted in two different ways:

a. The revelations that are abrogated are those revelations that were revealed before the Qur’an, for example the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel.

Here Allah (SWT) says that He does not cause the previous revelations to be forgotten but He substitutes them with something better or similar, indicating that the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel were substituted by the Qur’an.

b. If we consider that the Arabic word ‘ayat’ in the above verse refers to the verses of the Qur’an, and not previous revelations, then it indicates that none of the verses of the Qur’an are abrogated by Allah but substituted with something better or similar. This means that certain verses of the Qur’an, that were revealed earlier were substituted by verses that were revealed later. I agree with both the interpretations.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims misunderstand the second interpretation to mean that some of the earlier verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and no longer hold true for us today, as they have been replaced by the later verses of the Qur’an or the abrogating verses. This group of people even wrongly believes that these verses contradict each other.

Let us analyze a few such examples.

2. Produce a Recital like the Qur’an / 10 Surahs / 1 Surah:

Some pagan Arabs alleged that the Qur’an was forged by Prophet Muhummad (pbuh).
Allah (SWT) challenged these Arabs in the following verse of Surah Al-Isra:

“Say: if the whole of Mankind and Jinns were together to produce the like of this
Qur’an they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.”

[Al-Qur’an 17:88]

Later the challenge was made easy in the following verse of Surah Al-Hud:

“Or they may say, ‘He forged it.’ Say, ‘Bring ye then ten Surahs forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsover ye can, other than Allah, if ye speak the truth!’.”

[Al-Qur’an 11:13]

It was made easier in the following verse of Surah Yunus:

“Or do they say, ‘He forged it’? Say: ‘Bring then a Surah like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, besides Allah, if it be that ye speak the truth!’ ”

[Al-Qur’an 10:38]

Finally in Surah Al-Baqarah, Allah (SWT) further diluted the challenge:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true.

But if ye cannot–and of a surety ye cannot–then fear the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones–which is prepared for those who reject faith”.

[Al-Qur’an 2:23-24]

Thus Allah (swt) made the challenges progressively easier. The progressively revealed verses of the Qur’an first challenged the pagans to produce a book like the Qur’an, then challenged them to produce ten Surahs (chapters) like those in the Qur’an, then one Surah and finally it challenges them to produce one Surah somewhat similar (mim mislihi) to the Qur’anic Surahs. This does not mean that the later verses that were revealed i.e. of Surah Baqarah chapter 2 verses 23 and 24 contradict the earlier three verses. Contradiction implies mentioning two things that cannot be possible simultaneously, or cannot take place simultaneously.

The earlier verses of the Qur’an i.e. the abrogated verses are still the word of God and the information contained in it is true to this day. For instance the challenge to produce a recital like the Qur’an stands to this day. Similarly the challenge to produce ten Surahs and one Surah exactly like the Qur’an also holds true and the last challenge of producing one surah somewhat similar to the Qur’an also holds true. It does not contradict the earlier challenges, but this is the easiest of all the challenges posed by the Qur’an. If the last challenge cannot be fulfilled, the question of anyone fulfilling the other three more difficult challenges does not arise.

Suppose I say about a person that he is so dumb, that he would not be able to pass the 10th standard in school. Later I say that he would not be able to pass the 5th standard, and further say that he would not be able to pass even the 1st standard. Finally I say that he is so dull that he would not even be able to pass K.G. i.e. kindergarten. One has to pass kindergarten before one can be admitted to school. What I am stating is that the person is so dull as to be unable to pass even kindergarten. My four statements do not contradict each other, but my last statement i.e. the person would not be able to pass the kindergarten is sufficient to indicate the intelligence of that person. If a person cannot even pass kindergarten, the question of him passing the first standard or 5th or 10th, does not arise.

3. Gradual prohibition of intoxicants

Another example of such verses is that related to gradual prohibition of intoxicants. The first revelation of the Qur’an to deal with intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Baqarah:

“They ask thee concerning wine and gambling say: ‘in them is great sin,
and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit’.”

[Al-Qur’an 2:219]

The next verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants is the following verse from Surah Nisa:

“O ye who believe approach not prayer with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say.”
[Al-Qur’an 4:43]

The last verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Al-Maidah:

“O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (Dedication of) stones, And
(divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork;
Eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:90]

The Qur’an was revealed over a period of 23 years. Many reforms that were brought about in the society were gradual. This was to facilitate the adoption of new laws by the people. An abrupt change in society always leads to rebellion and anarchy.

The prohibition of intoxicants was revealed in three stages. The first revelation only mentioned that in the intoxicants there is great sin and some profit but the sin is greater than the profit. The next revelation prohibited praying in an intoxicated state, indicating that one should not consume intoxicants during the day, since a Muslim has to pray five times a day. This verse does state that when one is not praying at night one is allowed to consume intoxicants. It means one may have or one may not have. The Qur’an does not comment on it. If this verse had mentioned that one is allowed to have intoxicants while not praying then there would have been a contradiction. Allah(SWT) chose words appropriately. Finally the total prohibition of intoxicants at any time was revealed in verse 90 of Surah Maidah (Chapter 5).

This clearly indicates that the three verses do not contradict each other. Had they been contradicting, it would not have been possible to follow all the three verses simultaneously. Since a Muslim is expected to follow each and every verse of the Qur’an, only by following the last verse i.e. of Surah Maidah (5:90), he simultaneously agrees and follows the previous two verses.

Suppose I say that I do not live in Los Angeles. Later I say that I do not live in California. Finally I say, I do not live in the United States of America. This does not imply that these three statements contradict each other. Each statement gives more information than the previous statement. The third statement includes the information contained in the first two statements. Thus, only by saying that I do not live in the United States of America, it is obvious, that I also do not live in California nor New York. Similarly since consuming alcohol is totally prohibited, it is obvious that praying in an intoxicated state is also prohibited and the information that in intoxicants is "great sin and some profit for men; but the sin is greater than profit" also holds true.

4. Qur'an does not contain any contradictions

The theory of abrogation does not imply that there is a contradiction in the Qur'an, since it is possible to follow all the verses of the Qur'an at the same time.
If there is a contradiction in the Qur'an, then it cannot be the word of Allah (swt).

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy (contradictions)."

[Al-Qur'an 4:82]

PEACE TV