Hadith of punishment by burning, Authentic?

[Sawtul Islam]

As-salaamu `alaykum

There is a Hadith that says punishment by burning is forbidden because it is Allah's punishment. I know one of the sources for it is Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal (probably some other sources too).

My question is, is this authentic?

I've read that one of its narrators was a Khariji, is this true?

[JayshAllah]

Wa alaykum as-salam,

I've always heard scholars using it as if it is authentic.

It must be Rawaafidh who claim that since Ali [ra] made a mistake in that.

Fi Aman Allah

[jetmir]

I've heard it many, many times. When Ali ra was burning the people that claimed he was God or whatever, he was told about this hadith, so he stopped. Only Allah has the right to punish by fire.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Is this hadith narrated soley through Ikrimah in the chain? Or are there other transmissions?

What is the status of Ikrimah? I have read (thought not sure how true it is) that he was an unreliable student of Ibn Abbas (RA), punished often for lying from him and that Imam Malik disregarded anything narrated by Ikrimah. Also I have read that he was against the fourth caliph Ali (RA) due to having khawarij inclinations and maybe the report of Ali (RA) being wrong for burning people was due to this?

Can anyone shed light on this?

[ahmedjbh]

I have not seen any authentic information to say Imam Ali burned anybody.

Can anyone provide it?

[Abu Malik al-Maliki]

Doesnt burning apostates/polytheists fall under tazir so even if the hukh does not exist it wont be haram

It must be Rawaafidh who claim that since Ali [ra] made a mistake in that.

They say he was infallble

[KnowledgeSeeker]

Doesnt burning apostates/polytheists fall under tazir so even if the hukh does not exist it wont be haram

...

Tazir by burning?

[Sawtul Islam]

I asked about this from Islamic@rebel and the brother answered:

wa alaykum salaam wrwb akhi

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 259:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "


[both are from bukhari akhi, you don't get more authentic ahadith than that!]

So yes the source is authentic/Sahih.

Is this hadith narrated soley through Ikrimah in the chain? Or are there other transmissions?

What is the status of Ikrimah? I have read (thought not sure how true it is) that he was an unreliable student of Ibn Abbas (RA), punished often for lying from him and that Imam Malik disregarded anything narrated by Ikrimah. Also I have read that he was against the fourth caliph Ali (RA) due to having khawarij inclinations and maybe the report of Ali (RA) being wrong for burning people was due to this?

Can anyone shed light on this?

hmmm, ok then let me check the Isnad for the narrations from Sahih Bukhari to see wether or not the narrator was Ikramah.

[Sawtul Islam]

The problem I have is this... Allah tells us to fight the Kuffar the same way they fight us.

Now if they fight us with fire, shouldnt we fight and punish them with fire? (remember that fighting is a form of punishment, as Allah says in the Qur'an "Kill them so that Allah will punish them by your hands..." (Qateloohom yo'azzebehomollaaho beaydikom...)

[Sawtul Islam]

Another problem I have with the Hadith is that it seems to contradict the Qur'an when it says "and you did not kill them but Allah killed them" and "Kill them, Allah will punish them by your hands...".

If Allah will punish them by our hands, then our punishment is Allah's punishment... then why would the Prophet (saw) tell us not to punish the way Allah punishes??? If Allah punishes them by Muslim hands, then why are Muslims not allowed to punish when in fact it is Allah's punishment?

[JayshAllah]

Ikrimah is considered reliable.

[Sawtul Islam]

Ikrimah is considered reliable.

Yes but seems there is a difference of opinion on him, I had heard about this before brother Zaid ibn Ali brought it up.

[Adeel]

Another problem I have with the Hadith is that it seems to contradict the Qur'an when it says "and you did not kill them but Allah killed them" and "Kill them, Allah will punish them by your hands...".

If Allah will punish them by our hands, then our punishment is Allah's punishment... then why would the Prophet (saw) tell us not to punish the way Allah punishes??? If Allah punishes them by Muslim hands, then why are Muslims not allowed to punish when in fact it is Allah's punishment?

Subhan Allah! Are you a mujtahid?!:mad:

[Sawtul Islam]

Subhan Allah! Are you a mujtahid?!:mad:

If you have an answer to my question please provide it, if you dont then why are you complaining?

[Adeel]

If you have an answer to my question please provide it, if you dont then why are you complaining?

Because you are acting like those idiots who are not even near to the likes of Imam Bukhari and other Imams of the ummah who have never doubted this hadith as you did!

[AlHindi]

Because you are acting like those idiots who are not even near to the likes of Imam Bukhari and other Imams of the ummah who have never doubted this hadith as you did!

as-salamu'alaikum brother,

Your argument is understandable.

But you mean to say Imam Bukhari and those who have passed were infallible and that there ld be no mujtahid after them? When we even have Muhaddithin who still classify ahadith.

[Sawtul Islam]

Because you are acting like those idiots who are not even near to the likes of Imam Bukhari and other Imams of the ummah who have never doubted this hadith as you did!

Sahih Bukhari is not the Qur'an, it was compiled by a man 200 years after the time of the Prophet (saw). Yes it's a great book, but to say that we cant even doubt it is a Bid'ah.

Secondly you are so sure that Imam Bukhari was right, and Ali ibn Abi Talib was wrong! How can you not doubt Bukhari and at the same time doubt Ali (ra)??

And lastly, I didnt even say that the Hadith is false or anything, I simply asked a question. If you or any "mujtahid" you know have the answer then please answer the question. If you cant answer the question then how can you be so sure that you're right?

Im not trying to say that the Hadith is false, I want someone to clarify this issue and show us why the Hadith doesnt contradict the Qur'an (if it really doesnt).

[ahmedjbh]

Also, did Mr Bukhari have access to all the hadith that we do now, and all the information that we do now.

Was he able to express himself freely, ie what was the political climate of the time?

[Sawtul Islam]

Also, did Mr Bukhari have access to all the hadith that we do now, and all the information that we do now.

Was he able to express himself freely, ie what was the political climate of the time?

He did have access since his book was compiled after Musannaf Ab al-Razzaq, Musnad Ahmad and other large compilations.

I dont think he had any serious political restrictions since the Abbasis ruled at the time and there were many sects, ideologies and schools of thought that existed at that time.

[Adeel]

as-salamu'alaikum brother,

Your argument is understandable.

But you mean to say Imam Bukhari and those who have passed were infallible and that there ld be no mujtahid after them? When we even have Muhaddithin who still classify ahadith.

Assalam O Alaikum brother!

Actually no!! I do not regard Imam Bukhari as infallible that's the reason I also mentioned "the other Imams of the Ummah"! Actually my point was that the ummah is agreed that Bukhari is the most authentic book after Quran! Some say that all the hadiths are sahih others only cast doubt on few hadiths! I only objected to the way he casted doubt on that hadith! He never brought the Takhrij of any scholar who cast doubt on this hadith with respect to its chain of narrators rather he casted doubt by his own Ijtihad that "In my opinion it contradicts the Quran" which none of the Imams have said regarding this hadith! Brother what I pointed out was the fact that are we capable to doubt the hadith in this way of the book most authentic after the Quran with no back up of a well known Muhaddith?!!!

[Adeel]

Sahih Bukhari is not the Qur'an, it was compiled by a man 200 years after the time of the Prophet (saw). Yes it's a great book, but to say that we cant even doubt it is a Bid'ah.

Secondly you are so sure that Imam Bukhari was right, and Ali ibn Abi Talib was wrong! How can you not doubt Bukhari and at the same time doubt Ali (ra)??

And lastly, I didnt even say that the Hadith is false or anything, I simply asked a question. If you or any "mujtahid" you know have the answer then please answer the question. If you cant answer the question then how can you be so sure that you're right?

Im not trying to say that the Hadith is false, I want someone to clarify this issue and show us why the Hadith doesnt contradict the Qur'an (if it really doesnt).


Bukhari is not the work of any stupid like you! Before making such baseless claims bring what the Imams of hadiths have said regarding this hadith of Bukhari! Your isolated opinion do not even hold the weight of a penny in front of the most authentic book after the Quran?!!

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Sahih Bukhari is not the Qur'an, it was compiled by a man 200 years after the time of the Prophet (saw). Yes it's a great book, but to say that we cant even doubt it is a Bid'ah.
Sawt, learn ur deen b4 u type it. To doubt that any hadth which has a full chain in Bukhari is not authentic or not the words of the Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam is the real disease. There is ijmaa' on this, see the opening of 'Umdatul Qari by Imam Badruddin Al-'Ainee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah who says that the scholars from east to west have agreed that what is in there is authentic. Some even say that if someone swears that there is no weak hadith there, then there would be no kaffara on him, since the oath would be authentic.If someone says if there is a weak hadith in bukhari then my wife is divorced, then no divorce would take place, since there are no full-chained ahadith in bukhari which are weak.

[Sawtul Islam]

he casted doubt by his own Ijtihad that "In my opinion it contradicts the Quran" which none of the Imams have said regarding this hadith! Brother what I pointed out was the fact that are we capable to doubt the hadith in this way of the book most authentic after the Quran with no back up of a well known Muhaddith?!!!

No I didn't.

I said it "SEEMS TO"

Another problem I have with the Hadith is that it seems to contradict the Qur'an when it says "and you did not kill them but Allah killed them" and "Kill them, Allah will punish them by your hands...".

If Allah will punish them by our hands, then our punishment is Allah's punishment... then why would the Prophet (saw) tell us not to punish the way Allah punishes??? If Allah punishes them by Muslim hands, then why are Muslims not allowed to punish when in fact it is Allah's punishment?


So please no more stupid accusations.

[Sawtul Islam]

Your isolated opinion do not even hold the weight of a penny in front of the most authentic book after the Quran?!!


You have the mentality of a Rafizi. In other words the way you think you're defending the Sunnah is the same way that the the Kuffar and some heretical sects defend their beliefs. You're like "dont ask questions everything our scholars say is true, dont doubt it or even ask a question about it just blindly follow the religion of your fathers".

[Sawtul Islam]

Bismillah

Sawt, learn ur deen b4 u type it. To doubt that any hadth which has a full chain in Bukhari is not authentic or not the words of the Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam is the real disease. There is ijmaa' on this, see the opening of 'Umdatul Qari by Imam Badruddin Al-'Ainee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah who says that the scholars from east to west have agreed that what is in there is authentic. Some even say that if someone swears that there is no weak hadith there, then there would be no kaffara on him, since the oath would be authentic.If someone says if there is a weak hadith in bukhari then my wife is divorced, then no divorce would take place, since there are no full-chained ahadith in bukhari which are weak.

And you obviously have the same desease as Adeel... at least he confessed that there is some dispute over the narrations in Bukhari but you seem to deny even that!

It's also interesting how you guys are attacking me despite the fact that Zaid ibn Ali first expressed his doubt while I simply asked a question - I never said the Hadith in Sahih Bukhari is false I said "it seems to contradict" some verses of the Qur'an and asked if anyone can answer and explain why it doesnt, if it doesnt
(seems some posters are angry about my last posts on another topic... probably the one where I said Allah is not limited).

You guys are the ones who are causing some to convert to other sects and religions by making Islam seem unreasonable and illogical and responding to questions with insults.

Good thing my Eman is strong enough or else at this point I would have thought there must be something wrong with Islam that so many "Muslims" are so aggressive and hate even a simple question and not only do they not answer the question but even become angry. If I had entered Islam to follow your example, I would have now apostacised, but I became Muslim (Sunni) to obey Allah and it is He who guides to the truth.

Anyway, if there are any sensible posters who think they can answer my question please do so, I await your response.

[Sawtul Islam]

حدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد، حدثنا الليث، عن بكير، عن سليمان بن يسار، عن أبي هريرة ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أنه قال بعثنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بعث فقال ‏"‏ إن وجدتم فلانا وفلانا فأحرقوهما بالنار ‏"‏ ثم قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين أردنا الخروج ‏"‏ إني أمرتكم أن تحرقوا فلانا وفلانا، وإن النار لا يعذب بها إلا الله، فإن وجدتموهما فاقتلوهما ‏"

Qutaybah ibn Sa'eed narrated from Layth, from Bukayr, from Solayman ibn Ysaar, from Abu Hurayrah: Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."

So it's not narrated by Ikramah here but this version doesnt say anything about Ali (ra), the other version that does is narrated by Ikramah.


But still my question is, why does this Hadith say that punishment by fire is forbidden when Allah says in the Qur'an that when Muslims punish it is Allah who is punishing by the hands of the Muslim mojahid? And Allah says you did not kill them but Allah did, so the punishment is in fact not by Muslim hands but by Allah so it is all Allah's punishment.

So punishment by Muslims is Allah's punishment.

But the Hadith says only Allah punishes with fire so Muslims should not...!

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Sawt, the contradiction is in ur head. In hadith disfiguring enemy combatants is also forbidden, but from Quraan and sunnah we know that people will be disfigured in hell and the grave. So if ur logic is taken it is permisible to disfigure people?

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
The problem I have is this... Allah tells us to fight the Kuffar the same way they fight us.

oh, if u did not notice, the kuffar also rape and loot and destroy homes and recently they used prostitutes to torture the inmates of guantanamo bay. So by yur logic, the prostitutes of heera mandi and tibbi gali in lahore shud be put to service?

[Abu_Abdallah]

Behold Muslims, The 'Voice of Islam'.. :D or rather :(

[Sawtul Islam]

Bismillah

oh, if u did not notice, the kuffar also rape and loot and destroy homes and recently they used prostitutes to torture the inmates of guantanamo bay. So by yur logic, the prostitutes of heera mandi and tibbi gali in lahore shud be put to service?

So you're saying we shouldnt fight them the way they fight us?

You responded to my post which was about fighting fire with fire... so do you mean we cant fight fire with fire? So it's haram to fight with guns and explosives??? Yes or no?

Allah says in the Qur'an that when Muslims fight and kill them Allah punishes the Kuffar by Muslim hands (Qateloohom Yo'azzebehomollaho beaydikom).

So if it's forbidden for Muslims to fight/punish by fire, then it would be forbidden to use guns and explosives in battle.

And if it's Allah's punishment as the Qur'an says, then why would it be forbidden to punish the way Allah punishes when in fact it is Allah's punishment?

Can you explain that?

[Sawtul Islam]

Behold Muslims, The 'Voice of Islam'.. :D or rather :(

"Not knowing is not a vice, but not asking is."
Ali ibn Abi Talib

[Sawtul Islam]

Bismillah


oh, if u did not notice, the kuffar also rape and loot and destroy homes and recently they used prostitutes to torture the inmates of guantanamo bay. So by yur logic, the prostitutes of heera mandi and tibbi gali in lahore shud be put to service?

I understand what you're saying but remember that the Hadith says NO ONE EXCEPT ALLAH should punish by fire. So it's not just about captives.

Also remember that according to that Hadith the Prophet (saw) first gave an order and then "realised" that he was mistaken!!!

Isn't the Prophet (saw) infallible in the matters of religion?

He did order some other things that were later abrogated but this was Not abrogated and the Hadith implies that it was simply the Prophet's mistake!


Qutaybah ibn Sa'eed narrated from Layth, from Bukayr, from Solayman ibn Ysaar, from Abu Hurayrah: Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."

[Abu_Abdallah]

"Not knowing is not a vice, but not asking is."
Ali ibn Abi Talib

And what is that supposed to mean?

[Sawtul Islam]

And what is that supposed to mean?

You made fun of me for asking a question (even though it's obvious that you yourself do not know the answer).

[Sawtul Islam]

It's interesting how some of you are so sure that these 2 Hadith are true and that Imam Bukhari was not mistaken to say they are Sahih, even though according to these two narrations

1) The Prophet (saw) made a mistake

2) Ali (ra) made a mistake

3) All Muslims doing Jihad today are wrong because they use guns and explosives (fire).

So is everyone mistaken except Imam Bukhari... ???

And most importantly it would mean that the Prophet (saw) was mistaken in the matter of religion and that he actually gave an order which was wrong!!

Now answer this: If the Prophet (saw) was infallible in the matters of religion which I think we all agree he was, and if he gave an order to burn certain people, then how can we believe in a narration that says he later changed his mind and "realised his misake"??? And that Ali (ra) did the same about 30 to 40 years later...?



Can anyone explain this? (Im not asking for someone to insult me by the way, Im asking for an actual answer)

Im not saying all this to discredit Imam Bukhari, Im asking a serious question. When I first read this Hadith in Musnad Ahmad a few years ago, I thought it may be unauthentic but now that I know it's in Sahih Bukhari Im not very sure which is why Im asking about it.

[KnowledgeSeeker]

Sawt ul Islam has brought up some interesting points.

No one can address them?

[Adeel]

You have the mentality of a Rafizi. In other words the way you think you're defending the Sunnah is the same way that the the Kuffar and some heretical sects defend their beliefs. You're like "dont ask questions everything our scholars say is true, dont doubt it or even ask a question about it just blindly follow the religion of your fathers".

Subhan Allah! I follow the "proof"! And the proof is the "Ijma" of the Salaf on Sahih Bukhari! Do you even know the basics?!

[Adeel]

It's interesting how some of you are so sure that these 2 Hadith are true and that Imam Bukhari was not mistaken to say they are Sahih, even though according to these two narrations

1) The Prophet (saw) made a mistake

2) Ali (ra) made a mistake

3) All Muslims doing Jihad today are wrong because they use guns and explosives (fire).

So is everyone mistaken except Imam Bukhari... ???

And most importantly it would mean that the Prophet (saw) was mistaken in the matter of religion and that he actually gave an order which was wrong!!

Now answer this: If the Prophet (saw) was infallible in the matters of religion which I think we all agree he was, and if he gave an order to burn certain people, then how can we believe in a narration that says he later changed his mind and "realised his misake"??? And that Ali (ra) did the same about 30 to 40 years later...?



Can anyone explain this? (Im not asking for someone to insult me by the way, Im asking for an actual answer)

Im not saying all this to discredit Imam Bukhari, Im asking a serious question. When I first read this Hadith in Musnad Ahmad a few years ago, I thought it may be unauthentic but now that I know it's in Sahih Bukhari Im not very sure which is why Im asking about it.

I could have blamed you for what you said about me from this post! But I give you benefit of doubt! You are a waste of time.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Speaking of burning, there is a video clip of some group in Iraq burning alive some of their captives (warning: graphic video): http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191234.php

*The neocon blogger claims that the group is "al-Qaeda," without any evidence and with a complete absence of the al-Furqaan insignia on the tape. More likely it is a rafidi group, which have no qualms about such things.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Speaking of burning, there is a video clip of some group in Iraq burning alive some of their captives (warning: graphic video): http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191234.php

*The neocon blogger claims that the group is "al-Qaeda," without any evidence and with a complete absence of the al-Furqaan insignia on the tape. More likely it is a rafidi group, which have no qualms about such things.

May Allah Curse the unjust!

How can they burn people alive..!!!!!!!!!

[Abu Ma'mar]

Filthy Saudi Takfeeri's all ways causing corruption in the land every where they go.

Wallahi thats a saudi.

[Sawtul Islam]

Speaking of burning, there is a video clip of some group in Iraq burning alive some of their captives (warning: graphic video): http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191234.php

*The neocon blogger claims that the group is "al-Qaeda," without any evidence and with a complete absence of the al-Furqaan insignia on the tape. More likely it is a rafidi group, which have no qualms about such things.

Well I can tell you that they arent talking like Rafidis, in other words if they arent really Sunni then they are pretending to be (Shias in such cases would most like say "Ya Ali" and "Ya Fatimah", they rarely mention Allah unless next to Ali). So if it's fake they are acting.

Also just about every attack that is carried out by Al-Qaeda is by Fire (IEDs, Mortars, car bombs etc.) and according to the Qur'an killing is a form of Punishment so this means that all who are doing Jihad in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere are in fact using Fire as punishment.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Well, not to hijack your thread, but the rafidi militias have carried out bombings of civilians in marketplaces with the intention of blaming al-Qaeda. In fact, I think the recent bombing of a pet market allegedly by two mentally retarded women was masterminded by rafidi militias trying to stir up chaos.

[Sawtul Islam]

Well, not to hijack your thread, but the rafidi militias have carried out bombings of civilians in marketplaces with the intention of blaming al-Qaeda. In fact, I think the recent bombing of a pet market allegedly by two mentally retarded women was masterminded by rafidi militias trying to stir up chaos.

I know Im just saying that if they are Rafizis, then they are pretending to be Sunnis. So it's not as if someone has taken a Rafizi video and attributed it wrongly to al-Qaeda, but rather the ones who made the video must have delibratel beeny pretending to be al-Qaeda, if they are Rafizis.

So there is really no evidence that they are Rafizis, it's possible but not probable... also notice the guy on the right is showing most of his face, if he was a Rafizi pretending to be Sunni I think he would have covered up more.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Well, Abd al-Hakim seems to think that a Saudi takfiri is depicted in this clip. I had the volume on mute when I watched the clip, so I didn't hear the voices. I questioned the al-Qaeda linkage, because no al-Furqaan logo was evident. The other Muslim resistance groups are not known for execution videos, so I didn't see any reason to suspect them. That left the rafidi militias, which have been known to mutilate people, burn people, and kill and torture people in the most inhuman manners. Brother Abd al-Hakim, you said that one of the people in the video clip is Saudi, what led you to this conclusion?

[Hamza]

Also just about every attack that is carried out by Al-Qaeda is by Fire (IEDs, Mortars, car bombs etc.) and according to the Qur'an killing is a form of Punishment so this means that all who are doing Jihad in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere are in fact using Fire as punishment.

Yes they should use water pistols instead, even then the pacifist would direct his curse towards the Mujahideen rather than the oppressor.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Sawt's recommended weapon for the mujahidun:

http://www.hasbro.com/common/images/news/transformers/megatron_blaster.jpg

[Abu Ma'mar]

Brother Abd al-Hakim, you said that one of the people in the video clip is Saudi, what led you to this conclusion?


This guy is a 1000% Saudi.

there is no doubt about this.

Just listen to his accent he is a saud most likely from Qaseem.


Secondly, only al-qa'ida speak in that " i am the wrath of Allah " style speech and al-qa'ida leaders are in the large majority egyption or saudi.


Wallah this man is not a rafidhi, they don't speak like this and they dont have saudi accents and an iraqi rafidhi is sooo easy to spot.

What kind of rahma can you have in your heart if you burn a human being to his death and watch him while gagged trying to scream while the flames devour his flesh? this is nothing to do with rafidhi this or agent that or what ever, there is a thing called humanity and honoring a soul.

[Hamza]

Hold your damn tongue bro. Go take a break. Otherwise people may get offended with these stupid comments and give you some back.

The only reason i havnt is your a good brother, i like your views.

Look how much hate you have - these people may have their mothers and sisters raped and now are lashing out.

Egyptian hotheads, saudi irhabi takfeeri bla bla - you need a slap

[Abu Ma'mar]

Who raped their mothers?

Their mothers are in saudi eating kabsa and slapping thier Filipino slaves.

These people came with their crazyness to iraq from saudi and started burning people and then recite ayat from the qur'an and act as if this is islam.

And im the one who needs a slap?


No sincere muslim wants these people in iraq as they are the what will cause defeat for the muslims.

[y-mughal]

No sincere muslim wants these people in iraq as they are the what will cause defeat for the muslims.

....and Abdlhakim will give them victory.

[Hamza]

Who raped their mothers?

Their mothers are in saudi eating kabsa and slapping thier Filipino slaves.

These people came with their crazyness to iraq from saudi and started burning people and then recite ayat from the qur'an and act as if this is islam.

And im the one who needs a slap?


No sincere muslim wants these people in iraq as they are the what will cause defeat for the muslims.

We dont know exactly: so i would say its unisalmic act and leave it that.

Their mothers are in saudi eating kabsa and slapping thier Filipino slaves.


:D

[Yasir]

Look how much hate you have - these people may have their mothers and sisters raped and now are lashing out. And a crime against their women-folk would excuse such behaviour? Is that Islam?

If that individual really is a Saudi, I guess we should expect a dozen threads of condemnation in the coming days, at least?

[Hamza]

No it doesnt excuse the crime, rather it explains what drives people to this degree. And what i didnt like was the whole generalisation and tarnishing of "saudis" or "!egyptians" who go abroad as monsters.

So what if he is a Saudi? Doesnt bother me...

[ibn Kamal]

Yasir and Abdlhakim,
is it forbidden in Islam under all circumstances to burn people alive?

[Abu Ma'mar]

Yep its official this man is a saudi and not a rafidhi pretending to be a sunni.

His name is Abu Sulayman Al-'Utaybi.

This man is supposed to be the Qadhi(Judge) of Al-Qa'ida in iraq. Im not calling him their qadhi but they themselves are calling him Al-Qadhi Abu Sulayman al-'Utaybi.

[Hamza]

So by yur logic, the prostitutes of heera mandi and tibbi gali in lahore shud be put to service?

They would love it!!!

[ibn Kamal]

وإذا كان التمثيل بأبدان القتلى الكفار لا يجوز فمن باب أولى أنه لا يجوز تحريقها، لكن إذا كان الكفار يمثلون بقتلى المسلمين جاز التمثيل بقتلاهم؛ وقد نزل في ذلك قوله تعالى:(وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُوا بِمِثْلِ مَاعُوقِبْتُمْ بِهِ وَلَئِنْ صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لِلصَّابِرِينَ) (النحل:126)، وهذا من باب (فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَااعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ)(البقرة: من الآية194)،
وما فعله أهل الفلوجة بالأمريكان الأربعة من التمثيل والتحريق هم فيه معذورون ؛


http://www.almoslim.net/rokn_elmy/show_question_main.cfm?id=2938

ِAgain, is the only problem you have that he is from al-Qaeeda or because of what he did?

[Hamza]

The style of action should be in a manner that piety be always observed, and in retaliation, limits would not be violated when we do know and ought to be aware that Allah is with the pious ones.

i.e. rape cannot be used against them in retaliation.

[ibn Kamal]

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=71480&Option=FatwaId
These Hijaazi Takfiri Sahaba, how can they burn people alive? Where are our forum Fuqaha? May Allah curse the unjust...

[Hamza]

They are referring to ridda wars i.e. with regards to Abu Bakr (r)? Pls do summarise the exact quote. JK.

[Sawtul Islam]

we're going off topic again...

please can anyone answer my questions? (questions on page 4 and also 3 but mainly 4)

[Hamza]

Maybe one explanation can be that the fire of this world cannot be compared to the fire in hell. Allahu'alam.

And he said: “This fire of yours which is lit by the sons of Adam is one seventieth part of the fire of Hell.” They said: “By Allaah, if it was like this that would be sufficient.” He said: “It is sixty-nine times worse than that, each time as hot as this (worldly fire).” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3265; Muslim, 2843.

[Hamza]

Khalid ibn al Walid wrote to Abu Bakr, telling him that in some areas of the Arabian Peninsula he had found men engaging in homosexual practices. Abu Bakr decided to consult the Sahabah of the Prophet (PBUH) as to what he should do about it. One of the Sahabah was 'Ali, and his was the strictest judgment.

He said, "his sin was known only in one nation, and you know what Allah did to them. I suggest that these people should be burnt to death."

Abu Bakr wrote back to Khalid to tell him that they should be burnt to death; and this was done

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/usul_al_fiqh_al_islami/ch2.html
Apparently there is more info in the works of al-Tabari regarding the ridda wars. So maybe it wasnt a unislamic act?

[Sawtul Islam]

Maybe one explanation can be that the fire of this world cannot be compared to the fire in hell. Allahu'alam.

that would actually confirm what I said rather than refute or answer it.

[Hamza]

I dont want to refute you bro, not everything is directed at you - rather im just trying to learn.

Is that OK?

[Sawtul Islam]

I dont want to refute you bro, not everything is directed at you - rather im just trying to learn.

Is that OK?

Well it seemed directed at me since I was the one who asked the question but it's ok, Im just waiting for someone to either Prove that the two narrations dont contradict the Qur'an and explain the part about the Prophet (saw) making a mistake, or find something wrong with the Isnad besides Ikramah as he is only in one of the chains.

[Sawtul Islam]

Yes as I pointed out (not on this thread) Abu Bakr (ra) also burnt to death.

So if Ali (ra) was wrong so was Abu Bakr (ra), two of the closest people to the Prophet (saw).

In fact according to the narrations in Sahih Bukhari the Prophet (saw) himself was also wrong and he "later realised his mistake"... as I explained on page 4, there is something fishy about this whole thing (also consider the fact that the Qur'an says Muslim punishment is in fact Allah's punishment so the burning would be Allah's punishment).

So I have serious doubts about these two narrations from Sahih Bukhari:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 259:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

[AlHindi]

May Allah Curse the unjust!

How can they burn people alive..!!!!!!!!!

Akhee Abu_Abdallah, I think you should not have been so harsh when you atleast know that the Sahaba, Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq and 'Ali ibn AbiTaalib (may Allah be pleased with them) also did that.

And only rafidis and nasibis curse them.

[AlHindi]

And did not scholars differed on this if it is in equal retaliation?

[Brother_Mujahid]

Yep its official this man is a saudi and not a rafidhi pretending to be a sunni.

His name is Abu Sulayman Al-'Utaybi.

This man is supposed to be the Qadhi(Judge) of Al-Qa'ida in iraq. Im not calling him their qadhi but they themselves are calling him Al-Qadhi Abu Sulayman al-'Utaybi.

I just want to be clear, I never said that the people in this clip were rawafid militiamen pretending to be Sunni. I thought, perhaps, they were just open rawafid killing Sunnis or other opponents.

Anyways, all indicators are that the men in this clip are from "al-Qaeda" in Iraq. Apparently this footage was seized by either the American military or their Iraqi stooges and then released, which would explain why there isn't the usual al-Furqaan logo.

[Brother_Mujahid]

The clip in question is taken from a documentary that shows alleged acts of torture and brutality attributed to "al-Qaeda" in Iraq (warning: this video is very graphic): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9089532722810348478

[Abu_Abdallah]

Akhee Abu_Abdallah, I think you should not have been so harsh when you atleast know that the Sahaba, Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq and 'Ali ibn AbiTaalib (may Allah be pleased with them) also did that.

And only rafidis and nasibis curse them.

And did not scholars differed on this if it is in equal retaliation?

The Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered to put up fire on a man (Ibn Ishaq, Sira). Some Companions burned people, yes.

The Sunnah, however, is clear-cut in its prohibition. And the reason behind it is chrystal-clear.

Allah Says {Allah's curse is upon the wrongdoers}. And this Curse is a general one, against wrongdoers, not specific people. So if Rafidis and Nasibis curse these people, these Rafidah and Nasiba are more deserving Allah's Wrath. Doesn't mean that each and every Rafidi or Nasibi individually is accursed. Similarly, the people who did that should fear Allah's Wrath.

They could punish them as highway robbers, amputing their limbs and blind them, if they deserve such a great punishment. But burning people alive, which is not only prohibited by Law, but also far from having some mercy in killing.. and killing people, even the worst, is done with guidelines as the Sunnah teaches us.

[Sawtul Islam]

The clip in question is taken from a documentary that shows alleged acts of torture and brutality attributed to "al-Qaeda" in Iraq (warning: this video is very graphic): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9089532722810348478

Brother why are you posting their propaganda?

[Sawtul Islam]

Just let me ask one very simple question:

Was the Prophet (saw) infallible in the matters of religion?

Yes or No ???

[Abu Sabaya]

As Abu_Abdallah said, there is a clear hadith forbidding this practice in which Allah's Messenger said: "I had ordered you to burn such and such people with fire, and indeed, none may punish with fire except Allah." This is recorded by al-Bukhari (3061), and Ibn Hajar commented in 'Fath al-Bari' (6/150) by saying:

"The Salaf differed regarding burning with fire. It was completely disapproved by 'Umar, Ibn 'Abbas, and others - whether this was done because of disbelief, a state of war, or retaliation. It was allowed by 'Ali, Khalid bin al-Walid, and others...As for the hadith in this chapter, its apparent meaning is that it is forbidden (haram) and is an abrogation of his previous command, whether this was from revelation to him or his own ijtihad."

In regards to the Companions who reportedly burned the enemy with fire, this is most likely because they were unaware of the prohibition from the Prophet. For example, Abu Dawud reported in his 'Sunan' (4351) that when Ibn 'Abbas heard of 'Ali burning those who had apostated from Islam, he said: "If it were me, I would not have burned them with fire, as the Messenger said: "None may punish with the punishment of Allah," and I would have instead killed them, as the Prophet said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." So, when this reached 'Ali, he said: "Woe be to the mother of Ibn 'Abbas!"

In 'Awn al-Ma'bud' (al-Mubarakfuri's sharh of Abu Dawud's collection), it is explained that 'Ali's statement "Woe be to the mother of Ibn 'Abbas" is a figurative statement in the Arabic language that is meant here in a praiseworthy sense, and this is supported by another narration in 'Sharh as-Sunnah' where 'Ali reportedly said: "Ibn 'Abbas has spoken the truth."

[Sawtul Islam]

"The Salaf differed regarding burning with fire. It was completely disapproved by 'Umar, Ibn 'Abbas, and others

When did 'Umar (ra) disapprove of it?

As for the hadith in this chapter, its apparent meaning is that it is forbidden (haram) and is an abrogation of his previous command, whether this was from revelation to him or his own ijtihad."

It's obviously not an abrogation as it says "none but Allah punishes by fire".

The Hadith clearly implies that the Prophet (saw) made a mistake and gave a wrong order and nearly 40 years later Ali (ra) was still unaware of this...! (despite the fact that he was the advisor of Umar (ra) )

[anam]

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
__________________
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: With regard to homosexuality, some of the scholars said that the hadd punishment for it is the same as the hadd punishment for zina, and it was said that it is less than that. But the correct view on which the Sahaabah were unanimously agreed is that both are to be killed, the active and the passive partners, whether they are married or not. The authors of al-Sunan narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” And Abu Dawood narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas concerning the unmarried person who commits a homosexual act that he said: He is to be stoned. And something similar was narrated from ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him). The Sahaabah did not differ concerning the ruling that the homosexual is to be executed, but they differed concerning the methods. It was narrated from Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he is to be burned, and from others that he is to be executed.

It was narrated from some of them that a wall is to be knocked down on top of him until he dies beneath it.

And it is said that both should be detained in the foulest of places until they die.

It was narrated from some of them that he should be taken up to the highest place in the town and thrown down from it, to be followed with stones, as Allaah did to the people of Loot. This was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas. According to the other report, he is to be stoned. This was the view of the majority of the salaf. They said: because Allaah stoned the people of Loot, and stoning is prescribed for the zaani by analogy with the stoning of the homosexual. Both are to be stoned, whether they are free or slaves, or one of them is the slave of the other, if they have reached the age of puberty. If one of them has not reached the age of puberty, he is to be punished but not stoned, and none is to be stoned except one who has reached puberty. End quote from al-Siyaasah al-Shar’iyyah, p. 138.


...as the bro said above ..the apparent meaning is that it's haram

as it is haram to kill women and children..

[Sawtul Islam]

Well we arent discussing homosexuality here, Im questioning the correctness of the Hadith in Sahih Bukhari that says the Prophet (saw) said ONLY ALLAH punishes by Fire and that he first ordered Muslims to burn certain people but later changed his mind and said that it should never be done!

I doubt all such narrations (in Sahih Bukhari and other books) because:

1) They say the Prophet (saw) gave a wrong order, in other words he made a mistake on the matters of Deen/religion even though I think we all agree he was infallible in the matters of religion.

2) According to such narrations Abu Bakr (ra) and Ali (ra) made the same mistake and Ali (ra) did so nearly 40 years after (I think 40 years was enough time for him to hear this Hadith from someone else even if he did not hear it from the Prophet since he was the advisor of the Caliphs and he was also very close the Prophet (saw) himself so it's strange that he was not made aware of this for so long).

3) The Qur'an says that killing of the enemies of Allah by Muslims is a form of Punishment, so if Muslims use explosives/fire (or any other modern weapons) then this would be Punishment - Punishment by Fire. So everyone doing Jihad today (Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Chechens etc.) are using Fire as punishment.

The Qur'an allows this of course as Allah tells us to fight them they same way they fight us, but the Hadith that forbid punishment by fire imply that it is forbidden to fight fire with fire as they say ONLY ALLAH punishes by fire (doesnt make any exception).

4) The Qur'an says "you did not kill them but Allah killed them". So the killing of Kuffar by Muslims is attributed to Allah alone. So if Muslims use fire to kill, it would in fact be Allah who did so. So why would the Prophet (saw) say that only Allah can kill by fire when in fact when Muslims do kill by fire it is not the Muslims who have killed but Allah who has killed.

[Abu Nusaybah]

I doubt all such narrations (in Sahih Bukhari...
Bismillah

Do the Ulama of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah consider it permissable to have doubts about any of the narrations contained within Sahih al-Bukhari?

wa salaam

[AlHindi]

The Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered to put up fire on a man (Ibn Ishaq, Sira). Some Companions burned people, yes.

The Sunnah, however, is clear-cut in its prohibition. And the reason behind it is chrystal-clear.

Allah Says {Allah's curse is upon the wrongdoers}. And this Curse is a general one, against wrongdoers, not specific people. So if Rafidis and Nasibis curse these people, these Rafidah and Nasiba are more deserving Allah's Wrath. Doesn't mean that each and every Rafidi or Nasibi individually is accursed. Similarly, the people who did that should fear Allah's Wrath.

They could punish them as highway robbers, amputing their limbs and blind them, if they deserve such a great punishment. But burning people alive, which is not only prohibited by Law, but also far from having some mercy in killing.. and killing people, even the worst, is done with guidelines as the Sunnah teaches us.

I agree, JazakAllahukhairan for the clarification.
My fault, I felt that your curse indirectly implied upon the Mujahidin who equally retaliate the enemy with fire. I regret that was because of the typical bias and jarh against the Mujahidin who are not approved by the unjust ‘ulama, those who sit back with those who sit back.

And is not there a scholarly difference of opinion if we can fight with fire if the enemy fights us with fire? As I remember I came across a Mujahidin video in which they first showed the Americans and Northern Alliance were burning the Taliban, and hence the Mujahidin burned the Americans (probably already dead) in recompense. Or those who have such opinions are also absolutely unjust and accursed?

And what about the Sahaabah?

The Sahaabah were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed. Some of them were of the view that they should be burned with fire, which was the view of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and also of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him), as we shall see below…

It is narrated from Khaalid ibn al-Waleed that he found a man among one of the Arab tribes with whom men would have intercourse as with a woman. He wrote to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) and Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq consulted the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib had the strongest opinion of all of them, and he said: “No one did that but one of the nations, and you know what Allaah did to them. I think that he should be burned with fire.” So Abu Bakr wrote to Khaalid and he had him burned.

Islam Q&A (38622)

[AlHindi]

Bismillah

Do the Ulama of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah consider it permissable to have doubts about any of the narrations contained within Sahih al-Bukhari?

wa salaam

JazakAllahukhairan Akhi,

plus:

Just let me ask one very simple question:

Was the Prophet (saw) infallible in the matters of religion?

Yes or No ???

Yes, and we agree that what the Prophet salAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam conveyed is Wahi from Allah SubhanaHu wa Ta’ala, so if he, salallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, previously ordered and then stayed his orders then this is also from Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. WalHamdulillah.

You should also know that the Prophet salAllahu ‘alaihi wa sallam previously: accepted the munafiqoon’s excuses to stay back from the Jihad, vowed not to eat something Halaal, asked Allah to grant permission to seek His forgiveness for Prophet's mother who apparently died in the state of Jahiliya, was shy to marry the divorced wife of Zayd; all of this was from Allah and by this Wahy Allah ta’ala willed to manifest His Legislation for us so that we can be guided.

So the wavering doubts boggling your mind are merely conjectures against the ijma’ of scholars of Islam that Al-Bukhari is the most truthful narration after the Book of Allah and that generally it is impermissible to punish with fire.

Hope you rest assured that we are not going to waver, inshaa’Allah.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Shaykh 'Abdullah bin Bayyih:

Execution by fire is prohibited by Islamic Law.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said when expressing the prohibition of burning people: “Indeed the fire is something that no one other than Allah may use for punishment.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3016)]

This hadîth means is that punishment by fire is the punishment of the Hereafter and should not be applied in this world. This is what we must believe.

As for what is cited about `Alî putting to fire those rebels who were going around claiming that `Alî was God, we say:

Alî was the Caliph, the Commander of the Faithful. He was being confronted by the challenge of the Saba’iyyah, a recalcitrant group led by a Jewish man named `Abd Allah b. Saba ’ who was inciting people with the false doctrine that `Alî was divine. `Alî exercised his judgment in this extremely serious matter and ordered a fire to be kindled. He said on this occasion: “When I saw that the affair was an affair of evil, I had my fire kindle and summoned my aide.”

This was a very unique and singular case as has been pointed out by the eminent jurist al-Shâtibî, and its ruling cannot be construed in a general context.

Moreover, there is disagreement among scholars how this event really took place. Some give the opinion that he burned their bodies after executing them. Others state that what really happened was that he had openly resolved to burn them but never actually carried it out.

In any event, the decision made by `Alî on this occasion was the conclusion that he reached in the matter according to his own juristic discretion (ijtihâd).

We do not know for sure that `Alî actually executed those people with fire. There is a strong possibility that he only expressed an intent to do so or that he burned their bodies after executing them. If, indeed, he did burn them to death, then this is the ijtihâd of a Companion. This is a case where we have a decision arrived at by the Companion at variance with the textual evidence. We derive our legal rulings from the sacred texts and not from the decisions of the Companions when there is a conflict between the two. However, we recognize that Companions like `Âlî were qualified to engage in independent juristic reasoning and that they acted upon that reasoning, and we believe that they were on right guidance.

And Allah knows best.

[ibn Kamal]

As Abu_Abdallah said, there is a clear hadith forbidding this practice in which Allah's Messenger said: "I had ordered you to burn such and such people with fire, and indeed, none may punish with fire except Allah." This is recorded by al-Bukhari (3061), and Ibn Hajar commented in 'Fath al-Bari' (6/150) by saying:

"The Salaf differed regarding burning with fire. It was completely disapproved by 'Umar, Ibn 'Abbas, and others - whether this was done because of disbelief, a state of war, or retaliation. It was allowed by 'Ali, Khalid bin al-Walid, and others...As for the hadith in this chapter, its apparent meaning is that it is forbidden (haram) and is an abrogation of his previous command, whether this was from revelation to him or his own ijtihad." Can I ask you Abu Sabaaya, why you didn't translate the opinion of al-Muhalab stated by ibn Hajr but preferred to change it with "..."?

And in the fatwa of bin bay'a, that the incident of Ali was unique, this is not true. Abu Bakr burned a man with his hands tied to his feet in the musalla(!) in al-Madina in the presence of the Sahaba! Obviously without anyone complaining, let alone cursing him or mocking him, like here in the forum. As well as Khalid ibn al-Waleed burned Apostates.
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=71480&Option=FatwaId

I don't say this or that is the right opinion, but there there was a difference of opinion among the Sahaaba and even the scholars after them differed. So how can anyone here curse them for that? Do you go around in ramadhan and curse people for praying more than 11 rakaat? And this is not the first time in recent history that people were burned, both by the Iraqi resistance and the Americans, in form of phosphor bombs and other weapons.

[Sawtul Islam]

Bismillah

Do the Ulama of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah consider it permissable to have doubts about any of the narrations contained within Sahih al-Bukhari?

wa salaam

As far as I know it is only forbidden to doubt a Motiwatir Hadith. In fact scholars like Ibn Hajar athqalani questioned the authenticity of a lot of narrations in Sahih Bukhari (Im not saying I agree with Ibn Hajar Athqalani, just that it's not forbidden to doubt Imam Bukhari).

Sahih Bukhari is not the Qur'an. It being the most authentic book after the Qur'an doesnt mean it's perfect.

[anam]

If some people were to call me 'god' i would probably have burnt them all too!!

Akhee when he [sws] ordered to do it and then ordered not too ..we take the last saying which is 'not too'

the prophet sws said kill all the dogs then after he [sws] said dont kill all the dogs....so we take the last command given.

[Sawtul Islam]

If some people were to call me 'god' i would probably have burnt them all too!!

Akhee when he [sws] ordered to do it and then ordered not too ..we take the last saying which is 'not too'

the prophet sws said kill all the dogs then after he [sws] said dont kill all the dogs....so we take the last command given.

Which takes us back to my last question: Was the Prophet (saw) infallible in the matters of religion? because it's very obvious what he was was not abrogated (it wouldnt make sense to say it was abrogated as he said NO ONE BUT ALLAH can punish by fire, he didnt say you shouldnt do it from now on as was the case with Temporary marriage for example).

So since it wasnt abrogated it means that the Prophet (saw) was not infallible in the matters of Deen, either that or there is something wrong with the Hadith.

The Hadith of killing dogs has been narrated by a lot of chains and according to one version in Sahih Muslim what he actually said was kill a specific group of dogs that were black with white spots in their eyes which were not really dogs but were Shayateen (devils in Dog form).

So it seems he never ordered the killing of all dogs.

[Abu Sabaya]

Can I ask you Abu Sabaaya, why you didn't translate the opinion of al-Muhalab stated by ibn Hajr but preferred to change it with "..."?Because I was translating Ibn Hajar's position, not al-Muhallab's.

[anam]

As far as I know it is only forbidden to doubt a Motiwatir Hadith. In fact scholars like Ibn Hajar athqalani questioned the authenticity of a lot of narrations in Sahih Bukhari (Im not saying I agree with Ibn Hajar Athqalani, just that it's not forbidden to doubt Imam Bukhari).

Sahih Bukhari is not the Qur'an. It being the most authentic book after the Qur'an doesnt mean it's perfect.

Didnt Ibn Hajr aggree with all what is in Bukhari in the end?

[anam]

Which takes us back to my last question: Was the Prophet (saw) infallible in the matters of religion? because it's very obvious what he was was not abrogated (it wouldnt make sense to say it was abrogated as he said NO ONE BUT ALLAH can punish by fire, he didnt say you shouldnt do it from now on as was the case with Temporary marriage for example).

So since it wasnt abrogated it means that the Prophet (saw) was not infallible in the matters of Deen, either that or there is something wrong with the Hadith.

The Hadith of killing dogs has been narrated by a lot of chains and according to one version in Sahih Muslim what he actually said was kill a specific group of dogs that were black with white spots in their eyes which were not really dogs but were Shayateen (devils in Dog form).



So it seems he never ordered the killing of all dogs.

no one could punish with the fire of Allaah even if the whole world gathered and tried..

even Ibn Abbas recommended to kill the homosexual similar to how Allaah swt did to ppl of loot..this doesn't mean it's only Allaah [swt] that punishes this way...

but to burn humans with fire as punishment is haram and it is Allaah who punishes by burning humans and not us...

so the restriction you put on the mujhideen is void as they are not directly burning humans with fire as this is haram...how can a bullet equal to burning humans with fire?

I will ask about this as you seem to think that there is contradiction in the hadeeth where you say the prophet [sws] ordered for something to be done which he forgot was in contradiction to the deen...according to the way you understood the hadeeth

[anam]

As far as I know it is only forbidden to doubt a Motiwatir Hadith. In fact scholars like Ibn Hajar athqalani questioned the authenticity of a lot of narrations in Sahih Bukhari (Im not saying I agree with Ibn Hajar Athqalani, just that it's not forbidden to doubt Imam Bukhari).

Sahih Bukhari is not the Qur'an. It being the most authentic book after the Qur'an doesnt mean it's perfect.

Allah's Messenger said: "I had ordered you to burn such and such people with fire, and indeed, none may punish with fire except Allah." This is recorded by al-Bukhari (3061), and Ibn Hajar commented in 'Fath al-Bari' (6/150) by saying:

and Ibn Hajar commented in 'Fath al-Bari' (6/150) by saying:
"The Salaf differed regarding burning with fire. It was completely disapproved by 'Umar, Ibn 'Abbas, and others - whether this was done because of disbelief, a state of war, or retaliation. It was allowed by 'Ali, Khalid bin al-Walid, and others...As for the hadith in this chapter, its apparent meaning is that it is forbidden (haram) and is an abrogation of his previous command, whether this was from revelation to him or his own ijtihad."
In regards to the Companions who reportedly burned the enemy with fire, this is most likely because they were unaware of the prohibition from the Prophet. For example, Abu Dawud reported in his 'Sunan' (4351) that when Ibn 'Abbas heard of 'Ali burning those who had apostated from Islam, he said: "If it were me, I would not have burned them with fire, as the Messenger said: "None may punish with the punishment of Allah," and I would have instead killed them, as the Prophet said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

It seems Ibn Hajr never had doubt or problem with the hadeeth..

[Sawtul Islam]

It seems Ibn Hajr never had doubt or problem with the hadeeth..

I never said he had a problem with this Hadith, I just said he didnt believe in all of Sahih Bukhari that's all. In fact I also said I dont agree with ibn Hajar Athqalani, in other words I dont follow him or for example when he objected to a Hadith in sahih Bukhari I dont necissarily back him up but am more likely to agree with Imam Bukhari.

My point simply was that Sunni scholars dont all consider all of Sahih Bukhari to be true.

[Sawtul Islam]

Abu al-Nu‘man Muhammad ibn al-Fadl related to us: Hammad ibn Zayd related to us from Ayyub from ‘‘Ikrimah who said: “Some Zanadiqah were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. This reached Ibn ‘Abbas and he said: I would not have burnt them because of the prohibition by the Messenger of Allah (saw): ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.’ I would have killed them in accordance with the word of the Messenger of Allah (saw): ‘Whoever changed his religion kill him’.” (Sahih Bukhari)

Ahmad ibn ‘Abdah al-Dabbi al-Basri related to us: ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Thaqafi related to us: Ayyub related to us from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali burned some people who abandoned Islam. This reached Ibn ‘Abbas and he said: I would have killed them in accordance with the word of the Messenger of Allah (saw): ‘Whoever changed his religion kill him’. I would not have burnt them in view of the word of the Messenger of God: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.’ This reached ‘Ali and he said: Ibn ‘Abbas has spoken the truth” (Sunan Tirmidhi)


Notice both above narrations are from Ikramah, and then we have this:

Muhammad bin Muthanna informed us saying: ‘Abd al-Samad related to us saying: Hisham related to us from Qatadah from Anas that ‘Ali was brought with people from al-Zatt who worshipped idols and he burnt them. Ibn ‘Abbas said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: Whoever changed his religion kill him. (Sunan Nisai)


Notice this version is not narrated from Ikramah, and interestingly in this version ibn Abbas (ra) does not criticise Ali (ra), nor does Ali (ra) regret his action.

Here ibn Abbas (ra) just says that apostates must be killed, without saying that what Ali (ra) did was wrong. If we did not have the other versions from Ikramah, then this verion alone would actually imply that ibn Abbas (ra) agreed with Ali (ra)... in other words, Ali (ra) killed them by burning them, then ibn Abbas (ra) said that apostates should be killed.

The criticism of Ali (ra) only appears in the version narrated by Ikramah the Khariji, and the Kharijis hated Ali (ra)...



But still there exists another Sahih narration which does not include Ikramah in its chain that says the Prophet (saw) ordered the burning but then said no one punishes by fire except Allah and that they should be killed instead...

But this narration implies that the Prophet (saw) was not infallible in the matters of Deen, while most if not all Muslims believe that he was.

So Im still unsure about this whole thing...

[Sawtul Islam]

As some already pointed out on this thread the Hadith is authentic and is narrated by more than one chain from people other than Ikramah (Ikramahs version is only unique in its criticising of Ali)

For example from Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 259:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."

(I myself found even more recently aside from this from other books but this is the most authentic).



As for the questions I had about it I have come up with an answer.

The Hadith states that no one punishes with fire except Allah, well obviously this does not mean that no one has the ability to burn others with fire, but it also cant mean that no one ever has the right to do so - this was the problem, I thought (and I think most of those reading it thought the same) that the Hadith says no one is ever allowed to burn anyone as punishment, however the Qur'an and Sunnah as I already explained state that a person must be punished the way he killed or tortured others... so if a person uses fire to kill people then he should be burned to death as a punishment.

So what about the Hadith? Well the prophet (saw) was talking about two specific people, so what he actually meant was that no one has the right to punish THEM with fire except Allah (swt). It does not mean that no one EVER has the right to punish anyone with fire, as this would contradict the Qur'an because in the Qur'an Allah tells us to fight them the same way they fight us (so if they fight with fire, Muslims are supposed to fight back with fire rather than swords for example).

And the Qur'an says that when Muslims do so it is Allah who is punishing their enemies (qatiloohom yo'azzabehomollaho be aydikom - kill them so that Allah will punish them by your hands) and also says that when you killed them, it was not you who did it but Allah.

So punishment in War/Jihad is done by Allah, so in war if the enemies of Muslims use fire, Muslims can fight back with fire because this is in accordance with fighting them the same way they fight us, and this would in fact be Allahs punishment upon them, so it is Allah who is burning them.

What the Hadith actually means is that you should not burn someone to death for their sins, in other words you shouldnt want to punish them the way Allah will punish them in Hell. So even though Allah will use Fire to punish the wicked for their sins (even though they may never have used fire to kill anyone) Muslims are not allowed to do so, but Muslims can punish someone with fire who has killed others using fire.


By the way I still disagree with narrating from the Khawarij, but this Hadith is narrated by other chains and makes perfect sense if interpreted in this way meaning that the Prophet (saw) was specifically referring to those two guys and not making a general statement - the Hadith should not be taken too literally, because if you do take it too literally then you can go as far as saying that "none but Allah punishes with fire" means no one has the ability to burn anyone, which obviously isnt true - so the Hadith has to be interpreted in the right way, and as for Abu Bakr (ra) and Ali (ra) burning certain people it may be that those whom they burnt had burned others so they punished them likewise and Allah knows best.

So anyway I solved my own problem alhamdolellah.

[AbdulMatin]

I never said he had a problem with this Hadith, I just said he didnt believe in all of Sahih Bukhari that's all. In fact I also said I dont agree with ibn Hajar Athqalani, in other words I dont follow him or for example when he objected to a Hadith in sahih Bukhari I dont necissarily back him up but am more likely to agree with Imam Bukhari.

My point simply was that Sunni scholars dont all consider all of Sahih Bukhari to be true.

Which ahadith are weak then, according to these scholars?

[Sawtul Islam]

Which ahadith are weak then, according to these scholars?

Some scholars disagreed regarding some of the narrators, read for instance Kitab Tatabbu' by Dare-Qutni, different scholars disagreed regarding different narrations.
Some Hanafi scholars disagreed with the authenticity of the Hadith we mentioned here from Ikramah, and most importantly many of the Salaf considered Ikramah to be a liar including the sons of ibn Abbas (ra).

My point was that it is not forbidden to doubt Sahih Bukhari, but in any case regarding this topic I answered my own questions, however I still agree with those who did not trust Ikramah and other Khawarij, but this Hadith is narrated by other chains that say the same thing except they dont criticse Ali (ra).

[AbdulMatin]

Some scholars disagreed regarding some of the narrators, read for instance Kitab Tatabbu' by Dare-Qutni, different scholars disagreed regarding different narrations.
Some Hanafi scholars disagreed with the authenticity of the Hadith we mentioned here from Ikramah, and most importantly many of the Salaf considered Ikramah to be a liar including the sons of ibn Abbas (ra).

My point was that it is not forbidden to doubt Sahih Bukhari, but in any case regarding this topic I answered my own questions, however I still agree with those who did not trust Ikramah and other Khawarij, but this Hadith is narrated by other chains that say the same thing except they dont criticse Ali (ra).

ok, i can agree that it is not forbidden to doubt something in bukhari, as with any other narration, but generally the 3 books of muslim, bukhari and muwatta are considered to be the most sahih books. As far as Ikramah goes, there are many other narrators in Bukhari that Muslim did not use, including Bukhari himself, for various reasons but generally due to differences in aqeeda. But generally the few criticisms in both bukhari and muslim are linked to the isnaad and not to the mutoon which i believe have been shown to be correct