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.

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

spiritualmubi:
I think I should not engage in a discussion with you, is like what Al-Baqir said about you is true, lol. They are responsible for the agony the muslim world is facing today. A female must not drive in saudi, but a male can drive for her, initiating the worst scenario of fitnah. The western world controls saudi like her pet and you still think a reasonable man shouldnt file the necessary allegation against them. HadaakaLlah.

Laughing.. Are you a Muslim? I seriously doubt it. If you are a Muslim, then you are too far from Islamic knowledge

AlBaqir:


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.

SubuhanalLah Al-baqir why did you not tell him about the 3 fake prophets? You should fear Allah, as long as Ali R.A. and ahlul-bayt did not refuse to pay Zakah then what he did was right.

Empiree:
In addition to the above, ^ modern tax system begins to tax you the moment you are considered adult whether you make money or not unless you can display you have no job or disabled. Zakat is tax. Tax is zakat. It is very serious thing that we seem to overlook. The West don't take it lightly at all.

Famous Hollywood actor, Wesley Snipe was jailed for evading tax and many many more were jailed for tax fraud. Why would Abu Bakr decision be any different?

Waging war on zakah evaders was his way of enforcing tax on them. Of course in modern time they not gonna kill bcus of tax but some people serve significant jail time for tax evasion or pay hefty fines.

True to a degree but the killing is socially unacceptable.

true2god:
True to a degree but the killing is socially unacceptable.

You are comparing those days to this modern time?. Even at that, so called civilization kill people like chicken. Go to fb and you will see south americans the way they kill for fun. Those days, they may kill for "silly things". Today, those "silly things" are punishable by fines. So you dont blame them. Those days a king would simply killed for being mocked at by ordering head of someone. Today, they still do it by sanctions which kill innocent civilians. But for me, i do not distinguish modern civilization from ancient times in this situation.

AlBaqir:


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




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.

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.

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.

And committing adultery is not a major sin that takes one out of islam. But rejecting tenet of zakat is. Let's be clear, not paying zakat is not necessarily rejecting tenet(zakat) itself. But i believe the people that Abu Bakr(ra) declared apostates rejected the tenet depending on how the text is worded. So placing this side by side with modern western tax system, if US for instance deports or refuse to grant citizenship to green card holder, this is technically excommunication (apostates). But they do not do this to citizens.

So question is, were those people that Abu Bakr declared apostates rejected this major pillar(zakat) or they simply decided not to pay (withheld payment)?. There is difference btw the two

Abuheekmat:


Laughing.. Are you a Muslim? I seriously doubt it. If you are a Muslim, then you are too far from Islamic knowledge

Nansis and ingredients, is it there in islamic knowledge that a female shouldnt drive? hiss... am a muslim and son of a muslim, islamic knowledge is at my finger tips due to the modern technology. Salam.

spiritualmubi:
Nansis and ingredients, is it there in islamic knowledge that a female shouldnt drive? hiss... am a muslim and son of a muslim, islamic knowledge is at my finger tips due to the modern technology. Salam.

Laughing

Empiree:
You are comparing those days to this modern time?. Even at that, so called civilization kill people like chicken. Go to fb and you will see south americans the way they kill for fun. Those days, they may kill for "silly things". Today, those "silly things" are punishable by fines. So you dont blame them. Those days a king would simply killed for being mocked at by ordering head of someone. Today, they still do it by sanctions which kill innocent civilians. But for me, i do not distinguish modern civilization from ancient times in this situation.

Abu Bakr's government'was meant to be a theocratic government based on the sunnah of the prophet. If he cannot follow the sunnah (the Islamic prophet did not kill people who refused to pay zakat) then we can conclude that he run his government the way he likes. Abu Bakr killing 'apostates' (as against q2:256) and the people that did not pay zakat is a sign of the brutality of his government which drived Umar Ibn Kathab into further ruthlessness against all dissident.

Justifying the action of Abu Bakr using the US tax system is 'no-go' moral equivalence. The US operates a modern taxation system which can never be compared with the crude zakat system and defaulters are punished marginally in proportion to their 'crime'. In most cases you don't enjoy social benefit when you don't pay tax and if the tax evasion is on a high side, the government can decide to throw the defaulter to a limited jail term. There is also room for tax holiday and tax refund for 'loyal' citizens who pay tax promptly.

The moral equivalence you try to create here is wrong.

true2god:
Abu Bakr's government'was meant to be a theocratic government based on the sunnah of the prophet. If he cannot follow the sunnah (the Islamic prophet did not kill people who refused to pay zakat) then we can conclude that he run his government the way he likes. Abu Bakr killing 'apostates' (as against q2:256) and the people that did not pay zakat is a sign of the brutality of his government which drived Umar Ibn Kathab into further ruthlessness against all dissident.

Justifying the action of Abu Bakr using the US tax system is 'no-go' moral equivalence. The US operates a modern taxation system which can never be compared with the crude zakat system and defaulters are punished marginally in proportion to their 'crime'. In most cases you don't enjoy social benefit when you don't pay tax and if the tax evasion is on a high side, the government can decide to throw the defaulter to a limited jail term. There is also room for tax holiday and tax refund for 'loyal' citizens who pay tax promptly.

The moral equivalence you try to create here is wrong.

again, you are comparing ancient treatment approach to comtemporary world. Even modern world before they transformed their system they used to be very cruel at least in their 18 century. For the fact that they still punish tax evader is a proof. Besides, why is this your business though?. You have sinister agenda?.

Abu Bakr (ra) was long gone. Obviously the judgement he passed on apostates has no meaning in our modern world. Again the question I posed was did Abu Bakr punish those apostates solely for refusing to pay zakah or for rejecting or denying zakah as tenet of Islam?. Since you chose to contribute go ahead and answer this.

Empiree:
Again, you are comparing ancient treatment approach to comtemporary world. Even modern world before they transformed their system they used to be very cruel at least in their 18 century. For the fact that they still punish tax evader is a proof. Besides, why is this your business though?. You have sinister agenda?.

Abu Bakr (ra) was long gone. Obviously the judgement he passed on apostates has no meaning in our modern world. Again the question I posed was did Abu Bakr punish those apostates solely for refusing to pay zakah or for rejecting or denying zakah as atenet if Islam?. Since you chose to contribute go ahead and answer this.

The issue relating to how Abu Bakr treated apostates, and zakat offenders, is important because it is a prelude to any Islamic ruling in many part of the Muslim world on zakat-related matters. For the fact that you are not in a sharia-complaint country does not mean that it must not be discussed. If, for whatever reason, you don't want it discussed 'no wahala'. You should also understand that the ulamas, in many countries, has issued various fatwas based on the recorded actions of the sahabas, and not the prophet himself.

You said I am comparing ancients times with the modern times, if so why is the hadith so important in the Muslim world? The hadith is an ancient text material which are still being used as a guide in many Muslim countries.

true2god:
The issue relating to how Abu Bakr treated apostates, and zakat offenders, is important because it is a prelude to any Islamic ruling in many part of the Muslim world on zakat-related matters. For the fact that you are not in a sharia-complaint country does not mean that it must not be discussed. If, for whatever reason, you don't want it discussed 'no wahala'. You should also understand that the ulamas, in many countries, has issued various fatwas based on the recorded actions of the sahabas, and not the prophet himself.

your antics will not work with me obviously. Take Iran and Saudi for instance, do you have proof that they kill Muslims because they evade or deny zakat?. Onus is on you to prove this. You need to understand there are other sohaba with different rulings after Abu Bakr (ra). So Muslim countries may choose whichever is in their best interest. However, do they even take zakat collection serious anymore?. I'm sure no. If they enforce and collect zakah from the rich in Nigeria, I am sure poverty would be lessened. Rich people who don't pay faces wrath of the law. This is equivalent of what modern Western has. They have their ruling which is to severely penalize tax evaders. The punishments range from hefty fines (money) to jail.

You said I am comparing ancients times with the modern times, if so why is the hadith so important in the Muslim world? The hadith is an ancient text material which are still being used as a guide in many Muslim countries.

I know you have motives. What we discussed here is issue of ruling on apostates by Abu Bakr (ra) but you amalgamated all ahadith so you can say later "why do you use Hadith to pray your daily prayers since it is ancients times, and this is modern time?"

I got you

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:
# 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

you roped this on me which you subsequently got wrong or mixed up in your last paragraph. If Nabi (saw) silenced on issue and Qur'an doesn't give clear cut resolution doesn't mean Ulama can't depending on what goes on in the society. This is not tantamount to weakness on the part of the prophet (saw). I cited homosexual as example. I simply made analogy

# 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.

There are issue around Abu Bakr's judgement and there are different reports with some similarities.

After nabi's demise (saw), it is true that some muslims apostatized. Some simply refused to pay zakat not necessarily because they would not give allegiance to the new govt of Abu Bakr, they simply withheld their taxes, perhaps, "pending" their "observation and decision" on the new govt. Some also did not pay zakat due to misunderstanding of the Qur'anic text in question. These set of people which included Malik ibn Nuweira were recognized to be muslims by Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr (ra) would not kill them simply for withholding zakat. These people did not reject zakat tenet in itself. Where problems lie are the historical records.

Some said Abu Bakr killed them because they became apostates. This is too vague because Abu Bakr considered these people to be muslims. Matter of fact, there were physical evidences that they were indeed Muslims when Abu Bakr heard they withheld tax. He sent Khalid in Walid to enquire. Of course they went with army. This is where it gets complicated. Some historians said Khalid had few words with Malik upon reaching the town and the people were about to pray while on guard (heavily armed). Khalid was curious why they are armed since there is no enemy around and he ordered them to let their guard down. So they prayed together but at midnight he killed them all. He also killed Malik and the news reached Abu Bakr and Umar(ra). Historian clearly was not sure if Khalid killed Malik because the later refused to pay zakat or because the former had romantic interest in Malik's wife because Khalid later "married" Malik's wife which Umar considered unfair and adultery and to be killed. But Abu Bakr prevented Khalid from being executed base on his decision, whatever it was.

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.

The people whom Abu Bakr waged war on were said to be apostates and refused to pay zakah. But the reason to go after them was not based on renouncing Islam or not paying zakat. Abu Hanifa was firm on his opinion that people who did not pay zakat were Muslims and were not killed because of that. Tabari and Abu Hanifa recorded that they took up arm in addition to evading tax. This reminds me of Texas. There are people like that in USA who pick up weapons against govt that they would not pay tax to federal govt. American would send fbi to bring them down. But this arm resurrection solves nothing. Govt simply give them tax break or reduce tax to calm their nerves. Please go and read Tabari and Abu Hanifa on this issue.

The third group are pure criminals, the group of musaylima. There is no need to go through this we all know this. So problem seems to be where some historians lumped everything together to make it look like Abu Bakr (ra) murdered muslims because they did not pay zakat which is what usermane alludes to.

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.

I certainly agree that these punishments were not meant to be carried out but prevention methods.

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"?

"la Ikraha fi din" doesn't apply in the case of muslim because to be muslim is to accept zakah as major pillar. This is different from not being about to pay zakat. This is where it's not fard on such muslims.

Now, to address @underlined, I believe not paying zakat may cause fasad. Again I'm not talking about the miskin who can't afford to pay. They themselves are to receive zakat. Not paying zakat leads to fasad. Again, take good look at Nigeria. Zakat are withheld by the rich. I am talking about m Muslims only. But look at Nigeria situation. You see Alfa with human skull head, money rituals, human body parts etc. Although there is no excuse for their stupidity but at the end of the day you notice that they all complain about "no work, no money". We now see fasad spread of all over because of this. Zakat is meant to distribute wealth, isn't?. Once distribution of wealth seized to exist, there will be fassad. Fassad is not just corruption but destruction. Isn't this perfectly Nigeria situation?.

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?

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

My high school friend asked me on Whatsapp 3yrs years ago if I am given a million naira to drink someone else's urine would I drink it?. I said "hell no". He said "that's because you don't live in the country. People would drink it in this Nigeria of ours". This is level of thinking because of money. Diseases receive from that may never be cured by One Million Naira

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.

"That means that much credit should be given to Abu Bakr for the battle of Badr" -


I don't understand what you mean by the above sentence, please elaborate.

true2god:

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

You persist so much on attributing violence to Muslims, the rebels were the ones who wanted to attack Medina.

If it was men that were guarding Islam, then Islam would have perished. When the prophet Muhammad S.A.W. was on his sick bed he ordered an expedition against the Byzantine empire to retaliate against the attacks of the battle of Mu'tah and he assigned Usama bin Zaid R.A. as the commander. Immediately the messenger of Allah S.A.W. died and Abubakar R.A. became the Khalifah, he ordered Usama R.A. to march to Tabuk. Usama R.A. told Abubakar R.A. that he fears that if he should march out the apostates will attack Medina.

But Abubakar R.A. did not relent on the orders of the messenger of Allah S.A.W. and then Allah made Usama R.A. to understand Abubakar R.A. so he obeyed and marched out. The apostates surrounded Medina each of the apostate tribes claiming to have a prophet of their own. Zakat is among the five pillars of Islam, anyone who does not believe in it has become a kafir, and anyone who believes in it and does not give it out without any valuable excuse is a grave sinner.

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.

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:
your antics will not work with me obviously. Take Iran and Saudi for instance, do you have proof that they kill Muslims because they evade or deny zakat?. Onus is on you to prove this. You need to understand there are other sohaba with different rulings after Abu Bakr (ra). So Muslim countries may choose whichever is in their best interest. However, do they even take zakat collection serious anymore?. I'm sure no. If they enforce and collect zakah from the rich in Nigeria, I am sure poverty would be lessened. Rich people who don't pay faces wrath of the law. This is equivalent of what modern Western has. They have their ruling which is to severely penalize tax evaders. The punishments range from hefty fines (money) to jail.



I know you have motives. What we discussed here is issue of ruling on apostates by Abu Bakr (ra) but you amalgamated all ahadith so you can say later "why do you use Hadith to pray your daily prayers since it is ancients times, and this is modern time?"

I got you

I am not trying to put you on the defensive but to have an honest conversation with you on this. You need not be paranoid. I never said any zakat evader has been killed in this contemporary time, but that the action of Abu Bakr can be used for oppressive ruling whenever a political system, or atmosphere, permits that.

You don't have a make a wrong insinuation based on an obviously biased mindset. My motive is clear; I reject Abu Bakr's approach in dealing with tax defaulters.

najib632:

"That means that much credit should be given to Abu Bakr for the battle of Badr" -


I don't understand what you mean by the above sentence, please elaborate.

You persist so much on attributing violence to Muslims, the rebels were the ones who wanted to attack Medina.

If it was men that were guarding Islam, then Islam would have perished. When the prophet Muhammad S.A.W. was on his sick bed he ordered an expedition against the Byzantine empire to retaliate against the attacks of the battle of Mu'tah and he assigned Usama bin Zaid R.A. as the commander. Immediately the messenger of Allah S.A.W. died and Abubakar R.A. became the Khalifah, he ordered Usama R.A. to march to Tabuk. Usama R.A. told Abubakar R.A. that he fears that if he should march out the apostates will attack Medina.

But Abubakar R.A. did not relent on the orders of the messenger of Allah S.A.W. and then Allah made Usama R.A. to understand Abubakar R.A. so he obeyed and marched out. The apostates surrounded Medina each of the apostate tribes claiming to have a prophet of their own. Zakat is among the five pillars of Islam, anyone who does not believe in it has become a kafir, and anyone who believes in it and does not give it out without any valuable excuse is a grave sinner.

This claim is hard to verify. Controversial stories like this often have different versions, based on the bias or the motive of the narrator.

AlBaqir:


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

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

AlBaqir:
Empir.ee,



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.

Let's not get something wrong here. "La ikraha fi Deen" as I said earlier doesn't apply to muslims in the sense that a Muslim already entered into the religion. He or she can not use this Ayah to support his it her position to evade salat, zakat, Ramadan and Hajj. At the same time it doesn't mean killing them because they do not observe these, no. This is what usermane think, that I support forcing or killing anyone who doesn't pray. He doesn't realize I was just pulling his leg. As you said we only persuade them, encourage them and teach them. But they can not use the Ayah to defend their lazy position because Quran said "enter religion perfectly" meaning accepting all the fard and Hakam but some may be lacking. This is not issue. We don't kill them because they don't observe tenets. They may change in the future.

As for saying that there were no other tax evaders, they were obviously like the issue of musaylima and his group. Again, Abu Bakr (ra) recognized many of those who tried to evade tax to be muslims. And I wouldn't say that they refused to pledge allegiance to him. This was the case of Malik. He and his clan did not reject zakat and they were muslims. Again, there was more to the issue of Malik's wife between him and Khalid.

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:
I am not trying to put you on the defensive but to have an honest conversation with you on this. You need not be paranoid. I never said any zakat evader has been killed in this contemporary time, but that the action of Abu Bakr can be used for oppressive ruling whenever a political system, or atmosphere, permits that.

You don't have a make a wrong insinuation based on an obviously biased mindset. My motive is clear; I reject Abu Bakr's approach in dealing with tax defaulters.

it is okay as long as you are not bias or have some sort of motives. I just don't like talking about internal Muslim issues with non Muslims and they in turn try to use that argument against us while forgetting their own. Sahaba were humans and prone to err just like many world leaders invade and kill people and would not apologize or pay restitution

AlBaqir:


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

this is macro institution. They don't always satisfy everyone and they can't. US economy is okay but muslims still pay zakat locally to less previlleged. They collected zakat in Ramadan and everyday and at the end of the week. Zakat money are distributed to Muslims. They do this to fullfil Islamic obligation. Why do they not ignore just because US economy is doing fine?. Do they do this in Nigeria?. If they do this would alleviate poverty locally to some extent. Just like in USA, some people are not legally qualified to receive govt benefits or very little payment but they are in need. This zakat collection fills this hole. Whether there is govt corruption or not muslims have this obligation to fulfill in Nigeria. It can not be abandoned.

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.

as you rightly said this is fiqh issue and I have argued this before. We left it to Allah to accept it. But we know money isn't the conventional way of paying zakat. My parent use garri, rice, ewa etc. So this is subjective to local food. But now world is rapidly changing. It is almost impossible to distribute food. People self (in Western world) prefer cash. Even homeless and panhandlers prefer money. The reason people prefer money here is bcus foods are always surplus.

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.

zakat in the context of Abu Bakr (ra) and other sohaba was definitely not money

Empiree:
Let's not get something wrong here. "La ikraha fi Deen" as I said earlier doesn't apply to muslims in the sense that a Muslim already entered into the religion. He or she can not use this Ayah to support his it her position to evade salat, zakat, Ramadan and Hajj. At the same time it doesn't mean killing them because they do not observe these, no. This is what usermane think, that I support forcing or killing anyone who doesn't pray. He doesn't realize I was just pulling his leg. As you said we only persuade them, encourage them and teach them. But they can not use the Ayah to defend their lazy position because Quran said "enter religion perfectly" meaning accepting all the fard and Hakam but some may be lacking. This is not issue. We don't kill them because they don't observe tenets. They may change in the future.

As for saying that there were no other tax evaders, they were obviously like the issue of musaylima and his group. Again, Abu Bakr (ra) recognized many of those who tried to evade tax to be muslims. And I wouldn't say that they refused to pledge allegiance to him. This was the case of Malik. He and his clan did not reject zakat and they were muslims. Again, there was more to the issue of Malik's wife between him and Khalid.

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

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

AlBaqir:


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

Why did Khalid ibn Walid execute Malik ibn Nuwayrah?

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

STILL ON MALIK IBN NUWAYRAH AND THE WAR CRIMINAL - KHALID IBN AL-WALID


Hafiz Ibn Asakir documents:

Abu Ghalib al-Bana and Abu Abdillah al-Bana narrated from Abu Jaffar bin Maslama from Abu Tahir al-Mukhalis from Ahmad bin Sulaiman from al-Zubair bin Bakr from Mus’ab bin Abdullah, who said:….Umar said: ‘I admonished Khalid for breaking the orders and for what he did with the money., Khalid would distribute the booty amongst the soldiers without informing Abu Bakr. He made decisions that contravened those of Abu Bakr, he killed Malik bin Nuwayra and married his wife. He made peace with the people of Yamama and married the daughter of Maj’a bin Marara. These were met with disapproval by Abu Bakr and he issued Diyat (blood money) to Mutammim bin Nuwayrah and ordered Khalid to divorce Malik’s wife….’

Source: Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 274

 http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/111/2291.html



Hafiz Ibn Asakir also records:

Abu Bakr al-Ansar from al-Hassan bin Ali from Abu Umar bin Haywiyah from Ahmad bin Maroof from al-Hussain bin al-Fehm from Muhammad bin Saad from Muhammad bin Umar from Muhammad bin Abdullah from al-Zuhari from Handala bin Ali al-Aslami who said: ‘…When Khalid arrived at Madina, he entered the mosque of Allah’s Messenger wearing rusty armor and with his sword. There were some arrows in his turban, he passed by Umar but didn’t talk to him, then he came to Abu Bakr, and he heard from Abu Bakr what pleased him, he then left happy. Umar therefore knew that Abu Bakr had pleased him, therefore he didn’t talk to him (Khalid). Umar was angry at him (Khalid) because of what he had done, by killing Malik bin Nuwayrah and marrying his wife and also for what was in his heart against him (Khalid) about Bani Jadhima case’

Source: Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 258

 http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/111/2291.html



# Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 5 page 619 Tradition 14091:

Ibn Abi Aun and others narrated that Khalid bin al-Walid claimed that Malik bin Nuwayrah had become Murtad according to the information that he (Khalid) had received. Malik denied this and said: ‘I am a Muslim, I never changed.’ Abu Qutada and Abdullah ibn Umar testified that (Malik is Muslim) but Khalid ordered Dharar bin Al-Auzwar to behead him (Malik). Then Khalid took his (Malik’s) wife. (Umar) said to Abu Bakr: ‘He (Khalid) has performed adultery, you have to stone him’. Abu Bakr said: ‘I can’t stone him; he interpreted hence made a mistake’. (Umar) said: ‘Then dismiss him’. He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘I cannot put the sword back in the sheath which Allah has pulled out on my opponents.’(Ibn Sa’ad).


@ Empiree

AlBaqir:
STILL ON MALIK IBN NUWAYRAH AND THE WAR CRIMINAL - KHALID IBN AL-WALID


Hafiz Ibn Asakir documents:

Abu Ghalib al-Bana and Abu Abdillah al-Bana narrated from Abu Jaffar bin Maslama from Abu Tahir al-Mukhalis from Ahmad bin Sulaiman from al-Zubair bin Bakr from Mus’ab bin Abdullah, who said:….Umar said: ‘I admonished Khalid for breaking the orders and for what he did with the money., Khalid would distribute the booty amongst the soldiers without informing Abu Bakr. He made decisions that contravened those of Abu Bakr, he killed Malik bin Nuwayra and married his wife. He made peace with the people of Yamama and married the daughter of Maj’a bin Marara. These were met with disapproval by Abu Bakr and he issued Diyat (blood money) to Mutammim bin Nuwayrah and ordered Khalid to divorce Malik’s wife….’

Source: Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 274

 http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/111/2291.html



Hafiz Ibn Asakir also records:

Abu Bakr al-Ansar from al-Hassan bin Ali from Abu Umar bin Haywiyah from Ahmad bin Maroof from al-Hussain bin al-Fehm from Muhammad bin Saad from Muhammad bin Umar from Muhammad bin Abdullah from al-Zuhari from Handala bin Ali al-Aslami who said: ‘…When Khalid arrived at Madina, he entered the mosque of Allah’s Messenger wearing rusty armor and with his sword. There were some arrows in his turban, he passed by Umar but didn’t talk to him, then he came to Abu Bakr, and he heard from Abu Bakr what pleased him, he then left happy. Umar therefore knew that Abu Bakr had pleased him, therefore he didn’t talk to him (Khalid). Umar was angry at him (Khalid) because of what he had done, by killing Malik bin Nuwayrah and marrying his wife and also for what was in his heart against him (Khalid) about Bani Jadhima case’

Source: Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 258

 http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/111/2291.html



# Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 5 page 619 Tradition 14091:

Ibn Abi Aun and others narrated that Khalid bin al-Walid claimed that Malik bin Nuwayrah had become Murtad according to the information that he (Khalid) had received. Malik denied this and said: ‘I am a Muslim, I never changed.’ Abu Qutada and Abdullah ibn Umar testified that (Malik is Muslim) but Khalid ordered Dharar bin Al-Auzwar to behead him (Malik). Then Khalid took his (Malik’s) wife. (Umar) said to Abu Bakr: ‘He (Khalid) has performed adultery, you have to stone him’. Abu Bakr said: ‘I can’t stone him; he interpreted hence made a mistake’. (Umar) said: ‘Then dismiss him’. He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘I cannot put the sword back in the sheath which Allah has pulled out on my opponents.’(Ibn Sa’ad).


@ Empi.ree

These back my point when I said there was more to the killing of Malik bin Nuwayrah

Omoh..... A lot of shit went down after the prophet's death.

some of these people that lives after his death aren't even as pious as we were led to believe. The truth can never be hidden for ever.

The day of judgement will surely churn out a lot of surprises but everyone will be busy with their own cup of tea.

may Allah save us