The Scientific Miracle of Islam Regarding the Spoilage of Meat

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,


Bismillaahil ADheem
 
One of the greatest miracle of Islam is that the Holy Prophet said things fourteen hundred years ago that scientists are only just discovering to be true today. Our Hadith books are filled with such narrations that prove the divine origins of Islam, but unfortunately not a lot of people are aware of them. I have already mentioned one such scientific miracle of Islam in a previous post (it’s about the true reason for abortions in the West), and today I’m going to talk about another. This scientific miracle is about the rotting (spoiling) or meat, and how it first started.
 
Our Holy Prophet explained the following in a rigorously authenticated (saheeh) hadith:

حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ هَمَّامٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَحْوَهُ يَعْنِي ‏ “‏ لَوْلاَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يَخْنَزِ اللَّحْمُ، وَلَوْلاَ حَوَّاءُ لَمْ تَخُنْ أُنْثَى زَوْجَهَا ‏”‏‏.‏

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (S) said, “If it was not for the Israelites, meat would not decay. And if it was not for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.”
Saheeh Bukhari – Chapter: The creation of Adam and his offspring
 
 
We see a similar narration in Saheeh Muslim:

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ هَمَّامِ بْنِ مُنَبِّهٍ، قَالَ هَذَا مَا حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَذَكَرَ أَحَادِيثَ مِنْهَا وَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لَوْلاَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يَخْبُثِ الطَّعَامُ وَلَمْ يَخْنَزِ اللَّحْمُ وَلَوْلاَ حَوَّاءُ لَمْ تَخُنْ أُنْثَى زَوْجَهَا الدَّهْرَ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Hammam b. Munabbih said:
These are some of the ahadith which Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrated to us from Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), and one of these (this one): Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: Had it not been for Bani Isra’il (the Israelites), food would not have become stale, and meat would not have gone bad; and had it not been for Eve, a woman would never have acted unfaithfully towards her husband.
Saheeh Muslim – Chapter: Were it not for Hawa’ (Eve), no female would ever betray her husband
 
 
So we see that the Holy Prophet has made clear that meat didn’t spoil prior to the time of the accursed Israelites. And since we know that these Israelites lived less than 4,000 years ago, it means that the meat-spoiling organisms (like E. Coli, Salmonella, Clostridium perfringens, Staph. aureus, etc.) could not possibly have existed more than 4,000 years ago either.
 
But even today scientists are ignorant of the fact that these meat-spoiling organisms didn’t exist more than 4,000 years ago. In fact they still believe that these organisms are millions of years old! How absurd is that, given that we know that the Israelites are only a few thousand years old. So tell me, how could our Blessed Prophet know more about how long these organisms have been in existence than even these modern scientists know today?
 
The reality is that this was informed to our Prophet by God Himself (more than 1,400 years ago), and this is how he came to know this truth about the spoilage of meat; something that modern science has still not discovered. SubhanAllah!
 

Shi’ite Racism

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Bismillaah
 
I was recently contacted by a Shi’ite person who, after reading some of my blog posts, claimed that the Ahlus-Sunnah are racist. Specifically, he was referring to the posts about the superiority of Arabs over non-Arabs, as well as the issue of non-Arab men being unworthy of marriage to Arab women.
 
So I wanted to clarify this issue here. Not only am I going to show how the Ahlus Sunnah are not racist, I’m also going to demonstrate how it’s the Shi’ites who are truly racist.
 
As for the Ahlus Sunnah being racist, I ask how is that even possible when the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah are from God Himself? If racism is unjust, and God is perfectly just, then how can the rules of God be racist? That makes no sense at all! So even though the principle of Arabs being superior to non-Arabs may appear to be unjust, we know that since it is commanded by God Himself, it cannot be unjust, and hence it isn’t racist.
 
So much for the idiotic argument about the Ahlus Sunnah being racist. Now moving on to the more interesting part of the racism in Shi’ism.
 
What a lot of Muslims are not aware of is how blatantly racist Shi’ism has been throughout its history. Not only in the past, but even now these Shi’ite “scholars” are propagating the same racist notions in their books of law. The following is a selection of some of the racist material I found present in the works of their most important modern scholars (from last century):
 
 
Ayatullah Abu al-Qasim al-Khui:
Ayatullah Khui
One of the most important Shi’i scholars of the last century. You can read more about him here, here, and here.
 
He states the following in his Kitab al-Nikah, volume 1, page 16:

يكره تزويج سئ الخلق، والمخنث، والزنج، والأكراد، والخزر، والأعرابي، والفاسق، وشارب الخمر

Translation: It is reprehensible to marry someone with bad character, and the transgendered person, and the Zunj (black person from Eastern Africa), and the Kurds, and the Khazars (a group of Turkic people), and the bedouin Arabs, and the immoral persons, and the drinker of alcohol.
 
 
Notice the racism in that law against Kurds and black Africans. This is something that we will see throughout the Shi’i books of law and hadith. But first, here are some more scholars who have made the exact same ruling in their works:
 
 
Ayatullah Sadeq Rohani:
Ayatullah Sadeq Rouhani
You can read more about him here and here.
 
He states the following in his Urwat al-Wuthqa, vol 2, page 459:

يكره تزويج سئ الخلق، والمخنث، والزنج، والأكراد، والخزر، والأعرابي، والفاسق، وشارب الخمر

Translation: It is reprehensible to marry someone with bad character, and the transgendered person, and the Zunj (black person from Eastern Africa), and the Kurds, and the Khazars (a group of Turkic people), and the bedouin Arabs, and the immoral persons, and the drinker of alcohol.
 
 
Ayatullah Muhammad Kazim Tabtaba’i Yazdi:
Ayatullah Kazem Yazdi
He was the head of the Hawzah of Najaf till his death. You can read more about him here.
 
He states the following in his famous work, al-Urwat al-Wuthqa, volume 5, page 480:

يكره تزويج سئ الخلق، والمخنث، والزنج، والأكراد، والخزر، والأعرابي، والفاسق، وشارب الخمر

Translation: It is reprehensible to marry someone with bad character, and the transgendered person, and the Zunj (black person from Eastern Africa), and the Kurds, and the Khazars (a group of Turkic people), and the bedouin Arabs, and the immoral persons, and the drinker of alcohol.
 
 
Continue reading

Deriving Sexual Pleasure from Infants

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Bismillaah

I was asked by a brother whether or not it is true that Shi’ite men are allowed to derive sexual pleasure from infant children, and even new-born babies, by fondling them or rubbing their genitals on them. I told him that I would post about this issue soon, so this post of mine is about that topic.

Yes, this is indeed permissible for Shi’ites. But I warn my brother from the Ahlus Sunnah to not rush to condemn the Shi’ites for this moral depravity, since I’ve looked in our own texts and I could not find any rules in the works of jurisprudence of all the madhabs that forbid such behavior. And since deriving sexual pleasure from your wives or female slaves is generally permissible in Islam, and only sexual intercourse is prohibited before the age of maturity (typically at 9 years), it appears that the act of lustful fondling and thighing infant wives may be permissible for us as well.

So if we condemn the Shi’ites for these hideously immoral laws, and it turns out that they are permissible in our faith as well, then obviously they cannot be immoral since our religion allows them, so we will have to walk back our previous comments to the Shi’ites, which might be a little embarrassing for us. So take heed!

Anyway, coming to the actual issue, here are the rulings of their scholars (the “Ayatullahs”) about this topic.

Ayatullah Sistani
The most prominent Shi’ite scholar in the world today is Ayatullah Sistani, who resides in Najaf. This is what he has to say about this issue in his book Minhaj as-Saliheen (in the Chapter of Nikah):

مسألة 8 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين، دواماً كان النكاح أو منقطعاً، واما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة والتقبيل والضم والتفخيذ فلا بأس بها،‏

http://www.sistani.org/arabic/book/16/858/
Issue #8: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse (with one’s wife) before she reaches 9 years in age, be it in Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’a (temporary marriage). As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, kissing, embracing, and thighing (i.e., rubbing penis between the thighs), there is no problem in it. [That is, there is no problem in deriving such pleasures from one’s wife before she reaches the age of 9 years.]

Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini
Another extremely important Shi’ite leader from the 20th Century was Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini. You might be familiar with him due to his prominence in the late 20th century, especially due to him being the founder of the current Islamic Republic of Islam. He also repeats the same ruling as above in his book Tahreer al-Waseelah:

مسألة 12 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ، و أما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة

Tahreer al-Waseelah, volume 2, page 343
Issue #12: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse (with one’s wife) before she reaches 9 years in age, be it in Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’a (temporary marriage). As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing (i.e., rubbing penis between the thighs), there is no problem in it, even if she is a suckling baby.

Some other prominent Shi’ite scholars who have given the same ruling regarding deriving sexual pleasure from babies are the following:

 

 

 

 

So hopefully that answers the question. Again I must warn the brothers to be careful in this regard, since this immoral law might be permissible in our faith as well, which would make it completely, 100% moral. So do not rush to judgments too quickly. And, indeed, Allaah is the best of Helper and the best of Guides.

Killing non-Muslims and Slaves

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,


In the name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful

There is a verse in the Noble Qur’an that expounds the law of Qisas (retaliation, lex talionis) in Islam, about which there is a lot of misinformation among our brothers and sisters. So I wanted to post some material to clarify this issue. I have also been receiving requests from people asking me to post Shi’ite (Rafidi) views as well, so while I think their beliefs are deviant and misguided, I will post their views as well on this issue towards the end of this post.

To start off, this is the noble Qur’anic verse of which I speak:

يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ ٱلْقِصَاصُ فِى ٱلْقَتْلَى ۖ ٱلْحُرُّ بِٱلْحُرِّ وَٱلْعَبْدُ بِٱلْعَبْدِ وَٱلْأُنثَىٰ بِٱلْأُنثَىٰ ۚ فَمَنْ عُفِىَ لَهُۥ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَىْءٌ فَٱتِّبَاعٌۢ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَأَدَآءٌ إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَٰنٍ ۗ ذَٰلِكَ تَخْفِيفٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَرَحْمَةٌ ۗ فَمَنِ ٱعْتَدَىٰ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فَلَهُۥ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

[Y. Ali translation] O ye who believe! the law of equality (Qisas) is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
[Qur’an: Surah 2, Verse 178]

So our Muslim brothers and sisters appear to think that this verse is saying that Islam penalizes the killing of an innocent person by the death penalty for the killer — regardless of the status of the killer. But this is far from the truth, for Allaah has honored Islaam over kufr (disbelief) and free men over slaves, so how can you expect the law of Qisas (retaliation) to be the same as well?

The following are some Saheeh (authentic) narrations about this from our Blessed Prophet (S):

حَدَّثَنَا صَدَقَةُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا مُطَرِّفٌ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الشَّعْبِيَّ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا جُحَيْفَةَ، قَالَ سَأَلْتُ عَلِيًّا ـ رضى الله عنه ـ هَلْ عِنْدَكُمْ شَىْءٌ مَا لَيْسَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ وَقَالَ مَرَّةً مَا لَيْسَ عِنْدَ النَّاسِ فَقَالَ وَالَّذِي فَلَقَ الْحَبَّ وَبَرَأَ النَّسَمَةَ مَا عِنْدَنَا إِلاَّ مَا فِي الْقُرْآنِ، إِلاَّ فَهْمًا يُعْطَى رَجُلٌ فِي كِتَابِهِ، وَمَا فِي الصَّحِيفَةِ‏.‏ قُلْتُ وَمَا فِي الصَّحِيفَةِ قَالَ الْعَقْلُ، وَفِكَاكُ الأَسِيرِ، وَأَنْ لاَ يُقْتَلَ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ‏.‏‏

Narrated Ash-Shu`bi:
I heard Abu Juhaifa saying, “I asked `Ali ‘Have you got any Divine literature apart from the Qur’an?’ (Once he said…apart from what the people have?) `Ali replied, ‘By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Qur’an and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah’s Book which He may endow a man with and we have what is written in this paper.’ I asked, ‘What is written in this paper?’ He replied, ‘Al-`Aql (the regulation of Diya), about the ransom of captives, and the Judgment that a Muslim should not be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a disbeliever.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/42

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى الصَّنْعَانِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا مُعْتَمِرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ حَنَشٍ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لاَ يُقْتَلُ مُؤْمِنٌ بِكَافِرٍ وَلاَ ذُو عَهْدٍ فِي عَهْدِهِ ‏”

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet () said:
A believer should not be killed in retaliation for the murder of a disbeliever, and a person who has a treaty should not be killed during the time of the treaty.” (Sahih)
http://sunnah.com/urn/1269770


The scholars and Imams of our religion have also confirmed the same. Imam Ibn Rushd (Averroes) has summarized the rulings of the Imams of our religion in his Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid as follows:

وأما الشرط الذي يجب به القصاص في المقتول، فهو أن يكون مكافئا لدم القاتل. والذي به تختلف النفوس هو الإسلام والكفر والحرية والعبودية والذكورية والأنوثية والواحد والكثير. واتفقوا على أن المقتول إذا كان مكافئا للقاتل في هذه الأربعة أنه يجب القصاص. واختلفوا في هذه الأربعة إذا لم تجتمع. أما الحر إذا قتل العبد عمدا، فإن العلماء اختلفوا فيه، فقال مالك والشافعي والليث وأحمد وأبو ثور: لا يقتل الحر بالعبد؛ وقال أبو حنيفة وأصحابه: يقتل الحر بالعبد إلا عبد نفسه؛

وأما قتل المؤمن بالكافر الذمي ، فاختلف العلماء في ذلك على ثلاثة أقوال :

1 – فقال قوم : لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر ، وممن قال به الشافعي والثوري وأحمد وداود وجماعة .

2 – وقال قوم : يقتل به ، وممن قال بذلك أبو حنيفة وأصحابه وابن أبي ليلى .

3 – وقال مالك والليث : لا يقتل به إلا أن يقتله غيلة ( وقتل الغيلة أن يضجعه فيذبحه وبخاصة على ماله ) .


http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=97&ID=455&idfrom=735&idto=740&bookid=97&startno=2

Translation: As for the condition due to which qisas becomes obligatory on the killer it is that the killed person should at least be of the same status as that of the killer. And that which differentiates persons are Islam and kufr (disbelief), being a free person or a slave, being a male or female, or being one or more (that is, if the killer is a single person or a group of people). And the scholars are in agreement that if the killed person is equal to the killer in all of these four categories, then qisas becomes obligatory. And they disagreed about (the ruling) in these four categories if they were not the same.
If a free man killed a slave, then the scholars differed about it.
Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Layth, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Imam Abu Thawr said: A free man is not killed (for killing a slave).
And Imam Abu Haneefa and his followers said: A free man is killed for killing a slave except if the slave belongs to him (the free man).

As for killing a believer (Muslim) for (killing) a kafir (disbeliever) who is under the protection of Islam (dhimmi), the scholars differed about this into three opinions.
1 – A group (of scholars) said: A believer is not to be killed for killing a disbeliever. And among these are Imams Shafi’i, Thawri, Ahmad (bin Hanbal), Dawood, and another group.
2 – And a group (of scholars) said: He (the Muslim) is killed for it. And among those who said this are Imam Abu Haneefa and his followers, and Ibn Abi Layla
3 – And Imams Malik and Layth said: The believer is not killed for it except if he kills through treachery or deceit (gheelah). And the killing of gheelah is when (the killer) assaults the victim while he is unaware and slaughters him, especially if it is for his money. [end of translation]
(By the way, this text has been translated in its entirety into English. It can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Distinguished-Jurists-Primer-Volume/dp/1859641393/ . The part I’m referring to above is on pages 482 and 483.)

This ruling can also be seen in the tafseer of Imam Qurtubi, Jami` Ahkam al-Qur’an, where he summarizes the rulings of the scholars on the Qur’anic verse quoted above (Surah 2, Verse 178):

والجمهور من العلماء لا يقتلون الحر بالعبد ، للتنويع والتقسيم في الآية . وقال أبو ثور : لما اتفق جميعهم على أنه لا قصاص بين العبيد والأحرار فيما دون النفوس كانت النفوس أحرى بذلك

والجمهور أيضا على أنه لا يقتل مسلم بكافر ; لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : لا يقتل مسلم بكافر أخرجه البخاري عن علي بن أبي طالب ، ولا يصح لهم ما رووه من حديث ربيعة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قتل يوم خيبر مسلما بكافر ; لأنه منقطع ، ومن حديث ابن البيلماني وهو ضعيف عن [ ص: 232 ] ابن عمر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرفوعا . قال الدارقطني : ” لم يسنده غير إبراهيم بن أبي يحيى وهو متروك الحديث ” .


http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=48&ID=778

[Translation] And the majority of our scholars are of the opinion that a free man is not killed for (killing) a slave because of the classification and divisions (of persons) in the verse. And as Abu Thawr said: The majority (of scholars) are in agreement on that there is no qisas between slaves and freemen because of the lowliness of their persons (the slaves) while the free men are more worthy than this.

And the majority are also in agreement that a Muslim cannot be killed for killing a kafir (disbeliever) because of the saying of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him: “A Muslim is not to be killed for (killing) a disbeliever”, as reported by Bukhari from Ali bin Abi Talib. And it is not correct what they (that is, those who disagree with this ruling) report in the narration of Rabi’ah from the Prophet that he killed a Muslim for killing a kafir in (the battle of) Khaybar, because that narration is cut off (munqata`). And for the narration from Ibn Baylmani, it is a weak, marfu` narration from Ibn Umar from the Prophet. Imam Darqutni said, “There is no chain for this narration except from Ibrahim bin Abi Yahya, and he is rejected (matrook) in hadith”. [end of translation]

So it is clear that the majority of our scholars are in agreement that a Muslim should not be killed for killing a non-Muslim, even if he is a dhimmi (a protected non-Muslim living in the Muslim state). And nor should a free man be killed for killing a slave. The only exception in the four Imams is Imam Abu Haneefa, but even he agrees that the master of a slave cannot be killed for killing his own slaves.

The following are the rulings of the Imams of our religion on this issue which confirm this. Imam Malik narrates in his Muwatta:

وَحَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، قَضَى أَنَّ دِيَةَ الْيَهُودِيِّ، أَوِ النَّصْرَانِيِّ – إِذَا قُتِلَ أَحَدُهُمَا – مِثْلُ نِصْفِ دِيَةِ الْحُرِّ الْمُسْلِمِ ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ الأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا أَنْ لاَ يُقْتَلَ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَقْتُلَهُ مُسْلِمٌ قَتْلَ غِيْلَةٍ فَيُقْتَلُ بِهِ ‏.‏

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a jew or christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.
Malik said, “What is done in our community, is that a Muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.
http://sunnah.com/urn/416421

And we also read in the Risalah of Imam Ibn Abi Zayd (known as “little Malik”):

ولا يقتل حر بعبد ويقتل به العبد ولا يقتل مسلم بكافر ويقتل به الكافر ولا قصاص بين حر وعبد في جرح ولا بين مسلم وكافر


http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-7441/page-607#page-607

And a free man is not killed for killing a slave but a slave is killed for killing him (a free man). And a Muslim is not killed for killing a disbeliever, but a disbeliever is killed for killing a Muslim. And there is no retaliation for injuries caused by a free man to a slave, nor between a Muslim who injures a disbeliever.

Imam Shafi’i states the following in his Kitab al-Umm:

ولا يقتل مؤمن عبد ولا حر ولا امرأة بكافر في حال أبدا

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=31&ID=1319&idfrom=3146&idto=3158&bookid=31&startno=0

And a believer, whether he is a slave or a free man or a woman, is never killed for killing a disbeliever under any condition.

And he (Imam Shafi’i) said:

وكذلك لا يقتل الرجل الحر بالعبد بحال ، ولو قتل حر ذمي عبدا مؤمنا لم يقتل به .

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=3105&idto=3105&bk_no=31&ID=1305

Also a free man is not killed for killing a slave under any situation. And if a free dhimmi kills a slave who is a believer, even then he is not killed for it.

And in the classic manual of Islamic law, Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik, we read:

يجب القصاص على من قتل إنسانا عمدا محضا عدوانا لكن لا يجب على صبي ومجنون مطلقا ولا على مسلم بقتل كافر ولا على حر بقتل عبد ولا على ذمي بقتل مرتد ولا على الأب والأم وآبائهما وأمهاتهما بقتل الولد وولد الولد.

Qisas is obligatory on whoever kills a person purely intentionally and aggressively (that is, not in self-defense). But qisas is not applicable on children or the insane under any circumstances, nor is it applicable on a Muslim for killing a kafir, nor on a free man for killing a slave, nor on a dhimmi for killing an apostate, nor on a father or a mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their child, or their child’s children.

And also in that same text (Umdat as-Salik), we read:

ولا تجب الدية بقتل الحربي والمرتد ومن وجب رجمه بالبينة أو تحتم قتله في المحاربة ولا على السيد بقتل عبده.

And payment of blood-money is not obligatory for killing a haribi (someone who belongs to a nation which the Islamic state is at war with), or (killing) an apostate, or someone sentenced to death by stoning, or those whom it is necessary to kill in military action, nor on the master for killing his slave.

And in al-Insaaf, the renowned manual of Hanbali law, we read:

وَلَا يُقْتَلُ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ وَلَوْ ارْتَدَّ وَلَا حُرٌّ بِعَبْدٍ هذا الْمَذْهَبُ بِلَا رَيْبٍ وَعَلَيْهِ الْأصحاب

And a Muslim is not killed for killing a kafir, even if he has apostatized from Islam. Nor is a free man killed for killing a slave. And this is the correct religious belief without doubt, and this is also what the colleagues believe.

As noted above, the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa believe that Muslims can be killed in qisas for killing disbelievers, and also that free men can be killed for killing slaves of others. But free men cannot be killed for killing their own slaves of any kind. We read in al-Hidaya, the classic manual of Hanafi law:

ولا يقتل الرجل بعبده ولا مدبره ولا مكاتبه ولا بعبد ولده؛

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=9&ID=3687

And a man is not killed for killing his own slave, nor for killing his mudabbar (a slave who the master has agreed to set free upon his death), nor for killing his mukatab (a slave who has made an agreement with his master to be set free for a certain payment), nor for killing his son’s slave.

Shi’ite Law

As for Shi’ite law, it is very similar. Allamah Hilli (Hasan ibn Yusuf ibn `Ali ibn Mutahhar Hilli) wrote a famous text criticizing the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah called Nahj al-Haq wa Kashf as-Sidq. In it we read the following:

ذهبت الإمامية إلى أنه لا يقتل المسلم بالذمي .
و قال أبو حنيفة يقتل .
و قد خالف قوله تعالى وَ لَنْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا * لا يَسْتَوِي أَصْحابُ النَّارِ وَ أَصْحابُ الْجَنَّةِ
و قال (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر و لا ذو عهدة في عهدة

ذهبت الإمامية إلى أن الحر لا يقتل بالعبد .
و قال أبو حنيفة يقتل بعبد غيره .
و قد خالف قوله تعالى الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَ الْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِ
و قوله (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) لا يقتل حر بعبد
و قوله (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من السنة أن لا يقتل الحر بعبد
ذهبت الإمامية إلى أن الأب لا يقتل بالولد .

http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-aqaed/nahj-haq/n25.htm

Translation: And the Imamiyyah (Twelver Shi’ites) believe that a Muslim is not killed for killing a dhimmi.
(But) Abu Haneefa said he is to be killed. And this is in opposition to the words of Allaah, the Most High, “And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.” [Qur’an, surah 4, verse 141]. And “Not equal are the Companions of the Fire and the Companions of the Garden: it is the Companions of the Garden, that will achieve Felicity.” [Qur’an, surah 59, verse 20].
And the Prophet, may the Blessings and Peace of Allaah be upon him, said: “Do not kill a Muslim for (killing) a kafir, nor a person who has a treaty during the time of the treaty”.

The Imamiyyah believe that the free man is not killed for killing a slave.
(But) Abu Haneefa said that the free man is to be killed for a slave that he doesn’t own.
But this is in opposition to the saying of Allaah, the Most High, “Free man for the free man, and the slave for the slave.” [Qur’an: Surah 2, Verse 178]
And the saying of the Prophet, may the Blessings and Peace of Allaah be upon him, “From my Sunnah is that the free man is not killed for killing a slave”.
The Imamiyyah believe that the father is not killed for killing his child. [end of translation]

Allamah Hilli also provides the statements of Shaykh Mufeed and Shaykh Tusi (two of the most important Shi’ite scholars) on this issue in his Mukhtalaf ash-Shi’ah:

قال المفيد: السيد إذا قتل عبده عمدا كان عليه كفارة صنيعه عتق رقبة مؤمنة، وإن أضاف إليه صيام شهرين متتابعين واطعام ستين مسكينا، فهو أفضل وأحوط له في كفارة ذنبه (2). وهذا يشعر باكتفاء العتق. والشيخ – رحمه الله – قال في النهاية: ومن قتل عبده متعمدا كان عليه كفارة قتل العمد (3). وعليه المشهور، وهو الاقوى، لدلالة الروايات عليه. روى أبو بصير في الصحيح، عن الصادق – عليه السلام – قال: من قتل عبده متعمدا فعليه أن يعتق رقبة وأن يطعم ستين مسكينا ويصوم شهرين (4). وفي الصحيح عن زرارة، عن الصادق – عليه السلام – في الرجل يقتل عبده متعمدا أي شئ عليه من الكفارة؟ قال: عتق رقبة وصيام شهرين وصدقة على ستين مسكينا

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m001/00/no0077.html

[Translation] Shaykh Mufeed said: If the master kills his slave deliberately, the kaffarah (compensation) that is due him is the act of freeing a believing slave [non-believer slaves should not be freed]. But if he adds to it fasting for two consecutive months and feeds sixty poor persons, this is better and protects him in the compensation for his sin. And this can be done to satisfy the requirement of freeing a slave (if the person doesn’t have any more slaves).
And the Shaykh (Tusi) – May Allah have mercy on him – said in his book al-Nihaya: “Whoever kills his slave deliberately, on him is the compensation of killing deliberately. And these are well known. And this is the strongest position, and the proofs for it are the narrations about it. Abu Baseer narrates in an authentic narration from (Ja’far) al-Sadiq – peace be upon him – who said: Whoever kills his slave deliberately, on him is the freeing of a slave, or feeding sixty poor persons, or fasting two months.” And in the authentic narration from Zurarah from (Ja’far) al-Sadiq – peace be upon him – who was asked about a man who killed his slave deliberately, is there any kaffarah (compensation) upon him? He (al-Sadiq) replied: (The kaffarah is) freeing of a slave and fasting for two months and giving charity to sixty poor persons.” [end of translation]

However, if a slave kills his own master, then the slave must be killed. As Shaykh Tusi states in his Nihayah:

وإذا قتل عبد مولاه، قتل به على كل حال.

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m001/00/no0025.html

Translation: And if a slave kills his own master, he must be killed under any circumstance.

Shaykh Tusi says the following in his Nihayah about killing a dhimmi:

وإذا قتل المسلم ذميا عمدا، وجب عليه ديته، ولا يجب عليه القود. إلا أن يكون معتادا لقتل أهل الذمة. فإن كان كذلك، وطلب أولياء المقتول القود، كان على الإمام أن يقيده به

فإن لم يردوه، أو لم يكن معتادا، فلا يجوز قتله به على حال.

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m001/00/no0025.html

Translation: And if a Muslim kills a dhimmi, payment of blood-money is obligatory on him, but the death penalty is not applicable to him. Except if this person habitually kills the dhimmis. And if this is the case, and the representatives of the killed person request the death penalty, then it is upon the Imam (leader) to decide whether the killer deserves the death penalty.

But if the representatives of the killed person don’t request the death penalty, or the killer does not habitually kill dhimmis, then he cannot be killed under any circumstances.[End of translation]

The renowned Shi’ite scholar Ibn Idrees however states in his Sara’ir that a Muslim cannot be killed for killing a non-Muslim under any condition whatsoever. He states that the narration relied upon by Shaykh Tusi about killing a Muslim if he habitually kills dhimmis should not be relied upon:

وإذا قتل المسلم ذميا عمدا وجب عليه ديته، ولا يجب عليه القود بحال. وقد روي أنه إن كان معتادا لقتل أهل الذمة. فإن كان كذلك، وطلب أولياء المقتول القود، كان على الإمام أن يقيده به

ولا ينبغي أن يلتفت إلى هذه الرواية، ولا يعرج عليها، لأنها مخالفة للقرآن والاجماع

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m001/00/no0051.html

And if a Muslim kills a dhimmi deliberately, payment of blood money becomes obligatory on him, and the death penalty is not applicable upon him under any circumstances. And it is narrated that if the Muslim habitually kills the dhimmis, and if this is the case and the representatives of the killer demand so, then it is upon the Imam to decide whether or not to impose the death penalty upon him.

But it is undesirable to give importance to this narration, and it should not be depended upon, because it opposes the Qur’an and the unanimous consensus of the scholars (regarding this issue).

So hopefully this issue is clarified now. We should always remember that Allaah, the Most High, did not make Muslims equal to non-Muslims, nor slaves equal to free men, as His divine laws make perfectly clear. Indeed Allaah is the Most Merciful of the merciful.

God condemns the slaves who run away from their masters

Tags

, , , , , , ,


Bismilaah
 
Quite often you hear the Western kuffaar ignorantly claim that their secular laws are superior to Islaam. Astaghfirullaah!
 
But in this post I’m going to give just one example (out of thousands!) that shows how Islaam is so vastly superior to Western Secularism that it is a grave insult to Islaam to even compare the two.
 
For example, consider the case of the runaway slaves (that is, those slaves who have somehow managed to escape from their rightful masters). Tell me, what is the law in these kaafir Western lands about dealing with such lowly scum?
 
That’s right, there isn’t any. No laws AT ALL to deal with slaves who deliberately run away from their rightful masters!
 
But, alhamdulillaah, Islaam is perfect and complete, and our Blessed Prophet (S) revealed to us the divine laws to deal with runaway slaves.
 
In fact, the perfection of Islaam is evident from the fact that not only are there laws in Islaam to deal with runaway slaves in this life, these slaves are condemned by Allaah spiritually as well! For example, we see in these authentic (Saheeh) narrations from our Prophet (S):

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ مُغِيرَةَ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، قَالَ كَانَ جَرِيرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ يُحَدِّثُ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ إِذَا أَبَقَ الْعَبْدُ لَمْ تُقْبَلْ لَهُ صَلاَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏

Jarir b. Abdullah reported it from the Holy Prophet (S): When the slave runs away from his master, his prayers (salat) are not accepted (by God).
http://sunnah.com/muslim/1/136
 
 
 

أَخْبَرَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ، قَالَ أَنْبَأَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، عَنْ جَرِيرٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ إِذَا أَبَقَ الْعَبْدُ لَمْ تُقْبَلْ لَهُ صَلاَةٌ حَتَّى يَرْجِعَ إِلَى مَوَالِيهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

It was narrated that Jarir said:
“The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘If a slave runs away, no Salah will be accepted from him until he goes back to his masters.'” (Sahih)
http://sunnah.com/nasai/37/84
 
 
 

حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، قَالَ‏:‏ أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ‏:‏ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو هَانِئٍ الْخَوْلاَنِيُّ، عَنْ أَبِي عَلِيٍّ الْجَنْبِيِّ، عَنْ فَضَالَةَ بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ‏:‏ ثَلاَثَةٌ لاَ يُسْأَلُ عَنْهُمْ‏:‏ رَجُلٌ فَارَقَ الْجَمَاعَةَ وَعَصَى إِمَامَهُ فَمَاتَ عَاصِيًا، فَلاَ تَسْأَلْ عَنْهُ، وَأَمَةٌ أَوْ عَبْدٌ أَبِقَ مِنْ سَيِّدِهِ، وَامْرَأَةٌ غَابَ زَوْجُهَا، وَكَفَاهَا مَؤُونَةَ الدُّنْيَا فَتَبَرَّجَتْ وَتَمَرَّجَتْ بَعْدَهُ‏

Fadala ibn ‘Ubayd reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Do not ask about three:
a man who parts company with the community, rebels against the ruler and dies while he is a still a rebel. Do not ask about him. Or a slave or slavegirl who runs away from his or her master. Or a woman whose husband is absent and who has sufficient provision and then displays her adornments (beauty) to strangers and mixes freely.
http://sunnah.com/adab/30/53
 
 
 

أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ قُدَامَةَ، عَنْ جَرِيرٍ، عَنْ مُغِيرَةَ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، قَالَ كَانَ جَرِيرٌ يُحَدِّثُ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ إِذَا أَبَقَ الْعَبْدُ لَمْ تُقْبَلْ لَهُ صَلاَةٌ وَإِنْ مَاتَ مَاتَ كَافِرًا ‏”‏ ‏.‏ وَأَبَقَ غُلاَمٌ لِجَرِيرٍ فَأَخَذَهُ فَضَرَبَ عُنُقَهُ ‏.‏‏

Jarir used to narrate from the Prophet [SAW]:
“If a slave runs away, no Salah will be accepted from him, and if he dies he will die a disbeliever.” A slave of Jarir’s ran away, and he caught him and struck his neck (killing him). (Sahih)
http://sunnah.com/nasai/37/85
 
 
 

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ، حَدَّثَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ وَاقِدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو غَالِبٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا أُمَامَةَ، يَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ ثَلاَثَةٌ لاَ تُجَاوِزُ صَلاَتُهُمْ آذَانَهُمُ الْعَبْدُ الآبِقُ حَتَّى يَرْجِعَ وَامْرَأَةٌ بَاتَتْ وَزَوْجُهَا عَلَيْهَا سَاخِطٌ وَإِمَامُ قَوْمٍ وَهُمْ لَهُ كَارِهُونَ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ‏.‏ وَأَبُو غَالِبٍ اسْمُهُ حَزَوَّرٌ ‏.‏

Abu Umamah narrated that :
Allah’s Messenger said: “There are three whose Salat would not rise up beyond their ears: The runaway slave until he returns, a woman who spends a night while her husband is angry with her, and a people’s Imam whom they dislike.” (Hasan (Sound chain of narration))
http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/2/212
 
 
 
So it is clear in Islam that if a slave runs away from his or her rightful master, then Allaah, the Most Merciful, rejects the prayers of this slave until he or she returns to their master (as all rightfully owned slaves should!).
 
This is just the spiritual punishment for slaves who have the temerity to run away from their masters, but you might be wondering how does Islam deal with such slaves in this present life? Surely Islaam must have laws that help those slave owners from getting their rightfully owned slaves back, right?
 
But of course there are! Alhamdulillaah for the beauty of Islaam!
 
We read in al-Hidaya, the preeminent manual of Hanafi law that the reward for capturing a runaway slave and returning him to his master is 40 dirhams (an Islamic ‘dirham’ is about three grams of pure silver). But if the slave hasn’t run too far off, then this reward might be lowered. Also, if the price of this slave is itself lower than 40 dirhams (probably a low class slave), then the reward is one dirham less than the price of the slave.

قال : ومن رد آبقا على مولاه من مسيرة ثلاثة أيام فصاعدا فله عليه جعله أربعون درهما ، وإن رده لأقل من ذلك فبحسابه

قال : وإن كانت قيمته أقل من أربعين يقضى له بقيمته إلا درهما

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=9&ID=196&idfrom=2194&idto=2199&bookid=9&startno=0
 
Translation:
Imam Abu Haneefa (may Allaah have mercy on his soul) said: And whoever returns a runaway slave, who had run off more than a three-day journey, to his master, then the reward is forty dirhams. And if (the slave) was returned from less than that (three days journey), then the reward is calculated accordingly.

And Imam Abu Haneefa said: If his (the slave’s) price is less than forty, then the returner is to be awarded one dirham less than the price of the slave.
 
 
 
Ma’sha’allah, that makes so much sense! If the owner has cheap, low-class slaves, then why should he have to pay the full price for their return? Obviously he would have to pay in accordance to the price of that slave. More money for good slaves, and less for cheap ones.
 
Also, we should keep in mind that if the person who discovered the slave doesn’t know who the owner is, he shouldn’t just leave the slave and allow him to escape to his freedom. For this slave is the property of someone else, and he should be returned to him! So the correct approach, as taught in Islaam, is to capture that slave and take him to the Ruler. The Ruler then imprisons the runaway slave until his owner can take him back. As the Imam explains:

الآبق أخذه أفضل في حق من يقوى عليه

ثم آخذ الآبق يأتي به إلى السلطان لأنه لا يقدر على حفظه بنفسه بخلاف اللقطة ، ثم إذا رفع الآبق إليه يحبسه ، ولو رفع الضال لا يحبسه لأنه لا يؤمن على الآبق الإباق ثانيا بخلاف الضال

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=9&ID=196&idfrom=2194&idto=2199&bookid=9&startno=0
 
Translation:
Imam Abu Haneefa (may Allaah have mercy on his soul) said: Capturing the runaway slave is preferable for one who has the strength to do so.

Then when the captured runaway slave is brought to the Sultaan (ruler), since the capturer may not have the power to secure him (the slave) on his own, as opposed to a lost slave (who is found), then when this runaway slave is brought to him (the ruler), he (the ruler) should imprison the slave. But if the lost slave is brought to the ruler, he is not to be imprisoned. This is because the ruler cannot be certain that the runaway slave will not try to run away a second time, as opposed to a lost slave (who likely won’t run away).
 
 
 
These laws are similar across the different Madhabs and are based on the sayings of our Beloved Prophet (S). As recorded in Nasb al-Rayah fi Takhrij aHadith al-Hidaya by Imam Zayla’i:

ص- 378 : كتاب الإباق قوله : ولنا إجماع الصحابة على أصل الجعل . إلا أن منهم من أوجب الأربعين ، ومنهم من أوجب ما دونها ; قلت : روى عبد الرزاق في ” مصنفه ” أخبرنا سفيان الثوري [ ص: 379 ] عن أبي رباح عبد الله بن رباح عن أبي عمرو الشيباني ، قال : أصبت غلمانا أباقا بالغين ، فذكرت ذلك لابن مسعود فقال : الأجر والغنيمة ، قلت : هذا الأجر ، فما الغنيمة ؟ قال : أربعون درهما من كل رأس ، انتهى .

ومن طريق عبد الرزاق رواه الطبراني في ” معجمه ” ، ورواه البيهقي في ” سننه ” ، وقال : هو أمثل ما في الباب . [ ص: 380 ] أثر آخر : روى ابن أبي شيبة في ” مصنفه ” حدثنا محمد بن يزيد عن أيوب عن أبي العلاء عن قتادة ، وأبي هاشم أن عمر قضى في جعل الآبق أربعين درهما انتهى .

أثر آخر : رواه ابن أبي شيبة أيضا حدثنا وكيع ثنا سفيان عن أبي إسحاق ، قال : أعطيت الجعل في زمن معاوية أربعين درهما انتهى .

أثر آخر : رواه ابن أبي شيبة أيضا حدثنا يزيد بن هارون عن حجاج عن عمرو بن سعيد عن سعيد بن المسيب أن عمر جعل في جعل الآبق دينارا ، أو اثني عشر درهما .

أثر آخر : رواه ابن أبي شيبة أيضا حدثنا يزيد بن هارون عن حجاج عن حصين عن [ ص: 381 ] الشعبي عن الحارث عن علي أنه جعل في جعل الآبق دينارا ، أو اثني عشر درهما ، انتهى .

حديث مرفوع مرسل : أخرجه عبد الرزاق ، وابن أبي شيبة في ” مصنفيهما ” عن عمرو بن دينار { أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قضى في العبد الآبق يؤخذ خارج الحرم بدينار ، أو عشرة دراهم ، }انتهى .

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=9&ID=196&idfrom=2194&idto=2199&bookid=9&startno=0
 
Translation:
There is consensus among our companions (that is, the religious scholars) on the principle of reward (for the runaway slaves). Except that among them are some who say that the reward that is mandated is forty (dirhams), and some who say that it is other than that. Abdul Razzaq narrated in his Musannaf from Ibn Umru al-Shaybani who said:
I obtained some adult slaves of ours who had run away, and I mentioned this to Ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said: “Remuneration and profit (for you)”. I said to him: “This (the slaves) is the reward, but what is the profit?” He replied: “Forty dirhams for every head (slave).”
 
And (Imam) Tabrani narrated in his Mu’jam from a chain to Abdul Razzak, and (Imam) Bayhaqi narrated in his Sunan, what is similar to what is mentioned in this chapter. Another narration is: Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated in his Musannaf that Muhammad bin Yazeed narrated to him, from Ayyoob, from Abi Alaa`, from Qatadah and Abi Hashim, that Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) ruled that the reward for (returning) a runaway slave is forty dirhams.
 
Another narration: Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated that Waqi` narrated he heard Sufyan who heard from Abi Ishaaq who said that: The reward given (for the return of a runaway slave) in the time of Mu’awiyah was forty dirhams.
 
Another narration: Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated that Yazeen bin Haroon narrated from Hajjaj, from Umru bin Sa’eed, from Sa’eed bin Musayyib, from Umar bin al-Khattab, that he rewarded the (return of a) runaway slave with one Dinar (about 4.3 grams of pure gold), or twelve dirhams.
 
Another narration: Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated that Yazeen bin Haroon narrated from Hajjaj, from (Imran bin) Husayn, from Shu’ba, from Harith, from Ali bin Abi Talib that he rewarded the (return of a) runaway slave with one dinar or twelve dirhams.
 
In a marfu` mursal narration recorded by Abdul Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shaybah in their Musannafs from Umru bin Dinar who said: The Prophet, may the blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him, ruled in the case of a runaway slave who was captured outside the haram (outside of holy sanctuaries in Makkah or Madinah) that the reward (of his capture) was one dinar, or twelve dirhams.
[end of translation]
 
 
 
So, dear Brothers and Sisters, as you can see, Islam has left nothing to conjecture or personal opinions. Even in the case of runaway slaves, Islam has provided laws and guidelines to capture them and return them to their rightful owners. In fact, to discourage slaves from even thinking about running away, Allaah, the Most Merciful, has decreed that the prayers of such slaves are void till they return to their rightful masters. And that if they are captured in the territory of kaafirs, they can be killed!
 
So how dare these kuffaar claim that their laws are better than Islaam’s! They don’t even have any laws for runaway slaves. But Islaam, being the true and pure religion of God, brought to light these laws more than 1,400 years ago. And even now these kuffaar Westerners haven’t caught up to us. Subhaan Allaah!