Law of prophets versus law of others
Question:
Did any of the scholars split 'rights of man' into 'rights of man' + 'rights of prophets'? If so, did they understand to believe some laws relating to 'rights of prophet' and 'rights of God' were only applicable in the context a prophet was present and for the prophet… similar to commands that were specifically for prophets (e.g. supererogatory prayers were fardh for the Prophet S.A.W)?
Some examples of ‘rights of prophets’ which were only applicable in the context when a Prophet was present and for the Prophet:
-Ibrahim A.S. breaking the idols, which was in fact an infringement on 'rights of man' i.e. property rights, and blasphemy against idolatry (if we believe protection against blasphemy to be a ‘right of man’…or is this only for some faiths and thus a divinely sanctioned double standard)
-Khidr A.S. carrying out the various infringements on 'rights of man'
-Different people being killed for blasphemy during the Prophet S.A.W's time, which were an infringement on ‘rights of man’, i.e. free-speech (incidents: Jewess who was strangled by sahabi for reviling the Prophet S.A.W., pregnant slave lady of sahabi who was stabbed for reviling the prophet, conquest of Makkah incident where ibn e khatal was killed for blasphemy.
Answer:
The last category of examples that you mentioned is not about different rights. It is about different Sunan. Allow me to explain:
When it is human being in his normal and ordinary life then there are laws that protect his/her rights as a human being. These laws are appreciated by any modern society and many of the religious laws are also there to protect this right (like forbiddance to kill others, steal from others, accuse others, etc.).
This normal state of affairs fundamentally changes when God sends a messenger to the face of Earth. The duty of the messenger is to facilitate creating a miniature day of judgement in the land that he is sent to. In this miniature day of judgement, those among the direct addressees of the messenger who rejected him purely out of arrogance will be severely punished while those direct addressees who helped him will be extra ordinarily rewarded.
The incidents that you referred to (if proved authentic) all belong to the era of a messenger. No such practice is allowed when we are not in the era of a messenger.
So again, it is not about right of prophet and right of man. It is about the era of a messenger and the era with no messenger.
The first two categories however are different stories:
As for the story in the Sura (chapter) of Kahf, that many interpreters relate to Khizr (pbuh), what you read there as acts of that man (supposedly Khizr - pbuh) are in fact acts of God, carried out by one His chosen people (or angels according to some other interpretations). So we are not talking about right of man here. We are talking about the wisdom of the Almighty and the way that He may sometimes help people.
The similarity between this case and the cases that I referred to above is that they are all acts of God, carried out by His chosen people. However the difference is that while the above cases are related to the Sunnah of the Almighty when His messengers are on the face of the Earth, the story in the Sura of Kahf is one off series of incidents exceptionally done by a chosen person of God who was following His directives.
As for the story of Ibrahim (pbuh) and the idols please read verses 21:62-67. What Ibrahim (pbuh) did was to practically prove the idol worshippers wrong. Those people considered these idols to be capable gods and Ibrahim (pbuh) used a very simple method to prove that they were at fault (note that he left the biggest idol intact in order to make his argument). Ibrahim (pbuh) had a direct mission from the Almighty to promote the oneness of God. The importance of his mission supersedes the fact that the idolaters owned the idols and had rights upon them. It was only through this practical lesson that Ibrahim (pbuh), as a messenger of God, could make his point so strongly.
Also, you are referring to the idols held by the Namrud ruling system as if you are writing about some artistic statues in a museum. These idols where not only symbol of shirk (polytheism) but were also the means of oppressing the normal citizens and shedding blood and sacrificing innocent people in their name. Rejecting the idols was in fact supporting the right of people who were oppressed in the name of those idols.
Given the above two points, the issue of right of the Namrud's ruling system to the idols seems like a very far fetch issue to worry about.
-----------
February 2014
Did any of the scholars split 'rights of man' into 'rights of man' + 'rights of prophets'? If so, did they understand to believe some laws relating to 'rights of prophet' and 'rights of God' were only applicable in the context a prophet was present and for the prophet… similar to commands that were specifically for prophets (e.g. supererogatory prayers were fardh for the Prophet S.A.W)?
Some examples of ‘rights of prophets’ which were only applicable in the context when a Prophet was present and for the Prophet:
-Ibrahim A.S. breaking the idols, which was in fact an infringement on 'rights of man' i.e. property rights, and blasphemy against idolatry (if we believe protection against blasphemy to be a ‘right of man’…or is this only for some faiths and thus a divinely sanctioned double standard)
-Khidr A.S. carrying out the various infringements on 'rights of man'
-Different people being killed for blasphemy during the Prophet S.A.W's time, which were an infringement on ‘rights of man’, i.e. free-speech (incidents: Jewess who was strangled by sahabi for reviling the Prophet S.A.W., pregnant slave lady of sahabi who was stabbed for reviling the prophet, conquest of Makkah incident where ibn e khatal was killed for blasphemy.
Answer:
The last category of examples that you mentioned is not about different rights. It is about different Sunan. Allow me to explain:
When it is human being in his normal and ordinary life then there are laws that protect his/her rights as a human being. These laws are appreciated by any modern society and many of the religious laws are also there to protect this right (like forbiddance to kill others, steal from others, accuse others, etc.).
This normal state of affairs fundamentally changes when God sends a messenger to the face of Earth. The duty of the messenger is to facilitate creating a miniature day of judgement in the land that he is sent to. In this miniature day of judgement, those among the direct addressees of the messenger who rejected him purely out of arrogance will be severely punished while those direct addressees who helped him will be extra ordinarily rewarded.
The incidents that you referred to (if proved authentic) all belong to the era of a messenger. No such practice is allowed when we are not in the era of a messenger.
So again, it is not about right of prophet and right of man. It is about the era of a messenger and the era with no messenger.
The first two categories however are different stories:
As for the story in the Sura (chapter) of Kahf, that many interpreters relate to Khizr (pbuh), what you read there as acts of that man (supposedly Khizr - pbuh) are in fact acts of God, carried out by one His chosen people (or angels according to some other interpretations). So we are not talking about right of man here. We are talking about the wisdom of the Almighty and the way that He may sometimes help people.
The similarity between this case and the cases that I referred to above is that they are all acts of God, carried out by His chosen people. However the difference is that while the above cases are related to the Sunnah of the Almighty when His messengers are on the face of the Earth, the story in the Sura of Kahf is one off series of incidents exceptionally done by a chosen person of God who was following His directives.
As for the story of Ibrahim (pbuh) and the idols please read verses 21:62-67. What Ibrahim (pbuh) did was to practically prove the idol worshippers wrong. Those people considered these idols to be capable gods and Ibrahim (pbuh) used a very simple method to prove that they were at fault (note that he left the biggest idol intact in order to make his argument). Ibrahim (pbuh) had a direct mission from the Almighty to promote the oneness of God. The importance of his mission supersedes the fact that the idolaters owned the idols and had rights upon them. It was only through this practical lesson that Ibrahim (pbuh), as a messenger of God, could make his point so strongly.
Also, you are referring to the idols held by the Namrud ruling system as if you are writing about some artistic statues in a museum. These idols where not only symbol of shirk (polytheism) but were also the means of oppressing the normal citizens and shedding blood and sacrificing innocent people in their name. Rejecting the idols was in fact supporting the right of people who were oppressed in the name of those idols.
Given the above two points, the issue of right of the Namrud's ruling system to the idols seems like a very far fetch issue to worry about.
-----------
February 2014
