Killing the apostate! Islamic?? Whats the source? Whats there to consider?

[firedragon]

Nope I have not taken a Muslim into my tribe,

of course you have. You are siding with anyone that helps your agenda.

I have just acknowledged that Islam is what Muslims make of it.

Of course it is. Islam is not what Christians make of it, or atheists make of it, but what Muslims make of it. Atheism is not what Muslims make of it, but what atheists make of it. A Hindu is not what a Christian makes of it but what a Hindu makes of it.

So if a Muslims Islam says kill the apostate then his Islam is different to your Islam

True. But that's not the topic of the thread. The topic is read out in the OP. So if you wish to understand the sociology of religion, open a new thread rather than being hellbent to derail every single thread into hating Islam.

I don't say that @Shakeel or his scholars believed the Quran has no validity,

You spoke of his scholars. Which scholars, what did they say? Please quote and which book. Its strange that you speak of Shakeel scholars when I have not seen a scholar cited by him yet. Maybe you guys know each other personally so please enlighten me.

I am not able to read the interpretations of his scholars to see how they interpreted the Quran

Then if you dont know, dont speak of them.

All I know is that in practice Shakeel supports the killing of apostates based on those ahadeeth, and whether you like it or not, that makes those ahadeeth part of his Islam.

I didnt say its not part of his Islam. Read the OP, and address the post.

Sources.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

So much for avoiding rhetorical exchanges

Great that you recognised your own statement cut and pasted is a rhetorical exchange. Thats what I wanted you to understand.

So much for avoiding rhetorical exchanges


Sure, that is a valid way to approach it, but not the only way. The other way is to imitate what the scholars of the past said about it.


Hypocrisy has nothing to do with acknowledging that not everyone takes my approach. That is just being honest to acknowledge that.


I never claimed that @Shakeel 's scholar said to ignore isnad.


I gave it a comprehensive and holistic reading then selected the part that was relevant to respond to, no intellectual dishonesty or shamelessness required.

So whats your question?

 

[danieldemol]

Of course it is. Islam is not what Christians make of it, or atheists make of it, but what Muslims make of it. Atheism is not what Muslims make of it, but what atheists make of it. A Hindu is not what a Christian makes of it but what a Hindu makes of it.



True. But that's not the topic of the thread. The topic is read out in the OP. So if you wish to understand the sociology of religion, open a new thread rather than being hellbent to derail every single thread into hating Islam.

Actually the OP asks if killing apostates is part of Islam, and the answer is its part of their Islam. Perhaps you should have asked is killing apostates part of the Quranist sect of Islam, or if it is part of firedragon's sect of Islam, but you didn't hence you got a broader response than what you failed to specify.

You spoke of his scholars. Which scholars, what did they say? Please quote and which book. Its strange that you speak of Shakeel scholars when I have not seen a scholar cited by him yet. Maybe you guys know each other personally so please enlighten me.

Actually when @Shakeel said the ahadith quoted is sahih, I assumed he meant according to his scholars it is sahih, in fact he seems to indicate this in post #20, so admittedly i was assuming good faith that he wasn't lying about that. Perhaps we could ask him to cite which scholars he was reffering to?

Then if you dont know, dont speak of them.

I did not speak of how they interpret the Quran.

 

[danieldemol]

Great that you recognised your own statement cut and pasted is a rhetorical exchange. Thats what I wanted you to understand.

My rhetoric was truthful and to the point in my opinion, by comparison yours was just hypocritical since you said to avoid rhetoric, and it was dishonest to boot since I wasn't dodging anything.

So whats your question?

Since you missed it the first N times it was asked, here it comes again;

I have directly asked you to cite its isnad for *all* the hadith presented its not a difficult request as far as I can tell.

I also asked you why it makes a difference when @Shakeel is more intent on imitating the opinions of his scholars.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

https://melbourneasiareview.edu.au/...olars-views-in-favour-of-abolition/?print=pdf

It is very well known in the Islamic circles who are considered extremist or fanatical that there is nothing about apostasy laws in the Qur'an. Anyone who studies a little bit of Islamic Jurisprudence knows this very well. Of course there are some non-muslim apologists who propagate otherwise through some websites.

Nevertheless, I wish to discuss with those who propagate apostasy laws, be it muslim or non-muslim, what their sources are and what the justifications are based on the Islamic literature.

To reiterate, there are no killing apostates in the Qur'an. None.

Okay, the keep operative word is "justifications". When I read the link I have provided, it gives a link to an apparently scholarly work, that some Muslim scholars have justified apostasy laws.

So here is what I believe: There seems to be at least in past some Muslim scholars, who have justified apostasy laws. That doesn't mean that I accept the justification of apostasy laws. It means I accept that were some Muslim scholars, who have claimed justification for apostasy laws.
I also accept, that there are some Muslim scholars, who have claimed there are no justifications for apostasy laws.
So far so good.

Now you like me to give my view on the justifications for and against. I won't, because I don't believe in justifications. I don't believe in the idea of truth or whatever there is behind the idea of justifications. I am a cognitive, moral and cultural relativist.
So here is my answer. There are different Muslims, who use different rules for justifications and arrive at different results. I don't consider any of them right or wrong. I consider them all believers, though with different beliefs.
So if you ask me, what I think of killing apostates. I find it to me as me wrong as a belief and that is all it requires. I don't like it and that is a version of meta-ethics, that is emotivism.
That is all.

So you can do all your subjective justification for right and wrong, you like. But I don't believe like you do. And neither of us are right or wrong. We just believe differently.

 

[firedragon]

Actually the OP asks if killing apostates is part of Islam, and the answer is its part of their Islam.

Again you cherry picked.

"""Nevertheless, I wish to discuss with those who propagate apostasy laws, be it muslim or non-muslim, what their sources are and what the justifications are based on the Islamic literature."""

I have directly asked you to cite its isnad for *all* the hadith presented its not a difficult request as far as I can tell.

I also asked you why it makes a difference when @Shakeel is more intent on imitating the opinions of his scholars.

So you want the Isnad for all the hadith. Not possible. Others are not your servants my friend to command and get your things done.

Here you go. One more hadith chain if you like.

Musadadun, bishr bn almufadali, aljurayriu, qays bn hafsin, 'iismaeil bn 'iibrahima, 'saeid aljurayriu, abd alrahman bn 'abi bakrata.

 

[danieldemol]

Others are not your servants my friend to command and get your things done.

Rofl you asked for a question and I gave you a question, no commands were involved.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again you cherry picked.

"""Nevertheless, I wish to discuss with those who propagate apostasy laws, be it muslim or non-muslim, what their sources are and what the justifications are based on the Islamic literature."""

...

Then don't put in debate. And found a forum, where everybody do as you tell them to do or you can just ban them.

 

[firedragon]

Actually when @Shakeel said the ahadith quoted is sahih, I assumed he meant according to his scholars it is sahih, in fact he seems to indicate this in post #20, so admittedly i was assuming good faith that he wasn't lying about that. Perhaps we could ask him to cite which scholars he was reffering to?

No one said anyone is lying. And I dont know why for you its this false dichotomy of "either its absolute truth or he is lying". Why can't it be "he is unaware"?

Also, before siding with someone blindly, and quoting his scholars you never heard of yet, you should first ask. I didnt know that you side with scholars so much without any analysis why they say what they say. Its strange for a non-muslim to be so blindly falling for any scholar that suits.

Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

Rofl you asked for a question and I gave you a question, no commands were involved.

Nope. That was not a question. That was a demand for an chain narrations I have to go to books and type it out here. That was not a question.

Please ask a question decently if you have one.

What is your question?

 

[danieldemol]

No one said anyone is lying. And I dont know why for you its this false dichotomy of "either its absolute truth or he is lying". Why can't it be "he is unaware"?

Sure he could be saying that it is his scholars who are saying that whilst being unaware that they don't say that.

Also, before siding with someone blindly, and quoting his scholars you never heard of yet, you should first ask. I didnt know that you side with scholars so much without any analysis why they say what they say. Its strange for a non-muslim to be so blindly falling for any scholar that suits.

Hope you understand.

I never sided with @Shakeel or his scholars, only pointed out that they are Muslims, and thus that is one approach to Islam.

Hope you understand.

 

[danieldemol]

Here you go. One more hadith chain if you like.

Musadadun, bishr bn almufadali, aljurayriu, qays bn hafsin, 'iismaeil bn 'iibrahima, 'saeid aljurayriu, abd alrahman bn 'abi bakrata.

It looks as though none of those was Ikrima (whom you refuted the first hadith based on).

 

[firedragon]

Sure he could be saying that it is his scholars who are saying that whilst being unaware that they don't say that.

Dont say what Daniel? That its Sahih? See, there is a difference between Sahih and Sarih. And I am talking about it from the extreme point of view of the Safi and Hanbali Madhabs that I am pretty sure this gentleman is following. Thats not an issue. Everyone typically follows a particular madhab, and they have differences in the system.

What you must do is Daniel, make an analysis of all of these sources. Most of the Hanbali and Shafii schools have a hadith absolutism. That means there are some who take all Sahih hadith as Sarih. Do you understand? But the other schools like Maliki and Hanafi have a completely different approach. Also one must note that the Hanafi school has two major different eras. The earliest era had the concept called Akal which means "reason" and then the followers of course turned it into "takleedh" which basically means "follow".

I am sure you dont care about any of this but just aim at demonising Islam by hook or crook so its probably a waste of time. Nevertheless, what must be said must be said.

One thing that is universal is that the Quran is the criterion. The Furqan. Though you keep repeating "that's only for the Quranists" because you have no understanding of the four fikkhs, it is not the case. Its just that you are unaware. You, just like this other guy here is just blind worshiping whoever supports your view and aim, so you are also a Mukthalid or in the English phraseology, a blind follower who does not question authority of his particular sect or school of thought, and that's an official doctrine, not just a random statement. Its better to understand the system.

Check three ahadith that were quoted by this gent. One was not attributed to the prophet. It was for someone else. The other two were coming from one single person. Ikrima. Ikrima was of the Khawarij. I can't explain much, but the Khawarij were (according to the Sunni tradition that we are obsessed about right now) the ones who assassinated Ali. Ikrima was a well known Khawarij. You think logically his testimony about Ali is valid? Thats ridiculous.

Over and above all of this, the Quran is the Furqan. It is the yardstick. And in it it says "La Ikraaha Fiddheen". No compulsion in religion. It is rather nonsensical to think that anything can supersede the Quran according to any of these sects, unless they abandon the Quran completely. But according to the Fikh, and the science of ahadith, and according to the whole science of everything in the Islamic discourse, the Quran is the Furqan. Just be aware.

Think a bit.

 

[firedragon]

It looks as though none of those was Ikrima (whom you refuted the first hadith based on).

Of course not. This is a different hadith. Lol. Cmon mate.

 

[firedragon]

I never sided with @Shakeel or his scholars, only pointed out that they are Muslims, and thus that is one approach to Islam.

Perfectly fine. But what are their sources? Again, I wish to discuss with those who propagate apostasy laws, be it muslim or non-muslim, what their sources are and what the justifications are based on the Islamic literature.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Think a bit.

I don't accept that your standard of thinking is better or worse than other standards of thinking. They are just different. Now if you can come up with an objective standard in the strong sense of objective reasoning, logic and/or evidence, I will listen to you.
Otherwise I will until further evidence consider you as subjective as all other humans and simply consider whether there are justifications or not subjective.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Perfectly fine. But what are their sources? Again, I wish to discuss with those who propagate apostasy laws, be it muslim or non-muslim, what their sources are and what the justifications are based on the Islamic literature.

I've seen multiple people answer your question with sources, Muslim and non-Muslim.
I understand you don't agree with their reasoning but why do you act as though your question hasn't been answered?

 

[firedragon]

I've seen multiple people answer your question with sources, Muslim and non-Muslim.

1. Please show me what source has been quoted.
2. What are the nuances and problems with those sources?
3. How does any of these "sources" contradict the Qur'an?
4. Why do you think these arguments are valid?

Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. Please show me what source has been quoted.
2. What are the nuances and problems with those sources?
3. How does any of these "sources" contradict the Qur'an?
4. Why do you think these arguments are valid?

Thanks.

And here we go again. Do you have an objective standard for validity or are you as subjective as all other humans?

 

[ecco]

Nevertheless, we have seen what Muslims do when cartoons are published - a death sentence.

One could ask where does the concept of killing offenders (apostates, cartoonists) come from?

A more important question is why the concepts are still prevalent? Why have Islamic leaders, for the past 1400 years, not vociferously spoken out about it and changed the erroneous(?) perceptions?

Yes. It is off topic.

Yes of course it is, but that's just on the surface of things. Thats not how things work, or has ever worked, even with some of the most fanatical Muslims.

1. You must though explain why you would take this above the Quran. Whats the analysis?
2. Also you must explain the Sanad or the chain of narration of the story you are quoting, and why you trust that chain so much.
3. Also you must explain the mathn or the narration itself, and why you would take it above the Furqan or what is called the yardstick of the Fikh, vis a vis, the Qur'an.

This is according to the methodology of these usul ul hadith scholars. So its not so black and white.

Do you understand?

Well, it is exactly how things work.

Whether the Quran explicitly states that people making cartoons mocking Allah or Muhammed should be executed is immaterial.

Whether the Quran explicitly states that Muslims opting out of Islam should be executed is immaterial.

The belief among many Muslims is that the Islamic religion does specify that people making cartoons mocking Allah or Muhammed should be executed.

The belief among many Muslims is that the Islamic religion does specify that Muslims opting out of Islam should be executed.

If these beliefs are wrong, why are they so prevalent? It is very clear that Islamic leaders, for the past 1400 years, have not vociferously spoken out about it and changed the erroneous beliefs.

Why is that?