The Ruling on One Who Reviles the Prophet ﷺحكم من سبّ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

Many of the imams of guidance have stated that whoever reviles the Prophet ﷺ with explicit reviling is a disbeliever. Among those who addressed this issue most fully, and gathered the evidence of a whole community of scholars on it, is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, in his book al-Sarim al-Maslul 'ala Shatim al-Rasul (The Drawn Sword Against the One Who Reviles the Messenger). This book has a story behind it: he authored it in Ghazza within only three days, and it is among the finest works produced by the people of Islam. Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, never wrote anything except that it became an object of great demand across every level of society. The occasion was that a man from the people of Syria, named 'Assaf, who was a Christian, reviled the Prophet ﷺ. The Sultan delayed in carrying out the legal penalty against him, even though one who reviles the Prophet is to be executed whether he is a Christian or a Muslim who has thereby apostatized. So Ibn Taymiyyah issued a fatwa that he be killed by whoever found him. The man learned of this and fled; his cousin then pursued him, caught up with him along the way, and struck off his head. The Sultan, upon hearing of this, imprisoned Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah for a single day, asking why he had issued a ruling authorizing the man's execution without the Sultan's leave. The people were outraged and clamored against the Sultan: why did he imprison a scholar who gave the fatwa that a man who reviled the Prophet ﷺ was to be killed, when the Sultan himself had failed to carry out the penalty? The Sultan grew afraid because of this outcry and released him, after detaining him for only that one day. The Shaykh remained in Ghazza that one day, and afterward authored this book, which became among the most relied-upon works among the scholars concerning the one who reviles the Prophet ﷺ, and all the rulings connected to reviling the Messenger ﷺ.

As for the question of executing him: if he is a Muslim, then there is consensus that he is executed for his apostasy (riddah), based on the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, that the Prophet ﷺ said, "Whoever changes his religion, execute him." Changing one's religion takes two forms. The first is to move from Islam to Judaism, Christianity, or Zoroastrianism — a form that is decisively established as a change of religion. The second form is to commit one of the nullifiers of Islam; such a person is asked to repent (yustatab) and is not executed until he has been given the chance to do so. The scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, differed over the length of the period allowed for repentance, and the most correct of the views is that of the Commander of the Believers, 'Umar — that he is given three days to repent, in the hope that he may return to Islam and to the truth; if he does not repent, he is executed, and he is not buried in the graveyards of the Muslims, nor is the funeral prayer performed over him. Allah, exalted is He, says, "And never pray over any of them who has died, ever, nor stand at his grave." For this reason, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, in his time found people who went to extremes and associated partners with Allah, exalted is He; he summoned them and asked them to repent, but they refused, and when he saw that they would not respond, he ordered that they be burned in fire, and all the Companions agreed with him on their execution — Ibn 'Abbas objected only to the burning, not to the execution itself. Ibn 'Abbas said, as recorded in al-Bukhari, "Had it been me, I would have killed them but not burned them, in keeping with the statement of the Prophet ﷺ, 'Whoever changes his religion, execute him' — he did not say, 'burn him,' for none punishes with fire except the Lord of the Fire."

As for one who reviles the Messenger ﷺ from among those who claim affiliation with Islam — even were he to repent, his repentance is accepted between himself and Allah, but the right of the Messenger ﷺ does not thereby lapse; he is executed obligatorily, and this is the position of the majority of the scholars. It is not within anyone's right to pardon the right of the Messenger ﷺ, since the Prophet ﷺ never delegated authority over his own right to anyone, nor authorized anyone to pardon on his behalf. A group of scholars held that whoever repents, Allah accepts his repentance — even reviling Allah, they say — so if one who reviles Allah is pardoned upon repentance, then one who reviles the Messenger should likewise be pardoned. But this reasoning is questionable, because reviling Allah has come to us with the knowledge that Allah has already pardoned that particular right through the Qur'an itself. Allah, exalted is He, says, "And indeed, I am Perpetually Forgiving toward whoever repents and believes" — even though this verse was revealed concerning those who had earlier said, "They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is the third of three"; Allah nonetheless said, "And indeed, I am Perpetually Forgiving toward whoever repents and believes and does righteousness" — so whoever repents, Allah accepts his repentance. But the right of the Messenger ﷺ, the Prophet did not waive it; and from where do we have any knowledge that the Prophet ﷺ ever said, on any day, "Whoever reviles me in the future, I forgive my own right against him"? The Prophet never waived his right, nor mentioned anything of the sort. During his lifetime he would sometimes forgive and sometimes not forgive: he forgave many who had reviled him. But as for those he came to know had gone beyond bounds, he would seize them, as he ordered the immediate execution of al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, though he was one of the Prophet's own paternal cousins, when his sister came, pleading:

"Whose swords have torn apart the noble kinsmen, whose ties of kinship there were torn asunder — what harm would it have done you to have shown mercy? The generous and the noble are ever inclined to pardon."

There came a report, though weak, that the Prophet ﷺ said, upon hearing these lines, "Had I heard this before I had him killed, I would not have killed him" — meaning that this is a right belonging to the Messenger ﷺ: if he wishes he waives it, and if he wishes he enforces it — just as with Ibn Abi Sarh, who had apostatized and used to speak against the Prophet ﷺ and lie about him. When he embraced Islam and was granted protection by 'Uthman, and came to give the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet ﷺ, the Prophet ﷺ withheld his hand from him — and this withholding was not a withholding from accepting his Islam; he had already become a Muslim, and no one may stand between a person and Islam. Rather, the Prophet ﷺ withheld his hand from him in the hope that someone would rise up and strike off his neck, since he had been a Muslim, then apostatized, and had begun to speak and lie and slander. When no one did so, the Prophet ﷺ accepted his pledge of allegiance. When it was later said to him, "O Messenger of Allah, did you not gesture with your eye for someone to kill him?" the Prophet ﷺ said, "It does not befit a prophet that his eyes should be treacherous."

As for the second part of the question, concerning the ruling on the People of the Covenant (ahl al-dhimmah): we have been speaking about the ruling on a Muslim. As for the People of the Covenant, if they revile the Prophet ﷺ, there is disagreement over their execution, and the dispute over this matter is a lengthy one, related to the first issue of apostasy. In any case, the correct view is that whoever reviles the Prophet ﷺ is to be executed, and if he repents, that repentance is accepted between himself and Allah, but not regarding the right of the Prophet ﷺ. Even a disbeliever — take, for instance, a Christian in Italy today who slanders the Prophet ﷺ and reviles him — were such a man to embrace Islam, it would still be obligatory to execute him for it, even after his conversion. This is a right belonging to the Messenger ﷺ that none may waive. Any man from among the polytheists — whether an idolater or one of the People of the Book — who reviles the Prophet ﷺ and then embraces Islam, the legal penalty is not thereby dropped from him, because this is a right of the Messenger ﷺ that does not lapse, and no one has the right to waive it. Yes, his Islam is accepted, meaning that if he were to die after embracing Islam but before the penalty was carried out, the right of the Messenger ﷺ regarding the reviling would remain outstanding against him, but his Islam is nonetheless accepted; nothing stands between him and Islam. As for his statement ﷺ, "Islam wipes out what came before it," this holds true regarding the rights owed to Allah's servants that are thereby forgiven — but to clarify this, consider this scenario: a man from the People of the Book comes to the lands of the Muslims under a covenant of safe-conduct (aman), commits adultery with a Muslim woman, then flees to his own country, and later embraces Islam — does the right of the Muslim woman thereby lapse? It does not, since he entered under a covenant of safe-conduct and was not a combatant to begin with. It should likewise be clear that the right of the Messenger ﷺ in this matter is a right attached to the man himself, belonging to the Messenger ﷺ — and the right of the Messenger ﷺ does not lapse, nor is there anyone who may stand in the Messenger's place and waive his right on his behalf.

One might object that this would make such people averse to Islam and prevent them from embracing it. The response to this is, firstly, that we are not preventing him from embracing Islam at all, nor does anyone stand between him and Islam — his Islam is accepted from him. Secondly, as already noted, this is a matter of scholarly disagreement between two views, but what we hold to be correct is the view of the majority, which is also what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah championed, may Allah have mercy on him, because this is a right belonging to the Messenger ﷺ, and a right must be returned to the one to whom it belongs.

النص العربي الأصلي