lexiconkabir:


Sorry if i misunderstood that statement, but could you explain better?

We have the sayings of Allah Which is no doubt truest of all truth where certain people's blood can be shed. Apostasy is not one of them. We have a hadith(a narration attributed to rasulullah which may be or may Not be true) With a contrary view to that of the Quran. In this case I don't take that hadith seriously unless there's a quranic verse supporting it.

Newnas:
This apologetic Islam people are practicing is very disappointing and annoying.

The sunnah explains the Quran not you. The hadith says the ruling of a matter is so and so, some of us try to dodge it to please the people.

Know this, no matter how much you manipulate and apologize to the disbelievers, the one who will die on his stray path will not believe.

This isnt about what the unbelievers think about Islam. If a Muslim irtadda and causes mischief, he should be executed. If non Muslims like, they say all sort of rubbish as they please.
This is you guys taking the words of ulama as sealed and concluded as they cannot make mistake and therefore no need to review them. They aren't messengers or prophets of Allah. This is you guys believing that once a sahih, Always a sahih even when new evidences come in.

udatso:


Dr bilal gives reason why they should be executed if you study his examples correctly. That is treasonous behaviour from them. But your stand is clear which is kill any murtad Muslim. It doesn't matter if he has harm the Muslims or not.

What he said was, "apostacy in islam is equal to treason" again he said "if you are caught declaring openly, you will be asked to retract your statement, and IF you do, you wull be left alone" implying that if you dont you wull be executed, i guess you watched the video in a hurry.

Here's Dr zakir naik's view

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROVoBYAoKsE
Here's shabir Allyvs view too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4GK2I6GMcc

I dont know about shabir Ally but zakir naik is no scholar of islam.

lexiconkabir:

.

.



Please give the correct reference to this hadith, the abu dawood i have with me says


"The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) forbade riding the camel which feeds on filth and drinking its milk."

In book reference book 40, Hadith 1
Sunan Abu dawud 4351

How does this contradict the hadith i broufht from bukhari? Or maybe I'm missing something

Did Allah say " wow to ibn Abbas " or "ibn Abbas has spoken the truth "?

So far, i am yet to see the hadith that cobtradict that of bukhari, or maybe I'm missing what you wanted me to see....if i am pls let me know.

I just pointed it out

TheDevilIsALai:


Your prophet waged a so called holy war to force the polytheist Arabs through pure terror to submit to his god Allah and his religion.


The word Islam translates to submission.

Submission is not a voluntary action but one induced by superior force .


The Koran is very clear on apostasy and Islamic countries like Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen have criminal codes drawn form the Sharia that specify death as punishment for those who stray out of Islam .

This is fact.

This thread was meant for Muslims. Non Muslims are to watch and observe

udatso:

We have the sayings of Allah Which is no doubt truest of all truth where certain people's blood can be shed. Apostasy is not one of them. We have a hadith(a narration attributed to rasulullah which may be or may Not be true)

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am His Messenger, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a married man who commits adultery; [size=18]and one who leaves his religion and splits form the jamaa’ah[/size]” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6878; Muslim, 1676)

Thats another Hadith!

With a contrary view to that of the Quran. In this case I don't take that hadith seriously unless there's a quranic verse supporting it.

Ok, then dont take hadith that said isa(a.s) will be back seriously, or the hadith that talks on dajjal, because they are not in the Quran.

udatso:


In book reference book 40, Hadith 1
Sunan Abu dawud 4351

I asked for the reference of the hadith where Ali said woe to ibn abbass, not this.

Did Allah say " wow to ibn Abbas " or "ibn Abbas has spoken the truth "?

I will keep saying this, we take rulings from the Quran, and the Sahih Ahadith, if we check the Quran for a ruling and it's silent about it, then we go to hadith, and if its also silent, then we will be silent, but if one of them is not silent, then we must follow the one that talked on it, since BOTH ARE REVELATIONS FROM ALLAH.

I dont know how to say this again, so you guys will understand.

Contact17:
There is only three instances where people should be killed
1) A person who murdered someone intentionally
2) An person who commits adultery
3) An apostate

Whats the quranic verse for these three points you just mentioned cos in the Quran according to
Qur`an 5:32-33, 45, 2:178

In 5:32, after relating the story of the murder of Habil by his brother Qabil, God says:
On that account We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity. Then although there came to them Our Messengers with clear (guidance), yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (5:32)
In the context of an emphasis on preserving the life of each and every individual the above verse mentions only two crimes for which a person can be killed:

1) Murdering another human being;
2) Spreading mischief (fasad) in the land.

Nowhere else the Qur`an mentions any other crime for which the death penalty is considered.
I know you might say, hadith is a lso a source of Sharia in Islam. Yes that's true but in all other punishments for crimes, they have a base in the Quran before they are now explained in details in the hadith. This case isn't so. Besides, Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi WA sallam in a hadith left an apostate walk free

udatso:
Besides, Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi WA sallam in a hadith left an apostate walk free

Where is that hadith? I just hope you dont bring the hadith i have in mind.

lexiconkabir:


I asked for the reference of the hadith where Ali said woe to ibn abbass, not this.

«4353» حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ أَخْبَرَنَا أَيُّوبُ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ أَحْرَقَ نَاسًا ارْتَدُّوا عَنِ الإِسْلاَمِ فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَقَالَ لَمْ أَكُنْ لأَحْرِقَهُمْ بِالنَّارِ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: ((لاَ تُعَذِّبُوا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ)). وَكُنْتُ قَاتِلَهُمْ بِقَوْلِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: ((مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ)). فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ عَلِيًّا عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ فَقَالَ وَيْحَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ.

If you cant see theويح ابن عباس، I don't know what else I would show you

I will keep saying this, we take rulings from the Quran, and the Sahih Ahadith, if we check the Quran for a ruling and it's silent about it, then we go to hadith, and if its also silent, then we will be silent, but if one of them is not silent, then we must follow the one that talked on it, since BOTH ARE REVELATIONS FROM ALLAH.

I dont know how to say this again, so you guys will understand.

It's true we take rulings from the Quran and hadith. But Quran comes first, they aren't equal in authenticity. Quran stated cases one may be killed and didn't give room for other instances . Then a hadith comes to tell us something else, that's contradiction
And the Quran wasn't silent on apostate, Worldly punishment wasn't prescribed For it in the Quran. Why can't you accept this to mean no punishment for apostate in this dunya Based on Quran ? Especially when the hadith Saying other wise go against 5:32

udatso:


«4353» حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ أَخْبَرَنَا أَيُّوبُ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ أَحْرَقَ نَاسًا ارْتَدُّوا عَنِ الإِسْلاَمِ فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَقَالَ لَمْ أَكُنْ لأَحْرِقَهُمْ بِالنَّارِ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: ((لاَ تُعَذِّبُوا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ)). وَكُنْتُ قَاتِلَهُمْ بِقَوْلِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: ((مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ)). فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ عَلِيًّا عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ فَقَالَ وَيْحَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ.

If you cant see theويح ابن عباس، I don't know what else I would show you

Easy brother, what you gave initially was 4351 not 4353, moreover this is 4353

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed

true we take rulings from the Quran and hadith. But Quran comes first, they aren't equal in authenticity. Quran stated cases one may be killed and didn't give room for other instances . Then a hadith comes to tell us something else, that's contradiction
And the Quran wasn't silent on apostate, Worldly punishment wasn't prescribed For it in the Quran. Why can't you accept this to mean no punishment for apostate in this dunya Based on Quran ? Especially when the hadith Saying other wise go against 5:32

Smh, i don't have anything else to say, you can hold on to your vviews while i hold on to mine.

lexiconkabir:



The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am His Messenger, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a married man who commits adultery; [size=18]and one who leaves his religion and splits form the jamaa’ah[/size]” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6878; Muslim, 1676)

The issue of Stoning a married Woman is a similar issue as this. I wouldnt go into that yet
In this hadith you quoted, why is there a condition. And what does the condition mean. Your other hadith of Buhari doesn't give condition. It tells you to kill anyone who leaves Islam

Ok, then dont take hadith that said isa(a.s) will be back seriously, or the hadith that talks on dajjal, because they are not in the Quran.

Don't be ridiculous brother, we are talking about hudud here . And am not a Quranite. I just don't take hadith that contradicts the Quran.
Simpler issues of theft, zina all have their punishment prescribed in the Quran, howAnd when they are carried out detailed in thE hadith.
Apostasy doesn't follow this procedure.

udatso:

The issue of Stoning a married Woman is a similar issue as this. I wouldnt go into that yet
In this hadith you quoted, why is there a condition. And what does the condition mean. Your other hadith of Buhari doesn't give condition. It tells you to kill anyone who leaves Islam




Don't be ridiculous brother, we are talking about hudud here . And am not a Quranite. I just don't take hadith that contradicts the Quran.
Simpler issues of theft, zina all have their punishment prescribed in the Quran, howAnd when they are carried out detailed in thE hadith.
Apostasy doesn't follow this procedure.

Alright.

lexiconkabir:


Easy brother, what you gave initially was 4351 not 4353, moreover this is 4353

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed

Maybe my hadith app must have given me the wrong reference. Snapshot below

Smh, i don't have anything else to say, you can hold on to your vviews while i hold on to mine.

I see

lexiconkabir:


Where is that hadith? I just hope you dont bring the hadith i have in mind.

It doesn't matter. You believe what you wish, I believe mine

Assalam Alaykum, First I believe Tbaba’s response should have settled the whole argument for and against killing the apostate in an Islamic state, to me it seems we just are not ready to understand ourselves…May Allah (SWT) rectify our affairs, ameen.

I must state that those saying the hadith goes against or contradicts the Qur’an show lack of understanding how Islamic laws are being established, do you all think the Islamic Scholars do not read the verses of the Qur’an before coming to their conclusions?! There is what is called “Maqasid As-Shari’ah” Primary objectives of Islamic law, which are:

1. Preservation of the Religion
2. Preservation of life
3. Preservation of intellect
4. Preservation of progeny
5. Preservation of property

And traditionally, the main sources of Islamic law (shariah) are as follows:
1. The Qur’an: such as the verses that prohibit interest
2. The Sunnah (i.e hadith): sayings of the prophet (SAW)
3. Ijma’: all agreed to collect the Qur’an
4. Qiyas: analogy pointing to the prohibition of drugs

The above are synthesized, thoroughly investigated through Ijtihad before arriving at a conclusion. Difference of opinion may arise due to Ijtihad of different Islamic Scholars, but the underlying principle is the effort in establishing the primary objective of the Islamic Law (Shari’ah).

@lexiconkabir, the reason (and this is what I think), why most people are going against your post is majorly due to the way your post would be generally understood, it would seem like Islam is just out to kill, and that Muslims derive pleasure in killing anyone who go against its teachings, the reason why some people had raised the need to apply wisdom, especially when dealing with non-Muslims.

The Shariah, which is the totality of Allah’s commands, that regulates the life of every Muslim in all aspects, is not meant to be cruel or harsh against humans (both Muslims and non-Muslims), rather it is meant to make things easier and a mercy, so as for us to live in peace and tranquility. Allah Says: “We sent thee (i.e Prophet Muhammad (SAW) not, but a mercy for all creatures” (Q21:107), “O mankind! There hath come to you direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts and for those who believe, a guidance and a mercy.” (Q10 : 57)

Therefore,

From the book: Documented Proceeding of The Conference of Riyad on Muslim Doctrine And Human Rights in Islam (1972).

I’ll list the Saudi delegates here, so as to show that the people making the below statement are not just anybody:

The Saudi delegates include:

1. His eminence the Minister of Justice, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Harakan, President
2. Sheikh Rached ibn Khounein, Under Secretary of State of the Misitry of Justice, and one of the prominent canonists of the kingdom.
3. Sheikh Omar ibn Matrek, Assistant Under Secretary of State of the Misitery of Justice, one of the prominent canonists of the kingdom.
4. Sheikh Muhammad ibn Joubair, President of the Superior Council of Justice
5. Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Masnad, former Director General of the Faculties and Institutes of Religious Sciences in Riyad
6. Sheikh Muhammad Al-Moubarak, Professor of at the Islamic College of Mecca.
7. Dr. Munir Al-Ajlani, First Counsellor of the Ministry of Public Instruction in Riyad
8. Dr. Maarouf Al-Dawalibi


PROHIBITION OF A MUSLIM TO CHANGE HIS RELIGION

“Regarding the prohibition of a Muslim to change his religion and which is considered by a man alien to Islam to be also a restriction violating Article (18) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which gave every person the right to change his religion and on which the kingdom also gave its reservations at the time of the drafting of the charter, we say that according to the reasoning of Islam, this is not a restriction on the freedom of every person to change his religion, but is the outcome of a historical incident. It was established to curb a Jewish conspiracy which was plotted in the early days of Islam when all the Arabs of the city of al Madinah Al Munawwara united themselves after an armed conflict between them caused by the Jewish refugees. The Jews then craftily thought to let some of them join Islam then renounce it in order to make the Arabs suspect their religion and be misled. A law originated from that incident preventing a Muslim from changing his religion and threatening to penalize him so that nobody could join Islam excepting after making rational and scientific study of its doctrines ending with his permanent acceptance of the Muslim creed. That was meant to cut off the way for evil men and their like of superficial people, under the threat of punishment, from joining Islam, for the sake of extirpating malicious elements who have been persisting in spreading evil on Earth.

It is clear from the reasoning of Islam respecting this point also that it does not spring from the logic of restriction of freedom but rather from logic of the curbing of the intrigues of the plotters who are addicted to the spread of evil in the world. Thus, this matter is purely an Islamic interpretation-Ijtihad-which is one of the requirements of freedom of opinion. It should not be opposed by a counter-interpretation, for everyone has his own interpretation of things, and we have our own interpretation which is supported by historical facts, and our concern on not letting anyone join Islam excepting those who believe in it in a positive and decisive manner. This shows the extent of sacredness attached to the faith which Islam does not allow to be superficial and subject to the misleading of evil persons.”



The below link is an example of how people with sinister motives try to create problems, imagine if such people are in an Islamic state, spreading such deceit and lies…
https://www.nairaland.com/1321731/faaaake-ex-muslims

It is obvious that the people in the above link are paid agents that would want to cause trouble, their aim is to attack the religion, nay the Islamic state, thus their case can be seen as treasonable or even worse, because I doubt these people in the link are Muslims in the first instance, and if such people are caught in an Islamic state, then a capital punishment shouldn’t be seen as cruelty, or an act against human right.

Below is another view that tries to unravel the shari’ah stand point and the understanding from the hadith about killing the apostate:

“To continue with examples of apostates not killed by the Prophet, there was the case of al-Harith ibn Suwaid and a group from Mecca. We also know from the hadith reported by al-Bukhari from Jabir about the Bedouin who came to the Prophet in Madina and accepted Islam only to return feverish the next day and declare that he was withdrawing his faith. Not one of these persons was killed by the Prophet. I have also referred to the actions of the companions in this matter. So where does the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas leave us?

First, we must conclude that in Islam faith is a voluntary thing and there can be no coercion in religion. On my own understanding, the hadith refers to Muslims who change the religion by introducing heresies into its doctrines and creeds. Alternatively, we may begin by accepting the position of scholars who say the hadith covers all forms of “changing religion”, including leaving Islam for another faith. If we do so, we must recognize that almost all the scholars accept that if an apostate repents he must not be killed, even though they differ over the time limit for repentance. But therein lies the problem.

If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set a time limit for his repentance. God says in the Qur’an (XXXIX:53-54: Say: “(Thus speaks God): O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering (of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succoured.” God also says in IV: 18: “Repentance shall not be accepted from those who do evil deeds until their dying hour, and then say, “Behold, I now repent”. Nor from those who die as deniers of truth.” And there are several verses of this tenor. If God himself has asked man not to despair of His mercy and forgiveness, and if God himself has given man up till his dying moments the opportunity to repent, then is it given to any scholar to place a limit or time frame in a matter in which repentance is accepted?

We have no option but to argue that even if we say the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, the convict is to be given a life-time to repent, and this is the view, as we have seen, of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’ee, Shamsudden al-Sarakshi, Imam al-Baji and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. But then this brings us full circle to where we started. For it makes the ruling in the hadith, as understood by jurists, redundant, never to be applied. It leaves us with the only rational option of reading the text along with other related texts. We must conclude that the death sentence is not for “simple apostasy” (mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse and slander (sabb) of the Holy Prophet.”

Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the link for the above quote, and if my memory serves me right, it is actually from an article written by His Eminence Emir of Kano, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi.

Now let me go further, apart from the fact that it happens to be a case of Ijtihad, according to the Saudi Scholars in the conference mentioned earlier, meaning the Jurist do have options depending on the peculiarity of the case…What I find most intriguing on this topic is the approach of one of the earlier scholar Abu Al-Hasan ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Habib Al-Basri Al-Baghdadi Al-Marwardi (d. 450AH) in his book titled “The Laws of Islamic Governance” “Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah” under the topic “Command of Wars Waged for the Public Good” he states: “There are three kinds of jihad other than that against the mushrikun: fighting renegades, rebels or bandits:

"A. This section concerns those persons who reject after having been legally acknowledged as Muslims, irrespective of whether they were born into the natural behavioral pattern of Islam or they became Muslims after a state of kufr: both of these groups are treated as renegades. If they do abandon Islam for any other deen – be it for that of the Jews or the Christians which is accepted of them, or that of the heretics or pagans which is not – it is not accepted of those who renege, since their previous recognition of the Truth necessarily entails that corresponding laws of this Truth be adhered to. The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “Whoever changes his deen, then kill him.” If they are subject to the death sentence, having reneged on the deen of Truth for some other deen, one of two possibilities exists:

I. Either they are dispersed as individuals and do not have a territory which distinguishes them from the Muslims, in which case there is no need for us to fight them in order to subject them to our control: rather the reason for their rejection of the truth should be investigated. If they express doubt in some aspect of the deen, it should be explained to them using proofs and reasons until the truth becomes clear for them and they turn away from the falsehood in which they had engaged. If they do turn away, their renunciation of rejection is accepted and they return within the pale of Islam as before."

I only stated the one of the two cases, because the above is what the topic is about, an apostate, the most important thing to do first is to investigate the reason for leaving the religion, thereafter if it has to do with doubts, then competent scholars are to go explain the religion to him, and remove his doubts, until he accepts the deen, there happens to be no time limit here. What I understand here is that such a person who has genuine doubts, is not an enemy to the state, and should be engaged, and made to see the truth, if he still continues in his apostasy and disbelief after then, then he has no status in an Islamic state, he may leave the Islamic state to pursue his new found religion, if not, he could face punishment, which could be death (depending on his form of renegade) and even at that he would be given 3 days respite to repent.

I repeat this is for an Islamic State, for the fact that safe guarding religion is one of the primary objectives; just as safe guarding democracy is one of the primary objectives of a secular state practicing democracy. A competent Islamic court would decide the fate of such an apostate.

And Allah (SWT) Knows best.

Lagusta:
"there is no compulsion in religion" Q2:256

That reference (Q 2 vs 256) is for someone who had never been a Muslim before. The Islamic ruling on it is that he should be sent some emissaries n inquire him why he wish to leave the fold of Islam and he would be given 3 days to repent. After the that period n still remains apostate then he will be Killed. Note: this ruling can only be applied in a pure Islamic state like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Oman e.t.c. not like a multi-religious society like Nigeria. The ruling is in line with the Hadith No 14 of the 40 Hadith. Wallahu Alam

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

Brothers and sisters in Islam, please refer to Surah Al-Anfal, Verse 20:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَا تَوَلَّوْا عَنْهُ وَأَنتُمْ تَسْمَعُونَ

O you who believe! obey Allah and His Apostle and do not turn back from Him while you hear.
(English - Shakir)

via iQuran

We are expected to obey the Prophet SAW as instructed by Allah in the above verse. How do we do that if we don't follow the Hadith of the rasul SAW?

Please know that the Hadith (authentic) does not contradict the Quran in anyway.

How do we interpret the Quran if we do not believe the Hadith?

Who's in the best position to explain the Quran if not the one who brought it?

What new evidence can one possibly have that supersedes the sayings of the Prophet SAW and the views of the ulamah?

We need to remind ourselves that the Prophet SAW must be followed hook, line and sinker if we're true Muslims and want to be saved in the hereafter, else we risk being categorised as the "most wicked of creatures" (see the tafseer by Ibn Katheer of the verse quoted above).

Everything he says is correct and divine. See

Surah An-Najm, Verse 3:
وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ

Nor does he speak out of desire.
(English - Shakir)

via iQuran

Surah An-Najm, Verse 4:
إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ

It is naught but revelation that is revealed,
(English - Shakir)

via iQuran
See the tafseer by Ibn Katheer of the verses quoted above.

May Allah bless and guide everyone of us. May He accept our fasting as an act of Ibaadah
Ameen.
ﺳُﺒْﺤَﺎﻧَﻚَ اﻟﻠَّﻬُﻢَّ ﻭَﺑِﺤَﻤْﺪِﻙَ، ﺃَﺷْﻬَﺪُ ﺃَﻥْ ﻻَ ﺇِﻟﻪَ ﺇِﻻََّ ﺃَﻧْﺖَ ﺃَﺳْﺘَﻐْﻔِﺮُﻙَ ﻭَﺃَﺗُﻮﺏُ ﺇِﻟَﻴْﻚَ

Brothers and sisters in Islam, did you know that the Qur’aan commanded the believers to establish regular Salaah without describing how Salaah should be performed?

We only learn how to perform Salaah from the Sunnah of the Prophet SAW. Refer to Sahih Al-Bukhari, Arabic-English page 345, number 604: sunnah abu Dawoud vol 1 page 194 no 754.

If one doubts the Hadith of the Prophet SAW, how does one intend to fulfill his Salaah?

Allah the Exalted said,
Surah Al-Hashr, Verse 7:
وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

And whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil):
(English - Shakir)

via iQuran

meaning, `whatever the Messenger commands
you, then do it and whatever he forbids you, then
avoid it. Surely, He only commands righteousness
and forbids evil.' see tafseer by Ibn Katheer

Then Allah says:
Surah An-Nahl, Verse 44:
... وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ
And We have also revealed the Dhikr to you,

meaning the Qur'an,

... لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ

so that you may clearly explain to men what was
revealed to them,

meaning, sent down from their Lord, because you
know the meaning of what Allah has revealed to
you, and because of your understanding and
adherence to it, and because We know that you
are the best of creation and the leader of the
Children of Adam. So that you may explain in
detail what has been mentioned in brief, and
explain what is not clear.

...وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

so that perhaps they may reflect.

meaning, they should examine themselves and be
guided by it, so that they may attain the victory
of salvation in this world and the next. Refer to tafseer by Ibn Katheer.

Wallahu alam

May Allah protect is from misguidance

Eld Mubarak brothers and sisterss. Now you can see the danger of taking hadith in isolation to derive meaning like brother lexiconkabir initially did. It does not matter whether apostates are to be punished or not. Our first approach as muslims is "There Is No Compulsion In Religion" and live by that.

The matter of "killing" apostate is the responsibility of the State not any individual to threaten apostate with death threat. This is very un-islamic. I was going to contribute further in this thread but this video below really buttress my point all along. You may have known the brother "converted2islam" on Youtube who have strived in the cause of Islam for several years. Sometimes this Ramadan, he openly declared he left Islam on YouTube. You can check him out there. Although, his excuses for living are quiet lame and silly. I also learned that he actually left islam years ago but gone undercover since.

Today, the Eld Fitr, he made a video showing how muslims threatened him for living Islam. I honestly dont think he should use minority comments or opinion to criminalize Islam. There are bunch of other Muslims that left peaceful comments and even made videos to refute his allegations against the prophet(s). Please watch the video and see why we say the hadith is taken in isolation with no regards for the consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7X5agrqqlU

Now, those brutal threatening comments, how do they help the cause of Islam and Muslims.

lexiconkabir:


Why cancel the part where i asked, "hope you know hadith is also revelation", the Quranic verse you quoted does not in anyway contradict this hadith, moreover, we are asked to follow the messenger, as the Quran fully confirms that he doesn't say anything except he is being inspired to say it.

Its true but you know we have Hadiths that are of doubtful authenticity. That's why Imam Bukhari was able to pick out just about 14000 out of 600,000 Hadiths that he collected.

See another reason I don't take hadith serious anymore, confusion.

Someone even called it a revelation... Revelation from who? Hadiths that was written by some men many years after Muhammed (SA) demise.

See how some Muslim brothers now turn to killing-zombies.