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

[danieldemol]

Check three ahadith that were quoted by this gent. One was not attributed to the prophet. It was for someone else.

In the one not directly attributed to the prophet he says 'Then Abu Muisa requested Mu`adh to sit down but Mu`adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.'
So in other words he has not said word for word what Muhammad said, but has nontheless directly paraphrased Muhammad's judgement on such cases. Is that the hadith you are reffering to when you say one was not attributed to the prophet?

 

[firedragon]

In the one not directly attributed to the prophet he says 'Then Abu Muisa requested Mu`adh to sit down but Mu`adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.'
So in other words he has not said word for word what Muhammad said, but has nontheless directly paraphrased Muhammad's judgement on such cases. Is that the hadith you are reffering to when you say one was not attributed to the prophet?

Of course.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well then I'm waiting for the analysis, in case it arrives one day.

My standard? I'm a Muslim. I have to accept all Sahih hadiths. Since you're the one against that, why not just state in which deviant group you belong to and stop pretending the sharing of your own personal intellectual analysis is necessary for Muslims to know the Islamic law?

OK. I like the fact that you are on this forum. It is good to get another, more to the point, viewpoint of a follower of Islam.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Alright. Since you have no character to speak with some substance and maturity, you will probably receive some now.

Ikrima was a well known Khawarij. Taking a narration of a Khawarij about Ali is like taking Satans word about Allah.

Since you have no clue about any of this, try and learn something.

The Isnad is the most important aspect in Usul ul hadith according to the Sunni school of thought other than the Maliki school and probably the earliest Abu Haneefa's school of thought. So since it seems like you are from the other three fikhussunnah, lets make an analysis based on your own theology mate.

You dumped Isnad down the drain saying "it doesnt matter" because you have no understanding of your own religious sciences. But Isnad is the most important in your theology. Thus, taking a dubious link like Ikrima in a narration about Ali as I said is like taking the devils word about God. Maybe you have no clue of course about these issues in the same system you are speaking of.

Also since it seems like you have never read up on some thalikun of ahadith, the ahadith you are referring to were referencing the harbulriddha in the early period. A murthad in this era can never mean an apostate. It is sedition. This is, even if Ikrima was telling all the truth, and the narration chain is Sarih, and Frabri narrating from Bukhari was absolutely spot on after several centuries after the fact.

On top of all of this, of course knowing you would in your desire to avoid will avoid all of that, the Quran saying La Ikraaha fiddheen is absolutely conflicting with this narration. So obviously you are not interested in the Qur'an at all but propagating your murderous intent.

So that's a very very small piece of analysis if you try you may understand. But since you are a maulathul aalami it might be pretty easy to understand for you.

Cheers.

I like these types of answers.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

In Quran, Allah appears to be quite scary:

Sahih International: Have they not seen how many generations We destroyed before them which We had established upon the earth as We have not established you? And We sent [rain from] the sky upon them in showers and made rivers flow beneath them; then We destroyed them for their sins and brought forth after them a generation of others. Quran 6:6

Sahih International: Here you are - those invited to spend in the cause of Allah - but among you are those who withhold [out of greed]. And whoever withholds only withholds [benefit] from himself; and Allah is the Free of need, while you are the needy. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you. Quran 47:38

 

[danieldemol]

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?

Absolutely, and their practice of hadith absolutism is what makes killing apostates part of their Islam in my opinion. It is diversionary to point to theories they held about the Quran trumping hadith when in practice they were hadith absolutists. Thus it is an absolutely valid answer to the question of the OP to say it is part of their Islam in my opinion

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.

That is just wishful thinking on your part. My aim is neither to demonise Islam nor to whitewash it's chequered history (which you appear to be unitentionally doing).

Here is what I think you set out to do.
1. point out that the Quran as you and presumably as they see it does not support apostasy.
2. point out that in theory the Quran is supposed to trump the hadith.
3. point out that in practice the Hanbali and Shafii schools are allowing the hadith to trump the Quran.
4. encourage them to reverse the situation.

Here is how I would have worded the OP with those aims in mind;
The Quran states that there is no compulsion
The hadith states kill those who change their religion
Hanbali and Shafii why don't you follow the Quran instead of the hadith?

In this way you would have avoided all the answers you didn't want about whether apostasy is part of Islam when it is clearly part of their Islam in practice in my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Of course.

So I don't get what your refutation of that particular hadith according to it's isnad is, have you provided one that I missed?

 

[danieldemol]

This is for those who participated in this thread. If you like, this is an absolute synopsis. @danieldemol @Shadow Wolf @Shakeel

Murder in the name of God

In a nutshell, the Islamic scripture directly tells you never to take an innocent life. So says the Quran in chapter 5 verse 32 - “It is because of this that we have decreed for the Children of Israel: “Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people. “

Now notice that this verse says as a blanket statement that a person who has not committed murder should not be killed or even as a government give a death sentence. But there is a phrase here that many people misunderstand that says “or who has not committed corruption in the land” which is open for interpretation. The Arabic phrase “Al Fasadhu Fil Ardh (الفساد في الأرض)”, or corruption in the land has a definition which a lot of people have ignored. This maybe the boring part for the reader, but this also maybe a piercer of faith to the fanatic. Read further.

So says the Quran in chapter 27, verses 48 to 50, - “And in the city were nine ruffians who were causing corruption in the land, and they were not reforming. They said: “Swear by God to one another that we will attack him and his family at night, …... “

Notice that it says “Swear by God”. This is what the Quran is saying by the phrase “Spreading corruption in the land”. These are the people the verse 5:32 above is speaking about and they are very clearly explained.

So it should be evident, that their claim of murdering innocents shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, calls for Gods wrath on them, and the penalty is nothing but death. You murderer, your Quran is mandating a death sentence to you purely for murdering people using Gods name.

Bottomline: If you say Allah/God and kill an innocent human being, you are the scum of the earth according to the Quran. YOU

In my opinion the Quran only gives one example of spreading corruption in the land, it does not say that is the only example.
Bottom line: You appear to be bringing your own modern baggage to the definition of innocent here, for example in the seventh century Arabia was a person who insults your religion or apostatises considered innocent? If Muhammad was different to the cultural norms of seventh century Arabia how do you determine this without a historical Muhammad to refer to, particularly once you have rejected the hadith and sira?

 

[firedragon]

Absolutely, and their practice of hadith absolutism is what makes killing apostates part of their Islam in my opinion. It is diversionary to point to theories they held about the Quran trumping hadith when in practice they were hadith absolutists. Thus it is an absolutely valid answer to the question of the OP to say it is part of their Islam in my opinion

I never said "its not part THEIR ISLAM". So repeating that is beating a dead horse. This thread is to question the sources.

Here is what I think you set out to do.
1. point out that the Quran as you and presumably as they see it does not support apostasy.
2. point out that in theory the Quran is supposed to trump the hadith.
3. point out that in practice the Hanbali and Shafii schools are allowing the hadith to trump the Quran.
4. encourage them to reverse the situation.

No..

As you can see, not even ahadith support killing apostates. The ahadith that do, even according to the same Sunni schools, are weak, with Thdhlees, against the Golden chain, and cannot be accepted.

In this way you would have avoided all the answers you didn't want about whether apostasy is part of Islam when it is clearly part of their Islam in practice in my opinion.

When you say "their" who specifically? And what are the sources?

 

[firedragon]

In my opinion the Quran only gives one example of spreading corruption in the land, it does not say that is the only example.
Bottom line: You appear to be bringing your own modern baggage to the definition of innocent here, for example in the seventh century Arabia was a person who insults your religion or apostatises considered innocent? If Muhammad was different to the cultural norms of seventh century Arabia how do you determine this without a historical Muhammad to refer to, particularly once you have rejected the hadith and sira?

Not really. Since you have not read the Quran your have no clue. So dont make opinions of things you have not analysed. Also, it is you bringing modern baggage you garnered from the TV, I bring the oldest scholarship available.

 

[firedragon]

So I don't get what your refutation of that particular hadith according to it's isnad is, have you provided one that I missed?

Why should there be a refutation based on the isnad?

 

[firedragon]

That is just wishful thinking on your part. My aim is neither to demonise Islam nor to whitewash it's chequered history (which you appear to be unitentionally doing).

Strawman. This is not a history lesson. The reason you are ignoring many points and cherry picking parts of sentences, and trying to steer away the thread into "history" and people are all because you intend to demonise Islam. In every single thread I have ever come across your posts, even if the thread is about water, you will turn it into islam and how murderous the theology is by default. Maybe unintentional, but that's reality.

 

[firedragon]

3. point out that in practice the Hanbali and Shafii schools are allowing the hadith to trump the Quran.

Seriously laughable. Is that the point I made?

The hadith states kill those who change their religion

See, dishonestly misquoting people is again "dishonest".

Show me which hadith specifically and whats the analysis rather than making general statements about something and especially misquoting others and misrepresenting them.

Is there some problem mate?

 

[danieldemol]

Why should there be a refutation based on the isnad?

You said in post #51 "The Isnad is the most important aspect in Usul ul hadith according to the Sunni school of thought other than the Maliki school and probably the earliest Abu Haneefa's school of thought. So since it seems like you are from the other three fikhussunnah, lets make an analysis based on your own theology mate."

So it appears you are saying Isnad is most important in @Shakeel 's theology then not having a refutation based on its Isnad.

 

[danieldemol]

Since you have not read the Quran your have no clue

Actually I have read Yusuf Ali's translation cover to cover, but if you are claiming the Quran says that is the *only* example of spreading corruption on earth then please provide the evidence.

 

[danieldemol]

Seriously laughable. Is that the point I made?

That's how it came across to me.

See, dishonestly misquoting people is again "dishonest".

It wasn't even a quote

 

[firedragon]

Actually I have read Yusuf Ali's translation cover to cover, but if you are claiming the Quran says that is the *only* example of spreading corruption on earth then please provide the evidence.

I have already. But nevertheless, since you asked. I will open a new thread to discuss that. And you can of course check up the Yusuf Ali translation if you like. Im surprised honestly that you have not come across this phrase repeatedly in the Quran. Anyone who reads it cover to cover does. These are patterns and one easily notices them. Of course there are some people who read the Quran from here and there, even a lot of Muslims do that. That type of reading won't notice these things. Yet, if you have read the Quran I take back my comment since it is a commendable thing. I just could not believe that someone who has read the Quran makes such an uninformed statement about it.

What do you say? New thread?

 

[firedragon]

You said in post #51 "The Isnad is the most important aspect in Usul ul hadith according to the Sunni school of thought other than the Maliki school and probably the earliest Abu Haneefa's school of thought. So since it seems like you are from the other three fikhussunnah, lets make an analysis based on your own theology mate."

So it appears you are saying Isnad is most important in @Shakeel 's theology then not having a refutation based on its Isnad.

But why dont you read the whole post and take all of it into account mate?

 

[danieldemol]

But why dont you read the whole post and take all of it into account mate?

I read the whole post, took it all into account, then responded to what I saw as relevant in my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

I have already. But nevertheless, since you asked. I will open a new thread to discuss that. And you can of course check up the Yusuf Ali translation if you like. Im surprised honestly that you have not come across this phrase repeatedly in the Quran. Anyone who reads it cover to cover does. These are patterns and one easily notices them. Of course there are some people who read the Quran from here and there, even a lot of Muslims do that. That type of reading won't notice these things. Yet, if you have read the Quran I take back my comment since it is a commendable thing. I just could not believe that someone who has read the Quran makes such an uninformed statement about it.

What do you say? New thread?

You can do it here or a new thread.