0
0
We live in a country where religion occupies a ‘hallowed’ place in the hearts of its citizens. However, the paradox is that religion has not reflected in most of our dealings. We cheat, we envy, we steal and loot and embezzle, and we maim and kill innocent people and destroy their property. Worst still, atrocities unheard of in history are committed by us.
Justice, we hate with passion; injustice, we embrace with the two hands. What happened in Bauchi few days ago where a man was burnt to death for allegedly insulting our noble Prophet (SAW) presents another gory scene of religious extremism.
We kill for the Prophet whose path and guidance we refuse to follow. Admittedly, killing is the punishment for whoever insults the Prophet in the Islamic Law. I know this will be very difficult to stomach by those who do not know the worth of the Prophet and his station. Nevertheless, for one like George Bernard Shaw, though not a Muslim, he will readily accept this verdict. He once wrote: “The world is in the utmost need of a man with the mentality of Muhammad”. Is it this man that someone will open his mouth to insult? And so publicly? This is too outrageous.
Nevertheless, the Bauchi man who allegedly insulted the Prophet wouldn’t have been brutally burnt to death for the following reasons:
One, it is prohibited to punish with fire in Islam. It is an exclusive right of Allah to punish with fire except in a case of retaliatory punishment. This, some scholars strongly contend that whoever kills someone or punishes with fire should be given similar treatment notwithstanding the Prophet’s injunction against it. They premised their argument, and a very strong one for that matter, on two verses of the Qur’an: “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him.” (Q2: 194). “And if you punish, then punish them with the like of that with which you are afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones)” (Q2: 126). Therefore, majority of the Islamic jurisprudential scholars think (and rightly so) that it is permissible to burn with fire as retaliatory punishment. This is apparently not the case of this Bauchi man.
Two, aside being burnt to death which is prohibited, even if the execution is carried out in an approved manner of executing a criminal who deserves execution in the Islamic Law, it has to be carried out by a competently recognized authority. Not by the mobs. This is jungle justice—justice of the mobs or by the mobs. Such justice amounts to injustice. What behoves the people around is to hand him over to the authority for trial.
And it should be known that Nigeria is a democratic state. A case like this, when viewed with the democratic lens, the vision (outcome of the judgement) will be definitely different. So, Muslims should bear in mind that some of these Sharia’s provisions might face some serious executionary bottlenecks despite the fact that there are Sharia Courts in Bauchi and some northern states. In a nut shell, the case should have been referred to the Sharia Court.
Three, if the rule of law according the Sharia had been followed in this Bauchi man’s case, there is possibility of subjecting him to some psychiatric examinations to know his mind-set and mind-frame and mental health. For it is too outrageous for a sane—a Muslim or non-Muslim— to single out the Prophet for insult especially in an environment where Muslims are predominantly dominant. The Sharia stipulates some meticulous procedures to be followed when it comes to crimes which punishment is death. All chances of errors or erring in judgement are objectively omitted. Evidently, what happened in Bauchi vis-a-vis this burning to death is not rule of law (Sharia) but rule of the mobs.
Four, what if it is argued that Ali (RA) burnt some people to death for apostasy, not as retaliatory punishment? Scholars respond by saying, among others, that Ali was not aware of the prohibition. It was narrated that when the news of what Ali did reached Ibn ‘Abbaas (RA), he said: if it were me, I wouldn’t have burned them, because the Prophet (SAW) said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah” (Bukhari, 3017). On this note, it is important to clear a point. Nobody that ever lived knows everything—including the Prophet (SAW). He knew what he knew, and he did not know what he did not know. Allah already says it “And you [i.e., mankind] have not been given of knowledge except a little.” (Q23:85). So Ali is very knowledgeable but probably not aware of the prohibition.
Now, can we excuse the mobs that burnt to death this Bauchi man that allegedly insulted the Prophet? I will not answer this question. I would rather like to have responses from readers who know better—especially those from Bauchi whom I asked to verify the authenticity of the incidence—they affirmed it.
If we assumed they are ignorant of this Islamic rulings that you don’t take law into your hands and you don’t burn people to death as punishment (after all, we are all ignorant), it means our scholars have a lot to do. Islamic knowledge is not all about committing the Qur’an to memory at the expense of understanding Islam. This is a very common practice among the Muslims and we take pride in that. Islam is far more than that. Muslims should endeavor to know Islam itself—its basic rulings. This prohibition which was argued not to be known by Ali (RA) has later come to be a basic knowledge which no Muslim (ideally) should claim ignorant of.
When I say ‘after all we are all ignorant’, this should not be misconstrued to mean even our scholars are ignorant like the well known ignorant among us who never made an attempt to seek knowledge. What it means is the humble manner which the scholars display in relation to knowledge or scholarship. The learned ones would say “the more you read the more you realize that you don’t know”. It should be understood in this context. So at times when one is called an ignorant, they should not take offence in that. As ignorance could be contextual, relative, and absolute. Absolute ignorance of Islam is what is condemned and condemnable.
We need to be enlightened on this issue. In another hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah (RA), he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) sent us on a mission and said: “If you find so and so, and so and so, burn them with fire.” Then the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said, when we were about to leave: “I had commanded you to burn so and so, and so and so. But verily on one punishes with fire except Allah. So if you find them, execute them” (Bukhari, 3016).
Therefore, in Islam, you don’t punish with fire. Not only humans like you, even animals, birds, termites, and other creatures are not to be burnt by way of punishment. You can slaughter them as recommended by Sharia; afterwards, cook them, boil them, or roast them on fire.
In conclusion, the burning to death of the Bauchi man is absolutely condemnable and un-Islamic. May Allah enrich us with the understanding of the religion, grant us the ability and willingness to practice it, and make us inheritors of Paradise.
Abdulkadir Salaudeen
salahuddeenabdulkadir@gmail.com
