IBN TAYMIYYAH’S BOOK

the hypocrite. However, the Prophet responded by seeking refuge with God and rejecting the notion that he would kill his Companions. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1063, Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 14804) Following this account, Ibn Taymiyyah states that the Prophet did not forbid Hazrat Umar from killing the man because he was innocent. Instead, the Prophet’s concern was that if he allowed such a killing, people would falsely claim that Muhammad had killed his own Companions (p. 174). Considering Ibn Taymiyyah’s explanation, it can be observed that in his book, he advocates for the killing of anyone who insults the Prophet’s honour under all circumstances. However, when confronted with incidents from the Prophet’s life where individuals who displayed clear insolence were not killed, Ibn Taymiyyah should have revised his stance by acknowledging that the punishment for blasphemy is not absolute. However, he does not do so. Instead, he argues that the reason for not killing such individuals was not that they did not deserve to be killed but rather to prevent Islam from being defamed by the public. The question then arises: what does Ibn Taymiyyah’s explanation indeed prove? In terms of the actual issue at hand, it still contradicts his theory. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the only difference between the two situations is that in the earlier incident, “the Prophet did not kill the insolent individual to prevent Islam from receiving a negative perception.” Therefore, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, the