Killing for apostacy is against Quran.

[epronovost]

But you know that verse doesnt say what you want it to say. It does not have those in parenthesis, you know it.

I can cut and paste this a million times if you want. Well, when people use made up things it is probably necessary to cut and paste a million times.

What is the matter with you that you are divided into two groups over the hypocrites, while God has allowed them to regress for what they have earned? Do you want to guide those whom God misguides? Whoever God causes to be misguided, you will never find for him a way.

No religion there. If you want to look for a word for word analysis, refer to this link. I mean if you want to of course.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

It's a text. Not a freakin' computer code. The words of the text aren't the sum total of the meaning of the text. The meaning of the text is derived from the intent of the author, his words, the context of the discussion and the general subject. The parenthesis exist for a reason, it's to provide context to the verse and make the references to what's being discussed clearer when you read the Quran by jumping from one verse to another instead of reading it in full chapters and in order and you know it.

You also know that those verses you quoted are part of a larger paragraph that discuss the fate of people who have return to a prior faith hence the "regress for what they have earned". That's what this turn of phrase, which in modern English makes absolutely no grammatical sense, hence a complete failure at translation, is supposed to mean in that context.

Nope. Its just a verse. Its no semantics dodge which of course is your apologetic tactic.
2:2 This Book, is without doubt, a guide for the righteous.

It is a semantic dodge, because it fails to answer any of the questions I asked and it's a cheap trick to try an deny that the Quran is the holy book of the Muslims as it's temporarily inconvenient for you in the context of a debate. You hate that people can derive context from the book and its author while you want to stick to a word-by-word translation where you believe it's easier to make your case, even if a word-by-word translation is a poor translation strategy as not all language have a word-by-word translation basis.

"Except for those who join a people between whom you have a covenant, or those who come to you with reluctance in their chests to fight you or to fight their own people. Had God willed He would have given them strength and they would have fought you. But if they retire from you, and did not fight you, and they offer you peace; then God does not make for you a way against them."

Completely agree with there, except that I don't think that it refers to war per say, but to "breaking the social peace" which isn't invasion per say. The very next paragraph state the rules for when to it's allowed to kill a fellow believer and not be judged as a murderer and it does state self-defense and accidents as exemptions for such a crime (and even then there are still compensations to be paid). It would be odd to write two paragraphs back to back to say basically the same thing twice.

 

[Meow Mix]

Brother. In the Quran we are told to always use our akal. Not Takleedh. So we dont need specific punishments for every single crime.

Anyway, for rape, its prison for life.

I tried to look up this word "akal" and the closest I could find for a translation is "intellect," is this what's being said? And "Takleedh," the closest I could find is "the conforming of one person to the teaching of another."

If I understand this right, this is saying something like "use your brain, not a piece of paper?" Or something like "we need to be with the spirit of the law, not just with the letter of the law?"

 

[Link]

Taqlid is imitating scholars without knowing yourself the reasons behind the ruling, trusting them.

Aqal is intellect, true that.

 

[Clara Tea]

Killing For Apostacy Is Against the Quran:

In the 4th Chapter of Quran, we read:

What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. 88They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. 89Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them. 90You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

These verses show there was a group of hypocrites. The Quran then says if they turn back (ie. leave the religion) to kill them except for those who offer peace or their people is who an alliance is with Muslims. The Muslims at that time were at war with polytheists in general, but there was some still at peace with them.

These verses show even from people who fought Mohammad (s), if those specific people are from people fighting Mohammad (S) but themselves offer peace and say they won't fight Mohammad (s) and his followers, than not to kill them.

There is no compulsion in religion: rectitude has become distinct from error. So one who disavows fake deities and has faith in Allah has held fast to the firmest handle for which there is no breaking; and Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing. (2:256)

This verse was revealed when a companion of Mohammad (s) talked about his kids wanting to remain of their religion and not convert to Islam. This verse was revealed on that occasion.

And the meaning is clear, you shouldn't try to force religion on people and make them come to it while they are averse.

فَذَكِّرْ إِنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُذَكِّرٌ 21 لَسْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ بِمُصَيْطِرٍ

Remind, you are only one who reminds. Not are you an enforcer on them.

(Surah Ghashiya, near the end)


The question, is why do apostacy rules exist, despite this? It's part of the unjust nature scholars and their followers are towards Quran that results in this.

They prefer ahadith over Quran when their scholars emphasize on those hadiths.

Definition of APOSTASY

Webster's definition of apostasy: "abandonment of a previous loyalty."

But, your quotation from the Quran does, indeed, say that they are to be murdered. After which, you assert that the Quran doesn't advocate murder.

This is like shooting someone then telling them that you didn't shoot them.

 

[firedragon]

I tried to look up this word "akal" and the closest I could find for a translation is "intellect," is this what's being said? And "Takleedh," the closest I could find is "the conforming of one person to the teaching of another."

If I understand this right, this is saying something like "use your brain, not a piece of paper?" Or something like "we need to be with the spirit of the law, not just with the letter of the law?"

You got it mostly right.

Akal is intellect or reason. Takleedh is not only conforming to the teaching of something or a paper. It is adherence to your teacher almost blindly.

So what I was telling him was since he is a Muslim, Islam as a theology since the beginning has openly prescribed humans to use their intellect and reason. Not to blindly follow a teacher or a group with a teacher.

 

[firedragon]

It's a text. Not a freakin' computer code. The words of the text aren't the sum total of the meaning of the text. The meaning of the text is derived from the intent of the author, his words, the context of the discussion and the general subject. The parenthesis exist for a reason, it's to provide context to the verse and make the references to what's being discussed clearer when you read the Quran by jumping from one verse to another instead of reading it in full chapters and in order and you know it.

You also know that those verses you quoted are part of a larger paragraph that discuss the fate of people who have return to a prior faith hence the "regress for what they have earned". That's what this turn of phrase, which in modern English makes absolutely no grammatical sense, hence a complete failure at translation, is supposed to mean in that context.



It is a semantic dodge, because it fails to answer any of the questions I asked and it's a cheap trick to try an deny that the Quran is the holy book of the Muslims as it's temporarily inconvenient for you in the context of a debate. You hate that people can derive context from the book and its author while you want to stick to a word-by-word translation where you believe it's easier to make your case, even if a word-by-word translation is a poor translation strategy as not all language have a word-by-word translation basis.




Completely agree with there, except that I don't think that it refers to war per say, but to "breaking the social peace" which isn't invasion per say. The very next paragraph state the rules for when to it's allowed to kill a fellow believer and not be judged as a murderer and it does state self-defense and accidents as exemptions for such a crime (and even then there are still compensations to be paid). It would be odd to write two paragraphs back to back to say basically the same thing twice.

You should take full context of everything I said. These kind of apologetics are dogmatic and just made up. I mean you really make things up for your apologetics. Quite similar to missionaries who do that, especially on the internet. Maybe that's your source of knowledge.

I don't think that it refers to war per say, but to "breaking the social peace"

What you think is irrelevant.

I have given you what the book says, many verses. That is what relevant. Not one cherry picked verse with your made up bogus texts added to it to twist to suit your personal necessity or need.

 

[firedragon]

Definition of APOSTASY

Webster's definition of apostasy: "abandonment of a previous loyalty."

But, your quotation from the Quran does, indeed, say that they are to be murdered. After which, you assert that the Quran doesn't advocate murder.

This is like shooting someone then telling them that you didn't shoot them.

Ill give you an explicit verse that says to kill lets say a person from another religion. It has to be as explicit like that, and the context is preaching it. Not like the Qur'an which has given explicit laws stating you cannot kill someone for anything other than murder.

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 )

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 )

That is explicit. Clearly commanded. Thats how it should be if you are to make some case like you are doing above.

 

[firedragon]

I did read the passages and large stretches of the book and I disagree with you. Hell, the Muslim world disagrees with you.

Hmm. Lol. So the Muslim world disagrees with me you say?

Can you tell me what the school of Medina said in the oldest jurisprudence of the Mudawwana al Kubra? Please do state how they disagree with me.

 

[firedragon]

That's nice and all and pretty much every Holy Book says the same.

You have never read any of the holy books so you won't know what they say. Also, its pretty pathetic to try your best to demonise muslims and Islam then some verses that contradict your desperate missionary activity you say "ah every book says the same".

That is the definition of bias.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes, you have. The covenant of four months is with respect to the polytheists that fought them and kept breaking treaties and as such God is saying instead of letting them rally more people towards you, attack them as soon as four months are over.

However the same chapter says to stay true to those who did not break treaties. And so it's only concerning those who kept breaking it as they were untrustworthy and would probably attack again.

Also the Sunnah shows Prophet (s) didn't force them to convert when the victory happened.

I also don't see the relevance with apostasy issue.

Hi Link,
If I did not have any scholarship or knowledge of hadith or anything like that I would agree with the way you are interpreting the Quran. That is to say if it were my job to interpret the Quran, I would interpret it as saying that if the apostates make peace with the Muslims they would be spared from violence.

But there are scholars who don't interpret it that way and I believe that if we look at how they have interpreted the Quran, we can see a better way it could have been worded which would have avoided any possibility of their alternative understanding. So lets examine their interpretation and see how they got different results;

As we covered in prior posts one option was interpreted as being to join a people with whom the Muslims had a treaty which expired after 4 months. Here is the other option presented for the apostates according to the scholar from the website referenced in the OP;

'2. If they come to the Muslims with their hearts deterred from fighting, and if they withdraw from the conflict and offer peace to the Muslims after their rebellion. Submitting, here, means accepting Islam outwardly and bearing testimony to the two fold formula for faith. This explanation is substantiated by God's saying, "And say not, to one who offers you peace, 'You are not a believer,' seeking the chance of profits of this life [so that you may despoil him]" (Qur’an 4:94). The verse indicates the acceptance of, and adherence to, Islam, and that [an apostate] should not be killed after his repentance. The position ultimately taken by the Imamite school is that there is no verse in the Qur'an that indicates an unqualified obligation to kill an apostate [i.e., whether he repents or not], and that would serve as abrogator of the verse under discussion...

...In any case, there is no question that the ruling to kill is nullified by repentance, as is stated in traditions reported by both Shi’ites and Sunnis. Hence, the verse [which safeguards the apostate from being put to death] is not to be regarded as having been abrogated.'

Source: 10. Abrogation in the Qur’an

So coming back to the statement in the Quran, "And say not, to one who offers you peace, 'You are not a believer,' seeking the chance of profits of this life [so that you may despoil him]"
Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei appears to have interpreted the way of offering peace to Muslims for the apostate as being to accept Islam as opposed to simply offering a peace treaty.

Now suppose if instead of saying, "And say not, to one who offers you peace, 'You are not a believer,' seeking the chance of profits of this life [so that you may despoil him]" The emphasis was taken off the faith of the peoples under discussion and it said, "And say not, to one who offers you a peace treaty, "You are not peaceful,' seeking the chance of profits of this life [so that you may despoil him]" Can you see how that removes an ambiguity that provides leverage to al-Khoei's interpretation?

Likewise imagine if 9:5 said, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill those who broke their peace treaties wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they re-establish peace, then let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful." instead of, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and maintain the prayer and give the zakat, then let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful.

Not only would it rob the scholars of a chance to declare war on apostates, but it would rob quote miners of the opportunity to cavile.

Now if an ordinary human with a bit of hindsight can see how to word the Quran better then surely an All-knowing God could have the foresight to word the Quran better. Hence it is logical to conclude that the Quran is from a falllible human who had little foresight and not from God.

In my opinion.

 

[stevecanuck]

Hi Link,
If I did not have any scholarship or knowledge of hadith or anything like that I would agree with the way you are interpreting the Quran. That is to say if it were my job to interpret the Quran, I would interpret it as saying that if the apostates make peace with the Muslims they would be spared from violence.

But there are scholars who don't interpret it that way and I believe that if we look at how they have interpreted the Quran, we can see a better way it could have been worded which would have avoided any possibility of their alternative understanding. So lets examine their interpretation and see how they got different results;

As we covered in prior posts one option was interpreted as being to join a people with whom the Muslims had a treaty which expired after 4 months. Here is the other option presented for the apostates according to the scholar from the website referenced in the OP;

'2. If they come to the Muslims with their hearts deterred from fighting, and if they withdraw from the conflict and offer peace to the Muslims after their rebellion. Submitting, here, means accepting Islam outwardly and bearing testimony to the two fold formula for faith. This explanation is substantiated by God's saying, "And say not, to one who offers you peace, 'You are not a believer,' seeking the chance of profits of this life [so that you may despoil him]" (Qur’an 4:94). The verse indicates the acceptance of, and adherence to, Islam, and that [an apostate] should not be killed after his repentance. The position ultimately taken by the Imamite school is that there is no verse in the Qur'an that indicates an unqualified obligation to kill an apostate [i.e., whether he repents or not], and that would serve as abrogator of the verse under discussion...

...In any case, there is no question that the ruling to kill is nullified by repentance, as is stated in traditions reported by both Shi’ites and Sunnis. Hence, the verse [which safeguards the apostate from being put to death] is not to be regarded as having been abrogated.'

Source: 10. Abrogation in the Qur’an

So coming back to the statement in the Quran, "And say not, to one who offers you peace, 'You are not a believer,' seeking the chance of profits of this life [so that you may despoil him]"
Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei appears to have interpreted the way of offering peace to Muslims for the apostate as being to accept Islam as opposed to simply offering a peace treaty.

Now suppose if instead of saying, "And say not, to one who offers you peace, 'You are not a believer,' seeking the chance of profits of this life [so that you may despoil him]" The emphasis was taken off the faith of the peoples under discussion and it said, "And say not, to one who offers you a peace treaty, "You are not peaceful,' seeking the chance of profits of this life [so that you may despoil him]" Can you see how that removes an ambiguity that provides leverage to al-Khoei's interpretation?

Likewise imagine if 9:5 said, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill those who broke their peace treaties wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they re-establish peace, then let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful." instead of, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and maintain the prayer and give the zakat, then let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful.

Not only would it rob the scholars of a chance to declare war on apostates, but it would rob quote miners of the opportunity to cavile.

Now if an ordinary human with a bit of hindsight can see how to word the Quran better then surely an All-knowing God could have the foresight to word the Quran better. Hence it is logical to conclude that the Quran is from a falllible human who had little foresight and not from God.

In my opinion.

Where does Fasad (corruption) figure in to this discussion? Surely apostasy would easily count as corruption, and verse 5:33 is quite clear on the fate of those guilty of it (..... and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified).

(I just found this thread and haven't mined back to see if this has already been covered. I'm about to do that.)

 

[danieldemol]

Where does Fasad (corruption) figure in to this discussion? Surely apostasy would easily count as corruption, and verse 5:33 is quite clear on the fate of those guilty of it (..... and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified).

(I just found this thread and haven't mined back to see if this has already been covered. I'm about to do that.)

In my opinion corruption is not clearly defined in the Quran.

The Quran gives an example of corruption, but does not say it is the only example.

This is another area where the Quran is open to ambiguity and could conceivably have been written better by humans with hindsight, or by a God with foresight.

In my opinion.

 

[stevecanuck]

In my opinion corruption is not clearly defined in the Quran.

The Quran gives an example of corruption, but does not say it is the only example.

This is another area where the Quran is open to ambiguity and could conceivably have been written better by humans with hindsight, or by a God with foresight.

In my opinion.

I agree. In most of the Qur'an's 50 references to fasad, it seems to be understood that we already know exactly what that entails.

I think the clearest definition comes from 16:88 - "Those that disbelieve and bar from the way of God -- them We shall give increase of chastisement upon chastisement, for that they were doing corruption."

Even without that verse, the fact that the entire qur'an is dedicated to defining the difference between Islam and any form of infidelity tells us that Fasad refers to anything disapproved of by Allah. Claiming that God had a son would be an obvious example.

 

[Shakeel]

Hmm. Lol. So the Muslim world disagrees with me you say?

Can you tell me what the school of Medina said in the oldest jurisprudence of the Mudawwana al Kubra? Please do state how they disagree with me.

Thinking there's someone who agrees with you, doesn't equal the Muslim world agreeing with you.

 

[KWED]

Salam

In the 4th Chapter of Quran, we read:

What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. 88They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. 89Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them. 90You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

These verses show there was a group of hypocrites. The Quran then says if they turn back (ie. leave the religion) to kill them except for those who offer peace or their people is who an alliance is with Muslims. The Muslims at that time were at war with polytheists in general, but there was some still at peace with them.

These verses show even from people who fought Mohammad (s), if those specific people are from people fighting Mohammad (S) but themselves offer peace and say they won't fight Mohammad (s) and his followers, than not to kill them.

There is no compulsion in religion: rectitude has become distinct from error. So one who disavows fake deities and has faith in Allah has held fast to the firmest handle for which there is no breaking; and Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing. (2:256)

This verse was revealed when a companion of Mohammad (s) talked about his kids wanting to remain of their religion and not convert to Islam. This verse was revealed on that occasion.

And the meaning is clear, you shouldn't try to force religion on people and make them come to it while they are averse.

فَذَكِّرْ إِنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُذَكِّرٌ 21 لَسْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ بِمُصَيْطِرٍ

Remind, you are only one who reminds. Not are you an enforcer on them.

(Surah Ghashiya, near the end)


The question, is why do apostacy rules exist, despite this? It's part of the unjust nature scholars and their followers are towards Quran that results in this.

They prefer ahadith over Quran when their scholars emphasize on those hadiths.

It's a funny way to show that the Quran does not permit killing apostates - by citing a verse where it says to kill apostates.

It is somewhat disingenuous to claim that Islam does not promote killing apostates when their are several passages in the Quran and sunnah that show it does, as well as classical tafsir that confirm it to be the correct interpretation.

Same with using force to coerce people into submitting to Islam. Allah confirms this many times in the Quran - "Submit to Islam or I will torture you for eternity". What else is that but using threats of violence to get people to convert?

 

[KWED]

I would not and left Islam for 5 years because of bad translations according to Quran that I thought Quran was flawed as a result

What "bad translation" was this?

including the fact I believe it commanded to slavery,

It doesn't command it, it merely permits it. Allah considers slavery to be morally acceptable. Do you agree or disagree with him on that?

made woman into half a witness, etc.

The Quran is quite clear on that (under certain circumstances).

You can't let scripture triumph over your nature and reason. It has to accord to it.

But this contradicts the core principle of Islam - that Allah is infallible and his final message is likewise infallible and immutable. If you can adjust scripture to suit your own, personal worldview then that scripture is rendered meaningless.

The result of people giving scripture over reason and nature, results in ability of people to corrupt scripture. In the case of Quran, the original Arabic is fine but interpretation and translations are a problem.

So you only accept that actual, literal word of the original Classical Arabic. You reject any interpretation that attempts to change or modify the meaning of any of those original Arabic words and concepts? This seems at odds with your earlier claim that reason and the individual trumps ancient scripture.

 

[KWED]

Muslims are not allowed to attack people who don't attack them, and if people offer peace, we are to hold on to peace. In fact at times if fighting doesn't bring any good, Muslims should not fight even if they are prosecuted, like they didn't in the first years when Meccans would oppress them and kill them and torture them, as fighting would only achieve higher oppression and chaos, Mohammad (s) told them to withhold their hands and Taqiya was allowed and all this is found in Quran. Many verses show this. "if they incline to peace, you incline (as well)" is in Quran. But this thread is specifically looking at the issue of apostacy, I will make a thread about warfare and peace in Quran though another day.

So how did Muhammad expand his rule from Medina to most of the Arabian peninsula in a decade?

You do realise that it was Muhammad who started armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca by attacking their caravans and camps?
Before Muhammad invaded Mecca, the Quraysh sent an emissary to plead for peace. Muhammad refused to see him and attacked anyway.
The Quran and hadith state that there should be fighting against disbelievers until they submit to Islam.

The claim that Muslims are only allowed fight in self-defence has been repeatedly and thoroughly disproved.

 

[KWED]

The problem is that two sorcerers hijacked Islam very early. You won't get the truth by it's "adherents", but rather a Satanic distorted version.

 

[KWED]

The Quran's list of the names of Allah emphasize mercy, compassion, forgiveness. If that is true, then the Quran itself must be based on mercy, compassion and forgiveness

The mercy, compassion and forgiveness only applies to those who submit to Islam. Those who reject it receive violence, intolerance, and discrimination.

I also read that Muslims should submit to the will of Allah. To me this meant that Muslims should try to practice the virtues that are Allah's intrinsic nature.

Above all else, Allah is vain, needy and vindictive. Think about it. He created mankind for one reason only - so we could worship him. Anyone who refuses to worship him is tortured for eternity. Any human behaving like that would be rightfully condemned.

So when I read translations that don't stem from mercy & forgiveness or Hadith which appear to be opposite or words & actions that don't express those virtues, I see a fundamental disconnect between the roots of Islam and what some call Islam.

This is called "confirmation bias". You accept only evidence that appears to support your pre-existing conclusion, and reject anything that challenges it.

 

[KWED]

There should not be, Mohammad (s) bore patiently the accusations of him as a liar is recorded in Quran. The hadiths however often are meant to cover the light of the Quran and so teach the opposite of his forbearing patient Sunnah (way).

There are sahib hadith that record Muhammad ordering the assassination of people who belittled and criticised him.

You should also be aware that there are two distinct stages in Muhammad's prophethood. The years in Mecca when he had very few followers and little power or authority; and the years after building political and military power in Medina. Naturally his behaviour in the former was quite different to that in the latter.