Apostasy: an unqualified fatwa

format_quote Originally Posted by Sampharo

I think we have already covered this subject and established that beyond a shadow of a doubt all proper scholars of sunnah of all four math-habs and outside agree that apostasy suffered a punishment of death by direct order of the prophet .....

Really... did Prophet(pbuh) killed apostetes just for apostacy!!!

Why NOT here??? Well, they were all apostates...!!!:-
Bukhari:56:814:-
There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." Then Allah caused him to die(So he died his natural death & was not killed for his apostacy), and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out.............

Bukhari:17:133:-
...........When the famine was taken off, the people renegade once again as non-believers. .......... "Allah's Apostle prayed for them and it rained heavily for seven days. So the people complained of the excessive rain. The Prophet said, 'O Allah! (Let it rain) around us and not on us.' So the clouds dispersed over his head and it rained over the surroundings."(Here again Prophet didn't order to kill these Apostates, rather prayed for them...!!!)

(Muwatta 1377 ???) (also; Ahmad 14600 ???)
A Bedouin gave a pledge of allegiance for embracing Islam. The next day he came with fever and so came to the Prophet, saying: "O Messenger of God! Cancel my pledge." The Prophet refused. He came to him again and said: “Cancel my pledge”. He refused. He came to him another time and said: “Cancel my pledge.” He refused again. The Bedouin then went out. Then the Messenger of God said: “Madinah is exactly like a furnace; it expels out the impurities and retains the good." (Again, no order to kill him despite three announcements of leaving islam)

...and has been documented in many many authenticated public instances to have been upheld....

ALL those incidences were, where apostacy was accompanied by MURDER or fighting against muslims......


Bukhari:55:558:-
......... and they will renegade from the religion as an arrow goes through the game's body. They will kill the Muslimsbut will not disturb the idolaters. If I should live up to their time' I will kill them as the people of 'Ad were killed (i.e. I will kill all of them)."

Bukhari:82:794:- (also Abu Dawood:33:4356-7)
Narated By Anas : Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes(Allah reprimanded Prophet for this Dawood:33:4357) should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterised, till they die.

(same incidence as above)Bukhari:83:37:-
....(Long Hadith)... "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and[B] deserted Islam and became
an apostate[/B]."....They deserted Islam, committed murder and theft......



Following hadeed comes in different books with variations which give impression as if apostate should be killed but following one provides the part other narrators missed; So making it clear that killing apostate is ONLY if he fights against muslims:-
Abu-Dawood:33:4339:-
The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who (other ahadees say at this place; “leave Islam”) goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case (so fighting muslims after apostacy is the reason to kill) he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.


Following ahadees mention apostates who left isam & joined forces with those who were fighting against muslims or Islam. Later muslims won war & captured those apostates & killing was ordered:-Abu Dawood:33:4345 & 4346

@sur

brother, should I advise you that please wait for another week. Can you? However, allow me to make a following comment:

Jazak Allah khayran for bringing up these. I did not know about these ahadith and neither did the Muslim ummah for 14 centuries, including the first 3 generations. They were all jahils like myself and thank you for pointing us to these ahadith and enlightening us about the correct ruling.

@Sampharo

akhee al-kareem, if you could allow me to digest these handicapped arguments brought by brother sur, that would be appreciated. barak Allahu feeka

@gibson

whatever flows your boat man - there is no cure for stubbornness and beating around the bush

Greetings czgibson

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Crystal clear? Then why is there so much obvious misunderstanding of it? We are reading the same thread here, aren't we?

If I may, I think what brother islamiclife is trying to convey is that the 'disparity of views' that now exists is a relatively new phenonemon but for the past 1400 or so years, it has been crystal clear.

format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow

^ Ah but in the Quran there is a verse which states there is no complusion in religion. So if a Muslim is unable to convert to a different religion...does that not contradict with that verse in the Quran? This is what czgibson was trying to state in the other topic about Apostasy.

Already been addressed elsewhere as well, brother. The verse came down after the Islamic influence covered large portions of Arabia, and the christians and jews did not want to convert, and the verse was given to that.

@Brother Islamic Life: Don't worry, I have no interest in rehashing this one again I already expressed enough here: clarification of apostasy

Like I said, it's not like the posts here are going to overturn what the consensus of scholars know and study and teach. Apostasy is not one of the rulings individuals will never deal with anyway, it's not worship or prayer. So if they want to rehash and argue and attack to force a dilution of the established fact, they may do so. Like you said, these precious remaining seven nights deserve other than this.

@Brother Sur:

Those either did not fulfill conditions of apostasy or were before the apostasy law was passed. Brother IslamicLife says he wants to address them later. However, here is a short sample list of apostates who were documented to have been either executed or pleaded to repent and go back to Islam:

- Abdullah Ibn Khatl, apostate ran to Makka along with two slave girls of his. All killed except one of his slaves, she repented to the prophet.
- Maquis Ibn Sababa, ordered to be killed and executed after Fath Makka.
- Abdullah Ibn Qais's captive in Yemen (authenticated hadith that Moath asked Abdullah why he is tied, and when Abdullah said he was an apostate, Moath said he needs to be killed as per the prophet's orders, and asked for it to be done before he gets off his camel)
- Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh (repented in a famous incident between the hands of prophet after getting safe passage through Uthman Ibn Affan against the order to kill him. And the prophet said afterwards in an authenticated hadith "Wouldn't a clever man amongst understand me and could have killed him while I was still silent (i.e. before accepting his repentance)",
- Umm Marwan, repented, an authentic hadith for the prophet that they told him about her and she was of some stature, and -pbuh- said "If Umm Marwan apostated, kill her"

There are others as well, and most importantly others were killed for apostasy without any warring and after the prophet passed away, such as the group that called Ali a prophet and a god, Ali Ibn Abi Taleb himself put them to death, albeit violently by burning and Ibn Abbas approved it but told him not to use fire as it's God's punishment. Note that those in specific COULD NOT be considered "traitors to the state" since they actually elevated the Khalifa to such a status.

Look, this is beyond the scope of this board and yes you will find articles written by "thinkers" and whatever that see it shouldn't be there. Just don't insult people's intelligence and say it is not of Islam or it was never made. For your information as well, Judaic scriptures say clearly to kill those who abandon the jewish fate, and that Moses ordered them to do so if they find an apostate.

i'll reply to this in a moment, just wrote a response but lost it somehow.

in a nutshell, none of those brother sempharo presented were killed for apostasy alone, give me a moment so I can post the links again.

-Abdullah Ibn Khatil killed a person the prophet sent him with, then apostated

قالوا : وأما ابن خطل ، فإنه خرج حتى دخل بين أستار الكعبة .

قالوا : وأما ابن خطل ، فإنه خرج حتى دخل بين أستار الكعبة .

فحدثني يعقوب بن عبد الله عن جعفر بن أبي المغيرة عن سعيد بن عبد الرحمن بن أبزى . قال سمعت أبا برزة الأسلمي يقول في نزلت هذه الآية لا أقسم بهذا البلد وأنت حل بهذا البلد أخرجت عبد الله بن خطل وهو معلق بأستار الكعبة ، فضربت عنقه بين الركن والمقام . ويقال قتله سعيد بن حريث المخزومي ; ويقال عمار بن ياسر ، ويقال شريك بن عبدة العجلاني ، وأثبته عندنا أبو برزة . وكان جرمه أنه أسلم وهاجر إلى المدينة وبعثه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ساعيا ، وبعث معه رجلا من خزاعة ، فكان يصنع طعامه ويخدمه فنزلا في مجمع فأمره يصنع له طعاما ، ونام نصف النهار فاستيقظ والخزاعي نائم ولم يصنع له شيئا ، فاغتاظ عليه فضربه فلم يقلع عنه حتى قتله

http://sirah.al-islam.com/display.asp?f=mga1598.htm

-Maquis Ibn Sababa came to the prophet and and converted, then asked for blood money for his brother who was unintentionally/mistakenly killed by one of the Muslims, but he only pretended to do so, rather he went and killed that person to avenge his brother even though it was a mistake, and escaped, his conversion was merely a ploy to gain access to Median

قال ابن إسحاق : وقدم مقيس بن صبابة من مكة مسلما ، فيما يظهر فقال يا رسول الله جئتك مسلما ، وجئتك أطلب دية أخي ، قتل خطأ . فأمر له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بدية أخيه هشام بن صبابة ; فأقام عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم غير كثير ثم عدا على قاتل أخيه فقتله ثم خرج إلى مكة مرتدا

http://sirah.al-islam.com/display.asp?f=hes2375.htm

-Abdullah Ibn Qays' captive; the prophet wasn't the one who ordered him killed, thus this is not clear evidence, not to mention he might have done something else, but I can only vaguely remember the narration, so I can't find a source for it.

-Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi Sarh joined the enemies of slam, thus was a threat, spreading lies and misinformation, not to ention he wasn't killed, thus this is not evidence.

-Umm Marwan, the narrations are weak and considered in authentic.

http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d...d=11&startno=4

-the ones Ali killed were causing a great Fitna, and it was a time of war, not to mention the narrations are not very clear on the incident.

^ You seem to just say "unclear" and "not authentic", even though the very link you put there brother, says the name of the book. What is the name of the book? APOSTASY.

And what is in page 7 on that very website of that very book two clicks after it? The following AUTHENTIC hadith of people who were killed for apostasy without war or murder:

- ( 9 ) - قوله : { روي أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم استتاب رجلا أربع مرات }.

رواه أبو الشيخ في كتاب الحدود من طريق المعلى بن هلال وهو متروك ، عن عبد الله بن محمد بن عقيل ، عن جابر ، ورواه البيهقي من وجه آخر من حديث عبد الله بن وهب ، عن الثوري ، عن رجل ، عن عبد الله بن عبيد بن عمير مرسلا ، وسمى الرجل : نبهان .

2015 - ( 10 ) - حديث : " أن أبا بكر استتاب امرأة من بني فزارة ارتدت " . البيهقي من طريق ابن وهب ، عن الليث ، عن سعيد بن عبد العزيز : " أن امرأة يقال لها : أم قرفة ، كفرت بعد إسلامها ، فاستتابها أبو بكر ، فلم تتب فقتلها " قال : الليث : هذا رأيي ، قال ابن وهب : وقال لي مالك مثل ذلك ، قال البيهقي : ورويناه من وجهين مرسلين ، ورواه الدارقطني أيضا .

( تنبيه ) في السير : { أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قتل أم قرفة يوم قريظة }. [ ص: 94 ]

وهي غير تلك ، وفي الدلائل لأبي نعيم { أن زيد بن حارثة قتل أم قرفة في سريته إلى بني فزارة }.

2015 - Hadith narrated by Dareqtani: "a woman called Umm Qerfa, apostated from Islam, Abu Bakr gave her repentence, she refused it, and she was killed." In another version it was done by the prophet and in Abi Naeem dala'el it was Zaid Bin Haretha. (but no question regarding her being killed for apostasy)

2016 - ( 11 ) - حديث : أن رجلا وفد على عمر ، فقال له عمر : " هل من مغربة خبر ؟ فأخبره أن رجلا كفر بعد إسلامه ، فقال : ما فعلتم به ؟ فقال : قربناه ، وضربنا عنقه ، فقال : هلا حبستموه ثلاثا ، وأطعمتموه كل يوم رغيفا ، وأسقيتموه لعله يتوب ، اللهم إني لم أحضر ، ولم آمر ، ولم أرض إذ بلغني " . مالك ، والشافعي عنه ، عن عبد الرحمن بن محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد القاري ، عن أبيه بهذا ، قال الشافعي : من لم يتأتى بالمرتد زعموا أن هذا الأثر ليس بمتصل ، ورواه البيهقي من حديث أنس قال : لما نزلنا على تستر . . . فذكر الحديث وفيه : فقدمنا على عمر فقال : " يا أنس ما فعل الستة رهط من بكر بن وائل الذين ارتدوا عن الإسلام ، فلحقوا بالمشركين ؟ قال : يا أمير المؤمنين قتلوا في المعركة ، فاسترجع ، قلت : وهل كان سبيلهم إلا القتل ؟ قال : نعم كنت أعرض عليهم الإسلام فإن أبوا أودعتهم السجن " .

2016 - Hadith about Omar Ibn Al-Khattab -RA- asking a man "Any special news?", and was told a man apostated after Islam, so he asked "what did you do?" and was told they killed him, so Omar said: "Wouldn't you have held him for three days, feeding him a loaf a day and asking for repentence first? God, I wasn't present, they did not ask me" Confirmed by Imams Malik and Shafei.

As for Abdullah Ibn Qays captive, Saad Bin Moath was the prophet's representative, and his action is ratified by the prophet. Unless you wish to suggest that Saad Bin Moath -RA-, the one for whom the throne of God shuddered on his death, was a murderer who killed a man and lied about the prophet telling him that this is the Islamic ruling, that will be another matter. But this hadith and story is authenticated and its ruling supports the consensus and can be used a supporting basis as per principals of fiqh of Ahlu Sunnah Wal JamaAAa.

As for Abdullah Ibn Sarh, his sentence was pronounced the moment he apostated and ran.

Aside from all that I think many of you all said before that you are not scholars, why are you trying to use primary text and sources and extract rulings from them when there is no knowledge of the process or the principals? Wasn't it something many of you here have beaten many others whenever they did that?! We already said it, will say it again. If you wish to argue "other reasons and conditions were involved" then go and get a hadith masters degree and make the research thesis and overturn the consensus established.

Based on that which math-hab that actually agrees with any of what you're saying? Which Sunni scholar of the great times denied the apostasy took place (please don't mention internet nobodies that studied Islam from orientalists!)? Moreover, why are you getting unrelated pieces right and left and trying so hard to pick and choose what you like to include as circumstances around each individual incident, (and whatever you couldn't you called it vague or something) and then try to declare a ruling denied by the entirity of Islamic scholarly community?! اتق الله في الدين

Maybe all four Imams have passed away along with Albani and Ibn Taymeyya after leaving clear rulings regarding apostasy and you cannot argue with them, but the scholars of today are still in their universities in Madina and Makkah and you are more than welcome to go and show them the selective presentation people here wish to make and see if they change things for you. Make your original research and validate it there first please.

And AGAIN I am amazed at how much fervor there is to claim that apostasy law is not part of Islam. It can't be avoidance because governments today except a few GCC countries are not applying it anyway. So what is it? Are some people here thinking that one of us will soon be elected Islamic magistrate required to carry out Shariah law and want to make sure you don't carry this burden?

One last thing for MuslimAgorist: Ibn Taymeyya said no such thing and was never against apostasy. That is fabrication and I think it is a shame that you have no ability to even build an argument without resorting to such deviation. Ibn Taymeyya as a matter of fact signified TWO LEVELS of apostasy where the higher one does not require repentence period, and the second one is granted the repentence chance. The higher apostasy if it's known it is direct zandaqa, such as the man in Koufa who claimed HE is God. He was put to death without repentence, just they checked if he was not insane. Scholars are never for and against rulings, they find evidence and follow it.

I am done with this argument. If people here wish to believe something so glaringly against all the evidence points to its application in Islam, and wish to speak it as it is like that with no foundation, it is their embarrassement, and their sin for not contemplating truth and misguiding others for it.

Ramadan Kareem, and I hope you make up this time on the remaining few nights.

format_quote Originally Posted by islamiclife

@sur

brother, should I advise you that please wait for another week. Can you? However, allow me to make a following comment:

Jazak Allah khayran for bringing up these. I did not know about these ahadith and neither did the Muslim ummah for 14 centuries, including the first 3 generations. They were all jahils like myself and thank you for pointing us to these ahadith and enlightening us about the correct ruling.

Yes i can wait.

& as to ur comment that first 3 generations didn't know, that's quite possible for 1st 3 generations to misunderstand Prophet's words,,, like in following hadees two "WRONG" statements were attributed to Prophet(pbuh) by very 1st generation, which were corrected by Aisha(r.a):-

Sahih-Bukhari:5:59:316 :-
Narrated Hisham's father:

It was mentioned before 'Aisha that Ibn 'Umar attributed the following statement to the Prophet "The dead person is punished in the grave because of the crying and lamentation Of his family." On that, 'Aisha said, "But Allah's Apostle said, 'The dead person is punished for his crimes and sins while his family cry over him then." She added, "And this is similar to the statement (attributed) of Allah's Apostle when he stood by the (edge of the) well which contained the corpses of the pagans killed at Badr, 'They hear what I say.' She added, "But he(actually) said now they know very well what I used to tell them was the truth." 'Aisha then recited: 'You cannot make the dead hear.' (30.52) and 'You cannot make those who are in their Graves, hear you.' (35.22) that is, when they had taken their places in the (Hell) Fire.

I can give u more examples if u like....

brother Sempharo, those ahadeeth are not authentic, see the first one, it's mentioned:
رواه أبو الشيخ في كتاب الحدود من طريق المعلى بن هلال وهو متروك ، عن عبد الله بن محمد بن عقيل ، عن جابر ، ورواه البيهقي من وجه آخر من حديث عبد الله بن وهب ، عن الثوري ، عن رجل ، عن عبد الله بن عبيد بن عمير مرسلا

and a حديث مرسل is rejected as a principle-although there might be exceptions-.

2015: it is classified as weak or مرسل from what I've seen, not to mention it does say that in the book.

Umm Qirfa:

سؤال : ما صحة ما روي عن زيد بن ثابت في قتله لأم قرفة التي كانت تحرض الناس على عداوة الرسول كما جاء في السيرة النبوية لابن هشام .. باب غزوة زيد بن حارثة بنى فزارة و مصاب أم قرفة؟

جواب :

لقد جاءت الرواية في طبقات ابن سعد وعنه ابن الجوزي في كتابه المنتظم ومدار الرواية على محمد بن عمر الواقدي * وهو شخص متهم بالكذب لدى علماء الحديث ، والقصة أوردها ابن كثير في البداية والنهاية مختصرة ولم يعلق عليها بشىء وذكرها ابن هشام في السيرة وكلاهما عن محمد ابن اسحق الذي لم يذكر سند الرواية ، فالحاصل ان الرواية لم تصح فلا يجوز الاحتجاج بها .
هو محمد بن عمر بن واقد الواقدي الأسلمي ابو عبد الله المدني قاضي بغداد مولى عبد الله بن بريدة الأسلمي
قال البخاري : الواقدي مديني سكن بغداد متروك الحديث تركه أحمد وابن نمير وابن المبارك وإسماعيل بن زكريا ( تهذيب الكمال مجلد 26)
هذا في ص 185-186 وقال أحمد هو كذاب وقال يحيى ضعيف وفي موضع آخر ليس بشيء وقال أبو داود : أخبرني من سمع من علي بن المديني يقول روى الواقدي ثلاثين ألف حديث غريب وقال أبو بكر بن خيثمة سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول لا يكتب حديث الواقدي ليس بشيء وقال عبد الرحمن بن أبي حاتم سألت عنه علي بن المديني فقال : متروك الحديث هنا علة جميلة أيضا في سند الحديث وهي روايته عن عبد الله بن جعفر الزهري قال إسحاق بن منصور قال أحمد بن حنبل كان الواقدي يقلب الأحاديث يلقي حديث ابن أخي الزهري على معمر ذا قال إسحاق بن راهويه كما وصف وأشد لأنه عندي ممن يضع الحديث الجرح والتعديل 8/الترجمة 92 وقال علي بن المديني سمعت أحمد بن حنبل يقول الواقدي يركب الأسانيد تاريخ بغداد 3/13-16 وقال الإمام مسلم متروك الحديث وقال النسائي ليس بثقة وقال الحاكم ذاهب الحديث قال الذهبي رحمه الله مجمع على تركه وذكر هذا في مغني الضعفاء 2/ الترجمة 5861
قال النسائي في " الضعفاء والمتروكين " المعروفون بالكذب على رسول الله أربعة الواقدي بالمدينة ومقاتل بخراسان ومحمد بن سعيد بالشام
http://www.imanway1.com/horras/showthread.php?t=206

2016: calssified as weak,
http://www.dorar.net/enc/hadith/%D9%...%B1%D9%87+/+yj

please see numbers 1, 4, not to mention it indicates that Umar didn't agree with the person being killed, so it's counter evidence.

-Abdullah Ibn Qays' captive; the prophet didn't order the man killed, rather the prophet appointed Sa'ad and qays as governors of Yemen, and they both used to meet at times, it happened that this incident occurred then.
seeing as the prophet wasn't the one who ordered it, this is not evidence regardless of Mu'ath's interpretation, not to mention at that time to apostate didn't just mean to leave the religion.

-Abdullah Ibn Sarh; the more common narration is that he was ordered to be killed on the day of the conquest of Makkah.
فأهدر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم دمه يوم الفتح
http://sirah.al-islam.com/display.asp?f=mga1597.htm

hence the matter still remains that neither is there evidence form the qur'an, nor from the Sunnah of the prophet that one who has left the religion be killed simply for that action.

there might be a great number of people who adhere to the contrary view, but numbers don't decide what's right or wrong when there is clear contradiction with the qur'an and sunnah.

may Allah make this Ramadan and all the following ones blessed for all.

^ If you think so, in your own personal version maybe. Because, again you address only a few of the hadith saying this one is less than proven and that one is not strong enough in that guy's opinion, and again you completely do not address not only all the straight forward evidence including the main two authenticated hadith in ths Sahih of "If a man changes his religion (out of Islam), kill him" (or is Sahih Bukhary also unauthentic according to you?), but also fail to even seek any math-hab or methodlogical school in Islam that says what you are simply claiming. Without avoiding the issues, where's the direct math-hab and its daleel that says the opposite?

Every school of thought and fiqh and even sects agree that apostasy laws were set and practiced. The only contradiction to that is in your laymen minds, so may you find the humility to accept that everyone who studied Islam and became anything of an Imam or a scholar did not find any incontrevertible issues in apostasy and therefore you may not claim IT DOESN'T exist and that you understand hadith and quran better than the entirity of companions, salaf, and scholars who've written more books and documented more hadith than the number of comics your kids will ever read in their whole life.

@Sur: Not only have you badly translated and indexed some of the hadiths you mentioned earlier (There is no hadith 83:37 in Bukhary, book 83 stops at 33), and again completely making claims directly at primary source without a single proper school of thought or methodology or an established Imam to support this, (nor proper daleel of course, because everyone here seems to like only mentioning hadith that suggests "additional conditions" to apostasy, or to say that some of what was brought is not fully authenticated). However, the important point here is that you just also made a claim that scars the faith of Ahlu Sunnah Wal JamaAAa by saying the companions didn't understand the prophet:

The companions of the prophet and the two generations afterwards were by hadith of the prophet the most knowledgable and most pious: "Best generation is mine and then the one that follows them and then the one that follows them" and "The successors of this nation will never be more guided and knowledgable than the predecessors". This is the setting of the three generations of the prophet and after to be the source of example for us. Additionally we were specifically ordered to follow the companion's example as the Hadith says: "Take my Sunnah (tradition and habits) and the habits of the guided successors after me, hold on to it and bite on it with your molars, and dare not approach innovation, for every innovation is an invention and every invention is misguidance" Mosnad Ahmed, Sahih Al-JameAA, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majeh

For you to say they didn't know, really takes this debate to the level of explaining to children why cars don't run on chocolate.

It is also a huge insult to the prophet -pbuh- and Gibreel's responsibility of carrying God's revelations and inspiration of what is happening. Considering that he used to tell his companions when a man from Yemen visited and knocked on his door, and could sit and describe an ongoing battle in detail thousands of miles away, or would tell one companion that his fellow will go to hell months before that person commited suicide before the companion's eyes, it is ridiculous to suggest that Moaath would kill a man and the prophet would fail to know and have no qualms about denying on his actions, or worse maybe you suggest he was biased and did not uphold Shariah law on Moath because he liked him? Also with Zaid Ibn Hareth who killed Umm Qerfa, or the two slave girls who did NOT murder anyone and just ran after apostasy.

Go and learn what Kholafaa Rashedeen means and don't pick out hadiths you don't know the meaning of and attach them to instances you have no knowledge of.

Now for the guidance of both of you and that of other readers, would like to paste something. If you wish to argue further, take it up to them, or do you want to call them ignorant as well?:

"Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 9/18:

The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times. This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Because apostasy comes about because of doubt, and cannot be dispelled in an instant. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days.

End quote.

The saheeh Sunnah indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death.

Al-Bukhaari (6922) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, put him to death.”

Al-Bukhaari (6484) and Muslim (1676) narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a previously-married person who commits zina; and one who leaves his religion and leaves the main body of the Muslims.”

The general meaning of these ahaadeeth has been agreed that it is essential to put the apostate to death whether he is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) or not.

The view that the apostate who is to be put to death is the one who is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) only is contrary to these ahaadeeth. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that the reason why he should be put to death is his apostasy, not his waging war against Islam.

Undoubtedly some kinds of apostasy are more abhorrent than others, and the apostasy of one who wages war against Islam is more abhorrent than that of anyone else. Hence some of the scholars differentiated between them, and said that it is not essential to ask the muhaarib to repent or to accept his repentance; rather he should be put to death even if he repents, whereas the repentance of one who is not a muhaarib should be accepted and he should not be put to death if he does. This is the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him).

He said:

Apostasy is of two types: ordinary apostasy and extreme apostasy, for which execution is prescribed. In both cases there is evidence that it is essential to execute the apostate, but the evidence indicating that the sentence of death may be waived if the person repents does not apply to both types of apostasy. Rather the evidence indicates that that is allowed only in the first case – i.e., ordinary apostasy – as will be clear to anyone who studies the evidence that speaks about accepting the repentance of the apostate. In the second type – i.e., extreme apostasy – the obligation to put the apostate to death still stands, and there is no text or scholarly consensus to indicate that the death sentence may be waived. The two cases are quite different and there is no comparison between them. It does not say in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or according to scholarly consensus, that everyone who apostatizes in word or deed may be spared the death sentence if he repents after he is a captured and tried. Rather the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, differentiate between the different kinds of apostates.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/696

Al-Hallaaj was one of the most well known heretics who were put to death without being asked to repent. Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad said:

The Maaliki fuqaha’ of Baghdad at the time of al-Muqtadir were unanimously agreed that al-Hallaaj should be killed and crucified because of his claim to divinity and his belief in incarnation, and his saying “I am al-Haqq [God],” even though he outwardly appeared to adhere to sharee’ah, and they did not accept his repentance.

Al-Shifa bi Ta’reef Huqooq al-Mustafa, 2/1091.

Based on this, it is clear that what the questioner says about the apostate not being killed unless he is waging war on Islam is mistaken, and the differentiation that we have quoted from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah may dispel any confusion and make the matter clearer.

Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or attacking the Qur’aan, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons in some cases."

ok so I'll answer the first two points only not to get into a huge argument.

the hadeeth:" kill whomever changes his religion" first of all cannot be taken so literally, why? it doesn't specify what religion one changes to or from, one could become a Muslim after being non muslim, and the hadeeth indicates we should kill him for that if taken at face value.

so one says it's obvious that Islam is not part of that equation, but then that reasoning
could be used to disprove the entire 'apparent' meaning from it's foundation, if we can't take that hadeeth literally then there must be other criteria set in the Qur'an/Hadeeth that explain it more.

I believe that the verses in the qur'an that speak of apostasy and do not set a punishment for it in this world, rather in the hereafter, give us a clue, another verse is:"no compulsion in religion".

if there is to be no compulsion in religion, then how is it that we enforce a punishment that clearly 'compulses' people in religion?

evidence form hadeeth-other than the one in question- is very clear, the prophet never killed anyone for apostasy alone,and in Ibn Sarh's example, he ordered him killed, then later rescinded the punishment. this is significant since the hadeeth doesn't state anything about the punishment being reversible, rather the opposite, it almost implies-if taken literally- that as soon as one apostates the order is to be issued for his death.
this also contradicts what some people put it as there being a 'grace period' of 3 or so number of days.

hence we can't take that punishment-death for apostasy-as a necessary punishment, at the most it is left to the discretion of the state, whether or not apostasy merits death is not a black or white question, but should be seen in the light of how much damage does it do? what kinds of actions has that apostate done to merit it? will he do such actions in the future? is he an important and influential person or not? how should we deal with it under such conditions? and so on.

another point that could be taken as evidence against death for apostasy is taken form the treaty of Hudaibiya, one of the terms of the treaty was that the prophet could not persecute anyone who apostates and goes to Quraish, if death for apostasy were the rule, how did the prophet accept it?

simply put, apostasy itself does not merit death, it merits trying to bring the person back to Islam, especially given that anyone who does apostate either does it out of some misconception with the religion, or being extremely needy/poor and being seduced by offers of wealth and so on by other religions, or that the person wasn't muslim in the first place, and only pretended to be so, so they could harm the Muslim's, in which case exposing the fraud serves us better than simply killing them.

second question: I follow the Hanafi Fiqh mostly, but I have studied others beside it, also I had both a Hanafi and Salafi/non muqqallid viewpoints present when I was learning early on, nowadays I don't follow either-or any other math-hab-too closely without there being strong evidence for it. my main position for any scholar is that scholars are human and make mistakes, a fatwa is a scholar's ijtihad, it is to be followed as closely as it follows the Qur'an and sunnah.

also, majority is not proof of much if there is no backing evidence, ie. majority itself means nothing more than that a viewpoint has/had gained wide acceptance for any number of reasons. not to mention there is no such thing as Ijma', as there is no clear mechanism for it, who are the people to be considered for Ijma'? all scholars of this sect or that at any point in history be it 1000 years ago or 10 days ago who agree with us? there is no objective criteria for it yet thus I consider it non binding unless in the most fundamental cases such as monotheism, prayers etc.

First of all,

I would like to apologize. Yes indeed. I had gone over my last couple of posts this time after iftar and found that in the heat of my defense of the point of view I may have been rude and condescending to others. I hope you will forgive me if I have made any of you feel offended, and more I hope God will. Should have paid attention to my own signature.

Other than that, alcurad, I have nothing more to say except to repeat a bit maybe God guides you to what I wish to convey:

1- All you are doing is re-interpreting hadith without the knowledge of scholars and that is not permissible and you should know that. Additionally your deductions follow paths that violate foundational principals placed by the prophet himself in deducing rulings. An example would be "Textual orders are wajeb (required) to be applied and are considered general not special". So when we are asked to grow our beard and shave our moustache, all arguments to say it was only because jews did the opposite and otherwise it is not required failed miserably and the consensus is that we all grow our beards whether or not we can. Special situations get excuses, but the general order applies to all. Your approach in this case was the opposite to that principal in which you put conditions on the textual order, making its application subject to your own deduction of what conditions allow it based on the incidents only you agree to ratify from one or two sources like Sahih Al-bukhary. Basically you want it to apply to special cases that are described by the collection of hadiths right and left in order to create an "if ... and ... and... and only then can it be applied". That is completely negated by principals of fiqh and I think you can check under sections of "general and special"

There are other mistakes as well, so to make this short, unless you can get Imams and a solid math-hab to back up the claim, your attempt at reframing and isolating every incident like that is the heart and soul of "ruling by desires" and bears no weight. Before you even attempt at something like that remember that legendary Al-Albani himself, the greatest imam of hadith of this century has also backed up the apostsy law dictation and application to be a part of Islam and cannot be abrogated.

2- It is not a majority of opinions, it is complete consensus of all established sunni scholars and all four schools of fiqh. Even Ali Gomaa who has become wounded (majrouh) by other sunni scholars for embracing innovated points of view recently that directly contradict material evidence, dared not say that there IS NO APOSTASY, merely said that it cannot be applied now.

That's all I have to say, God knows best and he will judge who is right and who is wrong in the afterlife, and I do hope that you and Sur accept my apology again regarding the tone of the last two posts.

Fi Amanillah

[QUOTE=Sampharo;1219251]

no need Sempharo , I'm ok with arguments, I was just pointing out the points adressed to my posts.

appeal to authority is usually considered a logical fallacy. as it were no need to bring any person's view on this if the daleel for it is non existent/extremely weak in the first place, the Qur'an and Sunnah are above consensus in this matter, not that there is consensus in the first place. as it is, there is no clear mechanism for it yet, thus it is beyond the scope of this argument.

otherwise, the cases Are isolated, where did the prophet give the reason for their killing as just apostasy? it's not like he said: this man has apostated, kill him for it only.

there is apostasy, and it could be punished if the state so wishes, but not by death.

^ The daleel is more than clear brother alcurad and your analysis is faulty as I pointed out, both logically and technically as per the principals of fiqh. You are interpreting text to your own liking against the principals and actual incidents, and whatever incident you didn't like you dug up somebody who questioned it, not disproved it or anything.

Strangely enough you cannot accept that the most authenticated hadith is a direct order from the prophet to kill whomever changes his religion out of Islam and has been authenticated by more than four different angles, is in the Sahih and other classifications.

So yes in the presence of solid daleel there is no place for opinion, especially layman opinion. As for appeal to authority, know that authoritative knowledge is REQUIRED to be followed, your statement about it being a fallacy is in direct violation of the prophet orders to seek and follow the people of knowledge and not make haphazard opinions out of their own theories and analysis.

God and his prophet know best.

format_quote Originally Posted by optimist

based on some hadiths (I ignore the counter hadiths posted by some others) which states "kill the apostate", "Kill the one who changes religion" without explaining the context of the verdit and also without having any support from the verses from the Quran.

The context is something that ALL scholars have derived and found within texts that were analyzed and have arrived at a unanimous opinion. Prophet's orders authenticated in sunnah does not require "support" from Quran. That is a very ignorant thing to say and takes this again to levels of sin.

The lack of conditions within the order is part of the foundation that makes it general and applicable to all whomever it comes upon. That is dictated principals of dealing with rulings that the prophet has given. Your own context that you are drawing is completely off the chart and literally pulled from your own imagination of what to you WOULD have made sense. Very "soccer match spectator comments" like. It is not only fantastically false and wrong but also a huge sin to do this, to say onto God and the prophet that which you do not know. "O MANKIND! Partake of what is lawful and good on earth, and follow not Satan's footsteps: for, verily, he is your open foe, and bids you only to do evil, and to commit deeds of abomination, and to attribute unto God something of which you have no knowledge." [2:168-169] That is whether it was the way christians thought Jesus was his son or a muslim without knowledge saying "God did this and decided that".

Technical and Logical deductions made against apostasy laws that I mentioned refer to Principals of Fiqh, those principals are extensive and deep and a complete field of science that you have to be aware of in order to extract rulings. It explains permissible methodology and the extent of context derivatives and how to find authentication and how to determine level of requirement.

FIND THE METHODOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF FIQH THAT SUPPORTS SUCH CLAIMS OF "NO APOSTASY" AND THE IMAMS THAT BELIEVE SO BEFORE YOU SPEAK FURTHER OF THIS WITH COMPLETE LACK OF ISLAMIC KNOWLEDGE.

I suggest we close this subject for obviously it is a bone that everyone likes to pick at.

Closed until after ramadhan.