Deborah

By Ishaq Habeeb

I know emotions are tense at the moment, and people are understandably choosing their words carefully not to appear fanatical or “un-woke”, but as we condemn the lynch mob that murdered Deborah in cold blood, let us also condemn her recklessness to save the next Deborah from other such murderous lynch mobs abound.

Deborah was only right to caution people to stop posting irrelevant, least of all, religious messages to a school platform, comprising people of varying faiths, formed solely for sharing academic updates, but dead wrong and at once suicidal, to speak blasphemously about a man whom she – should – know (since she spoke the Hausa language, a tribe, about 80/90% of whose natives are Muslims) majority of the group members, hold in the highest esteem.

Sadly, in Nigeria, you only need to become an Admin of a WhatsApp Group – with a clear cut mission – to know how practically impossible is it to govern Nigerians and have them obey simple rules.

I understand that it is hard to blame the dead in moments like these, but there are young people here who are reading our takes on topical issues, and our takes to shape their ideas and actions.

So, condemning only the lynch mob while ignoring the victim’s manifest, brash and unbridled lack of respect for other people’s revered personalities is, to say the least, lynching the stark truth to appease our emotions, and that is both shortsighted and dangerous.

We must do well to avoid living in half-truth denial and speak the whole truth from both sides so that young observers will not go around believing it is okay to do what Deborah did and that the only person to blame squarely is the lawless lynch mob.

Obviously, we can’t reason lynch mobs out of jungle justice(s). Still, we can reason with our living sister Deborahs to study their environments and always be mindful of their utterances, and this isn’t limited to people’s belief systems. It cuts across all strata of people’s lives endeavours. A stitch in time, as they say, saves nine.

Conclusively, as the regional coordinator of a Pan African movement, I’ve had to, on several occasions, scold/remove members for posting Friday/Sunday messages to the movement’s WhatsApp platform, even though it has a self-defined purpose and a strict rule against posting ANY irrelevant and PARTICULARLY religious messages.

As an admin, I’ve been called many atheistic names privately by those shambolic recalcitrants for simply doing my job, as clearly spelt. I fear if they could have their way, perhaps, I may as well face Deborah’s fate.

Ishaq can be reached via: simplyishaqhabeeb@gmail.com.

By Prof. Abdussamad Umar Jibia

The trending topic that every Nigerian is talking about is the execution of a young woman who insulted the personality of the Prophet of Islam (May peace be upon him). There is not too much I have to say on it. It is clear that Nigerian Muslims have spoken. We have a redline; no one would insult the Holy Prophet of Islam and get away with it. If democracy is all about what pleases the majority and protects the right of all, then there should be a law criminalizing any attack on the personality of our Holy Prophet with the appropriate punishment; unless some people feel it is part of their right to insult him. If, on the other hand, democracy is about being anti-Islam and crossing its redlines, then our problem has just begun.

The discussion on the Sokoto incident as I followed it on social media has revealed the level of hypocrisy in many of those who claim to be Muslims. Many commentators were not worried about the magnitude of the evil the woman committed but the way she was executed. Others would say, “She should be taken to a court of law”, etc., as if they are not the same people who would condemn any law that applies execution as the punishment for blasphemy.

Specifically, in a Whatsapp group I belong a particular person was so deep into his attack of the “perpetrators of the murder” that he went out of his way to be making other unsavory comments about Islam. The particular point I took him on was his association of slavery to Islam. To him it was the British who liberated slaves relying on a colonial document written by Lugard.

But he is not alone. A Northern writer with large followership among Northern elites once accused the Arabs of killing slaves because we don’t have African Arabs like we have African Americans. That, to the best of his imagination was because Arabs killed their slaves.

The danger is not about these people but the unsuspecting followers they can influence. Unfortunately, most social media followers are fascinated by beautiful grammar even if it is bereft of facts. In particular, I have always wanted to respond to the claim on the killing of African slaves by the Arabs. With my discussion with another Northerner I decided to write a few lines on this.

It is well known that it is not Islam that came with slavery. Islam came and met the practice of enslaving fellow humans well established not only in Arabia but in all other societies. The methods of acquiring slaves and the way they were treated were devoid of sanity in most societies. These methods were practiced before Islam came and continued to be practiced after the coming of Islam in societies where the impact of Islam was yet to be felt. Sadly, even in some Muslim societies where ignorance or selfish desires prevailed some of these methods were practiced.

One way slaves were acquired was through war. In war, the victor could treat the vanquished enemy the way he liked. They could simply kill them, torture them to death, put them under their control as soldiers or otherwise make them slaves.

Another way slaves were made was through guardianship. A father or grandfather had absolute authority over his offspring. He could sell or gift them away as slaves; could lend him or her to someone else, or exchange him or her with another’s son or daughter. A community chief could sell out one or more of his subjects as slaves.

Invasion was another method. In many cases, strong communities invaded weaker ones, enslaved all men, women and children and sold them. This is chiefly how many Africans found their way to other continents as slaves.

Other methods include pawning, tribute, etc. depending on the geographical location and time in history.

Islam restricted the means of enslavement to only one method. Jihad. The Qur’anic meaning of the word is maximum struggle in spreading and defending the message of Islam. As long as falsehood is confronting the truth and evil is opposing good and mischief and its doers are standing in the way of reform, Islam does not allow Muslims to seclude themselves with rituals and look the other way. Just like a Muslim is enjoined to give Zakah that symbolizes kindness, he is enjoined to perform another form of worship that symbolizes opposing evil. That is Jihad. Of course this write-up is not about Jihad.

When Jihad becomes an armed struggle and prisoners are taken, a favour is done to them. Instead of being killed they are taken to Muslim community as slaves to serve as house helps, on the farm and help in other activities not beyond their ability.

Of course, it is not a rule in Islam that war captives must be enslaved. Captives can be released freely by the leader or after payment of ransom (Q47:4). Both of these happened during the lifetime of the Prophet (Salllahu alaihi wa sallam). Peculiarities of situation would always guide the leader. Islam also prohibits torturing the enemy or mutilating their body as practiced in other climes.

The rules of treating slaves are summarized in the following Hadith, quoted in parts, “They are your brothers and servants. Allah Has put them under you. Whosoever has his brother under him, he should feed him from what he eats and clothe him from the type of cloth he uses. Do not assign them to do any work that is too much for them. When you assign them, help them.” (Bukhari and Muslim reported it).

In addition to this golden rule of treating slaves, Islam introduced incentives for freeing slaves. For example, freeing a Muslim slave would emancipate the freer from hell fire on the Day of Judgment, according the Holy Prophet (May peace be upon him) himself. Kaffara (expiation) for incorrect breaking of fast, abrogation of oath, killing by mistake, zihar, etc. can be done by freeing of slaves, sometimes as the first option.

The claim that Arabs killed their slaves stems from ignorance of the above and the fact that intermarriage took place between Arabs and freed slaves. Even in modern day America or Europe, how many whites marry blacks? The former still look at the latter as slaves. The fact is that even among themselves, enslaved people in America were not legally allowed to marry until recently. One woman was allocated to several slaves to share, so she gave birth to another slave whose father did not matter. This beastly practice was unheard of in what our ‘liberals’ condemn as “puritan” Islamic societies.

The Shiite-brainwashed “intellectuals” probably forgot that in Islam a master can have intercourse with his female slave subject to laid down conditions and when she gives birth to any child she qualifies for her freedom and her child has full rights of a child. Some of the famous early generations of Muslim rulers were children of such slaves. A handy example is Abdurrahman bn Muawiya of Spain. The only maid slave the Holy Prophet had, Maria, was an African and she gave birth to his son Ibrahim. This is unheard of in western societies.

I challenge any believer in western civilization to cite an example where a white master married a slave.

Thus, slaves were integrated into the Arab/Muslim society. Not only were they integrated but many of them learned Islam and excelled in Islamic scholarship. The list is long but a few would suffice. Nafiu m. Abdullahi bn Umar, Ata’ bn Abi Rabah, Tawoos bn Kaisan, Yazid bn Abi Habeeb, Makhul, Maimoon, Addhahhak, Ibrahim Annakha’iy are some of the famous scholars of early Muslim generation who were originally slaves.

Coming down to recent history of West Africa, what confused many who get their knowledge of Islam from secondary sources is the conduct of some West African kings. For example, Kano and Zaria were Muslim states and war between them was far from being Jihad. People enslaved as a result of that war were enslaved unjustly and Allah will judge between them and those responsible for their enslavement.

Another wrong pre-colonial enslavement method was raiding of minor tribes by major tribes for the purpose of generating slaves. Such slaves were kept in the palaces of traditional rulers or sold out to foreigners. This is clearly outside what Islam permits, regardless of whether or not such major tribes are predominantly Muslim.

Sheikh Abubakar Gummi had very tough times trying to educate some traditional rulers who still kept such slaves in their palaces that such practice was unIslamic.

Most western-educated people in Muslim societies are misled by Shiite propaganda. It is well known that Shiites have deep animosity towards Arabs and Islam.

Prof Abdussamad Umar Jibia

By Zakariyya Shu’aib Adam

Blasphemy, especially against the Prophet, is the sacreligous utterances about anything related to his personality. Scholars have written books exclusively on the subject. Some of the books include Ar-risalah by Muhammad Ibn Suhnun; As-saarimul Maslool by Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah; As-saiful Maslool by Taqiyyuddeen As-subkiy; As-saiful Mash’hoor by Muhammad Ibn Al-qasim; Tanzeehul Anbiyaa by Jalaaluddeen As-suyutiy; Rashqus Sihaam by Ibn Tuloon and Tanbihul Hukkaam by Ibn Abideen.

Other scholars have, although not exclusively, mentioned the ruling of blasphemy in their books. Among them are Ibn Hazm in his famous Al-muhallaa and Al-qadhi Iyaad in his magnum opus As-shifaa. With this, we can conclude that the ruling for blasphemy is not new to the Islamic scholastic circle. In this article, by Allah’s will, I intend to critically dissect the concept of blasphemy and the Islamic ruling on mob justice.

Blasphemy, as Ibn Taymiyyah defined it, is to use words that show a lack of respect and are perceived by all people, regardless of their beliefs, to be profane, exactly like cursing, condemnation, etc. Islamic scholars, as discussed in the aforementioned books, unanimously agreed that blasphemy leads to apostasy, and that anyone that is found guilty of it should be executed. The basis for their consensus is evidences from the Qur’an and Hadith.

Allah says: “Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment. And those who harm believing men and believing women for [something] other than what they have earned have certainly born upon themselves a slander and manifest sin.” (Qur’an 33:57-58).
In these verses, as stated by the scholars, Allah (SWT) differentiates affronting Allah or His Messenger from maligning believing men and women; the former deserves curse and humiliating torment in the worldly life and in the Hereafter, while the latter is a calumny and manifest sin. The curse in the world means execution. There are other Qur’anic verses that support the execution of a blasphemer. These are Qur’an 5:33, Qur’an 9:61 and Qur’an 33:60-61.

Secondly, there are instances in the lifetime of the Messanger (SAW) that he ordered the execution of blasphemers against him. Bukhari and Muslim narrated in their authentic books from Jabir Ibn Abdillah that Allah’s Messenger (SAW) said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’ab Ibn Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad Ibn Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Messenger (SAW)! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet (SAW) said, “Yes,” Muhammad Ibn Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’ab). “The Prophet (SAW) said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad Ibn Maslama went to Ka’ab 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, Ka’ab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!…”

This hadith clearly shows that the Messenger (SAW) ordered for the execution of Ka’ab for his blasphemy against Allah and His Apostle. Ka’ab used his considerable poetic talent to compose and recite derogatory verses against the Prophet (SAW), his companions and the honour of Muslim women. When he heard about the outcome of the battle of Badr, he wrote poems satirizing the Prophet (SAW), eulogizing the Quraysh and enticing them for a war against the Muslims. That was the reason the Prophet (SAW) ordered for his execution.

Abu Dawud (4361), Nasa’i in Al-mujtaba (4070), Tabarani (11/351) and Hakim (4/394) narrated from Ibn Abbaas that: “A blind man had a female slave who had born him a child who reviled the Prophet (SAW) and disparaged him, and he told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she paid no heed. One night she started to disparage and revile the Prophet (SAW), so he took a dagger and put it in her stomach and pressed on it and killed her. The next morning, mention of that was made to the Prophet (SAW) and he assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allah the man who did this to stand up.”

The blind man stood up and came through the people, trembling, and he came and sat before the Prophet (SAW). He said: O Messenger of Allah, I am the one who did it. She used to revile you and disparage you, and I told her not to do it but she did not stop, and I rebuked her but she paid no heed. I have two sons from her who are like two pearls, and she was good to me. Last night she started to revile you and disparage you, and I took a dagger and placed it on her stomach and I pressed on it until I killed her. The Prophet (SAW) said: “Bear witness that no retaliation is due for her blood.”

Furthermore, it is based on the above evidences that the Islamic scholars made an Ijmaa’ (consensus) that a blasphemer is to be killed, regardless of his belief (I.e whether a Muslim, a Dhimmi (non-Muslim living in an Islamic state with legal protection) or any other non-Muslim). The Islamic nation cannot unanimously agree on an error, as is narrated in numerous Hadiths. Tirmidhi (2167) narrated from Ibn Umar that the Prophet (SAW) said, “Allah will not cause my ummah to agree on falsehood; the hand of Allah is with the Jamaa‘ah (the main body of the Muslims)”.

In As-shifaa’, Al-qadhi Iyaad listed the names of some of the scholars that made the above mentioned consensus. They include great companions like Abubakar As-siddiq and other pious predecessors such as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam As-shafi’i, Imam Ahmad, Layth Ibn Sa’ad, Ishaq Ibn Rahuyah, Sufyan At-thauriy, Al-auzaa’iy, Imam Abu Yusuf and Muhammad As-shaibaniy among others. At the end, he said, “We do not know of anyone among the scholars and pious predecessors that disagree with the execution as a punishment for blasphemy.”

In As-sarimul Maslool, Ibn Taymiyyah quoted Ahmad Ibn Hanbal saying, “Whoever affronts the Prophet (SAW) or defames him (whether a Muslim or a non-Muslim) should be executed.” Ishaq Ibn Rahuyah maintained, “Muslims agree unanimously that whoever blasphemes against Allah or His Messenger (SAW) is deemed a disbeliever due to this blasphemy, even if he recognizes what has been revealed by Allah.”

Imam Muhammad Ibn Suhnun said, “There is a unanimous agreement among the Muslims on the apostasy of a blasphemer against the Prophet (SAW) and the one that defames him. His punishment is execution and whoever doubts his apostasy is also an apostate.” Imam Al-khattabiy said: “I do not know of anyone among the Muslims that is doubtful of an execution as a punishment for a blasphemer.”
Ibn Qudamah wrote, “Whoever blasphemes against Allah shall be a disbeliever, whether he is kidding or serious.”

Ibn Taymiyah said, “Blasphemy against Allah or His Messenger (SAW) is an act that nullifies faith, both outwardly and inwardly, whether the blasphemer knows that this is haram (forbidden), deems it halal (permissible), or is not aware of the ruling at all.” As-san’aani in Subulus-salaam, while commenting on the Hadith of the blind man, said: “This report indicates that the one who reviles the Prophet (SAW) is to be executed and no blood money is to be paid for him; if he is a Muslim his reviling of him (SAW) is apostasy for which he deserves to be executed.”

The only part in which the scholars differ is whether or not the blasphemer would be asked to repent. Some of them uphold that if a Muslim commits blasphemy, he becomes an  apostate and would therefore be killed without asking him to repent. While others uphold a contrary opinion. They said he would be asked to repent. If he fails to repent, then he would be killed. Regarding a non-Muslim who commits blasphemy, some of the scholars said that he would be punished by death. However, if he converts and becomes a devout Muslim, the punishment is nullified as it happened with Ka’ab Ibn Zuhayr.

However, as eager as we are to see the ruling of Allah being applied on the blasphemer, it is instructive to reemphasize that Islam does not allow its adherents to take law into their hands. To be specific, the execution of a blasphemer is an exclusive responsibility of constituted authorities. This is the ruling established in Islamic law and recorded by scholars in their books.

Al-imam Al-qurtubiy, a highly-acclaimed Malikiyyah jurist, who authored one of the most widely known exegesis of the Noble Qur’an, said in the interpretation of verse 178 of Suratul Baqarah: “There is no dispute among the scholars that qisaas (retaliatory punishments) such as execution cannot be carried out except by those in authority who are obliged to carry out the qisaas and carry out hadd punishments etc, because Allah has addressed the command regarding qisaas to all the Muslims, and it is not possible for all the Muslims to get together to carry out the qisaas, which is why they appoint a leader who may represent them in carrying out the qisaas and hadd punishments.”

Ibnu Rushd, another respected Malikiyyah jurist, said in his book Bidayatul Mujtahid: “With regard to the one who should carry out this punishment – i.e, the hadd punishment for drinking alcohol – they agreed that the ruler should carry it out, and that applies to all the hadd punishments.” This ruling is also affirmed by scholars of Hanbaliyyah school. Ibnu Muflih, a Hanbaliyyah jurist, in his book Al-Furoo, said: “It is haraam for anyone to carry out a hadd punishment except the ruler or his deputy.”

In his widely celebrated magnum opus Al-mugniy, Ibnu Qudamah said: “It is not permissible for anyone to carry out execution except in the presence of a leader.” He also said, “This ruling is supported by jurists that are affiliated to Shafi’i school of thought.” Imamul Haramain Al-juwainiy, who is a Shafi’iyyah jurist, said in his book Al-giyaathiy: “Regarding hadd punishments, how they are established and when to execute them are recorded in the books of Islamic jurisprudence. And all are exclusive responsibilities of the leader. It is not permissible for anyone, including the families of the victims, to carry out such executions without the consent of the leader.”

The aforementioned submissions by scholars of different schools of thought are the ruling on mob justice. It’s not allowed in Islam. Although in Nigeria, most mob justices related to blasphemy are as a result of negligence from the constituted authorities. They never execute blasphemers that have been tried before a court of law and found guilty. That is why some analysts refer to this type of mob justice as frontier justice, where extrajudicial punishment that is motivated by the nonexistence of law and order or dissatisfaction with justice is carried out. To prevent its future occurrence, the authorities concerned must always do the needful and execute court order.

Lastly, in every religion and culture, there are redlines that aren’t supposed to be crossed. In Islam, one of the redlines that cannot and should never be approached, let alone be crossed, is the dignity of our Noble Prophet. That is why whenever an uncultured bigot blasphemed against the Prophet, the entire Muslim Ummah react. Muslims love and regard the Prophet more than anything. They can sacrifice their lives in his defense. You can’t insult our Prophet and expect us to be tolerant. We cannot tolerate an abuse to the personality of our Noble Prophet.

*Conclusively, I pledge to sacrifice my parents, my life and whatever I posses in defense of the Noble Prophet (SAW).*