Does the quran or hadith give any guidance on how to handle the case if a Non-Muslim insults the Prophet (Peace be upon him)?

  • 8
    @Anwar one must define "insult". A lot of things that would be perfectly acceptable about anyone else are suddenly insulting just because it is Muhammad. That is not really "insult". Also, the insult can be taken even if it is not given. For example, if I (deep breath) drew a picture of Muhammad, then no insult is given (by me), but insult would be taken by many Musims. Commented Sep 15, 2012 at 7:09
  • 4
    let me clarify: marcgravell isn't saying that those drawings aren't insulting, he is saying that one may draw this picture without any intention of insulting muslims, but muslims might be offended regardless, like offense is in the eye of the beholder.. (i guess?) and the questionaire must clarify wether its intentional or not
    – NesreenA
    Commented Sep 15, 2012 at 12:44
  • 5
    All political figures (and in that we include religious figures, such as Muhammad) are going to be critiqued, parodied, and lampooned. It happens to all of them, ancient and current. I demand my right to parody such. It is no different for Muhammad. The moment anything is beyond criticism, we are slaves. Commented Sep 15, 2012 at 15:11
  • 4
    The "hint" and political/belief statement in this question do not belong. If this is intended as a legitimate question about what the Qur'an/Hadith teaches on the subject then it is distracting and unecessary to include the opinion or draw a connection to a previous event. Those are statements. Questions aren't meant to make a point. I have suggested an edit to remove these and keep just the question. I suggest this is a more constructive and reasonable way to approach this topic in the SE format.
    – Caleb
    Commented Sep 15, 2012 at 19:04

6 Answers 6


This answer comes from a secular perspective; if it is out of place, let me know and I'll remove it. But I offer it anyway.

Short version:

Ignore it.

Offense has the interesting characteristic in that it is, quite literally, an imaginary thing: in only exists to the observer - it is not a concrete thing by itself. Add religion into that mix and we have guaranteed confusion. It is largely impossible to make any claim by one religion without it somehow being "offensive" to another religion (by disqualifying their deity, et). Indeed, often within a single religion the views of one sect can "offend" another.

Being so subjective, it is not something that is easy to quantify: there are answers here that suggest that offense towards the prophet is like being struck in the face - yet the fact remains: you were not struck in the face - you chose to be offended. Being offended is your right, but that doesn't mean a person can respond in any way you choose.

Of course, it could also be said that an all-powerful God (with a well-established process for dealing with the unbelievers and unworthy) does not need you to leap to his defense, nor (with Allah on his side) does Muhammed.

Next, we must consider the true victims in all the recent fuss: it isn't the Muslim community: it is the innocent bystanders wo happened to be in the wrong place (meaning: too close to some volatile faction of Islam). People working in embassies, or just non-Muslims living in a predominantly Muslim community. These are people unconnected to the fuss, now murdered, maimed or dishomed. I am under the impression that the Koran does not support (quite the opposite) attacking innocent populations, yet this is what invariably results. This of course also harms the Muslim community: both in terms of the global reputation, and the fate of those few Muslims responding with acts of violence and cruelty.

The ironic thing in all this is that one of the reasons Islam attracts so much attention is because of the reputation it has for being aggressive - there's a circle here that can't be broken while some people of Islam responds with force for imagined slights.

We must also consider the perspective of the "perpetrator". In most of the law, offense and blasphemy are not crimes. Freedom of thought and word are valued. Islam repeatedly saying "you cannot" (for something that is not actually illegal in most countries) is the main driver for why people do things like drawing cartoons of Mohammed. When Islam says "you cannot, or else", then that throws down a gauntlet - and there are a lot of people who feel that this is a kind of bully-tactic that must be answered.

Finally, I'll remark on representation: Islam, in common with many religions, does not have direct and accurate representation. The people doing much of the talking on the international stage do not necessarily have a huge support base. Indeed, most of the Muslims I know and have known have been completely different to the uglier face of Islam that keeps making headlines - yet even in there own communities they have felt unable to speak out openly. But: until this is challenged from within, these unelected figureheads will assume false authority and support.

So perhaps I should further qualify my relief response, with the guidance:

Respond by denouncing the calls for violence and blood. Openly state that you do not recognize this brutality as the true message of Islam.

Unless, of course, it is?

  • 1
    @AlUmmat, why did you feel the need to Americanise the spelling in Marc's answer? I personally quite like the -ize endings, but I prefer the British distinction between nouns ending in ce and verbs ending in se (cf. advise and advice, where the pronunciation also differs).
    – TRiG
    Commented Jan 28, 2013 at 21:54
  • @TRiG meh; not in the least bothered by that Commented Jan 28, 2013 at 21:56
  • 3
    It just seems a curiously pointless edit. If you want to spend time correcting grammar and spelling, there are plenty of posts on this site that really need it.
    – TRiG
    Commented Jan 28, 2013 at 21:57
  • 1
    I quote from the answer, "there's a circle here that can't be broken while Islam responds with force for imagined slights." I think "Muslims" rather than "Islam" would be a better fit there and more accurate as well, especially keeping the rest of the answer in view. Commented Jun 3, 2014 at 21:55
  • 4
    This fails to answer the question which is asking for evidences from Quran and Sunnah.
    – The Z
    Commented Mar 1, 2018 at 23:38

The first thing we must do..

The first thing we must do is ask Allah for forgiveness.

I say this because, the people that insult the Prophet (pbuh) have never met him or seen him BUT they know him through our actions. So we have failed to deliver the message of Islam for them to insult someone they have never seen or met.

These insults will not change the status of the Prophet (pbuh) in the least. Allah is enough to protect the name of His messenger (pbuh) BUT these insults are a warning from Allah about our failure to deliver the message of Islam

Patience is the key..

You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse. But if you are patient and fear Allah - indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of determination. (Quran 3:186)

Allah in the above verse clearly says that we will hear a lot of stuff that will grieve us BUT BE PATIENT.

We have today become emotional puppets. We are insulted and we respond exactly how "they" want us to. This is because we have forgotten this verse from the Quran. We have to be calm, collected & calculative.

This is nothing new

The Quraish used to go around insulting the Prophet (pbuh) all the time. As the Islamic empire expanded the number of people insulting the Prophet (pbuh) increased BUT the Prophet (pbuh) or his companions never lost focus. They went on spreading the message.

Understand the nature of disbelief

We should understand that it is the nature of disbelief to insult the prophets(pbuh), the books of Allah & even Allah. We should not be surprised at all. Our problem will not be solved by reprimanding the disbeliever rather spread more awareness about Islam to remove disbelief.

See how the Prophet (pbuh) responded to a person urinating in masjid Annabawi

Anas reported: A Bedouin urinated in the mosque. Some of the persons stood up (to reprimand him or to check him from doing so), but the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: Leave him alone; don't interrupt him. He (the narrator) said: And when he had finished, he called for a bucket of water and poured it over. (Muslim hadith 557, Book of purification)

Understand our failure

What is the reason of our failure?

  • Are we few in number? ... one in every five on this planet is Muslim
  • Don't we have the means?... we control all the natural resources under our feet.

The Prophet (pbuh) didn't build the Islamic empire with numbers or money....rather he won hearts and we have failed to do so.

Go to any masjid, you will see that we have even forgotten to smile which is one of the sunnahs of the Prophet (pbuh).

PS: I feel we should let everyone know that it is unacceptable to insult the prophet(pbuh) BUT they way to convey this needs to be better and with patience.

  • 7
    please mention which view is this and please support your answer with official fatwa. your answer seems your personal opinion and personal interpret of Quran and hadith. "HE WON HEARTS" did you forget prophet made near 100 war at his life and many wars by Caliphs after him? Islamic mercy and Jihad and killing all exist in Islam and Islam is not only mercy against who insult prophet. also prophet himself can forgive. but Sahaba and Muslims should obey rules of Islam. prophet forgiven many but also made many wars. Commented Sep 16, 2012 at 12:48
  • 4
    the hadith you mentioned is about disrespect to mosque and not insult to prophet. so this hadith is irrelevant to question. also how the verse is related to insult to prophet? it is talking about bothers of idol worshipers for Muslims like sanctions and other bothers. also ignorant person is different of who intentionally makes a insulting movie to prophet. Commented Sep 16, 2012 at 14:39
  • 3
    It is really nice Answer alhamdolillah but I think it doesn't answer the question in proper way. You should add source from hadiths what did the companions do when Quraish used to insult prophet Muhammad (PBUH) directly. Commented Sep 16, 2012 at 19:00
  • 5
    +1 I think this is a fantastic answer because as a non Muslim I would be more likely to be open to the message and wisdom of Islam if it were delivered in the manner you have proposed in your answer. The fact you have not cited certain scriptures does not take away from your answer I think using your brain, that God gave you, to make sense of what you have noticed about the world around you is important too. This answer may not be as 'academic' as desired but it is good for non-Muslims to see and understand what Islam is about, rather than the tripe that is in the news.
    – Mr. Mr.
    Commented Oct 26, 2012 at 10:39
  • 1
    If that's the case then why was Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf killed?
    – Noah
    Commented Nov 1, 2012 at 8:19

I think this photo will speak more than words

enter image description here *In response to the abusive film about the Holy Prophet Muhammad upon him blessings and peace, “Discover Islam UK” in London distributed more than 110,000 copies of a translation of the Qur’an And the life of the Prophet Mohammed for the citizens of London.

  • 12
    Now that is an example of a religion that is ready to grow! Fight lack of education with education. No need to be physical. Win hearts and minds of the people and there will be no offending movies or language. Being violent only plays into the hands of those with negative views.
    – user206
    Commented Sep 24, 2012 at 18:30
  • I absolutely support what you have said: ignore them, or in fact, use these events as excuses to spread Islam. Let's make it a mission to have a Muslim Europe within the next 20 years!
    – Najeeb
    Commented May 30, 2013 at 8:44
  • 5
    @Najeeb let's not; that would be a nightmare.
    – user4827
    Commented Dec 12, 2014 at 12:45

(Ahl al-Sunnah View)

Its the responsibility of the state to handle this as blasphemy against the Prophet is a punishable crime under Shariah.

There can be three cases of a person who does this:

  1. The person is a Muslim - there is consensus among the Sunni Madhabs that the person has become an apostate (مرتد) and hence must be executed by the state. The difference is that while an ordinary apostate would be given the opportunity to repent and avoid the execution, a blasphemer is not afforded that opportunity according to most schools.

  2. The person is a non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state (Dhimmi) or has some other peace agreement with the Muslims (Mu'aahid) - the view of the majority (Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali schools of thought) is that such a person should also be killed by the state. The view of the Hanafi school is that their treaty is not invalidated by such an act and that a Tazir other than execution should be administered to discipline the person (such as severe whipping).

    Note that most of latter Hanafis have elaborated that killing them is permissible at the discretion of the ruler, or that the punishment should be execution if the insult was done openly, or if it was done repeatedly, or if the insult consisted of saying something which is not part of to the essential creed of the non-muslims. See e.g. Radd al-Muhtar by Ibn Abidin al-Shaami.

  3. The person is a non-muslim Harbi. It is agreed upon that they are to be killed and this comes under the category of warfare rather than legal punishment. Scholars have noted that they can be killed even if they belong to the category of people whose killing is normally forbidden in war, such as women and close relatives.

To sum up: There is a categorical consensus that punishment is to be carried out on one who insults the Prophet ﷺ. And there is a consensus that a Muslim or Harbi who does that is to be killed. And the view of the majority is that a Dhimmi who does that is to be killed. And there is disagreement among the madhabs on whether repentance (i.e. accepting \ reverting to Islam) waives the legal penalty from the culprit.

أجمع عوام أهل العلم على أن من سب النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - القتل

The consensus of most of the people of knowledge is that one who abuses the Prophet ﷺ is to be killed.

al-Ishraaf - Ibn al-Mundhir

أجمع العلماء على أن شاتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، والمتنقص له كافر ، والوعيد جاء عليه بعذاب الله له وحكمه عند الأمة القتل

The scholars have a consensus that the one who insults the Prophet ﷺ is a disbeliever. And the threat of Allah’s punishment is on him. And the verdict of the Ummah is that he is to be killed.

Al-Shifaa bi Ta'reef Huqooq al-Mustafaa - by Qadi ‘Iyad (quoting Muhammad ibn Sahnun)


The Quranic evidence cited for this law includes:

وإن نكثوا أيمانهم من بعد عهدهم وطعنوا في دينكم فقاتلوا أئمة الكفر إنهم لا أيمان لهم لعلهم ينتهون

And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

Quran 9:12

Qurtubi writes in the exegesis of this verse:

وقال ابن المنذر : أجمع عامة أهل العلم على أن من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عليه القتل . وممن قال ذلك مالك والليث وأحمد وإسحاق ، وهو مذهب الشافعي . وقد حكي عن النعمان أنه قال : لا يقتل من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل الذمة

Ibn Mundhir said: The consensus of the people of knowledge is that the punishment for insulting the Prophet is death. And those who said this include Malik, Laith, Ahmad and Ishaq. And the same is the madhab of Shafi. And it is narrated from Nauman (Abu Hanifa): The person who insults the prophet will not be killed if they are from the people of Dhimmah (non-Muslim subjects)

فأما الذمي إذا طعن في الدين انتقض عهده في المشهور من مذهب مالك ، لقوله : وإن نكثوا أيمانهم الآية . فأمر بقتلهم وقتالهم . وهو مذهب الشافعي رحمه الله

As for the Dhimmi (non-Muslim subject), then when they abuse our religion their contract (of safety) is annulled. This is the mashur madhab of Malik, because of the saying of Allah [in 9:12] and Allah has commanded us to kill them and war against them. And the same is the view of Shafi.

وقال أبو حنيفة في هذا : إنه يستتاب ، وإن مجرد الطعن لا ينقض به العهد إلا مع وجود النكث ؛ لأن الله عز وجل إنما أمر بقتلهم بشرطين : أحدهما نقضهم العهد ، والثاني طعنهم في الدين .

And the saying of Abu Hanifa is: they will made to repent, and their contract will not be revoked just because of their abuse, unless they directly break their contract with their actions; because Allah has imposed two conditions on the command to kill them: one is that they break the contract and the second is that they hurl abuse at our religion.

قلنا : إن عملوا بما يخالف العهد انتقض عهدهم ، وذكر الأمرين لا يقتضي توقف قتاله على وجودهما ، فإن النكث يبيح لهم ذلك بانفراده عقلا وشرعا . وتقدير الآية عندنا : فإن نكثوا عهدهم حل قتالهم ، وإن لم ينكثوا بل طعنوا في الدين مع الوفاء بالعهد حل قتالهم . وقد روي أن عمر رفع إليه ذمي نخس دابة عليها امرأة مسلمة فرمحت فأسقطتها فانكشفت بعض عورتها ، فأمر بصلبه في الموضع

Our response is: If they do an action which is against their contract, then their treaty will be broken just because of that and it will not require them to fulfill both conditions [a person who breaks the treaty by fighting us but not defaming our religion may be killed, its both rational and proven in Shariah] ...

And near us, the intended meaning is as follows: If they break their contracts then it is permitted to fight against them, and if they do not break their contracts but while abiding by them they defame our religion then (also) it is permitted to fight them.

[An example] is narrated about Umar, that when a Dhimmi had pierced an animal with a nail or thorn, on which a Muslim lady was riding, and it caused her to fall and lay bare her private parts, then Umar had the Dhimmi crucified at the spot.

أكثر العلماء على أن من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل الذمة أو عرض أو استخف بقدره أو وصفه بغير الوجه الذي كفر به فإنه يقتل ، فإنا لم نعطه الذمة أو العهد على هذا . إلا أبا حنيفة والثوري وأتباعهما من أهل الكوفة فإنهم قالوا : لا يقتل ، ما هو عليه من الشرك أعظم ، ولكن يؤدب ويعزر . والحجة عليه قوله تعالى : وإن نكثوا الآية

Most of the Ulema are agreed, that a person from the Dhimmis who insults or hurls abuses and slander at the Prophet ... then they are to be killed; With the exception of Abu Hanifa, Thawri and their followers from the people of Kufa, who say that they will not be executed ... but they will be disciplined and given Tazir punishment. The evidence for [all these] is the saying of Allah [in 9:12]

Tafsir Qurtubi; my personal translation so treat with caution

Abu Bakr Jassas writes in the exegesis of the verse:

وهو يشهد لقول من يقول من الفقهاء إن من أظهر شتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل الذمة فقد نقض عهده ووجب قتله

وقد اختلف الفقهاء في ذلك ، فقال أصحابنا : { يعزر ولا يقتل } ، وهو قول الثوري وروى ابن القاسم عن مالك فيمن شتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من اليهود ، والنصارى

{قتل إلا أن يسلم}

And this is testimony to the saying of the jurists that one who curses the Prophet from the people of Dhimma have violated their treaty and its obligatory to execute them

The jurists differ on this.. Our companions (the Hanafis) say: They will not be killed but given Tazir. And this is also the saying of Thawri. And Ibn Qasim narrated from Malik that one who curses the Prophet from the Jews and the Christians: Will be killed, with the exception that they accept Islam.


وقال الليث في المسلم يسب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : إنه لا يناظر ولا يستتاب ويقتل مكانه ، وكذلك اليهودي والنصراني .

وقال الشافعي : { ويشترط على المصالحين من الكفار أن من ذكر كتاب الله أو محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بما لا ينبغي أو زنى بمسلمة أو أصابها باسم نكاح أو فتن مسلما عن دينه أو قطع عليه طريقا أو أعان أهل الحرب بدلالة على المسلمين أو آوى عينا لهم فقد نقض عهده وأحل دمه وبرئت منه ذمة الله وذمة رسوله } . و

And Laith said: If a Muslim insults the Prophet then he will be neither be given respite nor asked to repent, but will be immediately executed, and the same ruling hold for Jews and Christians.

And Shafi said: When the Muslims make peace with the disbelievers then a condition should be placed on them that if any of them insults Allah or His Messenger, or performs adultery with a Muslim woman or tries to sway a Muslim from his religion, or performs highway robbery against the Muslims, or helps the enemies of the Muslims against them, then the treaty will be void for him, his blood will be lawful and the responsibility on Allah and His Messenger for the safety of his life will be lifted.


ولا خلاف بين المسلمين أن من قصد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بذلك فهو ممن ينتحل الإسلام أنه مرتد يستحق القتل

There is no disagreement among the Muslims that a Muslim who insults the Prophet becomes an apostate and deserves to be executed.

Tafsir Jassas ; my personal translation so treat with caution

Ibn Kathir writes in the exegesis of the verse:

(وطعنوا في دينكم )

أي : عابوه وانتقصوه . ومن هاهنا أخذ قتل من سب الرسول ، صلوات الله وسلامه عليه ، أو من طعن في دين الإسلام أو ذكره بتنقص

(and attack your religion...) with disapproval and criticism, it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir ; [ abridged English Translation ]

Various other verses are also by some scholars as supporting evidence. For example 9:29 lays down the principle for dealing with Dhimmis that "fight until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled" - a person who openly insults the prophet of the Muslims is far from being humbled and subdued, so war must be done with them.

Similarly verses like 9:61 and 33:57 which say that there is punishment and curse upon those who insult the Prophet. And execution by the Muslims is a way by which that is materialized.


Following are some ahadith which are cited as evidence by the scholars:

  • The killing of the woman by the blind sahabi:

    أن أعمى كانت له أم ولد تشتم النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وتقع فيه فينهاها، فلا تنتهي، ويزجرها فلا تنزجر، قال: فلما كانت ذات ليلة جعلت تقع في النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وتشتمه، فأخذ المغول فوضعه في بطنها، واتكأ عليها فقتلها ... فقال النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم-: ألا اشهدوا أن دمها هدر

    A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. ... The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "I bear witness that her blood is permissible."

    Nasai and Abu Dawud

    This means means that she was deserving of being killed. Imam Abu Dawud and Imam Nasai have recorded this hadith under the chapter named: Ruling regarding one who reviles the prophet ( الحكم فيمن سب النبي ). And numerous other hadith scholars and jurists have also relied on this hadith as evidence for the law.

  • The hadith of Abu Bakr regarding one who insults the Prophet ﷺ:

    أغلظ رجل لأبي بكر الصديق فقلت أقتله فانتهرني وقال ليس هذا لأحد بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

    A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, and I said: 'Shall I kill him?' He told me off, and said: 'That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allah [ﷺ].'"

    Nasai and Abu Dawud

    أجمع عوام أهل العلم على أن من سب النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - القتل ... ومما يحتج به في هذا الباب قصة كعب بن الأشرف ... وتغيظ أبو بكر الصديق -رضي الله عنه - على رجل، فقال مِن أصحابه أبو برزة: أضرب عنقه؟ فقال: ما كانت لأحد بعد رسول الله

    The Ulema in general are in agreement that one who abuses the Prophet ﷺ is to be killed ... and they have relied upon as evidence the story of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf ... and the story of the anger of Abu Bakr on a person when Abu Barzah asked 'Shall I kill him?' and Abu Bakr replied 'That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ' ...

    al-Ishraaf - Ibn al-Mundhir

    This means that a person who speaks harshly to or about the Prophet ﷺ could be killed - unlike a person who reviles someone else. This hadith has also been recorded by Abu Dawud and Nasai under the same chapter as the previous one as evidence for killing one who reviles the Prophet ﷺ.

  • The execution of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf.

    قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من لكعب بن الأشرف فإنه قد آذى الله ورسوله

    Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt (offended) Allah and His Apostle?"


    وقال الشافعي: يقتل الذمي إذا سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وتبرأ منه الذمة، واحتج في ذلك بخبر كعب بن الأشرف

    Imam Shafi'i said: The Dhimmi who abuses the Prophet ﷺ is to be killed. And he relied upon the narration regarding Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf as evidence for that.

    Ma‘alim as-Sunan by Al-Khatabi

    The evidence in this hadith is apparent, as the Prophet commanded the execution of Ka'b and gave its reason as insult against Allah and himself.

  • The execution of Abu Rafi'.

    بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى أبي رافع اليهودي رجالا من الأنصار ... وكان أبو رافع يؤذي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

    Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent some men from the Ansar to kill Abu Rafi' ... Abu Rafi' used to hurt Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)


    الحجة في إيجاب قتل من سبه أو عابه صلى الله عليه وسلم ... وفي الحديث الصحيح أمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بقتل كعب ابن الأشرف ... وكذلك قتل أبا رافع

    The evidence of the obligation on killing the one who insults the Prophet ﷺ includes ... and the Sahih Hadith regarding the command of the Prophet ﷺ to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf ... and likewise the killing of Abu Rafi' ...

    Al-Shifaa bi Ta'reef Huqooq al-Mustafaa by Qadi ‘Iyad

  • The execution of Ibn Khatal:

    فلما نزعه جاء رجل فقال إن ابن خطل متعلق بأستار الكعبة، فقال اقتلوه

    (At the Conquest of Makkah) ... A man came and said, "Ibn Khatal is clinging to the curtains of the Ka'bah.

    The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Kill him."


    قال العلماء إنما قتله لأنه كان قد ارتد عن الاسلام وقتل مسلما كان يخدمه وكان يهجو النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ويسبه وكانت له قينتان تغنيان بهجاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والمسلمين

    The scholars said: He was killed because he had apostatized from Islam, and killed a Muslim servant of his, and had satirized the Prophet ﷺ and abused him and had employed female singers who sang songs satirizing the Prophet ﷺ and the Muslims

    Sharah Sahih Muslim by Nawawi

    واستدل المالكيون من حديث ابن خطل أن من سب النبى يقتل ولا يستتاب كما فعل الرسول (صلى الله عليه وسلم) بابن خطل

    The Malikis have derived from the hadith regarding Ibn Khatal that the person who abuses the Prophet is to be killed and that repentance is not to be accepted.

    Sharah Sahih Bukhari by Ibn Batal

    Some scholars have noted that Ibn Khatal was guilty of three crimes deserving of the death penalty (i) apostasy (iii) murder and (iii) blasphemy. However the mode of his execution shows that sentence was carried out on him because of the blasphemy, since it does not fit the other crimes. A murderer is handed over to the victim's family and they have the right to forgive or take revenge from the culprit. While an apostate who surrenders is imprisoned and given the chance to repent and save himself. Ibn Khatal however was unconditionally condemned to death - even after he surrendered and tried to get asylum in the Kaabah.

  • The (cancelled) execution of Mabur - a person who inappropriately visited the Prophet's Umm Walad (concubine who gave birth to his child).

    أن رجلا كان يتهم بأم ولد رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- فقال رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- لعلى « اذهب فاضرب عنقه »

    A man was accused of having intimate relations with the Umme Walad of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to Ali: "Go and strike his neck."


    وفيه من آذى النبي - صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم - وجب قتله

    This is evidence that it is obligatory to kill the one who offends the Prophet

    Al-Muhalla bi’l-Aathaar - Ibn Hazm

    Scholars have noted that a possible objection to this hadith is that this person was sentenced because of zina.

    However the punishment for fornication is 100 lashes (24:2). And for adultery it is stoning to death, even though it is most likely that this person was unmarried and so it was fornication not adultery. Also passing the sentence for Zina requires four witnesses (4:15) who claim to have actually seen the head of the penis enter the vagina.

    We can see that this incident is different. The Prophet ﷺ gave a judgement of beheading and not lashing or stoning. Also it is evident that there were no witnesses of the act since the person turned out to be an eunuch. These difference are evidence that the sentence was not passed as a penalty for zina but rather as a punishment for the insult against the Prophet ﷺ.

  • The ahadith about those who were denied asylum at the conquest of Makkah:

    لما كان يوم فتح مكة أمن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الناس إلا أربعة نفر وامرأتين وقال اقتلوهم وإن وجدتموهم متعلقين بأستار الكعبة

    On the day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allah [SAW] granted amnesty to the people, except four men and two women. He said: 'Kill them, even if you find them clinging to the covers of Ka'bah.'

    Nasai and Abu Dawud

    وأمن الناس يوم الفتح إلا نفرا ممن كان يؤذيه ويهجوه، وهم أربعة رجال وامرأتان

    [In the chapter on the verdict of the Prophet regarding those who blasphemed] ... The Prophet granted amnesty to all the people on the day of the Conquest of Makkah, except for a small group who had abused and insulted him, and these were four men and two women.

    Zaad al-Ma'aad - Ibn al-Qayyim

And there are many other similar reports in seerah and athar of the sahaba which corroborate this.

Reconciliation with texts where insults are pardoned:

A question is sometimes raised that there are Quranic verses which enjoin turning away from insults of the disbelievers and ahadith where insults apparently go unpunished:

The Quran commands us to show patience and to forgive and ignore the insults of the disbelievers. For example verses 3:186 , 5:13 , 73:10 , 28:55 etc.

And the Prophet used to forgive people who wronged him, such as when Jews greeted him with Samu 'Alaika (Death be upon you) - Bukhari 6926 - or when hypocrites slighted him - Bukhari 4335 .

The following answers are given to this by the scholars:

  • The Prophet ﷺ had the right to forgive violations against himself - however the Muslims do not have the right to forgive culprits on his behalf and rather they must carry out the legal punishments which they been commanded to do.

  • In some of these incidents we know that the sahaba were eager and offered to kill the those who had offended the Prophet:

    يا رسول الله دعني أضرب عنق هذا المنافق

    O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), let me kill this hypocrite!

    And when the Prophet ﷺ refused the offer he gave the following reason for not executing them:

    يتحدث الناس أن محمدا يقتل أصحابه

    lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions.


    أن يتحدث الناس أني أقتل أصحابي

    People would say that I kill my companions.


    He did not say "Allah has forbidden me from killing them", nor did he rebuke the sahaba for their suggestion. This proves that killing these hypocrites was actually permissible and the Prophet ﷺ only restrained from that for specific reasons or in public interest. The Prophet ﷺ had the right to overlook violations against himself, but we do not have the right to forgive on his behalf.

  • These Quranic verses and ahadith are abrogated or an exception exists in them for incidents of blasphemy.

    In the earlier part of the Islamic period, Muslims were few in number and lacked the power to react forcefully to the wrongs committed by disbelievers. Hence the Prophet was commanded to be patient, to forgive and to turn away - as confrontation at this stage could have been detrimental to the survival of the Muslim Ummah. This was meant to be for only a limited period of time, as hinted in the verse:

    اعفوا واصفحوا حتى يأتي الله بأمره

    So pardon and overlook until Allah delivers His command.

    Quran 2:109

    As time passed, the Muslims grew in numbers and gained strength and after this the Prophet ﷺ was commanded to use force. So he sent expeditions to execute them and enforced legal punishments against them.

    يا أيها النبي جاهد الكفار والمنافقين واغلظ عليهم

    O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them.

    Quran 9:73

    وهذه الآية نسخت كل شي من العفو والصلح والصفح

    And this verse abrogated everything else regarding forgiveness, compromise and overlooking [the disbelievers]

    Tafsir al-Qurtubi

    هذه الآية نسخت كل آية في القرآن فيها ذكر الإعراض والصبر على أذى الأعداء

    The verse (9:5) abrogated every verse in the Quran which mentioned turning away from and patience towards the harm caused by the enemies.

    Tafsir al-Baghawy

    فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم وقوله قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله ولا باليوم الآخر إلى قوله: وهم صاغرون فنسخ هذا عفوا عن المشركين

    Verse 9:5 and verse 9:29 abrogated forgiving the disbelievers.

    Tafsir ibn Abi Hatim

    Action is done on the verses which were revealed later, and not on abrogated verses. In the same way that we can no longer drink wine or face Jerusalem in salah, we can no longer pardon people for crimes where punishment has become obligated.

  • Some of these incidents (such as the greeting of the Jews) were not clear insults, and had plausible deniability. Some of these did not have enough witnesses and the hypocrites would deny having said anything when confronted or they would feign repentance.


The following are some texts which discuss this topic in detail.


(Shia View)

Although Islam religion of mercy but this mercy is not for all equal. Quran says: (the verse is long so I mention only related part)

مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّ‌سُولُ اللَّـهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ‌ رُ‌حَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ...

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves... http://tanzil.net/#48:29

According to Fiqh of Shia Islam if who insulted prophet is Muslim or is ex-Muslim should is considered Murtad (apostate) and should be killed. But if he is a non-Muslim it depends on command of Wali Faqih (i.e. the Islamic leader at time of Occultation of 12th Imam, currently Imam Khamenei) and any command of Leader in this regard should be executed by Muslims.


  • You put a brave answer yet you missed many things fair trail, Islamic laws in country, judge orders execution Commented Apr 3, 2020 at 10:51

Duplicate from here:

Muslims are teased of rude people not believing in anything but themselves and their own (dirty) politics. People have right to laugh at us and our beliefs and we should stay happy? Someone mock my father and I remain smiled is the reaction of a psychologically healthy person? Muslims respect their prophets more than they respect their fathers.

If thou dost question them, they declare (with emphasis): "We were only talking idly and in play." Say: "Was it at Allah, and His Signs, and His Messenger, that ye were mocking?"(Al-Tubah:65)

Freedom of speech is a respected right only if a question is asked to learn about something, be it God or the historic facts about our prophet and Imams, PBU. But there are times that someone ask not to learn but to make laugh of us, then the behavior against the questioner would be different as should be. To us most of the insults against Islamic values are just some (political, planned) examinations to see where the Muslim’s bearing threshold is! Muslims be silent they would go further and further, but Muslims have proved to be zealous thanks to Allah, not allowing the United States and the global Zionism to reach their new world order that they intend.

EDIT. The film just produced in US insulting the holy Prophet PBUH of course is not artistic or else and one cannot assume its target to be anything other than stimulation of Muslims' anger, to start an inter-religions war (another crusade) or to scare their own Christian and other non-Muslim people of Muslims to unite them against a common enemy to deviate their people's worry about the economical and political crises inside their own countries. So that Muslims and non-Muslims over all the globe should be cautious about this dirty politic, we should demonstrate not being passive, but also peaceful for the global Zionism not to reaches any single goal of it.

  • 10
    Technically, no: freedom of speech is not limited to the things you would like people to say/ask. That is exactly why it is "freedom" of speech. Commented Sep 23, 2012 at 7:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .