Apostasy in Islam

[Umar001]

That's not what I meant; I meant that the Prophet (pbuh) placed a law that might have been placed for political and military reasons instead of religious reasons.

Islam of course crosses that line because Islam as a religion contains a political aspect, that's why I think it's easy for the Prophet's (pbuh) sayings to be misinterpreted. Part of religion is political, but I think it should be isolated in this case from the personal aspect.

The Prophet (pbuh) did not contradict the Qur'an if you keep in mind what I said.

So when the prophet peace be upon him said 'if anyone changes his religion' you mean that he meant political stance and not 'personal' religion.

So the prophet should have said 'if anyone changes his political stance against us?

So wait, because the prophet used the word RELIGION, and the Qu'ran uses the word RELIGIOn then it must be contradicting somewhere. Unless of course your understanding of the Ayah is wrong.

 

[Skywalker]

Actually like I said before, that hadith can't be taken 100% litereally because it would also mean that anyone that converts from a Buddhist to a Christian must be killed, and anyone the converts from Christianity to a Muslim must be killed, because "anyone who changes his religion must be killed". Right? Of course not.

This proves that we need to know the exact reason and context of that saying of the Prophet (pbuh), otherwise anybody can give it whatever meaning they desire.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

1)In Islam isn't in believed that all people are born muslim and then and then some are taught different. So would this mean that everyone who isn't muslim should be killed?

No, because the belief that everyone is born as a Muslim means that everyone is born upon the "Fitrah", which refers to the natural state of submission to God. It doesn't mean that everyone is a Muslim in the sense that you assumed.

2)From what I gather from this post
a-if you are muslim and convert to another religion you are to be killed
b-Islam can't be forced it is supposed to be accepted on your own free will.
My question is, isn't saying that you must accept Islam or die being forced to believe?

Who is saying that you must accept Islam or die? You aren't supposed to be forced to accept Islam. But if you have accept Islam (on your own free will), then you have to follow certain rules in an Islamic state.

 

[tomtomsmom]

No, because the belief that everyone is born as a Muslim means that everyone is born upon the "Fitrah", which refers to the natural state of submission to God. It doesn't mean that everyone is a Muslim in the sense that you assumed.



Who is saying that you must accept Islam or die? You aren't supposed to be forced to accept Islam. But if you have accept Islam (on your own free will), then you have to follow certain rules in an Islamic state.

Ok so I am dumb and just don't get it. So if you accept Islam the rules say you can't change your mind. If you do you are to be killed. So after you accept it you must always accept or you die. Sounds like the same thing to me.

 

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah,

Actually like I said before, that hadith can't be taken 100% litereally because it would also mean that anyone that converts from a Buddhist to a Christian must be killed, and anyone the converts from Christianity to a Muslim must be killed, because "anyone who changes his religion must be killed". Right? Of course not.

This proves that we need to know the exact reason and context of that saying of the Prophet (pbuh), otherwise anybody can give it whatever meaning they desire.

Yes, you can take it literally, but as you said, you need to know the context, so something can be literal but out of context, like that hadith is literal but we need to understand the context, let me give you an example, in understanding the Qu'ran or making a Tafsir, a person explains the Qu'ran ayah with another Qu'ran ayah, that is the highest level.

So an example,

PICKTHAL: Lo! We revealed it on a blessed night - Lo! We are ever warning -
[44:03]

The above is to be taken literal, and what night is that? The Qu'ran explains,

PICKTHAL: Lo! We revealed it on the Night of Predestination
[97:01]

So similarly, as there are Scholars of Quranic meaning, there are scholars of Ahadeeth.

You might feel that hadith should not be taken literally because it says whoever changes his religion, which could mean Christian to Muslim, but rather that hadith has to be taken literally, but in context, and just as one ayah explains another one hadith explains another.

In post 16 you showed us a response and it had this hadith:

This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6878) and Sâhih Muslim (1676)]

So then this hadith explains to us what the other meant, i.e. that a Muslim who leaves his religion is to be killed.

So this view and understanding of the hadith derived from other hadith which shed light in the context show us that it is still about a person who leaves RELIGION.

But this would still contradict the Ayah about no compulsion in religion according to what was said before.

So again do you believe that the Prophet done something against the Qu'ran?

 

[Umar001]

Ok so I am dumb and just don't get it. So if you accept Islam the rules say you can't change your mind. If you do you are to be killed. So after you accept it you must always accept or you die. Sounds like the same thing to me.

Out of curiosity, if a person enters a contract in which they establish that if they leave the contract they will owe x amount to someone, then they leave would this indicate that they are being forced to go into debt or are they chosing to?

I am not saying Islam does this, its just a question I have.


Eesa.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Ok so I am dumb and just don't get it. So if you accept Islam the rules say you can't change your mind. If you do you are to be killed. So after you accept it you must always accept or you die. Sounds like the same thing to me.

Look, you can't force anyone to become a Muslim. However, if you do become a Muslim and you live in an Islamic state then this is what you can't do:

a person in the Islamic state who leaves Islam will not be punished unless he publicly proclaims his apostasy and then calls others to do so. (From the fatwa)

There's a difference between these two things. You say that this is the same thing as compelling people to become Muslim or killing them. Well, if it is, then I could come to your home right now with a gun and demand that you become Muslim. But I can't, and yet you say that the apostasy laws in an Islamic state is the same as this. So, just becaue the punishment for apostasy is death, this means that you can force people to enter Islam?

 

[tomtomsmom]

Yes if someone enters a contract and backs out of it then they have to pay a penalty fee. That is moneary loss, not the loss of your life which I find completely different.

Let me set up a what if to try and explain.
A man converts to Islam without doing alot of research on it. After 5 years of learning he finds that it is not the religion he thought it was and finds it to be untrue. He then converts to (insert religion here) and as part of that religion (as are most) it is part of his duty to try to bring in others to this new religion. He is then told that he has 3 days to convert back to Islam or face death.

Is this not bullying someone to accept the faith?

I have been told by many people here that I should go ahead and convert becasue it will take a very long time to learn about Islam. I am sorry but that isn't going to happen. If I accept it now without the proper knowledge who is to say that in the years to come I will not agree with it? And if the consequence of that mistake is death then it isn't a risk a I willing to take. At present I do not live in an Islamic country. But things change and I might one day.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Well, as you said, you don't live in an Islamic State with Shariah so the punishment wouldn't even be implemented on you.

Hypothetically, though. If you were to convert and then decided to leave Islam, all you would have to do would be to not mention to anyone that you've left Islam and keep living in the Islamic state, or move to a non-Islamic state. You would then be left alone.

As for the part about learning about Islam... If you learn the basics (about Islamis monotheism, worshipping God etc.), then you basically know about the gist of Islam. You know what Islam is. What is left to learn would be the details of how to worship God, like what you say in the prayer etc. There wouldn't really be anything that you don't agree with, if you have accepted the foundations of Islam in the first place. For instance, if you accept Islam based on the foundations like the principle that all worship is to be directed to God alone (not His Prophets, not the Angels, not some "holy man", not anything) and then you find out that in Islam you have to give a sum of your money to a particular category of poor people, then this wouldn't really change your mind, would it? The point is, as long as you know and understand the foundations, it doesn't matter that much that you don't know the finer details.

And you don't only get 3 days to convert back, you get to have your questions answered and doubts cleared by the scholars.

 

[tomtomsmom]

Well, as you said, you don't live in an Islamic State with Shariah so the punishment wouldn't even be implemented on you.

Hypothetically, though. If you were to convert and then decided to leave Islam, all you would have to do would be to not mention to anyone that you've left Islam and keep living in the Islamic state, or move to a non-Islamic state. You would then be left alone.

As for the part about learning about Islam... If you learn the basics (about Islamis monotheism, worshipping God etc.), then you basically know about the gist of Islam. You know what Islam is. What is left to learn would be the details of how to worship God, like what you say in the prayer etc. There wouldn't really be anything that you don't agree with, if you have accepted the foundations of Islam in the first place. For instance, if you accept Islam based on the foundations like the principle that all worship is to be directed to God alone (not His Prophets, not the Angels, not some "holy man", not anything) and then you find out that in Islam you have to give a sum of your money to a particular category of poor people, then this wouldn't really change your mind, would it? The point is, as long as you know and understand the foundations, it doesn't matter that much that you don't know the finer details.

And you don't only get 3 days to convert back, you get to have your questions answered and doubts cleared by the scholars.

I do believe that God should be worshipped alone and that his prophets should be given respect. And no, it does not change my mind knowing that part of my money should go to the poor. I think if everyone in the world did this then we wouldn't even have the poor. But the finer details do matter to me. The thought of people dying because they no longer believe or have had a change of heart worries me. I don't think that this is something I could believe in.

 

[Woodrow]

I am not giving an answer I am not knowledgable enough to. But I do have some questions.

Is there a difference between may do something and have to do something?

Does the Ahadith say an apostate must be killed or that an apostate may be killed?

Are there any specific conditions under which it is said an apostate must be killed?

Does anyone commit a sin if an apostate is not killed?

 

[zaki.aumeerudy]

I've been thinking about this subject a lot lately, and done some research as well, and I'd like to take other people's opinions to see what they.

We all know that the Shariah ruling for leaving Islam after being a Muslim is death. The problem is that everybody takes that as a given, and not many people actually think about why it's like that. I did a bit of thinking on this subject, and my personal opinion is that this ruling in the Shariah is wrong. In other words, I feel that the Qur'an and Sunnah have been misinterpreted and this ruling is based on that misinterpretation.

While most big sheikhs are in total agreement that the apostate should be killed, a few others think as I do, that they should not. Here are my reasons:

1) The Qur'an is very specific about capital punishment for various crimes, yet on the subject of apostasy, it does not say anything about how apostates should be punished.

2) The Qur'an mentions in several instances that those who believe and then disbelive, or those who reject their faith, that they would be punished by ALLAH in this life and the next. Therefore, if Allah has reserved the right to punish them for Himself, who are we to take that right away? Allah does not need our help in punishing them.

3) The Qur'an mentions that there is no compulsion in religion. If you tell a Muslim who wants to leave Islam that he will die if he left, wouldn't that be compulsion?

4) If a person leaves Islam and decided 20 years later that he made a mistake and decides to go back to it, he would not be able to do so if he has been executed. Therefore, executing someone who has the potential to become a Muslim again takes away their chance of becoming Muslim again, and takes away their chance of entering paradise. And who are we to deny someone paradise?

In conclusion, the Qur'an and common logic state that the punishment to apostates will come only from Allah, and that men should not have anything to with a person's choice in faith.

As for the many hadiths that say that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered people who left Islam to be killed, I have a partial explanation for that.

During that time, when Islam was nothing more than a group of people living in Medina, people who left Islam usually went to the other side and worked for them to attack the Muslims, thus making them traitors and spies. It's my belief that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered apostates at that time to be killed, not because they've made a personal decision on which religion they want, but a political decision on which side they want to fight.

That's my interpretation anyway. I hope that's a good base for the start of this discussion, which I think is going to be very interesing...

Oh and please provide Qur'an and hadith sources when possible, but common sense and logic is also welcome.

as salaamu alaikum
some questions need to asked to ourselves specially concerning islamic laws
then understanding will come

1: when the ayat for apostasy has been revealed ,date and time and related hadith ,how the sahabah do and acted then

2: Is there ijmaa(consensus) of ulama on the subject ,the one who goes against ijmaa must be a mujtahid mutlaq or 4 imams or ibn taimiyyah or someone of this level
ijmaa means the consensus of true ulamas from the time of the ulamas and up to now on a subject

example : sawlaat is waajib or fard i.e obligatory if someone else says contradicts that then he is considered as a kaafir ,either he repents and presnt excuses or he is to punished to death


now i answer your questions

1: how is he to be punished is not a problem , he would be executed in the fastest way ,the action is important not the means , this will be decided by the qaadwi(judge) but most of them repent

2: even that Allahu azza wa jall saya that ,,several laws has been prescribed for other punishment like theft even like the law of napoleon bonaparte and others
3:no there is no compulsion ,nooen has forced me to accept islaam
a:if u accept a condition u have to abide for it this is a contract and there are clauses in breach of contract
b: any government in the world has to put laws ,what will happen if anyone do what he wants

4; the one who deviates will never come backas is said in in usrah swaff 61:6
WHEN THEY DEVIATED THEN aLLAH DVIATED THEIR HEART
TRULY I AM IN A MULTI RACIAL COUNTRY WILL BLACK,WHITE ,CHRISTIAN,HINDU,MUSLIM,BUDDHIST .i HAVE SEEN PEOPLE LEFT ISLAAM THEY NEVER COME BACK

Truly bro if u need a teacher tell me where u are i will try to give u a teacher
if u do not study a subject how could u give fatwa on that subject whether it is deen , IT, electronics, mechanic.etc

 

[Skywalker]

Al7amdulilah, this thread is finally getting interesting

You might feel that hadith should not be taken literally because it says whoever changes his religion, which could mean Christian to Muslim, but rather that hadith has to be taken literally, but in context, and just as one ayah explains another one hadith explains another.

In post 16 you showed us a response and it had this hadith:

This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6878) and Sâhih Muslim (1676)]

So then this hadith explains to us what the other meant, i.e. that a Muslim who leaves his religion is to be killed.

So this view and understanding of the hadith derived from other hadith which shed light in the context show us that it is still about a person who leaves RELIGION.

Well, I'm glad that we agree on the part that sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) need to be taken in context in order to know the "real" meanings behind them. If everyone took these things literally, we would have total chaos in the world now. A deeper level of understanding is required, and it is this level of understanding that should set the unversal standard for everyone.

The hadith I presented may seem very clear to you if you ignore the fine details, but in this case, these fine details are the key in knowing what the prophet (pbuh) REALLY meant when he said what he said. What are ahadeeth after all if not records of what people heard the Prophet (pbuh) say from time to time? Maybe they misunderstood him; maybe the situation at the time required him to say that, but he never meant it as a general rule. We won't know this until we investigate this matter and understand the context.

Now as for the hadith, here's what I mean:
“The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.”

You notice that there are two conditions there? It's like an AND-gate in logic circuits; both conditions need to be met in order for the electric current to pass, thus both conditions need to be met if the hadith is to be taken literally and used as a law. The other hadith I posted has the same condition, and it's even a little more clear:

"Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger 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 messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate...."

This hadeeth even has three conditions. Nevertheless, each hadith seems to be shedding light on the idea that changing your religion only is not enough to deem a person eligable for execution.

So far, I haven't even hinted that the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) contradict the Qur'an, but rather that the current law that generalizes the killing of apostates does, in my humble opinion, contradict the Qur'an...and the Sunnah for that matter.

After 5 years of learning he finds that it is not the religion he thought it was and finds it to be untrue. He then converts to (insert religion here) and as part of that religion (as are most) it is part of his duty to try to bring in others to this new religion. He is then told that he has 3 days to convert back to Islam or face death.

It's possible that a person may enter Islam without having too much knowledge of it (it would be pretty irresponsible IMO), afterwhich he could realize that Islam is not the thing for him and change to another religion. According to the fatwa, he can do this without fear of death as long as he keeps it to himself. If the faith that he converts to demands that he spread his faith, he should then leave the Islamic country and preach elsewhere if he wants to avoid punishment. So it's quite possible for him to convert and avoid death. That's according to the fatwa anyway.

Is this not bullying someone to accept the faith?

In the context of what I just said, no.

I have been told by many people here that I should go ahead and convert becasue it will take a very long time to learn about Islam. I am sorry but that isn't going to happen. If I accept it now without the proper knowledge who is to say that in the years to come I will not agree with it? And if the consequence of that mistake is death then it isn't a risk a I willing to take. At present I do not live in an Islamic country. But things change and I might one day.

Each person is different in the level of conviction they need to become a Muslim. Some people can just be told that Islam is the worship of only one God and they'd already be saying their shahaada!...while others feel the need to know every little detail about something before going into it. That's perfectly fine and completely natural. Perhaps the people that encouraged you to "just get it over with" feel that you've reached the level of conviction that you need to become a Muslim. If you want my advice, do all the research you need to be convinced because Islam has nothing to hide, and you need to have complete conviction of the truth of Islam when you say your shahaada. And may Allah guide us all to the truth...

The thought of people dying because they no longer believe or have had a change of heart worries me. I don't think that this is something I could believe in.

Don't be too quick to judge something that we Muslims ourselves are still debating. There are high-profile Muslim scholars who also say that apostates should not be killed, although the majority says that they should.

My opinion thus far in the thread is that unless an apostate presents a threat to the society, they should be left alone. Otherwise, if they are intent in causing havoc in the land and procaim themselves enemies of Allah and his Prophet (pbuh), they should be punished according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. However, I don't think the vast majority of apostates would present any threat to society, and would therefore not fall into that category.

I think we're coming closer to an understanding here, al7amdulilah.

 

[Skywalker]

Jazzak Allah khayran for your post, brother zaki.aumeerudi.

if u do not study a subject how could u give fatwa on that subject

I am in no way making any kind of "fatwa", I'm just discussing a topic from a different point of view so that I, myself can be convinced and for us all to learn something new along the way...

 

[tomtomsmom]

Most people can not simply pick up and move to another country.
And I am not trying to judge, I mean no offence.
That is yet another thing I am confused about. Just because the scholars say it should be a certain way why must it be that way? How are they able to know what God wants us to do any more than you or me? But alas that is offtopic and for another thread. I simply ask all of you to have patience with me as I am still learning and it has always been my nature to question everything. If I have upset any of you because of this I am truly sorry.

 

[zaki.aumeerudy]

Al7amdulilah, this thread is finally getting interesting


Well, I'm glad that we agree on the part that sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) need to be taken in context in order to know the "real" meanings behind them. If everyone took these things literally, we would have total chaos in the world now. A deeper level of understanding is required, and it is this level of understanding that should set the unversal standard for everyone.

The hadith I presented may seem very clear to you if you ignore the fine details, but in this case, these fine details are the key in knowing what the prophet (pbuh) REALLY meant when he said what he said. What are ahadeeth after all if not records of what people heard the Prophet (pbuh) say from time to time? Maybe they misunderstood him; maybe the situation at the time required him to say that, but he never meant it as a general rule. We won't know this until we investigate this matter and understand the context.

Now as for the hadith, here's what I mean:
“The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.”

You notice that there are two conditions there? It's like an AND-gate in logic circuits; both conditions need to be met in order for the electric current to pass, thus both conditions need to be met if the hadith is to be taken literally and used as a law. The other hadith I posted has the same condition, and it's even a little more clear:

"Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger 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 messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate...."

This hadeeth even has three conditions. Nevertheless, each hadith seems to be shedding light on the idea that changing your religion only is not enough to deem a person eligable for execution.

So far, I haven't even hinted that the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) contradict the Qur'an, but rather that the current law that generalizes the killing of apostates does, in my humble opinion, contradict the Qur'an...and the Sunnah for that matter.


It's possible that a person may enter Islam without having too much knowledge of it (it would be pretty irresponsible IMO), afterwhich he could realize that Islam is not the thing for him and change to another religion. According to the fatwa, he can do this without fear of death as long as he keeps it to himself. If the faith that he converts to demands that he spread his faith, he should then leave the Islamic country and preach elsewhere if he wants to avoid punishment. So it's quite possible for him to convert and avoid death. That's according to the fatwa anyway.


In the context of what I just said, no.


Each person is different in the level of conviction they need to become a Muslim. Some people can just be told that Islam is the worship of only one God and they'd already be saying their shahaada!...while others feel the need to know every little detail about something before going into it. That's perfectly fine and completely natural. Perhaps the people that encouraged you to "just get it over with" feel that you've reached the level of conviction that you need to become a Muslim. If you want my advice, do all the research you need to be convinced because Islam has nothing to hide, and you need to have complete conviction of the truth of Islam when you say your shahaada. And may Allah guide us all to the truth...


Don't be too quick to judge something that we Muslims ourselves are still debating. There are high-profile Muslim scholars who also say that apostates should not be killed, although the majority says that they should.

My opinion thus far in the thread is that unless an apostate presents a threat to the society, they should be left alone. Otherwise, if they are intent in causing havoc in the land and procaim themselves enemies of Allah and his Prophet (pbuh), they should be punished according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. However, I don't think the vast majority of apostates would present any threat to society, and would therefore not fall into that category.

I think we're coming closer to an understanding here, al7amdulilah.

hAVE U EVER STUDIED ISLAAM WITH A TEACHER
I got the same problem with many people ,tehy try to answer islamic question without a good knowlegde of islaam . I would never try to answer a question on electronics without knowledge on the subject
WHEN U TALK ABOUT?????
What are ahadeeth after all if not records of what people heard the Prophet (pbuh) say from time to time? Maybe they misunderstood him;
Have studied the science of hadith ,the science of quran
i will help u
hadith is wahy (REVELATION)and quran is wahy(REVELATION) because in the quran Allah says that the prophet do not talk by his desire and everything is revealed to him . WE NEVER DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HADITH AND QURAN
a hadith may abrogate a hadith or abrogate an ayatul quran but supported by an ayatul quran also
an ayat quran may abrogate an ayatul quran and thus still remain in the quran
the uqestion becomes difficult to be answered or the answer could not be understood because we are palying on different level playing fields. i would not say i am too knowledgeable but we wont go too far if the basics are not defined and we may go astray and make kufr and shirk in this way
arother trying to help u

 

[Skywalker]

No need to apologize tomtomsmom...we're all here to ask questions and to learn. Otherwise it would be a very boring life...

As for what you said, yes for some people it might not be easy to move to another country, but all they have to do to stay where they are is to not preach their new religion there. It doesn't seem so hard. If the religion does command them to preach, they have the net now, so they could do it without anybody knowing. Other than that, it would be almost impossible for a person to convert to a religion that requires preaching because who would be there in that country to tell them about that religion in the first place?

Scholars are people who have dedicated their lives to interpretation of God's message, therefore they know a lot more than the average person about most subjects. For example, let's say that you read an ayah in the Qur'an that could be interpreted several ways, and your level of knowledge only allows you understand it one way. A scholar on the other hand has read and memorized the whole Qur'an, and can easily give that ayah an appopriate context in which to understand it properly.

Now I'm not saying that scholars don't make mistakes, they're only human, but they are better sources of the proper understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah than just any person off the street. The best way to really understand something on a personal level is to get the opinions of several scholars on the issue and see what works for you.

Hope that answers your questions...

Is there a difference between may do something and have to do something?

In a general case, yeah, but are you referring to a general case?

Does the Ahadith say an apostate must be killed or that an apostate may be killed?

As far as I know, the apostate must be killed.

Are there any specific conditions under which it is said an apostate must be killed?

That's what I tried to prove in my second-last post. I think there are clear conditions that have to be met before killing an apostate.

Does anyone commit a sin if an apostate is not killed?

I have no idea...maybe we should ask a scholar about this...

 

[Skywalker]

hAVE U EVER STUDIED ISLAAM WITH A TEACHER
I got the same problem with many people ,tehy try to answer islamic question without a good knowlegde of islaam . I would never try to answer a question on electronics without knowledge on the subject

Brother, I understand your concern and I'm grateful to you for trying to guide me and keep me away from kufr and shirk, but I think you misunderstand my intentions for making this thread. You ask if I ever studied Islam with a teacher, my question is what do you mean by a teacher? If a teacher is someone with a licence to teach Islam then the answer is yes because most of the books and lessons I've read and seen are by people who have those licences. If a teacher is someone who sits next to you and talks to you about Islam, then almost all the people around me can be considered teachers.

The reason why a lot of people with little knowledge of Islam try to answer questions is because a lot of things in Islam are very logical! Therefore, they feel like they have enough knowledge to form a logical conclusion that they feel strongly enough about to share with others. I agree that it's not great, but what if someone with a little bit of knowledge of Islam answers a question of a non-Muslim perfectly and causes them to convert to Islam with that answer? I don't encourage it, but there are special cases where this can be a good thing.

hadith is wahy (REVELATION)and quran is wahy(REVELATION) because in the quran Allah says that the prophet do not talk by his desire and everything is revealed to him . WE NEVER DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HADITH AND QURAN

Well the fact that some ahadeeth are considered sahih and some aren't doesn't help your point out too much. Yes, sahih hadiths are to be considered as God's words through the Messenger (pbuh), but they must also be understood properly in their contexts because the Prophet (pbuh) wasn't just walking around reciting laws, he was living the life of a human being, and he was presented with new situations and new problems all the time. We have to understand his sayings in the light of those situations. So yes, I agree with you to an extent, and YES I do agree with you that I'm not knowledgabe enough to make a fatwa, but that's not why I'm here. I think I am knowledgable enough though to carry out an intelligent discussion. What do you think?

Jazaak Allah khayran brother...

 

[zaki.aumeerudy]

Brother, I understand your concern and I'm grateful to you for trying to guide me and keep me away from kufr and shirk, but I think you misunderstand my intentions for making this thread. You ask if I ever studied Islam with a teacher, my question is what do you mean by a teacher? If a teacher is someone with a licence to teach Islam then the answer is yes because most of the books and lessons I've read and seen are by people who have those licences. If a teacher is someone who sits next to you and talks to you about Islam, then almost all the people around me can be considered teachers.

The reason why a lot of people with little knowledge of Islam try to answer questions is because a lot of things in Islam are very logical! Therefore, they feel like they have enough knowledge to form a logical conclusion that they feel strongly enough about to share with others. I agree that it's not great, but what if someone with a little bit of knowledge of Islam answers a question of a non-Muslim perfectly and causes them to convert to Islam with that answer? I don't encourage it, but there are special cases where this can be a good thing.


Well the fact that some ahadeeth are considered sahih and some aren't doesn't help your point out too much. Yes, sahih hadiths are to be considered as God's words through the Messenger (pbuh), but they must also be understood properly in their contexts because the Prophet (pbuh) wasn't just walking around reciting laws, he was living the life of a human being, and he was presented with new situations and new problems all the time. We have to understand his sayings in the light of those situations. So yes, I agree with you to an extent, and YES I do agree with you that I'm not knowledgabe enough to make a fatwa, but that's not why I'm here. I think I am knowledgable enough though to carry out an intelligent discussion. What do you think?

Jazaak Allah khayran brother...

licenses are not the qualification in islaam .true knowledge is important
today two muslims were talking about logical in islaam . I tested them with logics and they fell deep into thinking that they were forming logical conclusion and went astray to the mazhab of the MU`TAZILAH
I explain deviant sects of islaam deviated because the logic they applied to form conclusion was wrong .Question HOW can a logic be wrong ???

it is logic that if BBC broadcast a news to one thousand people that u may get at least five different version from the people
BUT this is much different from the sahabah where hadith and quran is applied b4 logic
remember there is only one quran memorised by may be more than one million people without a single alteration how is it that the news from the quran has not been altered and how the hadith was clarified i mean true from false
Logic was applied
first law when u disagree between u return to the quran and sunnah
e.g the mu`tazilah do not accept hadith aahad though swahih in their aqeedah bcause there less than five narrations hy so many people learnt from the prophet how is it logic that only four person knew that hadith .in the logic sense hadith aahad cannot be accepted but it was accepted by the sahabah why
1: how many people must watch the moon for beginning and ending of ramadaan answer less than three (take into account this may be for millions of people) ,result this is aahad but from the quran
in many cases in the quran four witnesses are needed ,this is again aahad
due to this error today many people do not believe in the punishment of the grave ,the return of jesus alaihis salaam ,the mahdi ,etc because all these hadith connected to these subject are aahad .
islaam is not logic ,it will be better to say the law of Allah concernign what is best for mankind in his knowledge which may not be logic to us
i do not want to offend u but just warn u to be attentive because many persons have left islaam or turn to innovations on debates
jazaak allah may allah guide all of us

 

[Skywalker]

licenses are not the qualification in islaam .true knowledge is important

Well that's a problem, isn't it? How do you know who has "true knowledge" and who doesn't?

islaam is not logic ,it will be better to say the law of Allah concernign what is best for mankind in his knowledge which may not be logic to us

I'm not saying that Islam is logic, I'm saying that Islam is logical. Everything in Islam makes sense when understood properly, that's why people take what they know from the Qur'an and Sunnah and sort of fill in the blanks using knowledge.

I think most people do this in their everyday life. By reading the Qur'an, the ahadeeth, the various religious books, they develop a feel for Islam, and this makes it easier to form logical Islamic decision when faced with a problem. I'm not saying that this is better than reading and memorizing, but this is what most people do in reality.

I agree that this can lead to separation and pointless debates when not properly controlled, but as long as we have official sources to turn to, there will always be someone who is "ultimately right" and has the final word on the subject.

Anyways, back to our topic; so far I'm in partial agreement with what the sheikh wrote. My initial argument was that apostates should not be killed just because they changed their religion, but because some of them presented threats to the Muslim society at that time. What the sheikh wrote coincides with what I said on the point of "if they keep it to themselves, they should not be killed." In other words, there are conditions for killing apostates, and it is not a general rule.

Here's a question though, and we can all do research on this together: To what extent can a person keep his apostasy to himself, and who is he allowed to tell about it? Family? Friends? Absolutely no one?

Another question is this: If an apostate does decide to go public with his decision, in what way(s) is this a threat to society?