lexiconkabir:
^^ Lol, i thought this was se'un's thread, that was why i made that assumption.....i just saw the title very well.

i copied your mention in two threads. S.eun's and this.

udatso:

We can therefore be sure that if the Holy Prophet wanted to give a law prescribing death penalty for apostasy, he would make it known to a large number of Companions who would then make it known to even a larger number of Successors and so on. It is not conceivable that he would prescribe a law by telling it to only one or two Companions.
Therefore a hadith prescribing such a death penalty would be reported by many Companions, and then by even a greater number of Successors and so on. It would then be known to every major scholar of later generations. But the fact is that we do not possess any such hadith about the death penalty for apostasy. Whatever ahadith we have in books are gharib, being narrated by a very few Companions and Successors. This is a strong argument to show that these ahadith are among those thousands that were fabricated or subjected to tahrif by some early Muslims.

Sorry it is not a condition for us to accept the hadd punishment, only one sahabah is enough to tell us things about the religion, when the qibla was changed to where we are facing now, it was only one sahabah that told the other sahabas that the direction has been changed and since other sahabas knows that none of them are liars then they turned immediately to the new qibla.....assuming this his false analogy is true, then these sahabas wouldn't have accepted the report from only sahabah, they would've waited to hear it from other sahabas as well, and funny enough the prophet was still among them, why didn't they wait to ask the prophet himself??


Let me go to his other arguments....

udatso:
Second, some early Muslim scholars appear to be unaware of any hadith prescribing the death penalty. Thus a leading first-century jurist, Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i (d. 95), a teacher of Imam Abu Hanifah, ruled that an apostate is to be invited back to Islam as long as there is a hope for his repentance and is not to be condemned to death.

Firstly I'll say the author is being dishonest here by saying "some early Muslim scholars" to make it seem their numbers are much, in reality it is just these two great scholars that such understanding can be gotten and from no other than them, all other than them precisely said the apostate should be killed, some said he should be made to repent thrice if he refuses then he is to be killed.

And for his statement, what is meant is whenever he apostatizes he should be asked to repent, as in he leaves the religion, comes back, does that again, comes back and so on and the proof for this is his other clear statement here:

"Make the apostate repent everytime he apostatizes" (ibn Abi shaybah 32752)

And there is a difference between this and what the author is trying to make us believe, so how can he use a statement that is not too definite to go against clear statements of sahabas especially the four khalifas?

A similar opinion is held in the second century by the hadith expert Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161). This opinion is not likely to be held by a leading jurist and a leading hadith expert if there existed generally accepted ahadith in which the Prophet prescribed the death penalty for apostates.

Here is a clearer statement of sufyaan Ath-thawriy:

"The one who kills the apostate before taking it to the sultaan, there is nothing upon him(i.e no harm in that)"(musannaf abdir razaaq 17850).

Our examination of the asanid of the ahadith in question would also suggest that these ahadith did not exist for most of the first century and might not have been generally known until well into the second century.

We await this Insha Allaah...

udatso:
At first sight the hadith seems to be strong. It is considered sahih by Bukhari and by Tirmidhi. And Nasa`i and Abu Da`ud also find no fault with it. But despite this, the hadith is not as reliable as a hadith prescribing death penalty should be, since as we shall see it is called into question by another, better attested, hadith. Moreover, it also has the following weaknesses:

First, if we examine the chains of transmission of the hadith we find that in Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Abu Da`ud and Ibn Majah the hadith is narrated only by Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani (d. 131) in the third generation, only by ‘Ikrimah (d. 104) in the second generation, and only by Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68) in the first generation. Nasa`i 3994, 3996, 3997 and Ahmad 2813 are related from Qatadah (d. 117) from Anas (d. 91) [or ‘Ikrimah] from Ibn ‘Abbas. In addition, we have two mursal narrations, having no Companion in their asanid: Nasa`i 3995, which is from Qatadah from al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110) and Muwatta 1219, which is from Malik from Zayd bin Aslam (d. 136).

This means that very few people narrated the hadith in the third and second generations and in the first generation either no Companion is quoted or only one Companion – Ibn ‘Abbas – is quoted. Ibn ‘Abbas was a boy of 13 when the Holy Prophet died. It is not conceivable that the Holy Prophet will give a law prescribing death penalty in a way that only a boy of less than 13 will transmit it to the future generations.

Actually the hadd for apostates comes in another form in sahih bukhari through mu'adh ibn jabal:

Behold: There was a man shackled beside Abu Muisa. Mu`adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." 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. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. (Bukhari 6923)

Anyway, since he atleast has agreed that one sahabah actually narrated it, then that ends it, I won't disturb myself much, his argument that how can only one sahabah narrate it doesn't enter as I have explained previously, one sahabah is enough except if he is calling ibn Abbas a liar.......or I should bring the ijma of the four khalifas of Islam sef...

Abu bakr

There was a woman called ummu qarfa al-fazariyyah that apostatized after she has become Muslim, then Abu bakr ask her to repent and she refused, so she was put to death(daraqutni 3202)

Umar

Amr ibn Aas wrote to umar ibn khattab that a man changed faith for disbelieve, then umar wrote back to him, ask him to repent, if he repents then accept it from him or else strike his neck(ibn Abi shaybah 32744)

Uthman

Ibn ma'ud took them(those spreading the speech of musailimah al-khaddhab that he is a prophet after Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam which is apostasy) to uthmaan, so he wrote to them that they should call them to Islam, anyone who testifies la ilaha illa Allaah and chooses iman over kufr, then accept it from them and if they refuse strike their necks"(musannaf Abdur razaaq 18707)

Ali

You already have his narration on your thread....

udatso:
Second, if we examine the reliability of the various narrators we find that at least one of them, ‘Ikrimah, the slave of Ibn ‘Abbas, has received mixed reviews from the scholars of hadith. Some scholars such as Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma‘in, Bukhari, Nasa`i, ‘Ijli, and Abu Hatim al-Razi considered or are reported to consider him reasonably trustworthy while others considered him a liar or at least untrustworthy.

Abu 'Amr 'Uthman ibn al-Salah (d. 643) in his book ‘Ulum al-Hadith, commonly know as Muqaddimah of Ibn al-Salah, says that Bukhari has reported from narrators who were not trusted by others. He mentions ‘Ikrimah as one of the narrators not trusted by others. Muhammad bin Sa'd in al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Abu Ja‘far al-‘Aqili in Kitab al-Du‘afa` al-Kabir, al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I‘tidal, and Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani in Fath al-Bari quote several early scholars who considered ‘Ikrimah as untrustworthy.
Ibn Sa‘d says: "His reports were not authentic and people had doubts about him". Ibn Sirin said concerning him: "He used to lie" and Ibn Abi Dhi`b said: "I met ‘Ikrimah; he was not trustworthy". Sa‘id bin Jubayr said: "You relate from ‘Ikrimah some traditions that he would not have dared to relate if I had been with him.” Sa‘id bin al-Musayyib said: "The slave of Ibn Abbas will not desist until a rope is tied around his neck and then taken around". Sa‘id also used to advise his slave: "Do not report any lies and attribute them to me as the slave of Ibn ‘Abbas did to him". A similar advice is attributed to Ibn ‘Umar for his slave, Nafi‘.
‘Abd Allah bin al-Harith says that when he visited ‘Ali, son of Ibn ‘Abbas, he was shocked to find ‘Ikrimah bound to a post outside the door of ‘Ali’s house. He asked ‘Ali if he had no fear of God in him. ‘Ali explained by saying: “This wicked man attributes false traditions to my (late) father (Ibn ‘Abbas)"
Malik and Muslim also did not trust ‘Ikrimah. Mutarrif said: "I heard Malik saying that he disliked mentioning ‘Ikrimah (as a narrator), and I do not think that he reported on his authority". Ibn Hanbal said: "Malik reported one tradition on the authority of ‘Ikrimah". Indeed, when we search for ahadith in Muwatta from ‘Ikrimah we find only one hadith (# 765) and even that is supported by Malik by a second narrator. Muslim also hardly relates any ahadith from ‘Ikrimah, except in a small number of cases when he finds his hadith supported by another chain. No wonder the hadith in question is absent from Muslim.

It is getting clearer that this author has ulterior motives, he happily tells us ibn hajar brought early scholars that critized ikrimah but didn't bring where he actually absolved him from all the critisms? Pls see the following link to understand what I'm saying https://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=104311

In summary there is nothing wrong with ikrimah and imam Ahmad, yahyah ibn ma'een and bukhari using his hadeeth has proof is sufficient except if you can mention scholars who are more knowledgeable in ilm ilal than this three I have mentioned, subhanallaah the author waives his eyes off yahya ibn ma'een? And holds on to others that used weak reports against ikrimah to declare him unreliable?

I suffice the thread with the consensus of the four khalifas I have brought......

Plus the fact that he couldn't bring any salaf that went against this hadd except 2 which I have shown their actual positions....... So we cab safely say there is a consensus among the salafs on this issue...

AbdelKabir:


Sorry it is not a condition for us to accept the hadd punishment, only one sahabah is enough to tell us things about the religion, when the qibla was changed to where we are facing now, it was only one sahabah that told the other sahabas that the direction has been changed and since other sahabas knows that none of them are liars then they turned immediately to the new qibla.....assuming this his false analogy is true, then these sahabas wouldn't have accepted the report from only sahabah, they would've waited to hear it from other sahabas as well, and funny enough the prophet was still among them, why didn't they wait to ask the prophet himself??


Let me go to his other arguments....

# Fallacies. Which "one" sahabi informed other sahabah that Qibla has been changed?! Qur'an explicitly says:


Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 144:

Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do.


# And for a fact, there were liars, great liars among the sahabah. That is fact from your books of ahadith.

AlBaqir:


# Fallacies. Which "one" sahabi informed other sahabah that Qibla has been changed?! Qur'an explicitly says:


Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 144:

Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do.


# And for a fact, there were liars, great liars among the sahabah. That is fact from your books of ahadith.

If you had sense you'd have known that these people that were being told were yet to be aware of the verse and that's the point I'm making, that even without them hearing it from "many" sources to make it mutawaatir, they turned immediately without questioning despite it being only one person narrating it....here is the hadeeth


Narrated Al-Bara:

The Prophet (ﷺ) prayed facing Bait-ulMaqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) for sixteen or seventeen months but he wished that his Qibla would be the Ka`ba (at Mecca). (So Allah Revealed (2.144) and he offered `Asr prayers(in his Mosque facing Ka`ba at Mecca) and some people prayed with him. A man from among those who had prayed with him, went out and passed by some people offering prayer in another mosque, and they were in the state of bowing. He said, "I, (swearing by Allah,) testify that I have prayed with the Prophet (ﷺ) facing Mecca." Hearing that, they turned(sahih bukhari hadeeth number 4486)

Apostasy is equal to treason in this 21st century?!

I'm done.

AbdelKabir:


If you had sense you'd have known that these people that were being told were yet to be aware of the verse and that's the point I'm making,

Kabiru eleke eebu, when you are making point, always try to make it as clear as possible. Nobody knows your intention @bold. Here's your very vague statement:

AbdelKabir:


when the qibla was changed to where we are facing now, it was only one sahabah that told the other sahabas that the direction has been changed and since other sahabas knows that none of them are liars then they turned immediately to the new qibla....

# For a fact, there are reports which states Nabi was in a state of Salat when the order "...turn your face towards sacred mosque..." was revealed; and all the sahabah at his back turned as he did.

# Your narration (if at all it is true) only came later.

AlBaqir:


Kabiru eleke eebu, when you are making point, always try to make it as clear as possible. Nobody knows your intention @bold. Here's your very vague statement:



# For a fact, there are reports which states Nabi was in a state of Salat when the order "...turn your face towards sacred mosque..." was revealed; and all the sahabah at his back turned as he did.

# Your narration (if at all it is true) only came later.

Again and again I believe the statement of people of knowledge against the Shi'a as people without intellect.......how did you miss the part of the hadeeth that said the man who informed the other sahabas that were praying in another masjid prayed with the prophet and it was while he was praying with the prophet (of course he was not the only one there) the ayah came down? So how does this narration contradict the one you are talking about?

AbdelKabir:


Again and again I believe the statement of people of knowledge against the Shi'a as people without intellect.......how did you miss the part of the hadeeth that said the man who informed the other sahabas that were praying in another masjid prayed with the prophet and it was while he was praying with the prophet (of course he was not the only one there) the ayah came down? So how does this narration contradict the one you are talking about?

# Medicine after death. It seems you are reading comments with your eyes and never with your brain (as usual).

Here's your comment that facilitate chain of comments before you bring your Buhari hadith:

AbdelKabir:


Sorry it is not a condition for us to accept the hadd punishment, only one sahabah is enough to tell us things about the religion, when the qibla was changed to where we are facing now, it was only one sahabah that told the other sahabas that the direction has been changed and since other sahabas knows that none of them are liars then they turned immediately to the new qibla.....assuming this his false analogy is true, then these sahabas wouldn't have accepted the report from only sahabah, they would've waited to hear it from other sahabas as well, and funny enough the prophet was still among them, why didn't they wait to ask the prophet himself??


Let me go to his other arguments....

So, where's the underline in your comment? The point still remain your statement above is sick. You only corrected your sickness statement with that hadith in Daeef Buhari. While I continue to refer to your sick statement, you are busy dragging the hadith

AbdelKabir:

Here is a clearer statement of sufyaan Ath-thawriy:

"The one who kills the apostate before taking it to the sultaan, there is nothing upon him(i.e no harm in that)"(musannaf abdir razaaq 17850).



We await this Insha Allaah...

And you said this

Please where did i say apostates should be killed where ever they are found, without letting it be the responsibility of the state? Didn't you see where i agreed to new,nas's 7th point added to the 6points i raised??

Obviously the first highlight suggests jungle justice

Empiree:



And you said this


Obviously the first highlight suggests jungle justice

I know someone was gonna say that, be that as it may, the point I'm trying to make is sufyaan.ath-thawriy's position on apostates.

AbdelKabir:


I know someone was gonna say that, be that as it may, the point I'm trying to make is sufyaan.ath-thawriy's position on apostates.

there is no need to complicate issue. The hadith that says if anyone converts from islam or leave the religion should be killed should be understood in the light of ongoing battle at the time until the war was over because of non-muslims (Jews) who pretend to be muslim by infiltrating muslims in the battle. "La ikrahafi din" sits in judgement over all these hearsays.



However, a muslim who converts to another religion has freedom to do so PROVIDED he/she doesnt commit treason against the religion. We all know treason attracts capital punishment everywhere. Some may say individual has the right to leave religion as he/she wishes. Yes, but the moment you start propagating nonsense about islam or insulting the prophet(saw), causing his family and muslims. Saying everything negative about islam in the name of (i used to be muslim). This is treason. This is what tingtinz tried to denunce. But he failed to realize that, in the West especially US, you are free to renounce your citizenship even if you are born there. However, the moment you speak horribly against the country in a way that law considers 'treason', they will make sure before your renunciation process complete they sign your death sentence at the time another country chooses to accommodate you. The next thing is, family member see your obituary.


Apart from that, take Edward snowden for example, a US citizen who leaked govt secrets, he had to seek asylum in Russia bcus he is well aware he will be killed either through court of law or extra judicial killing. Islam is a complete system, therefore, it doesn't separate religion from state. This is what some people don't understand. So all these whatever is recorded that whoever apostates should be killed is too vague. Apostate who deserves capital punishment is only carried out by authority. Not street thugs.

Empiree:
[s]there is no need to complicate issue. The hadith that says if anyone converts from islam or leave the religion should be killed should be understood in the light of ongoing battle at the time until the war was over because of non-muslims (Jews) who pretend to be muslim by infiltrating muslims in the battle. "La ikrahafi din" sits in judgement over all these hearsays.



However, a muslim who converts to another religion has freedom to do so PROVIDED he/she doesnt commit treason against the religion. We all know treason attracts capital punishment everywhere. Some may say individual has the right to leave religion as he/she wishes. Yes, but the moment you start propagating nonsense about islam or insulting the prophet(saw), causing his family and muslims. Saying everything negative about islam in the name of (i used to be muslim). This is treason. This is what tingtinz tried to denunce. But he failed to realize that, in the West especially US, you are free to renounce your citizenship even if you are born there. However, the moment you speak horribly against the country in a way that law considers 'treason', they will make sure before your renunciation process complete they sign your death sentence at the time another country chooses to accommodate you. The next thing is, family member see your obituary.


Apart from that, take Edward snowden for example, a US citizen who leaked govt secrets, he had to seek asylum in Russia bcus he is well aware he will be killed either through court of law or extra judicial killing. Islam is a complete system, therefore, it doesn't separate religion from state. This is what some people don't understand. So all these whatever is recorded that whoever apostates should be killed is too vague. Apostate who deserves capital punishment is only carried out by authority. Not street thugs.[/s]

Wallaahi I didn't read this rubbish........but in front of you is the ijma' of the four khalifas and I am.going to hold on to that as that's what the prophet said I should do.......

AbdelKabir:


Wallaahi I didn't read this rubbish........but in front of you is the ijma' of the four khalifas and I am.going to hold on to that as that's what the prophet said I should do.......

oh well, I guess I should say what I didn't want to say. "Ijma" and there isn't isnad just incomprehensible address as you usually emphasized?. If I worked like that you up-and-down my throat.

Anyways, go kill apostate. You will end up in jail if not killed in return.

Empiree:
oh well, I guess I should say what I didn't want to say. "Ijma" and there isn't isnad just incomprehensible address as you usually emphasized?. If I worked like that you up-and-down my throat.

I quoted books and gave the exact hadeeth numbers but it seems after you checked them online you cannot find the hadeeth, that's because I didn't copy paste like you normally rely on.....anyway I've helped you get the Arabic links for two (that of Umar and Uthman), that of Ali is in bukhari that shouldn't be difficult for you to find, although here is another report of Ali ordering the killing of a man that apostatized to Christianity.....and that of Abu bakr sorry couldn't get a link for it, and I can't waste my time typing Arabic for you cuz I know you won't accept it anyways.....but I'll suffice you with the individuals Abu bakr fought against and called them "murtads"(apostates) didn't Abu bakr fight them and kill them on the basis that they refused to fulfil a pillar of Islam which takes them out of Islam and makes them apostates? Funny thing is none of the sahabas disgreed with him and they fought alongside with him, even umar that initially disagreed did so because he still sees them as Muslims but when it became clear to him that they are infact apostates he also fought behind Abu bakr..... What do you call that buddy? Ijma' of the sahabas because none of the sahabas disagreed to kill them.

Anyways, go kill apostate. You will end up in jail if not killed in return.

I'm sure you don't have sense, you'll show me where I have said the common mass should be killing apostates, I only brought opinion of sufyan ath-thawriy as the author claims he says apostates shouldn't be killed.

The great classical scholar ibn Qudaama Al-maqdisiy rahimahullaah says:

"And the people of knowledge agreed upon the compulsion of killing apostates, and that was narrated from Abu bakr, umar, uthman, Ali, mu'adh, Abu Musa, ibn abbass, khaalid and other than them, and that was not rejected rather it is an ijma'"(Al-mugni volume 9 page 16)




These are people of knowledge and you come here centuries later trying to change the narratives to " beautify" Islam? May Allaah get rid of the people that are trying to modify Islam, water it down, destroy it and turn it to what Christianity is today.

AbdelKabir:


I quoted books and gave the exact hadeeth numbers but it seems after you checked them online you cannot find the hadeeth, that's because I didn't copy paste like you normally rely on.....anyway I've helped you get the Arabic links for two (that of Umar and Uthman), that of Ali is in bukhari that shouldn't be difficult for you to find, although here is another report of Ali ordering the killing of a man that apostatized to Christianity.....and that of Abu bakr sorry couldn't get a link for it, and I can't waste my time typing Arabic for you cuz I know you won't accept it anyways.....but I'll suffice you with the individuals Abu bakr fought against and called them "murtads"(apostates) didn't Abu bakr fight them and kill them on the basis that they refused to fulfil a pillar of Islam which takes them out of Islam and makes them apostates? Funny thing is none of the sahabas disgreed with him and they fought alongside with him, even umar that initially disagreed did so because he still sees them as Muslims but when it became clear to him that they are infact apostates he also fought behind Abu bakr..... What do you call that buddy? Ijma' of the sahabas because none of the sahabas disagreed to kill them.



I'm sure you don't have sense, you'll show me where I have said the common mass should be killing apostates, I only brought opinion of sufyan ath-thawriy as the author claims he says apostates shouldn't be killed.

Take it or leave it, those 4 companions you cited, the incident leading to them carrying out punishment isn't much different from what I have said. Take Abu Bakr for instance, you quoted yourself saying the people did not wanna uphold tenets. This is treason especially in the case of Musaylma. But I'm taking about people who leave Islam, don't backbite or say any negative it insult the prophet or Islam. This is not the case in all 4 cases you cited. That's not ijna on apostate who mind his business after leaving religion.


Also that of Ali, there are numerous narrations about the incident before burning the people. Some said they were atheist, some said they were apostate, some said they secretly worship idols etc.


Bukhari's narratives do not give any details regarding the incident, yet in his exegesis on Bukhari - "Fath Al-Baari" - Ibn Hajar has mentioned a few other versions of the same incident. Considering all the narratives reporting this incident, the following major variations come to the forefront:

Firstly, there is quite a bit of variation regarding the people, who were subjected to this punishment. According to one version, they were atheists, according to a second version, they were apostates, according to a third version, they were a group of people, who secretly used to practice idolatry and according to a fourth version, they were a group of Rawafidh [4], who believed in the divinity of `Ali (ra).




Secondly, there is a significant difference between the reports regarding the incident itself. Although, the narratives given in Bukhari do not give any details of how the incident happened, yet Ibn Hajar has given a few narratives, which give some details of the happening. According to one version, when `Ali (ra) was informed regarding a people who considered him to be god, he called them and asked them to refrain from such blasphemy. They refused to comply. This went on for three days. Till, finally, `Ali (ra) ordered to dig a deep pit and burn a huge fire in it. The criminals were brought to the fire. `Ali (ra) told them that if they do not agree to refrain from their blasphemy, they would be thrown in the fire. They persisted in their refusal and were, subsequently, thrown in the fire.


According to a second version, `Ali (ra) was informed of a people who secretly worshipped idols in a house. `Ali (ra) went to investigate the report. An idol was recovered from the house and, subsequently, the house was burnt to ashes.


According to a third version, `Ali (ra) was informed of some apostates. He called for them. When they arrived, `Ali (ra) gave them food to eat and asked them to return to Islam. They refused. At their refusal, `Ali (ra) made them stand in a pit and killed them in it. Subsequently, he burnt them.


These are some of the various versions of the incident as reported in books of history and Hadith. One may take whichever explanation he believes to be more plausible to be accurate.

In my opinion, the second and the third versions of the incident are quite considerable. It seems that:

1. After it had become evident that the house was secretly being used for idolatry, `Ali (ra) ordered that it be burnt down. However, due to a mistake on the part of one or more of the narrators, the incident has been reported in a way that it gives the impression that the house was burnt down with its inhabitants. Whereas, it may not have been so; or

2. People were killed for their apostasy and later on their corpses were burnt to ashes. This is clearly implied in the third stated version of the incident.

Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that `Ali (ra) actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is that `Ali's decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to a criticism on `Ali's decision - not a criticism on Islam.

{CULLED}




Since there are multiple reports on the same incident you can't possibly overruled Qur'an plain ayah base on controversial historical record. This is very wrong methodology you used. You turned to Hadith and hearsays and left Quran aside. This is pathetic.



Here are verses of Quran and ahadith on religious freedom. And just because they have freedom to practice whatever religion they want doesn't mean they are right. Their punishments are reserved too Qiyama. Allah doesn't need us to intimidate apostate to promote His Deen.



Islam guarantees religious freedom for non-Muslims and prohibits forced conversion and spreading the religion by violence. This teaching is established in numerous verses of the Quran and in the Prophet’s practice.

Allah said:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ

There is no compulsion in religion. The truth is distinct from error. Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256

And Allah said:

وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ

Say: The truth is from your Lord. So whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.



Surah Al-Kahf 18:29

The Prophet would peacefully call people to the religion with beautiful preaching and sound arguments.

Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said to a man:

أَسْلِمْ
Embrace Islam.


The man said, “I find that I dislike it.” The Prophet said:

وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا Even if you dislike it.


Source: Musnad Ahmad 11650, Grade: Sahih



In this tradition, the Prophet did not call the man to Islam using threats or intimidation, but rather by telling him that Islam is good for him even if he disliked it.



Muhammad Rashid Rida writes:

قَاعِدَةٌ كُبْرَى مِنْ قَوَاعِدِ دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَرَكْنٌ عَظِيمٌ مِنْ أَرْكَانِ سِيَاسَتِهِ فَهُوَ لَا يُجِيزُ إِكْرَاهَ أَحَدٍ عَلَى الدُّخُولِ فِيهِ وَلَا يَسْمَحُ لِأَحَدٍ أَنَّ يُكْرِهَ أَحَدًا مِنْ أَهْلِهِ عَلَى الْخُرُوجِ مِنْهُ

This is a major rule among the principles of the religion of Islam and a great pillar among the pillars of administration. It is not permissible to force anyone to enter the religion and it is not allowed to expel anyone among his people from his religion.

Source: Tafseer Al-Manar 2:256



The Prophet never forced anyone into Islam and neither would he fight them because they followed a different religion. He only fought people who declared war against the Muslim community or violated people’s rights.



Ibn Al-Qayyim writes:

وَلَمْ يُكْرِهْ أَحَدًا قَطُّ عَلَى الدِّينِ وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ يُقَاتِلُ مَنْ يُحَارِبُهُ وَيُقَاتِلُهُ وَأَمَّا مَنْ سَالَمَهُ وَهَادَنَهُ فَلَمْ يُقَاتِلْهُ وَلَمْ يُكْرِهْهُ عَلَى الدُّخُولِ فِي دِينِهِ

The Prophet never forced the religion upon anyone, but rather he only fought those who waged war against him and fought him first. As for those who made peace with him or conducted a truce, then he never fought them and he never compelled them to enter his religion.

Source: Hidayat Al-Hayara 237

Apostasy in Context


The punishment for apostasy originated due to the dangerous phenomena of hypocrisy (nifaq) that threatened the community in Medina. Hypocrisy in this sense is not simply failing to live up to one’s stated moral standards, but rather this form of hypocrisy was the deliberate attempt by the enemies of Islam to pretend to be Muslims in order to infiltrate and harm the community.

Allah said:

وَقَالَت طَّائِفَةٌ مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ آمِنُوا بِالَّذِي أُنزِلَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَجْهَ النَّهَارِ وَاكْفُرُوا آخِرَهُ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ

A faction of the People of the Book say to each other: Believe in that which was revealed to the believers at the beginning of the day and reject it at its end that perhaps they will abandon their religion.

Surah Ali Imran 3:72




Some of the Jews of Medina pretended to be Muslims outwardly with the intention of later publicizing their rejection of Islam in an attempt to shake the faith of newly converted Muslims. This was at a time when Medina was threatened with a war of extermination by the Quraish aristocracy.

Ibn Kathir reported:

عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ فِي قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى إِخْبَارًا عَنِ الْيَهُودِ بِهَذِهِ الْآيَةِ يَعْنِي يَهُودَ صَلَّتْ مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ صَلَاةَ الْفَجْرِ وَكَفَرُوا آخِرَ النَّهَارِ مَكْرًا مِنْهُمْ لِيُرُوا النَّاسَ أَنَّ قَدْ بَدَتْ لَهُمْ مِنْهُ الضَّلَالَةُ بَعْدَ أَنْ كَانُوا اتَّبِعُوهُ

Mujahid said this verse is regarding Jews who prayed the dawn prayer with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and they disbelieved at the end of the day as a plot to turn people away, such that it appeared as if they saw misguidance after entering the religion.

Source: Tafseer Ibn Kathir 3:72





Likewise, other hypocrites in Medina were spreading lies and rumors among the Muslims at a time when their unity was most needed. Such acts constituted a serious threat to the security of the community.

Allah said:

لَّئِن لَّمْ يَنتَهِ الْمُنَافِقُونَ وَالَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ وَالْمُرْجِفُونَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لَنُغْرِيَنَّكَ بِهِمْ ثُمَّ لَا يُجَاوِرُونَكَ فِيهَا إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in Medina do not cease, We will surely let you overpower them. Then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little while.

Surah Al-Ahzab 33:60


Therefore, the punishment for apostasy was prescribed in this specific context. It was not prescribed in order to punish the act of unbelief itself, as this is for Allah alone, but rather to protect the Muslims from the conspiracies of their enemies.

AbdelKabir:
The great classical scholar ibn Qudaama Al-maqdisiy rahimahullaah says:

"And the people of knowledge agreed upon the compulsion of killing apostates, and that was narrated from Abu bakr, umar, uthman, Ali, mu'adh, Abu Musa, ibn abbass, khaalid and other than them, and that was not rejected rather it is an ijma'"(Al-mugni volume 9 page 16)




These are people of knowledge and you come here centuries later trying to change the narratives to " beautify" Islam? May Allaah get rid of the people that are trying to modify Islam, water it down, destroy it and turn it to what Christianity is today.

this is your opinion. I have told you that kulafah you cited didn't kill apostate without some sort of treason involved. But you insist apostate can be killed for leaving religion.

Absurdity!


This is not about"destroying religion" you are the one doing that because you don't understand. Your ideology doesn't align with the Qur'an

Empiree:
Take it or leave it, those 4 companions you cited, the incident leading to them carrying out punishment isn't much different from what I have said. Take Abu Bakr for instance, you quoted yourself saying the people did not wanna uphold tenets. This is treason especially in the case of Musaylma. But I'm taking about people who leave Islam, don't backbite or say any negative it insult the prophet or Islam. This is not the case in all 4 cases you cited. That's not ijna on apostate who mind his business after leaving religion

Miskeen are you confused? The one who leaves Islam which tenets will he then uphold? So how is the one who leaves the religion knowing fully well he won't uphold to the tenets of Islam different from the people that didn't want to pay zakah which Abu bakr fought and regarded them apostates? Infact the former is more severe because he is leaving all the pillars altogether but the ones Abu bakr fought left off only zakah and they didn't slander Islam or the likes......... So what were you saying again?

Empiree:
Apostasy in Context


The punishment for apostasy originated due to the dangerous phenomena of hypocrisy (nifaq) that threatened the community in Medina. Hypocrisy in this sense is not simply failing to live up to one’s stated moral standards, but rather this form of hypocrisy was the deliberate attempt by the enemies of Islam to pretend to be Muslims in order to infiltrate and harm the community.

Allah said:

وَقَالَت طَّائِفَةٌ مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ آمِنُوا بِالَّذِي أُنزِلَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَجْهَ النَّهَارِ وَاكْفُرُوا آخِرَهُ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ

A faction of the People of the Book say to each other: Believe in that which was revealed to the believers at the beginning of the day and reject it at its end that perhaps they will abandon their religion.

Surah Ali Imran 3:72




Some of the Jews of Medina pretended to be Muslims outwardly with the intention of later publicizing their rejection of Islam in an attempt to shake the faith of newly converted Muslims. This was at a time when Medina was threatened with a war of extermination by the Quraish aristocracy.

Ibn Kathir reported:

عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ فِي قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى إِخْبَارًا عَنِ الْيَهُودِ بِهَذِهِ الْآيَةِ يَعْنِي يَهُودَ صَلَّتْ مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ صَلَاةَ الْفَجْرِ وَكَفَرُوا آخِرَ النَّهَارِ مَكْرًا مِنْهُمْ لِيُرُوا النَّاسَ أَنَّ قَدْ بَدَتْ لَهُمْ مِنْهُ الضَّلَالَةُ بَعْدَ أَنْ كَانُوا اتَّبِعُوهُ

Mujahid said this verse is regarding Jews who prayed the dawn prayer with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and they disbelieved at the end of the day as a plot to turn people away, such that it appeared as if they saw misguidance after entering the religion.

Source: Tafseer Ibn Kathir 3:72





Likewise, other hypocrites in Medina were spreading lies and rumors among the Muslims at a time when their unity was most needed. Such acts constituted a serious threat to the security of the community.

Allah said:

لَّئِن لَّمْ يَنتَهِ الْمُنَافِقُونَ وَالَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ وَالْمُرْجِفُونَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لَنُغْرِيَنَّكَ بِهِمْ ثُمَّ لَا يُجَاوِرُونَكَ فِيهَا إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in Medina do not cease, We will surely let you overpower them. Then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little while.

Surah Al-Ahzab 33:60


Therefore, the punishment for apostasy was prescribed in this specific context. It was not prescribed in order to punish the act of unbelief itself, as this is for Allah alone, but rather to protect the Muslims from the conspiracies of their enemies.

This has been rendered usesless as Abu bakr fought and killed apostates, so tell me again, were they the Jews that were pretending?

AbdelKabir:



This has been rendered usesless as Abu bakr fought and killed apostates, so tell me again, were they the Jews that were pretending?

Go ahead. Believe what you want to believe. Who punish apostate today in any of the Muslim nations going by your manhaj?. Not even Saudi. The worst they do is punish average men and women for apostasy while they themselves are awliya of enemies if Allah. They abadoned jizya ordained by Islam to be collected from non Muslim authority within their territories and you are here fuming over what. The same non-muslim govts have mocked Islam and they did nothing about it. So they should practice what Kulafah did before you start throwing tantrum here.

Empiree:
Go ahead. Believe what you want to believe. Who punish apostate today in any of the Muslim nations going by your manhaj?. Not even Saudi. The worst they do is punish average men and women for apostasy while they themselves are awliya of enemies if Allah. They abadoned jizya ordained by Islam to be collected from non Muslim authority within their territories and you are here fuming over what. The same non-muslim govts have mocked Islam and they did nothing about it. So they should practice what Kulafah did before you start throwing tantrum here.

So we establish truth concerning sharia if Saudi does it ba? Wallaahi you are a miskeen....

Now that you don't have anything to say, attacking Saudi is your next goal......yeye

You said I should believe what I want, but here are evidences pointing to your face, so yeah I am going to follow evidences d not dull brained individuals trying to "beautify" Islam....

AbdelKabir:


So we establish truth concerning sharia if Saudi does it ba? Wallaahi you are a miskeen....

Now that you don't have anything to say, attacking Saudi is your next goal......yeye

You said I should believe what I want, but here are evidences pointing to your face, so yeah I am going to follow evidences d not dull brained individuals trying to "beautify" Islam....

I am not attacking Saudi. I cited them and muslim nations. So stop this crap already. It is your understanding that kulafah did that when Quran sits in judgement over all that. Is their words and action 100%?. Your method is wrong. Start from your family and seek to find apostates and carry out hadd on them. You rely on hearsays. The implication is that you are saying those verses of Quran like "La ikhra fi deen" is redundant. Allah doesn't need you to proof His religion. You are corrupting islam with your bogus understanding of religious text.


Hearsays can have addition or subtraction. That of Saidina Ali is a red flag considering multiple reports on same incident. How in the world that sit over Qur'an?. Think. I am absolutely under no obligation to agree with you. You follow hearsays. You place hadith over Quran without even considering those narrations could have been false?. You are incredible.

Let just assume you live in area where you have no access to those narration except Qur'an, are you gonna believe them if someone tells you that kalafah killed apostates just for living islam while verses of Quran contrary to them are standing tall at your face?. The best argument for apostate is its connection with treason. Treason is capital punishment across the board.

Get off your high horse man.

Empiree:
I am not attacking Saudi. I cited them and muslim nations. So stop this crap already. It is your understanding that kulafah did that when Quran sits in judgement over all that. Is their words and action 100%?. Your method is wrong. Start from your family and seek to find apostates and carry out hadd on them. You rely on hearsays. The implication is that you are saying those verses of Quran like "La ikhra fi deen" is redundant. Allah doesn't need you to proof His religion. You are corrupting islam with your bogus understanding of religious text.


Hearsays can have addition or subtraction. That of Saidina Ali is a red flag considering multiple reports on same incident. How in the world that sit over Qur'an?. Think. I am absolutely under no obligation to agree with you. You follow hearsays. You place hadith over Quran without even considering those narrations could have been false?. You are incredible.

Let just assume you live in area where you have no access to those narration except Qur'an, are you gonna believe them if someone tells you that kalafah killed apostates just for living islam while verses of Quran contrary to them are standing tall at your face?. The best argument for apostate is its connection with treason. Treason is capital punishment across the board.

Get off your high horse man.

Bunch of rubbish as usual.....see, only that one narration of Abu bakr fighting and killing apostates kills everything you are saying as NONE of the sahabas opposed that, meaning its an ijma of the sahabas............so all the sahabas were wrong simultaneously right? And you the brilliant one seem to know better than them....

AbdelKabir:



Bunch of rubbish as usual.....see, only that one narration of Abu bakr fighting and killing apostates kills everything you are saying as NONE of the sahabas opposed that, meaning its an ijma of the sahabas............so all the sahabas were wrong simultaneously right? And you the brilliant one seem to know better than them....

As I said before, look in your family and pick out apostate and have him or her punished. I dont wanna hear your hearsays. Folks like you give Quraniyun trash talk.

You will return to this thread a yr or 2 from now and realize mistakes you are making just like you did with music and pictures.

Empiree:
As I said before, look in your family and pick out apostate and have him or her punished. I dont wanna hear your hearsays. Folks like you give Quraniyun trash talk.

You will return to this thread a yr or 2 from now and realize mistakes you are making just like you did with music and pictures.

I don't even know how to qualify your brain.
The verse of Laa Ikraaha is talking about those who are not apostates i.e those that are practicing their original religion like Jews and Christians (who are to pay Jizyah).

The ahaadith brought by AbdelKabir are about apostates. Apostates were to be killed whether treason is connected or not.

Your problem is you don't know how to reconcile between verses or ahaadith that may look contradictory. Instead of you to ask him to reconcile between both verse and Hadith.

Stop thinking like a brainwashed Muslim living in the West and trying to "beautify" his religion to suite the Westerners.

iamgenius:

I don't even know how to qualify your brain.
The verse of Laa Ikraaha is talking about those who are not apostates i.e those that are practicing their original religion like Jews and Christians (who are to pay Jizyah).

The ahaadith brought by AbdelKabir are about apostates. Apostates were to be killed whether treason is connected or not.

Your problem is you don't know how to reconcile between verses or ahaadith that may look contradictory. Instead of you to ask him to reconcile between both verse and Hadith.

Stop thinking like a brainwashed Muslim living in the West and trying to "beautify" his religion to suite the Westerners.

Okay, you dont need to tell me what the ayah entails. It is not only that ayah. So why do you hold on to that?. Didnt you see other verses there i quoted as well?.

Besides, La ikhraha fi deen is not restricted. As it is in our modern time, if your family member leaves islam, your recommendation is killing him/her?. Is that scholarship?. Even if you give them naseeha and they still reject it, your recommendation is killing them?. And you think that will prevent other muslims from apostasy?. You will just make everything worst.

This is not about "beautifying" islam. We are talking reality here not just reading me text. Punishment for apostasy is only for those who renounce the religion and seek to destroy islam from within.



Taha Jabir Alalwani writes:

Hence, if the Messenger of Allah ordered the execution of those who changed their religion in order to destroy Islam’s inner front by shaking the Muslims’ faith, especially those who were still new to Islam, by spreading falsehoods in Medina with the aim of stirring up divisions and by plotting the Muslims’ downfall, then this can only be viewed as a security issue and therefore justified. After all, there is no nation on earth that will allow others to harm it in this way. Moreover, if the Jew who was being commanded by those plotting against Islam to appear to enter Islam at the beginning of the day, then repudiate it at the end of the day, realized that he would not be able to exit from Islam with the same ease with which he had entered, he would think twice, nay a thousand times, before throwing in his lot with such conspirators.

Source: ʻAlwānī, T. J. F., Roberts, N., Unus, I. (2011). Apostasy in Islam: A historical and scriptural analysis. London: International Institute of Islamic Thought. p.70-71

It is only in this situation that we can properly understand the statement of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him:

مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ

Whoever changes his religion, then kill him.

Source: Sahih Bukhari 6524, Grade: Sahih

Scholars recognize that this apparently general statement must be restricted (takhsees) by other evidence. What we find is that the Prophet issued this directive within the particular context we have described and it should not be used to negate several verses and traditions indicating restriction. Rather, this tradition must be understood in light of the Quran and traditions as a consistent whole.

Lesser Apostasy

Minor apostasy is when someone embraces Islam and later leaves the religion peacefully without causing harm to the community. The sin is purely between the apostate and his Lord, and worldly punishments are not applied in this case.

Allah said:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ ازْدَادُوا كُفْرًا لَّمْ يَكُنِ اللَّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلَا لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلًا

Verily, those who believed and then disbelieved, then believed and then disbelieved and increased in disbelief, never will Allah forgive them nor will He guide them to a right way.

Surah An-Nisa 4:137



In this verse, Allah describes a person who believes, then disbelieves, then believes again, and then disbelieves again. This person committed apostasy twice and yet Allah did not prescribe a legal punishment for him.

An authentic tradition relates the story of a bedouin who embraced Islam but later cancelled his pledge of allegiance to the Prophet, yet no punishment was applied to him.



Jabir reported: A bedouin came to the Prophet and gave the pledge of allegiance for embracing Islam. The next day he came with a fever and he said, “Please cancel my pledge.” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, refused three times and he said:

الْمَدِينَةُ كَالْكِيرِ تَنْفِي خَبَثَهَا، وَيَنْصَعُ طَيِّبُهَا

Medina is like a furnace. It expels its impurities and collects what is pure.

Source: Sahih Bukhari 1784, Grade: Sahih



The Prophet did not punish this man even though he abandoned the community.



The Prophet did not punish this man even though he abandoned the community.

In a similar manner, Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz as Caliph did not apply any penalty to a group of apostates who had recently embraced Islam but were not firm in the religion. We can deduce from this narration that punishment is not necessary for people who only recently embraced Islam and are not firmly grounded in its teachings.

Ma’mar reported: Some residents of the peninsula told me that some people embraced Islam but they did not remain in it very long until they committed apostasy. Maymun ibn Mihran wrote to Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz regarding them and Umar wrote back saying:


عَلَيْهِمُ الْجِزْيَةَ وَدَعْهُمْ

Let them return to paying tribute and leave them alone.

Source: Musnaf Abdur Razzaq 18102




These are clear-cut examples of minor apostasy in the early period of Islam for which there was no legal punishment.