As'salam o' Alaiqum,
i will request to please give full details of any incident you quoting. incomplete version will only mislead the people, like ibn Ubai's funeral, u'r version gave the impression that Prophet Muhammad Saw' always used to Pray for munafiqs. Following is the complete version:
Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 359:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
When 'Abdullah bin Ubai (the chief of hypocrites) died, his son came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Please give me your shirt to shroud him in it, offer his funeral prayer and ask for Allah's forgiveness for him." So Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) gave his shirt to him and said, "Inform me (When the funeral is ready) so that I may offer the funeral prayer." So, he informed him and when the Prophet intended to offer the funeral prayer, 'Umar took hold of his hand and said, "Has Allah not forbidden you to offer the funeral prayer for the hypocrites? The Prophet said, "I have been given the choice for Allah says: '(It does not avail) Whether you (O Muhammad) ask forgiveness for them (hypocrites), or do not ask for forgiveness for them. Even though you ask for their forgiveness seventy times, Allah will not forgive them. (9.80)" So the Prophet offered the funeral prayer and on that the revelation came: "And never (O Muhammad) pray (funeral prayer) for any of them (i.e. hypocrites) that dies." (9. 84)
......................................
You should have also told us as to why Prophet Muhammad Saw' didn't allowed his killing. Also, ibn Ubai was a munafiq (hypocrite), there's no punishment prescribed in Islamic Laws for a hypocrite. Your giving his example is totally irrelevant in this case.
btw, following is the detail, those who wanna understand will understand and those who don't, they will not.
Volume 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 428.
Narated By Jabir bin 'Abdullah : We were in a Ghazwa (Sufyan once said, in an army) and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari man (on the buttocks with his foot). The Ansari man said, "O the Ansar! (Help!)" and the emigrant said. "O the emigrants! (Help!) Allah's Apostle heard that and said, "What is this call for, which is characteristic of the period of ignorance?" They said, "O Allah's Apostle! A man from the emigrants kicked one of the Ansar (on the buttocks with his foot)." Allah's Apostle said, "Leave it (that call) as is a detestable thing." 'Abdullah bin Ubai heard that and said, 'Have the (the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we return Medina, surely, the more honourable will expel there-from the meaner." When this statement reached the Prophet. 'Umar got up an, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite ('Abdullah bin Ubai)!" The Prophet said "Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions." The Ansar were then more in number than the emigrants when the latter came to Medina, but later on the emigrant increased.
Wassalam
I believe that the basis of Blasphemy Law are the verses of Surah-Al Maidah.
The punishments of those who wage war against Allāh and His Prophet and strive to spread disorder in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from alternate sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs shall be an awful doom, save those who repent before you overpower them for [in this case] you should know that Allāh is Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful. (5:33-34)
First of all Abdullah bin Ubai was guilty of blasphemy in every conceivable way since he continuously and consciously spread false allegations in all of Medina regarding the Prophet PBUH, his message and even his family.
To say that he was a hypocrite does not change the fact that he was indeed guilty of Blasphemy, reason is that he had converted to Islam at the hands of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH himself who was alive in front of him and had all the signs of Prophet-hood.
The fact that Quran specifically mentioned him and his group makes him someone who had already incurred the wrath of Allah.
Despite all this the Prophet PBUH did indeed all he could for the forgiveness of the man including the funeral prayers till he was forbidden to do so for
hypocrites who had been revealed to him by Allah.
This is exactly what i am trying to say here, in his personal capacity the Prophet PBUH attempted to forgive/save anyone and everyone unless the Lord Almighty in His infinite wisdom decreed to the contrary for specific cases and reasons.
By same spirit we should ensure that we are 100% sure before condemning someone, however this is not the case and even the article 295 C is so deliberately vague that it is extremely easy to trap someone even though they were not guilty of the crime mentioned in light of Surah Al Maidah.
The flaw is with our law but it has become such a holy law that asking for its overhaul is now equivalent to blasphemy, i am sorry but this law is a human interpretation and defined by Humans and if it is being used to settle personal scores and enmity due to its ambiguity, there needs to be an amendment to ensure justice.
The killing of a poet who used to slander against the Prophet PBUH etc. are indeed examples but not a general rule which sanctions people like Mumtaz Qadri to kill someone who is perceived to have committed Blasphemy.
There is no way that an individual should kill anyone who is under trial for Blasphemy or accused of Blasphemy (without trial) and become a hero, he has actually sinned and committed a crime by taking law into his own hands.
The issue is with the Law and not just with the implementation.
The law states:-
295-C
Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Now is this law precise or vague?
Now if i gather four people and they testify that you
indirectly implied something which was derogatory to the Prophet PBUH, it means you are liable to die even if you try to explain that you meant something else or did not say it at all.
What shall you provide as proof of your innocence?
What evidence can you provide?
This is what is not fair in the Law, it has a huge margin to be abused and misused which it has been.
This is not a law given by the Quran and is a human interpretation of Verses of Quran.
Sadly one should not forget that the background over here is the political pressure which Mard-e-Momin Zia had to keep over his opponents and so such laws were very handy since it was extremely easy to entrap anyone and make Zia popular as a great Muslim who was doing his utmost to safeguard Islam, i am sorry but on most accounts Zia was consolidating his political power by using the name of Islam.
The Quranic Verses are very specific in mentioning those who
wage War on Allah and his Prophet PBUH and
instigate disorder in the land, both things imply an open, direct and persistent crime against the Muslim state and its people and not some one time off the cuff remark when two people are abusing each other and even abuse their religion in craziness of anger.
Also the Quran mentions various punishments but the article 295-C only mentioned 2 whereas in 1990, the Federal Shariat Court ruled that 295-C was repugnant to Islam by permitting life imprisonment as an alternative to a death sentence.
This was upheld since the President did not get the law modified.
Now clearly in Surah Al-Maidah, exile is also a punishment but the current law does not have any provisioning for this.
There is a huge difference between deliberate and non deliberate comment in this particular case since there is no evidence required except a few people testifying, and by virtue of 295-C even someone joking about something could be taken as an indirect hint to insult the Prophet PBUH.
This is not a murder where someone has died and the death/dead-body itself is a quantifiable proof of crime which merits investigation and punishment.
So unless the comments are owned by the perpetrator or made public via books, public addresses or other media, it does not fall under the category of creating mischief in the land or waging war.
However the law has no such provisioning at all whether regarding evidence or regarding the context or provocation, it simply pronounces death sentence regardless of any context and whether it is direct, indirect, suggestion, hint etc.
If there was prior religious provocation and an honest Judge realizes this and sets the accused free on the basis of provocation, he is not complying with 295-C since it does not give any margin in this regards at all.
To say that the implementation is poor is an understatement, the Law is extremely flawed and can be used to settle personal scores which it has been.
Had the law been restricted to direct and open blasphemy via derogatory remarks in written form or openly public and repeated comments propagated by the accused, then it would have been in accordance with Quran, in the case of 295-C it is very vague which causes even petty disputes and personal grudges to be settled via this law.
My point is that the Holy Prophet PBUH made his best effort to save and forgive even the greatest Hypocrite till he was commanded not to for the likes of Abdullah bin Ubai, on the other hand we are doing our best effort to accuse and charge people despite next to no evidence and the law itself facilitates this.
The mere mention of amendment in this law sets our Mullah brigade into a state of frenzy as if this was part of the Quran.
To me this is against the spirit of Islam and the example set by the Prophet PBUH and will continue to be used for revenge rather than to safeguard the state and its people as per Surah Al-Maidah.
