The reply to this misunderstanding:
First: The objectors attacked certain words in the speech "a Muslim should not be killed for killing a disbeliever". I will start with quoting the words mentioned in Ibn Majah's Interpretation:
The words: "a Muslim should not be killed for killing a disbeliever" means: when a Muslim faces a disbeliever (in general or an entrusted warrior), but a Jew or a Christian isn't categorized in this speech, because the prophet (PBUH) says in another speech: "they (the Jews and the Christians) have the same rights that we (Muslims) have".
The prophet (PBUH) said in another narration: "nor a confederate within the term of confederation with him", which means: an entrusted disbeliever, and the prophet (PBUH) mentioned him to assure the prohibition of killing him.
I say: What appear to me from the speech are two sides:
The first side: The disbeliever meant in the speech is a warrior disbeliever only, as the disbeliever is classified into four classifications:
1 – A warrior disbeliever: is against our religion and announces his fight against Islam.
2 – A promised disbeliever: has a covenant with Muslims, and is considered as the tourist who should be safe when he/she enters Muslims' land.
1 – From people of the Book (Jew or Christian) disbeliever: has a covenant with Allah, the Almighty, and His messenger (PBUH), and has the same rights that a Muslim has.
2 - An entrusted disbeliever: asks Muslims to be safe, Allah, the Almighty, says in the Quran describing this type of disbelievers: {And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know} (The Repentance:6).
Therefore, the meaning of this speech is: a Muslim shouldn't be killed for killing a warrior disbeliever, wherever he is. Omar Ibn Abdelaziz (one of the well known Muslim leaders) knew that a Muslim killed a Christian, so he ordered to take the Muslim to the killed person's master, so that he has two options, either to kill the Muslim as a punishment or to forgive him. The Muslim was taken to the killed person's master, and was killed, because he didn't forgive him. (Reference: Abdulrazzak's Mussanaf, chapter 10, page 101).
The second side: by collecting the two narrations together "a Muslim shouldn't be killed for a disbeliever" and "nor a confederate within the term of confederation with him", it appears to me that the disbeliever (a Jew or a Christian) has the same order of a Muslim, so that the prohibition of killing him is exactly as same as the prohibition of killing a Muslim. Thus, the speech means: "a Muslim or (a Jew or a Christian) shouldn't be killed for killing a warrior disbeliever. This meaning is fortified by the following:
1 – Al Tahawy said: the speech means that an entrusted disbeliever shouldn't be killed for killing a disbeliever, and if someone kills an entrusted disbeliever, he should be killed as a punishment.
2 – Omar Ibn Al Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) used to ask the delegation coming from different districts about the state of the Jews and the Christians, fearing that any of Muslims has harmed them. The delegation used to reply: "We don't see but loyalty". (Reference: Al Tabari's History, chapter 4, page 218).
3 – Ali Ibn Abu Taleb (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The Jews and the Christians were asked to pay the Jizia (capitation), so that their money and blood become like those of Muslims".(Reference: Al Mughny, chapter 8, page 445, and AL Badaea, chapter 7, page 111).
Thus, it's clear now that the blood of the entrusted, the promised, and the people of the book disbelievers are as same as the blood of Muslims, and have the same rights of safety and prohibition…
Second: There are some important questions here:
1 – Does the American authority treat the American citizen same as the resident and give him the same rights and duties?
The answer: The citizen has more rights than the resident, and this is well known in many countries. So, is this discrimination considered as oppression and racism, or is it the country's right?
The answer: It's the countries right, because the citizen that was born and lives in the country differs from the resident.
2 – Are Muslims alike? Or Did Allah, the Almighty, differentiate between them?
The answer: Muslims aren't alike, and this is proved by the following:
a ) Allah, the Almighty, says in the Quran: {Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward} (The Women:95).
B ) Allah, the Almighty, also says: {Have you made the providing of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Haram (the masjed in Makkah) equal to [the deeds of] one who believes in Allah and the Last Day and strives in the cause of Allah? They are not equal in the sight of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people} (The Repentance:19).
I ask: Is this racism or oppression?
last 20 posts
25.03.2013, 10:50
Threaded Mode
