clarification of apostasy

[Sampharo]

no compulsion in religion means exactly that, killing one who has left Islam is not allowed except in special cases. at the time of the prophet, goverment and religion were more intertwined than now, so it can't be applied to nowadays, the same for the people after him.
otherwise, dismiss the verse completely, but don't pretend to follow it while actually explaining it away,,

:thumbs_up (almost agree completely)

Not that I want to raise this up again. But I think if I don't it will still be confusing for readers.

Your interpretation of "No Compulsion in Religion" and saying it means exactly that, seems to suggest that you are applying an established opinion against a minority one. That is not accurate nor true. Your opinion overrides ALL the books of interpretation including Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hisham and more importantly Al-Qurtubi which is the primary source of Islamic Rulings from Quran. Please feel free to review them.

As for government and religion being more intertwined at the days of the prophet, it has been the opinion of the four Imams and all scholars until today, that lack of a single unified Islamic state while being a temporary hurdle to execution of Islamic rulings, it doesn't cancel or abrogate them indifinitely. It was applied in the days of Ibn Taymeyya when the Islamic nation was separate entities, and the concept of separating Islam and government is Western secularism to start with.

As for "otherwise, dismiss the verse completely, but don't pretend to follow it while actually explaining it away", this suggests that (1) I have a personal opinion that i infused into this matter (2) The opinion I mentioned is a new one that challenges the current acceptable wisdom while yours is the established one, and (3) that your explanation is fixed on the verse and I am the one who's interpreting it differently.

As for (1), I already mentioned that this is not a personal opinion and neither I nor you could introduce such personal opinion into a settled matter of solid indisputed ruling. As for (2) The apostacy rule was dictated by more than one authenticated Hadith, practiced by the prophet and the sahaba with proven documented incidents in history, and further explicitly pronounced in the Islamic sciences books of all four math-habs and jurisprudence. That is also the opinion of most other leading scholars, old such as Ibn Taymeyya, Al-Thahabi, or new such as Al-Ghazali or Al-Qaradawi. Your opinion is only introduced by some modern scholars, mostly western, who are a minority and are introducing various explanations and excuses for only some of the situations of why apostacy was applied. As for (3) The interpretation of the Quran verse is presented by the totality of authenticated and relied upon books of interpretation. It is your approach that is not mentioned in any books of Tafsir.

That and above all, I do realize that some (a minority yet still recognizable) respectable scholars have dialed down the apostacy law application, and find enough argument to say that if there is doubt in the conditions of such a matter it is safer not to apply it. However they did not go as far as denying or cancelling the whole law or reversing the interpretation of the verses or denying authenticated Sahih Al-Bukhary Hadiths and confirmed historical incidents. That is called TaAAteel تعطيل, and is not something true scholars of Islam and leaders of schools of jurisprudence do.

 

[جوري]

The apostacy rule was dictated by more than one authenticated Hadith, practiced by the prophet.

Did the prophet SAW execute anyone for apostasy? If so please show us the instances where the prophet executed someone for said treason!

one should draw his logic from the actions of the prophet himself -- I have let go of your previous tirade, since I have no interest in descending into word play with you-- yet here we are again at the cross roads with you making an injunction of something that scholars are divided upon. so what makes your opinion definitive?

I think Ansar who is as scholarly as one gets on this forum has covered the topic quite well, and if not enough, there is a whole dialogue on apostasy with a Muslim scholar:

http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=Gz9HCK

There is no single verse in the Qur’an that prescribes a worldly punishment for apostasy. The Qur’an states the punishment only in the Hereafter. However, numerous verses in the Qur’an affirm freedom of religion and reject compulsion or coercion in religion; for example, see Chapter 2, verse 256.

In hadith, however, there are some texts signifying capital punishment for apostasy. However, scholars differed about the interpretation of these texts. Some made a distinction between apostasy which coupled with fighting against Muslims, committing a capital crime or committing an act of “high treason” against the state. According to this interpretation, capital punishment is because of these crimes, not mere leaving Islam. Other scholars made no such distinction. However, the first interpretation is supported by a number of other sound hadiths which show that when a man in Madinah apostated from Islam, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) neither ordered his execution nor punished him in any other way, and when the man finally left Madinah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him or punish him because of his apostasy.

If indeed the capital punishment for apostasy is a hadd (specified mandatory punishment) one would expect that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would be the first one to implement the law of Allah.

These hdadiths are reported in Al-Bukhari, the most authentic collection of hadith, in the book of Al-Ahkaam which is found in the English translation by M. Mohsen Khan, Volume 9, hadith number 316, 318, and 323, pages 241, 242, and 246. They are also reported in Fath Al-Bari, volume 13 under Kitab Al-Ahkam, hadith number 7209, 7211, and 7216.

Again, apostasy declared against an Islamic state is indeed akin to treason and is punishable as one would punish any form of treason, even here in the united states as in the case of Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg-- punishment for treason is death.. however, if one is an apostate in and to himself, how are you even to know to carry out said punishment and what country in your opinion is currently governed under Islamic state to uphold that injunction?-- Does Egypt currently carry out that law for its apostates? Does KSA?

It is very important to know when such injunctions were passed and for what reason if in the least to not attribute an action to the Prophet SAW that he didn't carry out!

 

[Thinker]

Greeting respected Skye and others.

I think we have been here before but I can’t recall if I got an answer to my question . . . . .

The argument that the execution of apostates is justifiable because it is treason hinges on the existences of a ‘Muslim/Islamic state.’

Can you or anybody show me the text in Islam that defines ‘Islamic State;’ what constitutes an Islamic State? I think when this question was last posed it was loosely answered as the existence of a Caliph supposes that an Islamic state exists, the problem with that answer is, it doesn’t fit existing definitions of a ‘state.’

 

[جوري]

here is a quick shot, although I am still hoping you'd read the book I recommended for you on the other thread?

By IOL Team​

14/08/2003​

​

The Qur’an clearly states that the aim and purpose of the Islamic state is the establishment, maintenance and development of those virtues which the Creator wishes human life to be enriched by and the prevention and eradication of those evils in human life which He finds abhorrent. The Islamic state is intended neither solely as an instrument of political administration nor for the fulfillment of the collective will of any particular set of people. Rather, Islam places a high ideal before the state, which it must use all the means at its disposal to achieve.
This ideal is that the qualities of purity, beauty, goodness, virtue, success and prosperity which Allah wants to flourish in the life of humankind should be engendered and developed and that all kinds of exploitation, injustice and disorder which, in the sight of Allah, are ruinous for the world and detrimental to the life of His creatures, should be suppressed and prevented. Islam gives us a clear outline of its moral system by stating positively the desired virtues and the undesired evils. Keeping this outline in view, the Islamic state can plan its welfare policies in every era and in any context.
The constant demand made by Islam is that the principles of morality must be observed at all costs and in all walks of life. Hence, it lays down as an unalterable policy that the state should base its policies on justice, truth and honesty. It is not prepared, under any circumstances, to tolerate fraud, falsehood and injustice for the sake of political, administrative or so-called national interest. Whether it is domestic relations within the state, or international relations with other nations, precedence must always be given to truth, honesty and justice.
Islam has laid down universal fundamental rights for humanity
Islam imposes similar obligations on the state and the individual: to fulfill all contracts and obligations; to have uniform standards in all interactions and transactions; to remember obligations along with rights and not to forget the rights of others when expecting them to fulfill their obligations; to use power and authority for the establishment of justice and not for the perpetration of injustice; to look upon duty as a sacred obligation and to fulfill it scrupulously; and to regard power as a trust from Allah to be used in the belief that one has to render an account of one’s actions in this world but also, most importantly, to Him in the life hereafter.
Fundamental Rights
Although an Islamic state may be set up anywhere on earth, Islam does not seek to restrict human rights or privileges to the boundaries of such a state. Islam has laid down universal fundamental rights for humanity which are to be observed and respected in all circumstances. For example, human blood is sacred and may not be spilled without strong justification such as criminal punishment after a fair trial or in a just war; it is not permissible to oppress women, children, old people, the sick or the wounded; women’s honor and chastity must be respected. These rights are for all people, irrespective of whether they belong to the Islamic community — Muslims and non-Muslims alike — or are from amongst its enemies. These and other provisions have been laid down by Islam as fundamental rights for every human being by virtue of his status as a creation of Allah.
The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims
Nor, in Islam, are the rights of citizenship confined to people born in a particular state. A Muslim ipso facto becomes the citizen of an Islamic state as soon as he sets foot on its territory with the intention of living there and thus enjoys equal rights along with those who acquire its citizenship by birth. And every Muslim is to be regarded as eligible for positions of the highest responsibility in an Islamic state without distinction of race, sex, color or class. These rights have been challenged, of course, by the division of the Muslim nation into nation states in the modern era after independence from colonialism. Many attempts have been made to unite these states but in vain, due to numerous reasons that can be discussed at length separately.
Islam has also laid down rights for non-Muslims who may be living within the boundaries of an Islamic state, and these rights necessarily form part of the Islamic constitution. The life, property and honor of non-Muslim citizens is to be respected and protected in exactly the same way as that of Muslim citizens. Nor is there difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim citizen in respect of civil or criminal law, though there are differences in family law in respect of the diversity of religious practices and family codes.
The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims, who have full freedom of conscience and belief and are at liberty to perform their religious rites and ceremonies in their own way.
Even if a non-Muslim state oppresses its Muslim citizens, it is not permissible for an Islamic state to retaliate against its own non-Muslim citizens. It may not unjustly shed the blood of a single non-Muslim citizen living within its boundaries.

More Articles:

• System of Rights:

Human Rights in Islam - In Times of War - Justice in Islam - Rights of Citizens in an Islamic State - Treat Them Kindly… Prisoners of War - The Pacifism of Islam - Of Torture and Abuse: Q & A Session - Human Rights and Islam​

• Governance:

The Nature of the Islamic Political System -Forming An Islamic Democracy - Religion and Politics - Democracy in Islam - The Purpose of the Islamic State​

http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article02.shtml

 

[Sampharo]

Did the prophet SAW execute anyone for apostasy? If so please show us the instances where the prophet executed someone for said treason!

Yes he did, some examples:
- Abdullah Ibn Khatl, apostate ran to Makka along with two slaves 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"

Check the books of Ibn Ishaaq, Al-Bairaqtany, Ibn Hisham, Moattaa Malik and the Sahih for confirmation of the above.

In hadith, however, there are some texts signifying capital punishment for apostasy. However, scholars differed about the interpretation of these texts. Some made a distinction between apostasy which coupled with fighting against Muslims, committing a capital crime or committing an act of “high treason” against the state. According to this interpretation, capital punishment is because of these crimes, not mere leaving Islam. Other scholars made no such distinction.

Don't see his post supporting your or brother alcurad's argument or necessarily negating what I wrote. He states clearly that he knows that there is consensus amongst scholars recognize the apostasy law, and that some see it attached to acts of anti-islam, while some don't. The only difference is that I brought forward clearer indication of those who don't see a distinction, and shown with evidence that they include all four imams of all schools of jurisprudence in addition to a plethora of other leading scholars in addition to the incidents showing the acts of the four Kholafa Rashidoon, which 90% or so of the muslim population are under (who are on the Sunnah). Alcurad and your argument was that there is no apostasy law because of the verse "no compulsion in religion".

however, if one is an apostate in and to himself, how are you even to know to carry out said punishment and what country in your opinion is currently governed under Islamic state to uphold that injunction?-- Does Egypt currently carry out that law for its apostates? Does KSA?

Apostates are those who declare it so, not those who lose faith silently. The definition of an apostate is one who declares himself no longer muslim and embracing another religion. And yes KSA carries it out, so does other Islamic countries but at low profile to keep from angering Uncle Sam, and Egypt is not listen to the Azhar council that is calling for it, but the secular government is choosing to keep the peace with the Orthodox church who continuously complains about christians converting to muslims.

I have let go of your previous tirade, since I have no interest in descending into word play with you--

You have Islamic questions to ask, ask them. Evidence to your arguments, show them. Points to discuss, stick to them. Otherwise you can simply be quiet and stay clear of trouble's path like you yourself suggested instead of rehashing with insinuating and disrespectful statements. My earlier post was a response to your own tirades, excessive bullying, abusive language, and lowly insinuations as well as straight up disrespectful rude insults. You don't have the right to disrespect anyone or use their opinion as grounds to redicule them or what they believe in, it's bad enough your redicule at that time went straight to an authentic hadith of the prophet with your punt on the miswak. By your statement "descending into word play with you" seems to be again an attempt to get a rise out of me or create grounds for more harrassment and this time I am not inclined to lose my cool, but I will tell you to your face to mind your manners and know your limits within the respectful community on the forum, neither I nor I think anyone here has interest in seeing any more antagonizing statements.

yet here we are again at the cross roads with you making an injunction of something that scholars are divided upon. so what makes your opinion definitive?

I am really not going to re-repeat what I am saying over and over and over again. people have already read that it is not my personal opinion and have read clearly what I wrote regarding what makes the MAJORITY of scholars' opinion as per evidence and quoting their own books to be the more weighted and acceptable in the Islamic community. For more, get someone to translate for you the following, otherwise what was already published should be more than enough for the sound of mind.

Since you like that website a lot:
http://www.islamonline.net/Arabic/contemporary/2002/02/article2a.shtml

.​

ومن ثم أجمع فقهاء الإسلام على عقوبة المرتد، وإن اختلفوا في تحديدها، وجمهورهم على أنها القتل وهو رأي المذاهب الأربعة بل الثمانية.​

وفيها وردت جملة أحاديث صحيحة عن عدد من الصحابة: عن ابن عباس وأبي موسى ومعاذ وعلي وعثمان وابن مسعود وعائشة وأنس وأبي هريرة ومعاوية بن حيدة.​

وقد جاءت بصيغ مختلفة، مثل حديث ابن عباس: "من بدل دينه فاقتلوه" (رواه الجماعة إلا مسلما، ومثله عن أبي هريرة عند الطبراني بإسناد حسن، وعن معاوية بن حيدة بإسناد رجاله ثقات).​

وحديث ابن مسعود "لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله، وأني رسول الله، إلا بإحدى ثلاث: النفس بالنفس، والثيب الزاني، والتارك لدينه المفارق للجماعة" (رواه الجماعة).​

وفي بعض صيغه عن عثمان: "... رجل كفر بعد إسلامه، أو زنى بعد إحصانه، أو قتل نفسًا بغير نفس، والثيب الزاني، والتارك لدينه المفارق للجماعة" (رواه الجماعة).​

قال العلامة ابن رجب: والقتل بكل واحدة من هذه الخصال متفق عليه بين المسلمين (2).​

وقد نفذ علي كرم الله وجهه عقوبة الردة في قوم ادعوا ألوهيته فحرقهم بالنار، بعد أن استتابهم وزجرهم فلم يتوبوا ولم يزدجروا، فطرحهم في النار، وهو يقول:​

لما رأيت الأمر أمـرًا منكرا *** أججت ناري ودعوت قنبرا​

وقنبر هو خادم الإمام علي رضي الله تعالى عنه (3).​

وقد اعترض عليه ابن عباس بالحديث الآخر "لا تعذبوا بعذاب الله"، ورأى أن الواجب أن يُقتلوا لا أن يُحرقوا. فكان خلاف ابن عباس في الوسيلة لا في المبدأ.​

وكذلك نفذ أبو موسى ومعاذ القتل في اليهودي في اليمن، والذي كان قد أسلم ثم ارتد. وقال معاذ: قضاء الله ورسوله (متفق عليه).​

روى عبد الرازق: أن ابن مسعود أخذ أقوامًا ارتدوا عن الإسلام من أهل العراق، فكتب فيهم إلى عمر. فكتب إليه أن أعرض عليهم دين الحق، وشهادة أن لا إله إلا الله، فإن قبلوها فخل عنهم وإذا لم يقبلوها فاقتلهم، فقبلها بعضهم فتركه، ولم يقبلها بعضهم فقتله (4).​

وروي عن أبي عمر الشيباني أن المستورد العجلي تنصر بعد إسلامه، فبعث به عتبة بن فرقد إلى علي فاستتابه فلم يتب، فقتله(5).​

Specifically regarding the incident of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, the group he killed were actually specifically worshipping him and did not raise a single word against Islam, and actually maintained they are muslims. This if anything refutes that apostasy law is for treason.

Anyone can get the truth for themselves and that is by going on Google and simply searching for the apostasy rule according to the four schools of juresprudence, and they will more than easily get that there is consensus amongst them. Else there is a minority of less than 10% along with western orientalists or modern philophers who do not know many of the incidents that support this and don't follow proper methodology in determination. The opinion of the schools of jurisprudence Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafei is what represent islam, not innovations and articles on the Internet.

I am not into senseless argument over and over. My point was already made and others too. People now have learned enough al-hamdolellah.

God grant guidance to all who seek it, and he always knows best.

 

[جوري]

Yes he did, some examples:
- Abdullah Ibn Khatl, apostate ran to Makka along with two slaves 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"

Check the books of Ibn Ishaaq, Al-Bairaqtany, Ibn Hisham, Moattaa Malik and the Sahih for confirmation of the above.

Prophet Mohammed SAW didn't kill anyone save for just one man and so I again challenge you to bring me a list of names that the prophet SAW killed for whatever moot point you are asserting based on your:

The apostacy rule was dictated by more than one authenticated Hadith, practiced by the prophet.

Now, that being said, all the examples you've given above are in concert with treasonous acts given Islam as a political state and not a mere religion, in which there is no argument on whether apostasy is to be carried out or not and certainly the judgment of the Sa7aba and the prophet at the inception of Islam can't be equated to anything you are suggesting modern day.. I think it prudent first to establish the mere rudiments of such a state before fixating on the tangents of the okyaness of beating women or killing apostates .. we are discussing everyday individuals who have no political powers, policy-making interests or a Musylama sized army in an allegedly Muslim world that is largely practicing secularism.

Another look back:
"In one incident, the Prophet pardoned Abdullah bin Sa'd, after he renounced Islam. Abdullah bin Sa'd was one of the people chosen by the Prophet as a scribe, to write down Qur'anic text as it was revealed to the Prophet. After spending some time with the Muslims in Madina, he recanted and returned to the religion of the Quraish. When he was brought before the Prophet, Osman bin Affan pleaded on his behalf, and the Prophet subsequently pardoned Abdullah bin Sa'd (Ibn Hisham).

"The problem with the argument for punishment for apostasy is that it cannot be applied in any Islamic state without giving rise to the potential for abuse by the state itself. Erroneously equating moral with political power in the determination of law has led to the political repression that we see in Islamic countries today. We must separate the right of God from that of man in defining freedom of religion as a legal right. The right of God refers only to the moral obligations of Muslims towards God, and is adjudicated by God. The state cannot act as a coercive moral authority, in effect representing God's Will on earth, because it does not have the right to do so. In the context of freedom of religion, the state's responsibility is to uphold and protect it as the right of all humans, as granted by God, without exercising moral judgment on the content and/or manner of exercising those religious beliefs." 4,5

"The Qur'an states:

'A section of the People of the Book say: 'Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, Bur reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back.' [3:72] "
​

"A section of People of the Book used a tactic to create doubt among the Muslims in the hope that some of them might thereby be beguiled into repudiating Islam. How could it be possible for non-Muslims to have enacted this plan to entice Muslims to believe one day and reject next, if death was the penalty for apostasy? ... The Qur’an does not rule to kill the apostates."

"Abdullah b.Ubayy b.Salul was the leader of the munafiqun (hypocrites). But Prophet (s) took no action against him. Prophet prayed for him and stayed at the grave until he was buried. Those fanatics among us must explain the reason for Prophet (s) not executing the known hypocrites like Abdullah b.Ubayy. Ubbay lived until death plotting to destroy Islam and Prophet knew it. He was not executed for apostasy.
"The Qur'an states:

'How shall God guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the apostle was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But God guides not a people unjust. Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of the God, of His Angels, and of all mankind;--In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot;--except for those that repent (even) after that, make amends; For verily God is oft-forgiving, most merciful'. [3:86-89]"
​

"It is obvious from these verses that no punishment is to be inflicted by one man or another for apostasy. By no stretch of the imagination can the phrase, "curse of Allah," be interpreted to be a license to murder anyone who he considers to be an apostate. If any such commandment was prescribed it would have been clearly defined as all other punishments are in the Holy Qur'an." 6
​

Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi,"Apostacy (Irtidad) in Islam," at: http://www.**************short/apostacy.htm​

"Islam, Apostasy and PAS," 1999-JUL-22, at: http://www.muslimtents.com/sistersinislam/
S.A. Rahman, "Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986). Limited availabililty from Amazon.com online book store
Maher Hathout, "In Pursuit of Justice: The Jurisprudence of Human Rights in Islam." Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
"Freedom of Religion," Chapter 6 from the book"In Pursuit of Justice." Online at: http://www.mpac.org/
Dr. T. O. Shanavas, "Apostacy in Islam: through the eyes of a former apostate," Toledo Muslims, at: http://www.toledomuslims.com/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos3.htm

Don't see his post supporting your or brother alcurad's argument or necessarily negating what I wrote. He states clearly that he knows that there is consensus amongst scholars recognize the apostasy law, and that some see it attached to acts of anti-islam, while some don't. The only difference is that I brought forward clearer indication of those who don't see a distinction, and shown with evidence that they include all four imams of all schools of jurisprudence in addition to a plethora of other leading scholars in addition to the incidents showing the acts of the four Kholafa Rashidoon, which 90% or so of the muslim population are under (who are on the Sunnah). Alcurad and your argument was that there is no apostasy law because of the verse "no compulsion in religion".

Neither I, nor Br. Alcurad argued that there is no apostasy because of the the verse 'no compulsion in religion'-- I am certainly not going to speak on his behalf, but anyone can elucidate from my above statements, exactly when punishment is to be carried out and when there is pardoning, perhaps your inferences are more to do with the way you process information than what is actually written?

Apostates are those who declare it so, not those who lose faith silently. The definition of an apostate is one who declares himself no longer muslim and embracing another religion. And yes KSA carries it out, so does other Islamic countries but at low profile to keep from angering Uncle Sam, and Egypt is not listen to the Azhar council that is calling for it, but the secular government is choosing to keep the peace with the Orthodox church who continuously complains about christians converting to muslims.

apostasy is the state of having rejected your religious beliefs for your political party or a cause (often in favour of opposing beliefs or causes), in the cases where Hadd was carried out, were due to clear fitna that is created or has potential to be created, not merely someone deciding that they favored their old beliefs, and as you can see from the example above, that the Prophet pardoned Abdullah bin Sa'd, after he renounced Islam for his former beliefs-- until you can reconcile for us why he (SAW) pardoned many for exactly that which you desire to put them to death for, can we loan your opinion any credence!

You have Islamic questions to ask, ask them. Evidence to your arguments, show them. Points to discuss, stick to them. Otherwise you can simply be quiet and stay clear of trouble's path like you yourself suggested instead of rehashing with insinuating and disrespectful statements. My earlier post was a response to your own tirades, excessive bullying, abusive language, and lowly insinuations as well as straight up disrespectful rude insults. You don't have the right to disrespect anyone or use their opinion as grounds to redicule them or what they believe in, it's bad enough your redicule at that time went straight to an authentic hadith of the prophet with your punt on the miswak. By your statement "descending into word play with you" seems to be again an attempt to get a rise out of me or create grounds for more harrassment and this time I am not inclined to lose my cool, but I will tell you to your face to mind your manners and know your limits within the respectful community on the forum, neither I nor I think anyone here has interest in seeing any more antagonizing statements.

If I had Islamic questions which I do as all those not possessing of overbearing pride, I wouldn't direct them toward you, on the lowest common denominator you seem to be lacking basic knowledge of the religion and any question that is raised has more than one response which you seem inept at best in answering least of which in concert with the prophet's own actions, and secondly your mannerism and hurls of insults seem to suggest something other than what you desire to portray all whilst projecting your own fears, inadequacies unto others.

Again, I remind you, not only did you enforce an opinion on which there is no consensus but you proceeded to give a negative and then have a show down on completely unrelated topic and yet again (above).. even in spite of me having positively repped you in show of good will. Hammering in an opinion doesn't an Islamic injunction make it!
Also, I'd refrain from speaking on behalf of the whole community, did you survey the whole or does having a posse (if one in fact exists) cement your opinions into formal commands?

I am not into senseless argument over and over. My point was already made and others too. People now have learned enough al-hamdolellah.

God grant guidance to all who seek it, and he always knows best.

If you are not into senseless arguments, then stop engaging in them especially if your point has been made and Masha'Allah with such a large following-- makes us all the more grateful for your presence here!

all the best

 

[Sampharo]

Originally Posted by Sampharo
Yes he did, some examples:
- Abdullah Ibn Khatl, apostate ran to Makka along with two slaves 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"

Check the books of Ibn Ishaaq, Al-Bairaqtany, Ibn Hisham, Moattaa Malik and the Sahih for confirmation of the above.

Prophet Mohammed SAW didn't kill anyone save for just one man and so I again challenge you to bring me a list of names that the prophet SAW killed

Really? So upon looking at a sample list of seven people who apostated, four of which were killed to the order of the prophet -pbuh-, all with the references of the history books in which they are mentioned in detail, and your response is you are challenging me to produce a list of... people that the prophet killed for apostasy?

You know what? The thread is your oyster. That just made my day and sealed the argument for me. May you enjoy your quest for "knowledge" with your "scholars" all that you want.

Peace be upon all who seek guidance.

 

[جوري]

Really? So upon looking at a sample list of seven people who apostated, four of which were killed to the order of the prophet -pbuh-, all with the references of the history books in which they are mentioned in detail, and your response is you are challenging me to produce a list of... people that the prophet killed for apostasy?

You know what? The thread is your oyster. That just made my day and sealed the argument for me. May you enjoy your quest for "knowledge" with your "scholars" all that you want.

Peace be upon all who seek guidance.

1- Giving the 'order to' differs from 'carried out' and (I refer to your quote) of course!
2- Did you bother read anything I posted at all? Can you distinguish Why such a ruling would be carried out for someone like Musylamah al'kazhab and advent to the Prophet SAW passing vs. someone like Abdullah bin Sa'd (Ibn Hisham)?
3- I am challenging you to produce a 'list' of the people that the prophet killed personally and not a relegation of task or motion by consenting counsel & not for mere apostasy but all!
4- Whatever makes and seals your day is of little consequence to me..
5- You are not fit to pass takfir on anyone or question their level of knowledge or quest for it given your mere approach to said topics.

I'll agree with your closing sentiment however!

:wasalamex

 

[Sampharo]

1- Giving the 'order to' differs from 'carried out' and (I refer to your quote) of course!
No it isn't, that's a misguiding useless argument that has no place whatsoever in apostasy law argument: suggesting that whatever sentence the prophet did not carry out by personal hand is invalid.

2- Can you distinguish Why such a ruling would be carried out for someone like Musylamah al'kazhab and advent to the Prophet SAW passing vs. someone like Abdullah bin Sa'd (Ibn Hisham)?
Yes I can, but you obviously can't, so let's not waste time with a new discussion that will serve no purpose to bring it here.

3- I am challenging you to produce a 'list' of the people that the prophet killed personally and not a relegation of task or motion by consenting counsel & not for mere apostasy but all!
As soon as you prove that the prophet personally lashed for minor adultery or held the butcher knife and cut off their legs and arms for corruption personally, and more importantly the ruling and Nass from hadith and quran that Islamic laws are either personally performed by the prophet or as per you then becomes acts of political treason or the law itself becomes invalid and as per your cherry-picked researchers the law becomes invalid altogether.
I also would love to see what applied to the list of the seven apostates I gave as "acts of treason" towards the state, especially the two slave girls of Abdullah Ibn Khatl, Umm Marwan, and the chap held by Ibn Qais all the way down in Yemen.

5- You are not fit to pass takfir on anyone.
I did not pass takfir on anyone, and readers of the forum can vouch that I am anti-takfir all over this forum. Our entire discussion is whether a muslim judge should kill a self-declared apostate or let him go for lack of such a punishment in Islam, in both cases the person has declared kufr for himself and in that there is no question. This goes to show your complete lack of logic and simple debating honesty.

6- or question their level of knowledge or quest for it given your mere approach to said topics.
Yes I can clearly determine people's level of knowledge and yes I am required to judge and assess and show muslims when someone has lack of knowledge and misrepresents minority unconfirmed views as Islamic agreed-upon confirmed rulings, and you clearly have innovation rather than knowledge. You confirmed you follow no logic, no confirmed methodology, and state myths and deny facts without a shred of evidence. You argue out of pride and arrogance, and most of all you resort to redicule, personal attacks, bullying and crabwalk onto a completely different platform of arguments when cornered in a debate, ultimately flooding the thread with repetitive posting to drown out proper answers in order to create a false illusion of legitimacy for whatever strikes your fancy.

With that said let's hold on to the one point you seem to agree on: Let's bring this to closing.

 

[جوري]

No it isn't, that's a misguiding useless argument that has no place whatsoever in apostasy law argument: suggesting that whatever sentence the prophet did not carry out by personal hand is invalid.

You are indeed misguiding, perhaps you should choose your wording? If you can't understand basic sentence structures (ones that you put together) and their impact then you are not fit for exegesis!

Yes I can, but you obviously can't, so let's not waste time with a new discussion that will serve no purpose to bring it here.

You keep affirming that you can and others can't with the tantrums of a two year old, but that is not a valid argument. It is mere adhoms

As soon as you prove that the prophet personally lashed for minor adultery or held the butcher knife and cut off their legs and arms for corruption personally, and more importantly the ruling and Nass from hadith and quran that Islamic laws are either personally performed by the prophet or as per you then becomes acts of political treason or the law itself becomes invalid and as per your cherry-picked researchers the law becomes invalid altogether.
I also would love to see what applied to the list of the seven apostates I gave as "acts of treason" towards the state, especially the two slave girls of Abdullah Ibn Khatl, Umm Marwan, and the chap held by Ibn Qais all the way down in Yemen.

I don't need to prove anything, answering a challenge with an asinine request doesn't a proper refutation make nor does it address the issues, or invalidate points previously made and raised!

I did not pass takfir on anyone, and readers of the forum can vouch that I am anti-takfir all over this forum. Our entire discussion is whether a muslim judge should kill a self-declared apostate or let him go for lack of such a punishment in Islam, in both cases the person has declared kufr for himself and in that there is no question. This goes to show your complete lack of logic and simple debating honesty.

Your 'discussion' only evolves when trapped for logic & reason no more no less!

Yes I can clearly determine people's level of knowledge and yes I am required to judge and assess and show muslims when someone has lack of knowledge and misrepresents minority unconfirmed views as Islamic agreed-upon confirmed rulings, and you clearly have innovation rather than knowledge. You confirmed you follow no logic, no confirmed methodology, and state myths and deny facts without a shred of evidence. You argue out of pride and arrogance, and most of all you resort to redicule, personal attacks, bullying and crabwalk onto a completely different platform of arguments when cornered in a debate, ultimately flooding the thread with repetitive posting to drown out proper answers in order to create a false illusion of legitimacy for whatever strikes your fancy.

I thought just a comment ago, you relegated such tasks to a judge? and now that judge is you?
I do hope you'll cut all the logorrhea and refute points raised.. as stated prior and again, less opinion, more facts.. I really don't think you understand what a 'debate' is..
in a nutshell it is to reply with logic/ historical facts to points raised not to commit shirk asghar with scholar worship.. even omar ibn ilkhtab was corrected by a woman, and he so professed a woman knows the Quran better than he, so how it is it that you can come in here and think you represent the whole or that you are scholarly in the most minor sense and that a mazhab better outweighs the Quran and Sunna?.. ironically you are doing the exact thing you accuse others of..
I don't think you even know what you are arguing for, so long as you are being objectionable to me as a person, is all that matters!

With that said let's hold on to the one point you seem to agree on: Let's bring this to closing.

Great, I'll inform a mod-- I have had enough pedantry for one day...

all the best