Regarding ‘Unjust’ Punishment In The Grave?

Question

I have just read the above thread on your website:'Unjust' Punishment in the Grave?) I don't understand what you are talking about. Your argument is not coherent nor sound.

1.Firstly you assume that "the third question concerns the sins mentioned in this Hadith. Obviously, they are of two different categories. While the first is not a major sin, the second definitely is." While the Ḥadīth clearly states: "These two persons are being tortured not for a major sin"

2.The Ḥadīth does not state the nature of the punishment, it just mentions that the inhabitants are being punished so why do you question "How can the punishment of the two be the same"?

3.Now regarding, "Punishing a person who soils his clothes with urine seems unjustified unless, of course, there are other details to this matter." It shows us that to protect oneself against the impurity of urine (as of other foul & dirty things) i.e., to save one's body or clothes from being soiled with them is one of the principal commands of Allah and negligence in these matters is a sin of such a high order as to entail the chastisement of the grave.

4.Under what license can you assert "What it means is that once the leaves have dried out the punishment would restart!"? Regarding "placing a green leaf as a means to lessen their torture" stating "this is something which is totally inexplicable." The correct opinion is, that the Prophet (sws) prayed for the reduction in the punishment of the occupiers & he (sws) was bidden to do what he did with the assurance that the chastisement would remain abated as long as the two pieces did not dry up altogether.

On a more closing note, if you do not honour your mission statement then you are part of the tempest and your above opinion obviously excludes you from aiding the "revolution in the intellectual and mental perspectives" when you can't even interpret a simple English statement correctly! You are a joke.


Answer

Before I come to the points you have raised I would like you to appreciate that every reasonable person is expected to put his objections and reservations decently in appropriate language. We, you and us, are not a bunch of vagabonds who settle their differences with struggles or drunken villains who utter profanities both in good and bad state of mind. We are all supposed to put our viewpoints very decently and do not ridicule and laugh at others. I am sure you would not disagree with me over this point.

I must also express thanks to for inviting us to re-assess our viewpoint. We have always tried our best to present what we believe to be true after thorough research. We are never hesitant to ascribe to a counter viewpoint if our mistake is clear upon us. We do not claim to be an unchallengeable authority rather, to us, the authority rests with arguments.

Regarding your first two points I would like to state that the author has reached to the conclusion considering certain facts and style of expression used in the tradition. He holds that the mention of the punishment being meted out to the both singularly indicate to this reality. However, one may be justified in reaching to a different interpretation, as this bifurcation is really a delicate matter.

You write:

Now regarding, "punishing a person who soils his clothes with urine seems unjustified unless, of course, there are other details to this matter." It shows that to protect oneself against the impurity of urine (as of other foul & dirty things) i.e., to save one's body or clothes from being soiled with them is one of the principal commands of Allah and negligence in these matters is a sin of such a high order as to entail the chastisement of the grave.

While the idea of punishment for this crime seems justified to you it strikes all those who come across this. I would not buy into your saying that such a crime should be rewarded that severely. Any thinking person would hardly swallow it that someone fulfilling all other religious obligation would be subjected to punishment merely for not showing care in this matter. However, if you tell me that a rejecter of the Rasul of Allah is being punished and among his crimes include crime then the statement may become explainable. Sending someone to this doom on such a matter (no matter the matter is very important but it does not signify outright denial of all the divine obligations) would not be conforming to the justice of the Almighty.

You write:

Under what license can you assert "what it means is that once the leaves have dried out the punishment would restart!" regarding "placing a green leaf as a means to lessen their torture" stating "this is something which is totally inexplicable." The correct opinion is that the Prophet (sws) prayed for reduction in the punishment of the occupiers & he (sws) was bidden to do what he did with the assurance that the chastisement would remain abated as long as the two pieces did not dry up altogether.

The same question could be put before this conclusion. It would be a discovery to reach here without being enslaved by a fortress mentality. The text does not support the implication that you have discovered. When the Qur'ān says that the Prophet (sws) could not pray for the polytheists then why should he do so grossly ignoring the Qur'ānic directive? Why should a Qur'ānic directive be issued in the first place if it was only meant to be abrogated by invisible allowances?

If the prophet (sws) was forbidden from praying for the non-believers, I believe he could not have gone against the dictates of the Qur'ān. If your have any argument to substantiate your interpretation please write back.

To the streamline Muslim scholarship, the Qur'ānic commandments are not meant to be breached for a while or for a permanent basis. The Qur'ān is with us intact and unaltered. I cannot in my proper state of mind believe, on the basis of individual to individual reports, that the prophet (sws) could have breached a Qur'ānic commandment. The compiler of the Sahih of Muslim was not an eye witness of the incident he reports. The information reached the author after passing many people who could have forgotten the important details, misunderstood or misquoted the incident. Thus we cannot say anything in any degree of certainty in this regard.The narratives also lack in providing the proper context and the clear picture of the circumstances involved. The narrators sometime miss very important part of the narrative and only mention what is retained in their minds. Therefore the very nature of the Ḥadīth reports forces one to admit that these should never run contrary to the Qur'ānic information.

You write:

On a more closing note, if you do not honour your mission statement then you are part of the tempest and your above opinion obviously excludes you from aiding the "revolution in the intellectual and mental perspectives" when you can't even interpret a simple English statement correctly! You are a joke.

This language I must believe should not be emanating from you. I do not expect these remarks and ridicules from any serious person. Needless to say about a fellow Muslim. This is something grossly against the dictates of the moral principles. Leave alone the religious guidance supplied to the mortal by the Almighty through his messengers and prophets.

May Allah help us understand the truth and hold fast to it.

About the Author

Answered by this author