najib632:
Why did Khalid ibn Walid execute Malik ibn Nuwayrah?

Imam Abdulrazaq documents:

 Abdulrazaq – Mu’amar – al Zuhari –from- Abu Qutadah said:

During Ridda (days), we marched to Ahl Abyaat and reached there at sunset, then we raised our spears, hence they asked: ‘Who are you?’ We replied: ‘We are slaves of Allah.’ They said: ‘We are slaves of Allah too.’ Then Khalid arrested them and when it was morning he ordered their beheading. Then I said: ‘Oh Khalid! Fear Allah, this is not allowed for you.’ He (Khalid) replied: ‘Stay (back); this is not your business.’ Then Abu Qutadah swore by Allah never to march with Khalid for any war. Qutadah said:‘The desert Arabs encouraged him (Khalid) on killing them for the sake of booties and that was Malik bin Nuwayrah’s case.’


Abdulrazaq: Dahabi said:‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v9 p563), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599). Mu’amar: Dahabi said:‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p190), Ibn Hajar said:‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p202). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi:‘The Hafiz of his time’ (Sial alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement on his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).

Source: Al-Musanaf, Volume 10 page 174 Tradition 18721
http://islamport.com/d/1/mtn/1/115/4349.html

najib632:
Why doesn't he talk about the 3 false prophets, has he forgotten Malik was supporting that false female prophet?

You keep on mentioning 3 false prophets. First, you guys derailed this thread heavily by bringing irrelevant issues to the main topic. Second, the discussion is about "killing Muslims who refused to pay zakat". Your 3 false prophets were apostates/kuffar, not Muslims. My contributions (after derailment of the thread) is exclusively on those sahabah killed for refusing to pay zakat to the Caliph. I'm not interested in your 3 false prophets.

And I don't know what you are listening to or what you've read that Malik ibn Nuwayrah, a sahabi "supported a false female prophet". That's

Empiree:
I think I kind of have some defensive explanation and illustrasted Nigeria economic and societal issues

Nigerian problem is "corruption": misappropriation of public funds. Our problem is not tax paying.

Besides, it is only in Sunni fiqh that you can use money to pay zakat. In shi'i fiqh, zakat is only one 9 items: camels, sheeps, cows, gold, silver, wheat, grain, raisin, dates.

For a fact, Prophet never accept money for zakat. Money is only allowed on khums which Sunni fiqh doesn't practice. Anyway, that's jurisprudential differences.

true2god:
Most of the hadith are gossip and Chinese whisper and can never be reliable as absolute truth. This particular hadith can never been an exception.

It is intellectually honest to make a claim that are defensible and not conjectures or 'hear-says'.

Yeah, they are not absolute truth as there are lots of doubts on their compilers and process of preservation over the years. Scholars of ahadith and reserchers have tried their best to put things in order (again that does not make it absolute yet as some of them have been compromised). However, for hadith to be discarded by anyone, reason for its rejection simply have to be academic and religiously and rationally convinced.

najib632:
I am sure people like me with little knowledge had already started believing him. SubuhanalLah I really started believing it.

First, my advice for you is seek knowledge before involving yourself into controversial issues. And when you are seeking knowledge, do not be fanatical or rigid about what you have been taught. If truly you are truth seeking type, you should have a broad heart to research and investigate various opinions and views.

Second, this saying of Imam Ali ibn Abi Taalib will guide you in your quest for truth:


IMAM ALI IBN ABI TAALIB TO AL-HARITH (DURING THE BATTLE OF JAMAL)


And in the narration of Amaali of (sheik) Al-Mufid:-

And Al-Harith said to him (i.e Imam Ali): My father and mother be your ransom, could you (further clarify so as to) remove the filth from our hearts, and (to) make us as sure about our affair as seeing with one's eyes?"

He (Imam Ali, alayhi salam) said: That is enough for you. You are possessed by confusion. The religion of Allah is not recognized through men, but through a sign of truth. So, know the truth and you shall know it's people."

Reference: Al-Aamali of Sheik al-Mufid 3/5, Majmu' al-Bayan 1/112, Rawdat al-Waaitheen p 39.
 
 http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA


Lastly, Islam is very simple to practice. If your usul-din (belief in God, Prophet and last day), furu'u-din (salat, fasting, zakat and hajj - if you are able) and righteous deeds are intact, you are very much okay for those are real passport to Jannah as clearly stated in the Qur'an.

Whether you accept ahadith compiled 100s of years after the Prophet by Bukhari or whoever is NEVER an important issue. Sunnah of the Prophet had been well established ever before there is any hadith compilation. What we do here on Nairaland (between real students of knowledge and internet copy-pasters) is secondary. Bottom line, focus on primaries (usul and furu) and do not engage yourself in what you have no knowledge about.

You are free to take the advice or discard it. The choice is yours.

Wa salam alaykum

Empiree:

Referred to above comment. Truly, they may not be of equal weight but it is fassad.

Fasad is spreading corruption and evil on earth. How is not paying zakat becomes fasad?

Those Jews and Christians who refused to pay tax for Islamic government in medina after they had already make agreement with the Prophet, were exiled NOT fought or killed.

Empiree,

# First you roped yourself (I am not the one that roped you on that) for you are hell bent protecting what Abubakar did while I gave you clear cut hadith of how Prophet dealt with those who evade zakat.

#Second, thank God you went back to read history. Make no mistake, the ONLY people that refused to pay zakat to Abubakar were the people of Malik ibn Nuwayrah. Malik was their chief and he was a sahabi of the Prophet. There are no other group as you are still trying to justify Abubakar action.

# Third, kindly go and read the hadith of Abubakar's order against those community. While Umar opposed his decision initially, Abubakar maintained that he will fight whoever distinguished between Salat and Zakat. Like I have said before, compilers of hadith and history tried to paint Malik and his people as apostates and that is the reason the hadith had to present them as apostates from the beginning. Cases of apostates are different and I am not talking on that line. My focus is simply on those Muslims who refused to pay zakat to Abubakar.

Bottom line, you don't fight or kill people for refusing to pay zakat. And make no mistake bro, Khalid ibn walid was a confirmed terrorist. You should be the one to read Islamic history. You know me being a student of Islamic studies.


Fourth, "la Ikraha fi din". There is a type of "la" in Nawh (Arabic syntax and grammar) called "lam nafiyatul jins". This "lam of negation" does not spare ANYTHING. It is the same "la" used in "la ilaha ilah Allah". It negate EVERYTHING except Allah. Likewise, in "la ikraha fi din", it negate EVERY ACT OF FORCEFUL ACTION in practising religion. Besides, "ad-din" used in the ayat comprises ALL din. Islam inclusive. Therefore, if a Muslim decides not to pray or pay zakat or fast or go to hajj (despite meeting all conditions), you can only persuade and persuade NOT killing.

StillX10:
what can he even write?

So, do you really think the otuoke PhD and open university PhD of ota truly wrote their respective books by themselves? Remember when the slowpoke in command of U.S. wrote a letter recently and upon his arrogance tweeted it without letting real academicians vet it. Even a standard primary 6 kids will not make much mistake as that slowpoke.

In short, if books are written, it is expected of it to have been thoroughly vet and corrected by various experts. So PMB can write a book.

CONCLUSION

Here, one will appreciate a mutawattir hadith which identify “Shi’a of Ali” to be among those who will enter Jannah. Again the hadith says:

 “...So, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “O ‘Ali, be happy, because you and your companions and your SHI’AH will be in Paradise"


This hadith never shut the door of paradise rather the “Shia of Ali” are being identified as part of Jannah-bond groups.


It will be incomplete if we fail to mention “deviators and innovators”. These are those who knowingly oppose the Prophet. These group spread across every sect fom the past till present. Imam Bukhari for example documents:


Narrated Ibn Al-Musaiyab:

The companions of the Prophet (s) said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, ‘O Lord, my companions! It will be said, You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam).”


If deviators and innovators could be found from amongst the sahabah, why would later groups and sects of Muslim be free from them? It is sheer ignorance and fanaticism to however label one group as “saved sect” and generality of others as deviators and innovators.


Last on the list are groups who have either researched into or there have come to them clear truth about certain differing issues yet did takabbur (arrogance) or reject with levity and carelessness. Whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, Sabian or whoever falls in this group, obviously they have no excuse infront of their Lord.

Empiree:
Again, i get it. But remember he(saw) was a prophet. Some must be evading zakat knowing too well he would not do anything. And after he left the duniya, they were bold enough to withheld zakat. From description written in ahadith you posted earlier suggest that those were not apostates. They simply did not want to pay.

# In short, in your thought Prophet was "weak" for not enforcing zakat but Abubakar got it right for not only enforcing it but murdered Muslims cold blooded because of zakat collection

This is what gave Ibn Taymiyyah bold gut to also passed his satanic fatwa that whoever did not pray at his exact time due to one reason should first be told and if he persist on not praying at its time should be killed.

# Lastly on this: Point of consideration: Have you ever read various differing accounts as per why those Muslims led by a Sahabi refused to pay zakat to Abubakar, the new caliph? Here you are judging them in order to protect the caliph's action.

For your information: those people did not recognized the caliphate of Abubakar. They did not pay allegiance to him and sees no reason to pay him zakat. That, the Caliph saw could cause or instigate more "disidents", then he decided to wiped them out to send a strong message. They cursed commander sent by the caliph to do the job wiped a community of the Muslim off and "raped" the beautiful wife of that community that very night of the raid. Remember, Ali, talha, Zubayr and their friends too did not pay allegiance to Abubakar.

History is not kind to the Sunnis. That's why they rarely teach Muslim history or at best they only teach the sweet parts of it and cover up the sour side.

Empiree:

Some rulings/decisions are preserved through ulama. Just like homosexual, i dont think i have seen record of them been punished by nabi(saw). Yet, Quran states that such act is fasad on earth. So should ulama in muslim countries not implement law that prevents such act just bcus nabi(saw) did not punish them?. If homos are left to freely do as they wish, islamic society would be spiritually disintegrated. It values are lost and everyone do as they wish. @bolded, they could not have been "righteous muslims" and rejected zakat. It is major pillar. It is like a case of adultery. Text says to kill adulterer but this adulterer is still a muslim and pays zakah, prays salat and performs hajj and fasts ramadan. Yet the punishment documented is stoning to death.

While punishment like beheading, stoning, throwing from tall building are controversial and debatable as per it's correctness or weakness, the conditions put aside for any of these punishment to be established are so difficult to fulfilled that you will get to understand that Islam does not want any of these punishment to be executed per se rather the aim is to distance people from committing such heinous sins.

Second, not paying zakat is not the same as spreading fasad like commercial adulterer and fornicator or bobbyrosky et al. Where is your "la Ikraha fi din"?

What is the essence of zakat in relation to its negative effect if it is not paid Compare to fasad that commercialized or publicized homosexuality or adultery will cause to the society? ARE YOU telling me that both are of equal weight therefore culprits of both should be killed?

Please brother stop comparing black and white.

AlBaqir:


Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, " All my Ummah will enter Paradise except those who refuse." They said, "O Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him)! Who will refuse?" He said, "Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me is the one who refuses (to enter it)."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 7280 In-book reference : Book 96, Hadith 12 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 92, Hadith 384
https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/96/12

Continuation:


In the above hadith, the illustrious Prophet was said to have warned that only he who do not obeys him will end up in hell-fire. According to the Quran, obedience to the Prophet must be 100% and absolute. Interestingly, no Muslim has ever come out and apparently declare disobedience to the Prophet instructions at least to the best of information that reach him. The fact that this later generation do not meet the Prophet, we do not have first hand instructions from the Prophet. What we have are collections of his reported sayings compiled centuries after his demise. Scholars of ahadith have tried their best to grade these sayings into sahih (authentic), hasan (good), da’if (weak), and mawdoo (fabrication). With all these efforts, there is yet no absolute assurance to the correctness of these “ahadith” as there might be in truth some ahadith graded “sahih” that are actually “fabrication”. And there might be some graded “da’if” that are “sahih” and what scholar A graded authentic might be rejected and graded weak or fabrication by scholar B. This is the reason we have tahqiq on books of ahadith where one scholar academically expose errors of grading system of another or even fault the authenticity of some ahadith. For example, the book sahih al-Bukhari is widely believe to contain 100% authentic ahadith yet scholars (from the past like Al-hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and later like Nasir din al-Albani among others) had identified lots of faults in various ahadith in it. There are even sound research works which exposed that the present day 9 volumes of sahih Bukhari were not authored by Imam al-Bukhari himself. In short, the grading system only puts check and balances within the usage of ahadith. Also, apart from the fact that there is no 100% accuracy in reports (not to mention reports of centuries after the demise of the speaker), whoever is conversant with research works will find out there are tahrif (distortions) in ahadith by either compilers, narrators of ahadith or later editors.

 Amidst these problems, and the fact that everybody could not be scholars and researchers, how do we identify “true sayings and instructions” of the Prophet which whoever obeys, paradise is guaranteed? Quran gives us a general information when Allah highlights the criteria for “salvation” in the two abovementioned verses to be – belief in Him, belief in the last day and performing good deeds. This is the summary of the message of the Prophet. Of course, level of belief in Allah (Tawheed) could vary so also is the level of good deeds (from salat, sawm to sadaqat etc). This only make things into right perspectives when Quran informs that there are various levels of paradise with respect to what each presents on the day of judgement. The general submission of the Quran is “…whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”


This put aside and bury the idea of “72 sects in the meaning of majority of the Ummah” entering hell fire, and only handful in the literal meaning of one sect entering paradise. In fact, it is even established that people will enter Jannah (paradise) in groups of 70, 000 or 700, 000 (again it could mean “many” and not necessarily numerical count) as we read:

Abu Huraira reported:

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Seventy thousand (persons) would enter Paradise as one group and among them (there would be people) whom faces would be bright like the moon.

Ref: Sahih Muslim 217
https://www.sunnah.com/muslim/1/431
Other hadith mentions 700, 000
https://www.sunnah.com/muslim/1/434

Mr Seun,

Kindly help restore my post on my new thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/5002458/fallacy-interpretation-73-sect-hadith

Banned by antispam bot for no reason, and my post got hidden. Unfortunately, Islam section mod seems to be too busy to reply mails (or attend to such problem) these days.

Thanks

VARIOUS MEANING AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE HADITH

We have so far given few understanding of this hadith. Another interesting area of academic discussion and differing views is the “specified number of 73” versus the meaning of “al-Jama’ah”.

Whether via ideological differences or jurisprudencial or political differences, Muslim sects (from the past till date) are far more than 73 in number. The fact that the hadith itself gives no clue to the manner of counting, this has made some scholars to postulate and opined that the “73” does not intend numerical count rather it points to “many” as we have similar cases in the Quran where our Lord used “7, 70, 50,000, 70,000” to signify “many” and not really intend “numerical count”. For example, Allah says:


Surah At-Taubah, Verse 80:

(Whether you) Ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them; even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them; this is because they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle, and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.”
This verse does not mean if the Prophet ask forgiveness for the hypocrites seventy one and above times that Allah will forgive them. The “seventy” only denotes “many times”.

And as per the word “al-Jama’ah” used in the second version of the hadith, some scholars try to merge it with the first version saying that these particular “Jama’ah” will be “upon what the Prophet and his companions were”. And seeing the subsects of Ahlu Sunnah, Shia etc, these scholars further reason that “al-Jama’ah” do not necessarily entail a very large group as it can be few people on the right path. The truth however is that the word “Jam’h” in Arabic grammar starts from 3 till infinity. Meaning that there is a possibility that “al-Jama’ah” being talked about by the Prophet entails “all Muslims” (irrespective of their so-called sects). Imam Bukhari documents this hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, " All my Ummah will enter Paradise except those who refuse." They said, "O Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him)! Who will refuse?" He said, "Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me is the one who refuses (to enter it)."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 7280 In-book reference : Book 96, Hadith 12 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 92, Hadith 384
https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/96/12


Interestingly, very few scholars even believe and submitted that the “hadith of 73 sects” has been distorted from its original manuscript. They claim what the Prophet actually said was that “72 from 73 will enter paradise and only one will end up in hell”. Objectively, one tend to give this submission a second thought (as not all people have access to original manuscripts of ahadith), the fact that the above hadith says “All my Ummah will enter paradise except those who refused....” makes this submission reasonable.

 In the same vein of large accommodation, Quran says:

Surah Al-Baqara: 62

Surely those who believe... whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."

Same verse is further repeated with slight variation thus:

Surah Al-Maeda: 69

Surely those who believe ... whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve."

Unfortunately, this thread have been heavily derailed from its main topic.

FALSE INTERPRETATION

 
The understanding and interpretation of this hadith (if at all the matn – text is truly accurate) has come into differing opinions and thoughts. Some scholars are even try to be smarter by saying the “jama’ah” is being refer to those that identified themselves as “Ahlu Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah” as against others that either identified themselves or being identified as Sufi, Shi’ah, Deobandi, Ash’ariyyah, etc.


Interestingly, this smart move has even worsen the case as subsects within the self acclaimed “Ahlu Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah” begin to define who “Ahlu Sunnah wa alJama’ah” is/are.

 Conflicting definitions with varying “terms and conditions” and excommunication and takfirism within this self acclaimed Ahlu Sunnah are some of these worst outcome. The truth is “Ahlu Sunnah” are divided into subsects by ideological differences hence we have Mu’tazila, Ash’ariyyah and Athariyyah (known today as Salafiyyah). Then, by jurisprudencial differences, we have Malikiyyah, Shafi’iyah, Hanbaliyyah and Hanafiyyah and dozens of extinct Sunni madhhabs (school of thoughts).


Furthermore, the fact that this group (Ahlu Sunnah) do not have monopoly of hadith sources, other group for example, the Shia equally bring forth their own version of the same hadith where the saved sect is being identified as “those who recognize and follow the wilayah (mastership) of the Ahl al-Bayt, and of course in this view, Shia seeded the “saved sect” to themselves only.


THREE CONFLICTING VERSIONS

 So far, we have highlighted three versions of the hadith (firqat an-Najiyah) that talks about division of the Prophet’s Ummah into 73 sects:

* One version claimed the saved sect will be “upon what the Prophet and his companions were”

* Second version claimed the saved sect is the “Jama’ah”

* Third version identified “Shia” who acknowledged the wilayah of Ali ibn Abi Talib (and Ahl al-Bayt)

Yet, the last version of the hadith of “firqat an-najiyah” do not even mention “saved sect” in its matn (context). Imam al-Tirmidhi documents:

 Narrated Abu Hurairah:

that the Messenger of Allah (s) said: "The Jews split into seventy-one sects, or seventy-two sects, and the Christians similarly, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects."

Grade : Hasan Sahih (Darussalam)

Reference : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2640 In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 35 English translation : Vol. 5, Book 38, Hadith 2640
https://www.sunnah.com/tirmidhi/40/35

INTRODUCTION

The division of the Muslim Ummah into various sects whether due to ideological (theological), jurisprudencial or political reasons have brought with it a huge disgrace of disunity and heaviest price of "terrorism" against one another. This has led to discrimination, hatred, castigation, fighting, killing and declaration of one sect or the other as “unbeliever” who will end up in eternal hell fire. Without fear of misinterpretation, and of course with ample authentic evidences, the discord and disunity within the Ummah started with the Sahabah of the Prophet themselves just almost immediately after the blessed demise of the Prophet, salallahu alayhi wa Ahli. Ever since till date, things have become more tensed and the bridge of discrimination, hatred, takfirism (declaration of one group or the other as unbeliever) become more wider.



ROOT CAUSE OF TODAY'S SECTARIANISM

There is a popular hadith documented by Imam al-Tirmidhi which seems to give us the root cause of this problem. It states:

 Narrated Abdullah bin Amr:

"... Indeed the children of Isra’il split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect." He said: "And which is it O Messenger of Allah?" He said: "What I am upon and my Companions."

Grade : Da’if (weak)

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2641 In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 36 English translation : Vol. 5, Book 38, Hadith 2641
https://www.sunnah.com/tirmidhi/40/36

The hadith is actually graded “Hasan (good)” by Imam Tirmidhi and others as opposed to the source above who graded it “da’if (weak)”.


Perhaps due to the natural law of “action and reaction”, Muslims generally are scared and of course wary of this hadith as no one wants to end up with those condemned 72 sects of the Ummah that fire is destined upon. The “reaction” to this hadith is that every Muslim sect continue to identify herself as the only saved sect who is upon what the Prophet and his companions were. This has led to excommunication of others and the idea of takfirism.


OTHER VERSION OF THE HADITH

 The hadith, interestingly, got another twist in another version when the “saved sect” is identified as “al-Jama’ah (the community)”. The hadith says:

It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:

“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “ The Jama’ah”

Reference : Sunan Ibn Majah 3992 In-book reference : Book 36, Hadith 67 English translation : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 3992 https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/36/67

Empiree:
I certainly understood these ahadith above but then, there are always example we can deduce from our contemporary society (Nigeria) today. It is true that we don't necessarily kill those who refused to pay zakah.

They don't even deserve death at all. It's not even "we don't necessarily kill those..."

Empiree:

Abu Bakr did the right thing by enforcing payment on them. Abu Bakr (ra)'s decision was based on ijma at that time even though some top sahaba frown at outstart.

First, enforcing is different from murdering/killing. Caliph Abubakar was wrong. Simple truth.

Second, there is no ijma when "people" oppose a decision. Besides, Abubakar never consulted the generality of sahabah. Even his second in command, Umar ibn al-khattab initially opposed him saying "these people are muslims" before he claimed to have received "inspiration" from God knows where to accept the Caliph' s decision. History and Ulama were cruel to have labeled those righteous Muslims as "apostates".

Lastly, ijma is useless where there is clear text. There is clear text of how Prophet dealt with those who refused to pay zakat. Again, he never murdered them.

spiritualmubi:
Salaam AlBaqir I have a question which goes like this- what is the importance and reward for saying salaat on the prophet sawa in sujud and ruku'. Shukran.

It is not established but of course it's not haram. It is regarded as part of many dhikr (allowed to be said) after the recommended "subhana rabiyal a'la wa bihamdih".

Empiree:
"strange & funny"? but "Islamic terrorists" is relative and not oxymoron?. Media is fantastic. They successfully brainwashed you people to believe that every slight misdeed of muslims is act of terrorism.


and what happens if you live in the West and don't pay Tax? Govt will declare "war" on you by throwing you in jail. Zakat is obligatory in Islam, therefore it must be enforced by said authority. The same way world power today enforced their will on developing countries without provocation. If they don't comply, unwarranted sanctions follow.

You can try harder to excuse Christianity from terrorism but it is not gonna werk!

# As far as Zakat is obligatory on those capable of paying it, it does not meant such person/people should be killed or labeled apostate for refusing to pay it.


Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (p.b.u.h) ordered (a person) to collect Zakat, and that person returned and told him that Ibn Jamil, Khalid bin Al-Walid, and `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib had refused to give Zakat." The Prophet said, "What made Ibn Jamil refuse to give Zakat though he was a poor man, and was made wealthy by Allah and His Apostle ? But you are unfair in asking Zakat from Khalid as he is keeping his armor for Allah's Cause (for Jihad). As for `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib, he is the uncle of Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) and Zakat is compulsory on him and he should pay it double."


Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 1468
In-book reference : Book 24, Hadith 71
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 2, Book 24, Hadith 547
 https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/24/71



 Narrated Abu Dhar:
Once I went to him (the Prophet (s) ) and he said, "By Allah in Whose Hands my life is (or probably said, 'By Allah, except Whom none has the right to be worshipped) whoever had camels or cows or sheep and did not pay their Zakat, those animals will be brought on the Day of Resurrection far bigger and fatter than before and they will tread him under their hooves, and will butt him with their horns, and (those animals will come in circle): When the last does its turn, the first will start again, and this punishment will go on till Allah has finished the judgments amongst the people."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 1460
In-book reference : Book 24, Hadith 63
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 2, Book 24, Hadith 539
 https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/24/63


It is only in the interpretation of the wahabi that whoever abandoned salat or refused to pay zakat should be killed.

true2god:
You said the apostates has to be dealt with in order to preserve Islam. In order words, if Abu Bakr had not fought the apostates, Islam would have collapsed. That means that much credit should be given to Abu Bakr for the battle of Badr, at least from your own point of view.

If Abu Bakr will fight a civil war to keep Islam from collapsing, why did you the conclude that Islam is a peaceful religion?

First, it is not "battle of badr" but "battle of ridda".

Second, those fought at the battle of ridda by Caliph Abubakar were NEVER apostates. Unfortunately history painted them so to save the Caliph's face and judgment. Abubakar murdered Muslims and Sahabah of the Prophet based on what? Their refusal to pay him zakat.
Same happened at the time of the Prophet when a Sahabah refused to pay zakat but the merciful Prophet never murdered anyone.

Third, it is very true that Muslim leaders were very cruel after the demise of the Prophet. However, there are some war you just have to fight to maintain justice and equity.

Empiree:
still, why is this your concern?. You are not a Muslim. So are you worried about muslims?

He's an attention seeker.

true2god:
I read from somewhere that the Saudi Royal families are actually of Jewish ancestry and are directly reporting to the Rotschild Jewish family in all their affairs. They must claim Muslims for internal and international legitimacy but are secret Jews. Have you wondered why the Saudi Royal family and the British Royal family are so close? The British Royal family are equally loyal to the Rothschild family who owned over 50% of global wealth.

The Saudis would rather destroy the Shi'a Iran yet make a good friend of the Israelis. No matter what the Israeli do, the Saudis will always back them up secretly while the ignorant Muslims will protest in their various countries or embassies.

The world have to wake up to the fact that they are being mentally played.

Yeah, there are lots of submissions establishing the Jewish origin of al-Saud; however, non of them is credible. The fact is, Saudi regime (of whatever origin) does not represent Islam or Muslim. Only fool and slowpoke can be deceived.

Saudi regime sold Palestine to the British and U.S. to allow the Israeli occupation.

Saudi regime orchestrated the Sunni Othoman Caliphate, destroyed the Prophet's lineage of Hijaz and exiled rest of them; then with British help established al-Saud dynasty.

Saudi's hypocrisy and atrocities are second to none but Muslim world continues to be fooled thinking they are custodian of kaaba.

Abuheekmat:


r

And the ever moronic wahabi Saudi footsoldier finally entered

Prince Muhammad ibn Salman and UAE prince "with whores" at night party in U.A.E


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jdm-3TJcdo&feature=youtu.be


You can even see the height of stupidity where "hafizahullah" is being used for him.

For a fact, Marieh Carey was not the first SATANIC singer to perform in Saudi Arabia organized by the Saudi government (royal family). Several other satanic singers and entertainers like WWE wrestlers have in the past performed in the land of "Kitab wa Sunnah".

Most annoying thing is when you see idiots, fools and morons amongst the Saudi footsoldiers who labeled themselves "salafs", defending this satanic regime and giving foolish excuses under false hadith that you cannot protest (verbally or via action) against corrupt and oppressive regime; and that you must obey irrespective of their ruling style.

# People are dying in Yemen at the hand of the Saudi regime, the prince and royals are watching Marieh Carey

# Jamal Khashoghi was brutally murdered and chopped up like chicken by the Saudis, the prince and royals are watching Marieh Carey while their local champions "salafis" all across the globe kept mute Many Saudi scholars and activists who have strongly condemned this satanic regime are either exiled or jailed while some were already beheaded.


# The greatest catastrophe for the Muslim world is the status of the Palestinian. They are being killed on a daily basis, encamped in what is known as "largest open prison in the world" with no access to good, drug, water, or anything for that matter unless the Zionist regime give approval. The coward Muslim world kept mute, and the buffoons of the Saudi regime continue to organize live concert watching Marieh Carey, and wrestling.

The concert, which was staged in front of members of the ruling regime, was held to celebrate the country's first international golf tournament.

tintingz:
Evil is real, when someone do bad to a fellow human that's evil, now the applications surrounding what evil is are different. What is evil to you might not be evil to me, but we all know there is evil. If evil is not real then there shouldn't be punishment.

What you have explained make "evil" relative, not real or created by God.

Concept of punishment is different from evil. Dont muddle them up. Punishment and reward come as a result of your action.

tintingz:

Now God knowing beforehand evil will exist, he has his own concept of evil [s]and hate it so much he's going to punish someone for eternity[/s]. For God to be all good, evil should never exist.

Now the question is how come evil exist? The Epicurus argument is a very valid argument.

God never created "evil". Everything He created is good in their essence and respective nature. Misapplication of those things is what leads to negative effects which man understand as "evil".

Tests of God is sometimes mistaken as "evil" when we fail to rationalize their aim and purpose.

Like I said earlier the so called Epicurus argument is useless as far as definition of "evil" is understood.
Man with his intellect and freewill is able to reject good and create "evil" for himself. It is not compulsory for God, the giver of good, intellect and freewill to prevent unpleasantness created by man for himself.

"Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by [reason of] which is the result of men's handiwork so He may let them taste part of [the consequence of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness]." - Sura Rum, verse 41

tintingz:

And God has no choice than to give humans freewill and also inate evil with it when he hate it evil? God giving humans freewill made evil to exist, this is something he knew will exist beforehand, therefore it's either God is malevolent or impotent if he's willing to stop evil but not able or he's able but not willing.

Are you quoting atheist scripture or you are force your false idea on "God" in order to arrive at your goal that, "God doesn't exist"?

# The fact that God knew man will reject "good" He created for him therefore plundering into "evil" does not meant He created evil. Knowing that something will happen doesn't meant you "created" it when it eventually happens.

In fact, the purpose of "intellect and freewill" given to man is to allow him to chose and the consequences has been spelt. How can you blame a good teacher for the failure of an unserious student when other serious student passed and the teacher knew for a fact that unseriousness leads to failure? A failed student might get serious later on. If the teacher had passed him, he will never get serious. It is not obligatory for God to prevent result of man's handiwork.

tintingz:

If God could watch when a man is raping a girl and did nothing, is this what he wants and malevolent is this case, is the man raping the girl not infringing the freewill of the girl?

If the girl obeys the law of God by not revealing her body to attract men, there won't be consequence of rape. If parents are not selling their girls child as "house help", there won't be abuse of those girls. Again, evil is as a result of man's handiwork based on his rejection of good created by God.

tintingz:
Here is an argument from Epicurus also known as Epicurean paradox or trilemma.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

These questions become nothing when we explore the meaning of "evil" as we have done above in a glance.

For a fact, evil is not real rather it is relative. A wolf is bad for a sheep, but not for itself or for a plant [for example]; just as a sheep, with respect to a plant that it eats and destroys, is bad, but with respect to itself, human beings, or a wolf [for example], it is not bad.

Rumi says,

Snake-poison is life to the snake, (But) it is death in relation to man."

# Man has been given intellect and freewill: he knows for example gravity: if he obeys and respect it (law of gravity), he will not hurt himself. If he choose to disrepect and disregard it, he will hurt himself; therefore, with his intellect and freewill innate in him, why would God prevent "evil" he choose and created for himself from him?

"God will not do for man what he can do for himself" - Oddessy

tintingz:
You're mixing things up.

My argument is not about after creation, my argument is about before creation, God is omniscient, all good and hate evil that he's ready to punish someone for eternity. The opposite of good is evil.

How come evil exist?

Is it part of his plan for evil to exist?

What about Satan, did he know beforehand he's going to be the master of evil?

Or is God malevolent?

First, your question NEVER addressed "before the creation", and you don't expect me to know your intention.

Second, your question was "does God hate evil?". The only thing I find interested there was asking you a part of the question "what is evil in your definition".

Unfortunately, you gave "Google definition", and I gave you Islamic concept of "evil".

Wherever you are planning to drag your question to is none of my concern. Next time, you present your argument against other ideology, then, whoever wishes to defend will reply.

tintingz:
According to Google,

Evil - profoundly immoral and wicked.

Every general calamity, looked from the religion's view-point, is good if it visits the evil ones, who create mischief in the earth; but the same will be seen as evil and bad if it attacks a believing and good community.

 Eating food is good and lawful, if it is prepared from one's own money; and the same will become evil and unlawful if it is a part of another man's property taken without his permission. Why? Because it lacks obedience to the prohibition in respect of eating other people's property without permission; or the obedience to the imperative order of restricting oneself to those things only which Allãh has allowed. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is good and lawful if it follows marriage; and is evil and sin if it is illicit, without marriage – because the latter lacks conformity with divine commandment.

In short, good is a positive aspect of things and actions, and evil is their negative aspect, although the thing or action itself is the same in both cases.

[Allah] Who made good every thing that He has created (32:7). Thus, every created thing is good, and this goodness is an integral part of creation which cannot be separated from it; if it is Allah's creation, it is good.


On the other hand, man may create evil for himself. Knife, for example is used to peel yam, orange etc which is good. If used to kill or injure, it becomes evil created by man's handiwork.


"Whatever benefit comes to you, it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself (4:79); And whatever affliction befalls you, it is on account of what your hands have wrought, and (yet) He pardons most (of your faults) (42:30); Surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition (13:11); This is because Allah does never change a bounty which He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition (8:53)

tintingz:
Salaam Alaikum.

The question is, if Allah hate even so much and he's all-good, how come evil exist?

To start: what is evil in your definition?