Apostasy

[Mohamed Saif]

Assalamu Alaikum

Dear brother

I read your article on Apostasy in the below link. It was interesting and convincing. I have been researching for years on why Islam Executes Apostates and I have found it on this site.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
 
But there was another article (not from this site) on Apostasy that states that Apostates should be killed. But they have given valid reasons. It is in contradictory to your article which states that Apostates should not be killed and there is absolute freedom of religion in Islam. Your article states that it was a temporary law at the time of the prophet as Islam was still growing.

So I am not sure which article is accurate. The link for the other article on Apostasy is given below.
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/punishment-apostasy-islam-rationale.html
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed

Please help me on this

Thank You 

[Saudi Salafi]

Assalamu Alaikum

Dear brother

I read your article on Apostasy in the below link. It was interesting and convincing. I have been researching for years on why Islam Executes Apostates and I have found it on this site.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
 
But there was another article (not from this site) on Apostasy that states that Apostates should be killed. But they have given valid reasons. It is in contradictory to your article which states that Apostates should not be killed and there is absolute freedom of religion in Islam. Your article states that it was a temporary law at the time of the prophet as Islam was still growing.

So I am not sure which article is accurate. The link for the other article on Apostasy is given below.
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/punishment-apostasy-islam-rationale.html
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed

Please help me on this

Thank You

 All scholars agree that apostates should be killed. Osama's points are not valid and the hadith (Who ever changes his religion kill him) is agreed upon and authentic. The article at letmeturnthetables and Bassam Zawadi's articles are the accurate and the true ones. Killing of apostates is also found in the bible.

[Mohamed Saif]

Assalamu Alaikum

Dear Brother
Thank You for your response. But if Apostates should be executed then isn't it contradicting the Quranic verses of freedom of religion. I'll quote the verses below.

Noble Verse 5:3 ".....This day those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion:  Yet fear them not But fear Me (Allah).  This day have I (Allah) perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your (complete) religion....".

 Noble Verses 15:2-3 "Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam.  Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)."   

 Noble Verses 10:99-100 "If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand."

Noble Verse 18:29 "Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on!"

 Noble Verse 27:92 "And to rehearse the Qur'an: and if any accept guidance, they do it for the good of their own souls, and if any stray, say: 'I am only a Warner.'" 

Noble Verse 10:99 "If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!"

"No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.  (The Noble Quran, 10:100)"

"Say: 'Behold all that is in the heavens and on earth'; but neither Signs nor Warners profit those who believe not.  Do they then expect (any thing) but (what happened in) the days of the men who passed away before them? Say: 'Wait ye then: for I, too, will wait with you.'  (The Noble Quran, 10:101-102)"

"It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one whom thou lovest; but Allah Guides those whom He will and He Knows those who receive guidance.  (The Noble Quran, 28:56)" 

There are more verses. But these are the ones i quote. According  to these verses God did not prescribe any punishment to apostates. But in fact it says to "leave them alone." So according to theses verses apostates should not be killed. There is absolute freedom of religion in Islam. If the prophet executed apostates then didn't he contradict the Quran. 

Please Reply

Thank You

[Saudi Salafi]

Assalamu Alaikum

Dear Brother
Thank You for your response. But if Apostates should be executed then isn't it contradicting the Quranic verses of freedom of religion. I'll quote the verses below.

Noble Verse 5:3 ".....This day those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion:  Yet fear them not But fear Me (Allah).  This day have I (Allah) perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your (complete) religion....".

 Noble Verses 15:2-3 "Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam.  Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)."   

 Noble Verses 10:99-100 "If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand."

Noble Verse 18:29 "Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on!"

 Noble Verse 27:92 "And to rehearse the Qur'an: and if any accept guidance, they do it for the good of their own souls, and if any stray, say: 'I am only a Warner.'" 

Noble Verse 10:99 "If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!"

"No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.  (The Noble Quran, 10:100)"

"Say: 'Behold all that is in the heavens and on earth'; but neither Signs nor Warners profit those who believe not.  Do they then expect (any thing) but (what happened in) the days of the men who passed away before them? Say: 'Wait ye then: for I, too, will wait with you.'  (The Noble Quran, 10:101-102)"

"It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one whom thou lovest; but Allah Guides those whom He will and He Knows those who receive guidance.  (The Noble Quran, 28:56)" 

There are more verses. But these are the ones i quote. According  to these verses God did not prescribe any punishment to apostates. But in fact it says to "leave them alone." So according to theses verses apostates should not be killed. There is absolute freedom of religion in Islam. If the prophet executed apostates then didn't he contradict the Quran. 

Please Reply

Thank You

 Apostasy is a different thing. The apostate himself is worse than  the kafir. I suggest that you go read the two articles.

[AhmadFarooq]

Although, the majority opinion has been the capital punishment, over the centuries there have been minority opinions who have differed on the matter like Sufyan Al-Thawri, an 8th-century scholar of Islam. The questions that I raised before, still need to be answered:

Narrated Sa'd ibn AbuWaqqas:
On the day of the conquest of Mecca, Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn AbuSarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan.
He brought him and made him stand before the Prophet (ﷺ), and said: Accept the allegiance of Abdullah, Messenger of Allah! He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him each time, but accepted his allegiance after the third time.
Then turning to his companions, he said: Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?
They said: We did not know what you had in your heart, Messenger of Allah! Why did you not give us a signal with your eye?
He said: It is not advisable for a Prophet to play deceptive tricks with the eyes.

Sunan Abi Dawud 4359, Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani)

And what is the evidence from Qur'an or Hadith which mention that a person who was born in a Muslim family and did not convert to Islam, when such a person adopts a religion different to Islam he should also be killed.

The article you linked to, in my humble opinion has some issues. It talks about a lot of things with little evidence from the original sources of Islam and more from the commentaries of Muslim scholars. From what I know, there have been differing interpretations, while some scholars do hold the ideas that the author quotes, others do not.
The quotation attributed to Al-Tabari does not justify the conclusion that the author (of letmeturnthetables) makes, i.e. 'And to “command the good” and “forbid the wrong” primarily refers to belief and disbelief respectively.'

[Awesome31310]

Osama Abdullah is unfortunately trying to liberalize Islam, and it is not working out well for him. The general consensus established amongst the Muslim communities of the world is that apostates should be put to death, by stoning. Iran follows this, so does Saudi Arabia.

[AhmadFarooq]

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether the majority of Muslims believe in the death penalty or not. This is appeal to authority or the bandwagon fallacy.

The relevant thing is whether the original sources of Islam, the Qur'an and Hadith can be used to prove the punishment. The Qur'an doesn't talk about it and even appear to be contradicting the punishment. Hadith literature, on the other hand, is from where the entire evidence for such a punishment comes from. It should be mentioned here, that while Qur'anic interpretation has comparatively less difference of opinion, Hadiths have a lot more debate on their interpretations.

One likely reason earlier Muslim generations did not question the law as much as today's generation does, is because of the difference in their environment. In those times the other major religion Christianity enforced the punishment so Muslims are likely to not have much misgiving about it. An indication of this is seen when past Muslims and even present-day Muslims still use the presence of this punishment in the Bible as evidence of this being a divine law for Islam too. For critical Muslims, such evidence is hugely problematic.

In any case, many arguments have been made against the evidence in support of this punishment which has made it equivocal and uncertain for a lot of Muslims.

[TruthExposer777]

Did you even read those link's?
It doesn't even count for Today Brother.
Even Many Quran Verse's Refutes this...
I even ade a video about in my youtube channel even Shabir Ally respond this...

[Awesome31310]

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether the majority of Muslims believe in the death penalty or not. This is appeal to authority or the bandwagon fallacy.

The relevant thing is whether the original sources of Islam, the Qur'an and Hadith can be used to prove the punishment. The Qur'an doesn't talk about it and even appear to be contradicting the punishment. Hadith literature, on the other hand, is from where the entire evidence for such a punishment comes from. It should be mentioned here, that while Qur'anic interpretation has comparatively less difference of opinion, Hadiths have a lot more debate on their interpretations.

One likely reason earlier Muslim generations did not question the law as much as today's generation does, is because of the difference in their environment. In those times the other major religion Christianity enforced the punishment so Muslims are likely to not have much misgiving about it. An indication of this is seen when past Muslims and even present-day Muslims still use the presence of this punishment in the Bible as evidence of this being a divine law for Islam too. For critical Muslims, such evidence is hugely problematic.

In any case, many arguments have been made against the evidence in support of this punishment which has made it equivocal and uncertain for a lot of Muslims.

Excellent post. I should add that, I am close to several, well educated Muslims who have told me that if there is a contradiction with Qur'an and the hadith, the word of the Qur'an shall override the word of the hadith. In other words, the Qur'an is of a greater authority (And, it's not like Christians and the Bible, Muslims acknowledge that hadith can be contradictory or even outright false).

[Saudi Salafi]

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether the majority of Muslims believe in the death penalty or not. This is appeal to authority or the bandwagon fallacy.

The relevant thing is whether the original sources of Islam, the Qur'an and Hadith can be used to prove the punishment. The Qur'an doesn't talk about it and even appear to be contradicting the punishment. Hadith literature, on the other hand, is from where the entire evidence for such a punishment comes from. It should be mentioned here, that while Qur'anic interpretation has comparatively less difference of opinion, Hadiths have a lot more debate on their interpretations.

One likely reason earlier Muslim generations did not question the law as much as today's generation does, is because of the difference in their environment. In those times the other major religion Christianity enforced the punishment so Muslims are likely to not have much misgiving about it. An indication of this is seen when past Muslims and even present-day Muslims still use the presence of this punishment in the Bible as evidence of this being a divine law for Islam too. For critical Muslims, such evidence is hugely problematic.

In any case, many arguments have been made against the evidence in support of this punishment which has made it equivocal and uncertain for a lot of Muslims.

 So you are stating that the majority of scholars are wrong? Here is the evidence for the killing of the apostates:

Ibn 'Abbas said:
"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"
أَخْبَرَنَا عِمْرَانُ بْنُ مُوسَى، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَيُّوبُ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏
Grade   : Sahih (Darussalam)   
Reference    : Sunan an-Nasa'i 4059
In-book reference    : Book 37, Hadith 94


Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:
AbuMusa said: Mu'adh came to me when I was in the Yemen. A man who was Jew embraced Islam and then retreated from Islam. When Mu'adh came, he said: I will not come down from my mount until he is killed. He was then killed.

Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

Reference: Sunan Abi Dawud 4355
In-book reference    : Book 40, Hadith 5

Abdullah bin abi Sarh Repented so he wasn't killed. With all due respect, you should stop trying to change our religion to make it fit modern customs. The apostate is killed and that is what our religion tells us. And their is a huge wiseness in this action. This was preformed by the Prophet (PBUH), his companions, and the ta'be'een.

[AhmadFarooq]

But did Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh convert back to Islam?

[Mohamed Saif]

But the Quran directly said that who ever changes his religion to leave him alone. There is no punishment prescribed in the Quran.

[Saudi Salafi]

But did Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh convert back to Islam?

 Yes, he did. https://islamqa.info/en/168773

But the Quran directly said that who ever changes his religion to leave him alone. There is no punishment prescribed in the Quran.

 The Quran never said to leave them alone. Where did you get this from? The verses that you brought have nothing to do with the issue. They have to do with the kuffar. The punishment for adultery isn't found in the Quran. So does that mean that we shouldn't punish the adulterer? I remember Umar ibn Al-Khattab  (may Allah be pleased with him) said that he was afraid that people will stop the punishment of stoning because it is not found in the Quran. He also said that in the end of the times there will be people who will claim to follow the Quran but reject the Sunnah. And you are an example of that  (no offense). Thanks for strengthening my faith brother.

"That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand." 63:3


https://islamqa.info/en/20327

This is the religion of Allah. Stop trying to change it.

[Mohamed Saif]

Dear brother
Thank you for your response. And as for your response saying that I'm trying to change God's religion. I wasn't trying to change it. It was only a doubt which I had.
Thank you

[AhmadFarooq]

The narration and your link appear to say that Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh was first granted protection on the request of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan and then later he came back to Islam.

This is the likely case because otherwise, it would mean that an apostate requires the permission of Prophet Muhammad (or the leader of the Ummah) to come back to Islam, which goes against core Islamic doctrine. How could the Prophet refuse to accept "his allegiance"? If by "allegiance" means "coming to Islam" how could it be refused? Why was it refused twice?

Additionally, we have that case when in the heat of battle a disbeliever came under the power of a Muslim, the disbeliever converted to Islam, but the Muslim still killed him thinking it was just a ploy to save his life. The Prophet rejected this killing and probably because of this event we have the ruling that even if a disbeliever converts to Islam just to save his life, it creates the possibility for his forgiveness.

So how could that same Prophet be so hesitant to accept ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh "allegiance"? And even after accepting, "Then turning to his companions, he said: Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?"? Would the Prophet have such feelings for a Muslim?

Furthermore, the main issue I raised was: "... what is the evidence from Qur'an or Hadith which mention that a person who was born in a Muslim family and did not convert to Islam, [even] when such a person adopts a religion different to Islam he should also be killed."?

You have to show unequivocally that the capital punishment is a part of God's timeless divine law and not among the ones which were dependent on a particular time or ruler.

[Awesome31310]

Dear brother
Thank you for your response. And as for your response saying that I'm trying to change God's religion. I wasn't trying to change it. It was only a doubt which I had.
Thank you

It's a tactic most religious people use when they're nervous and grounded in an online debate. "You're blaspheming the Lord!"

[iknowi]

But did Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh convert back to Islam?

 Yes, he did. https://islamqa.info/en/168773

But the Quran directly said that who ever changes his religion to leave him alone. There is no punishment prescribed in the Quran.

 The Quran never said to leave them alone. Where did you get this from? The verses that you brought have nothing to do with the issue. They have to do with the kuffar. The punishment for adultery isn't found in the Quran. So does that mean that we shouldn't punish the adulterer? I remember Umar ibn Al-Khattab  (may Allah be pleased with him) said that he was afraid that people will stop the punishment of stoning because it is not found in the Quran. He also said that in the end of the times there will be people who will claim to follow the Quran but reject the Sunnah. And you are an example of that  (no offense). Thanks for strengthening my faith brother.

"That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand." 63:3


https://islamqa.info/en/20327

This is the religion of Allah. Stop trying to change it.

Asalamu alaykum,

We reject hadith when it contradicts the quran. The quran promotes freedom of religion.

And about adultery... it doesnt matter if Umar said that he was afraid that people would adandon the stoning of the adulterer, this is one dimentional thinking. Remember, Umar is a fallible human being who can make mistakes, and even if it was true that he said that, we cannot verify it for certainty because the hadith are the sayings of the sayings of the sayings of what the sahaba said.

And please do not be passive aggresive, "thank you for increasing my faith in islam"... it is one of the worse feminine personality traits.

May Allah protect you from polytheism, one of the greatest sins, the raising of the sayings of men as divine revelation i.e. granting common men godhood:

"Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers." [6:114]

[AhmadFarooq]

Although, there have been made some criticisms on them, I personally do not absolutely deny the Hadiths. The issue I have is with their interpretation, like why is it supposed to be a part of the everlasting Shariah, or applied unconditionally on everyone, and above all the derivation of the ruling that: a person who didn't convert to Islam but was born in a Muslim family, when such a person adopts a religion other than Islam he should also be killed.

[iknowi]

Although, there have been made some criticisms on them, I personally do not absolutely deny the Hadiths. The issue I have is with their interpretation, like why is it supposed to be a part of the everlasting Shariah, or applied unconditionally on everyone, and above all the derivation of the ruling that: a person who didn't convert to Islam but was born in a Muslim family, when such a person adopts a religion other than Islam he should also be killed.

Asalamu alaykum,

Im assuming this is directed at me? Or in general.

Anyway, i do not reject all the hadith, but i certainly reject the hadith that stipulate laws that are not inside Allahs speech (the quran), this is what every follower of Allah's religion should do.

In the hadith (in accordance with al-Quran) there are many spiritual benefits for Muslims, this can only be a good thing.

[Awesome31310]

it doesnt matter if Umar said that he was afraid that people would adandon the stoning of the adulterer, this is one dimentional thinking. Remember, Umar is a fallible human being who can make mistakes, and even if it was true that he said that, we cannot verify it for certainty because the hadith are the sayings of the sayings of the sayings of what the sahaba said.

Wisdom.

Anyway, i do not reject all the hadith, but i certainly reject the hadith that stipulate laws that are not inside Allahs speech (the quran), this is what every follower of Allah's religion should do.

That's called cherry picking.

[submit]

One should bear in mind apostasy in hadiths are referring to period of time where a believer turns into disbelievers due to hardship that a believer needs to undergo during that time.

As a believer during the period where they need to purify Arabia, they need to undergo warfare. This is one of the reason that will cause those who had believe to turn into disbelief even after witnessing signs/miracles from Creator.
Other hardship reasons that may cause apostasy; abandoning wealth becomes poor, abandon family etc.

Nothing to do about born in Muslim family and later apostate due to foreign lifestyle. It is up to the ruler to whether apply killing punishment as Quran also do not abrogate the Israelite Law of punishing an apostate in end of days.

[AhmadFarooq]

Not exactly cherry picking. The Hadith also includes laws that conform to modern morality too. If I remember correctly, for example, non-Muslim women, children, old men and physiologically impaired persons are exempt from paying the Jizya. If a Muslim rejects all the laws which he doesn't like and accepts the ones he does, without any common objective criteria to judge among the two, then that Muslim is likely committing the cherry picking fallacy.

That "common objective criteria" for Muslims having non-conservative interpretations happen to be usually either historical criticism of the Hadiths involved or the lack of evidence for the idea that a particular law defined in some particular Hadiths has the status of being a part of God's everlasting divine law and not some temporary law, according to the needs of the age. In the latter case, it is upon the Muslim generations to decide whether they want to continue with that law or not. Discontinuing with such laws would not incur sin on the Muslims.

[QuranSearchCom]

Osama Abdullah is unfortunately trying to liberalize Islam, and it is not working out well for him. The general consensus established amongst the Muslim communities of the world is that apostates should be put to death, by stoning. Iran follows this, so does Saudi Arabia.

I am not trying to liberalize Islam.  I am very conservative myself.  I am only going by what Islam says.  Anyway, the brothers have done beautiful jobs explaining the point well.  May Allah Almighty bless them.  Ameen.  No need for me to be redundant here.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[TruthExposer777]

Meaning of Osama Abdallah = Lion Slave/Servant of Allah

[Awesome31310]

Meaning of Osama Abdallah = Lion Slave/Servant of Allah

Now you know why they built the sphinx

[TruthExposer777]

Meaning of Osama Abdallah = Lion Slave/Servant of Allah

Now you know why they built the sphinx

LoL

[Saudi Salafi]

 Assalamu alaikum,

@iKnowi
 I see no contradicton between the hadith and the Quran. The verses that you mentioned only applies to the people who have a treaty with the Muslims (either by paying the Jizyah or by having a peace treaty with the Muslims) and the apostate CANNOT be a Mu'ahid. I honestly didn't expect you people to go as far as to say that the adulterer shouldn't be stoned! The prophecy is being fulfilled! The prophet (PBUH) stoned the adulterer and ALL scholars agree on that. The hadiths are from Umar (RA) and they are authentic. There is no doubt on that. Are you gonna reject what the second best man (after the prophets peace be upon them) on Earth said because of your personal emotions? The adulterer gets stoned in most religions. STOP trying to change our faith because of your emotions! What Umar (RA) said matters a LOT. So according to you, almost ALL the scholars are wrong and YOU are right!? What is so feminine about what I did? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry if I sound offensive, but I am afraid that what is happening to the Christians will happen to us. We will try to reform our religion and change because of our modern values and then we will be split into many sects. This is the religion of Allah, it is NOT a toy.

Dear brother
Thank you for your response. And as for your response saying that I'm trying to change God's religion. I wasn't trying to change it. It was only a doubt which I had.
Thank you

It's a tactic most religious people use when they're nervous and grounded in an online debate. "You're blaspheming the Lord!"

@Awesome31310

 Yup. And when the Christians stopped doing that look at what happened. Adultery is ok and permissible, a man having sex with an other man is OK, Gays get baptized and married in churches, drinking and getting drunk is now something that most Christians do even though Paul forbid it,  and way more! And the funny thing is, Christianity is a LAWLESS religion! Also, how am I nervous in a debate?


@Ahmad Farooq

" the main issue I raised was: "... what is the evidence from Qur'an or Hadith which mention that a person who was born in a Muslim family and did not convert to Islam, [even] when such a person adopts a religion different to Islam he should also be killed."?"

This hadith:

Abu al-Nu‘man Muhammad ibn al-Fadl related to us: Hammad ibn Zayd related to us from Ayyub from ‘‘Ikrimah who said: “Some Zanadiqah were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. This reached Ibn ‘Abbas and he said: I would not have burnt them because of the prohibition by the Messenger of God: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of God.’ I would have killed them in accordance with the word of the Messenger of God: ‘Whoever changed his religion kill him’.” (Bukhari 9/57=6411)

So this hadith tells us to kill apostates.

[AhmadFarooq]

Critics do give some arguments against the reliability of Ikrimah and this narration (like how Ali was unaware of a Prophet's command and Ikrimah was), but in any case, as far as this narration (and the one similar to it in Jami` at-Tirmidhi) is concerned, there is no indication that these people were born in Muslim families and had not converted to Islam.

[Awesome31310]

Yup. And when the Christians stopped doing that look at what happened. Adultery is ok and permissible, a man having sex with an other man is OK, Gays get baptized and married in churches, drinking and getting drunk is now something that most Christians do even though Paul forbid it,  and way more! And the funny thing is, Christianity is a LAWLESS religion! Also, how am I nervous in a debate?

Slippery slope fallacy.

[iknowi]

Assalamu alaikum,

@iKnowi
 I see no contradicton between the hadith and the Quran. The verses that you mentioned only applies to the people who have a treaty with the Muslims (either by paying the Jizyah or by having a peace treaty with the Muslims) and the apostate CANNOT be a Mu'ahid. I honestly didn't expect you people to go as far as to say that the adulterer shouldn't be stoned! The prophecy is being fulfilled! The prophet (PBUH) stoned the adulterer and ALL scholars agree on that. The hadiths are from Umar (RA) and they are authentic. There is no doubt on that. Are you gonna reject what the second best man (after the prophets peace be upon them) on Earth said because of your personal emotions? The adulterer gets stoned in most religions. STOP trying to change our faith because of your emotions! What Umar (RA) said matters a LOT. So according to you, almost ALL the scholars are wrong and YOU are right!? What is so feminine about what I did? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry if I sound offensive, but I am afraid that what is happening to the Christians will happen to us. We will try to reform our religion and change because of our modern values and then we will be split into many sects. This is the religion of Allah, it is NOT a toy.

Asalamu alaykum,

Please read the following article: http://islamic-myths.com/2008/01/23/stoning-to-dead-is-against-islam/

The quran is very detailed, this can be seen by hijab rulings, inheretence percentages etc. If Allah wanted the stoning of the adulterer he would mention it in his book, surely. It is such a severe punishment and determines ones qadr... how do you know that this adulterer might not grow up to be an ardent defender/scholar of islam?

And i also encourage you to adopt a more solipsist mindset: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_solipsism

And you said "thank you for strenghening my faith in islam", this is textbook passive aggresiveness and i consider it one of the worse personality traits. Sorry if you didnt mean it that way but i dont know how else to interpret that line other than passive aggresiveness.

Finally, modern day scholarship trumps older scholarship, we are in a new computer age, we have connectedness that we never had before, it is a truly unique point in human history. Now we can commincate with eachother more easily and help eachother in deciphering this perfectly preserved text, examples include the reinterpretation of the wife beating verse 4:34 of which the translators have actually CHANGED their translation in light of modern day scholarship... And MANY others (most of which are scientific).

And if you say that Mohammed pbuh said that no one understood the Quran after me better than my sahaba (Umar, Uthman etc), what he really meant was at that specific time period, not now; did the sahaba have access to the number 19 miracle? Nope. Did they understand the verses on evolution? Nope. And so on.

May Allahs peace and blessing be on you, i do not want to attack you, only inform you. I want to end here because ive had these sorts of discussions before but they end up going nowhere, people will believe what they want to believe (most of the time, anyway).

Salaams.

[AhmadFarooq]

Not to criticize anyone, but just to state some facts and what the scholarly difference of opinion is on the matter.
[/size][/color]R[/font][/size][/color]egarding the matter of stoning, as far as my Islamic knowledge goes, [/font][/color][/size]the article that was linked [/color][/size]has a lot of incorrect and inaccurate material included[/size][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]In the second Caliph Hadith the author is probably talking about, if I am not very much mistaken, Caliph Umar never said that the verses were "lost". Caliph Umar said those verses, although revealed, were removed from the Qur'anic text on the command of Prophet Muhammad and therefore no longer part of the Qur'an. Most scholars accept this narration while those scholars who reject abrogation of this kind might criticize the authenticity of the narration, but even they do not reject the idea that stoning was one form of punishment during the Prophet's time[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]T[/font][/size][/color]here is also the problem with the Qur'an being compiled during the reign of the third Caliph, while there are narrations that indicate the author's viewpoint, there are other narrations which provide evidence that the Qur'an was already compiled in a book form during the first Caliph's reign[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]side from the Sahih Bukhari narration cited, as far as I know there are [/font][/size][/color]many[/size][/font][/size][/color] other narrations talking about the punishment of stoning[/font][/size][/color]. [/font][/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]lso, on the matter of the Hadiths books being compiled 200 years later, this is highly misleading. It is true that by 250-300 years our most reliable Hadith books [/font][/size][/color]Sahih Bukhari[/size][/font][/size][/color] and [/font][/size][/color]Sahih Muslim[/size][/font][/size][/color] get compiled but there were many other books and authors [/font][/size][/color]before[/size][/font][/size][/color] these works. From what I have read, we even have extant manuscripts of Hadith books dating about 70-90 after the Prophet's death.[/font]
[/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]s a person somewhat versed with the ideas of Javed Ahmad Ghamindi, I was surprised to read his name used in the article. Ghamidi is a strong believer in the Qur'an being [/font][/size][/color]Al-Furqan[/size][/font][/size][/color] (the measure or the criterion) and [/font][/size][/color]does[/size][/font][/size][/color] happen to base his judgment on other Islamic issues, laws and Hadiths by putting first what the Qur'an says on the matter. Because of this, even though, he argues against the stoning punishment being the one and only punishment for adulterers, as far as I know, he still maintains that under special circumstances it [/font][/size][/color]can[/size][/font][/size][/color] be given. He does not reject that this punishment was given by the Prophet.[/font]
[/size][/color]Ghamidi  basically argues that stoning was according to the [/font][/size][/color]Surah Maidah[/size][/font][/size][/color] punishments for the person creating corruption in the land. One of the four punishments mentioned there is a torturous death, which in 7th century Arabia was stoning. Therefore, the people who were stoned were either rapists or people who were habitual in such crimes. In any case, according to Ghamidi, stoning [/font][/size][/color]did[/size][/font][/size][/color] happen. Under normal circumstances however, the punishment for adultery according to Ghamidi's arguments is in line to what the author is basically saying, [/font][/size][/color]w[/font][/size][/color]hich is to put in simple terms, that the Qur'anic punishments are not abrogated by Hadiths[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]Additionally, regarding 4:34, although if Hadith literature is not taken into account, it [/font][/size][/color]is very much possible to come to the "modern" interpretation, however, the[/font][/size][/color] conservative interpretation appears to be closer to the original meaning. Even Ghamidi, whose interpretations are very non-conservative in the cases of adultery punishment and even [/font][/size][/color]Hijab[/size][/font][/size][/color], maintains the conservative opinion in the case of 4:34.[/font]

[iknowi]

Jzk for the clarification.

[Saudi Salafi]

Assalamu alaikum,

@iKnowi
 I see no contradicton between the hadith and the Quran. The verses that you mentioned only applies to the people who have a treaty with the Muslims (either by paying the Jizyah or by having a peace treaty with the Muslims) and the apostate CANNOT be a Mu'ahid. I honestly didn't expect you people to go as far as to say that the adulterer shouldn't be stoned! The prophecy is being fulfilled! The prophet (PBUH) stoned the adulterer and ALL scholars agree on that. The hadiths are from Umar (RA) and they are authentic. There is no doubt on that. Are you gonna reject what the second best man (after the prophets peace be upon them) on Earth said because of your personal emotions? The adulterer gets stoned in most religions. STOP trying to change our faith because of your emotions! What Umar (RA) said matters a LOT. So according to you, almost ALL the scholars are wrong and YOU are right!? What is so feminine about what I did? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry if I sound offensive, but I am afraid that what is happening to the Christians will happen to us. We will try to reform our religion and change because of our modern values and then we will be split into many sects. This is the religion of Allah, it is NOT a toy.

Asalamu alaykum,

Please read the following article: http://islamic-myths.com/2008/01/23/stoning-to-dead-is-against-islam/

The quran is very detailed, this can be seen by hijab rulings, inheretence percentages etc. If Allah wanted the stoning of the adulterer he would mention it in his book, surely. It is such a severe punishment and determines ones qadr... how do you know that this adulterer might not grow up to be an ardent defender/scholar of islam?

And i also encourage you to adopt a more solipsist mindset: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_solipsism

And you said "thank you for strenghening my faith in islam", this is textbook passive aggresiveness and i consider it one of the worse personality traits. Sorry if you didnt mean it that way but i dont know how else to interpret that line other than passive aggresiveness.

Finally, modern day scholarship trumps older scholarship, we are in a new computer age, we have connectedness that we never had before, it is a truly unique point in human history. Now we can commincate with eachother more easily and help eachother in deciphering this perfectly preserved text, examples include the reinterpretation of the wife beating verse 4:34 of which the translators have actually CHANGED their translation in light of modern day scholarship... And MANY others (most of which are scientific).

And if you say that Mohammed pbuh said that no one understood the Quran after me better than my sahaba (Umar, Uthman etc), what he really meant was at that specific time period, not now; did the sahaba have access to the number 19 miracle? Nope. Did they understand the verses on evolution? Nope. And so on.

May Allahs peace and blessing be on you, i do not want to attack you, only inform you. I want to end here because ive had these sorts of discussions before but they end up going nowhere, people will believe what they want to believe (most of the time, anyway).

Salaams.

 This is just pathetic with all honesty. I can no longer converse with someone who wants to change the religion of Allah because of his feelings or his modern standards. You sum your whole entire reply perfectly at the end:

"people will believe what they want to believe (most of the time, anyway)."

Let us deal with your points quickly:

 Stoning:
 
You post a link from a non-professional source claiming that stoning isn't a punishment in Islam, but he fails to address the point that ALL, yes ALL of the scholars agree on stoning as a punishment even Ibn Abass who is considered to be a companion of the prophet and the greatest scholar of all time. He was called "the sea" due to his vast knowledge. He never heard a single hadith without understanding it from the first time. The prophet prayed for him when he was young to become knowledgeable. Stoning was a punishment preformed by the prophet and his successors. Just because you post a link which makes a point, that doesn't make the point correct. To further prove that you are a person that is trying to change (or "reform") the religion and have a weak faith and knowledge, you use an argument created by the deviant sects of the "Quranists". "If it is necessary, then why didn't the Quran mention it?":

These points have been addressed over here:

https://islamqa.info/en/9067

"Every Muslim has to believe in all the hadeeths of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) – if they are saheeh (authentic) – and not reject any of them, because his hadeeths and his Sunnah (teachings) are revelation (wahy) from Allah. Whoever rejects the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has rejected revelation from Allah. "

"The one who rejects the Sunnah is a kafir and an apostate. " (I'm not declaring you as an apostate BTW)

"Those who want to restrict themselves to the Quran only are called al-Quraniyyoon. This view of theirs is an old view which the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned against in more than one hadeeth, as we shall see below. Among the soundest evidence that this view is false is the fact that those who say this do not really follow what they say.

How do these people pray? How many times do they pray each day and night? What are the conditions and details of zakah? What is the nisab (threshold of wealth) for paying zakah? What is the amount that must be paid? How do they do Hajj and ‘Umrah? How many times do they circumambulate the Ka’bah? How many times do they go back and forth between al-Safa and al-Marwah?

There are many other issues for which the details are not narrated in the Quran, rather they are mentioned in the Quran in general terms, and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explained them in detail in his Sunnah.

Would these people refrain from acting upon these rulings because they are not narrated in the Quran?

If their answer is yes, then they have passed judgement against themselves that they are kafirs, because they have denied a basic principle of Islam that no Muslim has any excuse for not knowing and on which there is unanimous consensus among the Muslims. 

If they reply that they do not refrain from following these rulings, then they have demonstrated that their view is false."


Read the whole thing for full details.

The adulterer is only stoned and killed when he is married. He is lashed when he isn't though.

"And you said "thank you for strenghening my faith in islam", this is textbook passive aggresiveness and i consider it one of the worse personality traits. Sorry if you didnt mean it that way but i dont know how else to interpret that line other than passive aggresiveness."

 First you call it "feminine" for no reason and you now call it "aggressive". Out of ALL of the aggressive things in my posts you chose  this one lol. There is nothing bad with what I said. This can't get any worse, can it? Yes,sadly, it can. As we will see soon.

 Now here comes the WORST part:

"Finally, modern day scholarship trumps older scholarship, we are in a new computer age, we have connectedness that we never had before, it is a truly unique point in human history. Now we can commincate with eachother more easily and help eachother in deciphering this perfectly preserved text, examples include the reinterpretation of the wife beating verse 4:34 of which the translators have actually CHANGED their translation in light of modern day scholarship... And MANY others (most of which are scientific)."

 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!! No, older scholars are almost always better. Even our modern scholars admit that. You don't realize the fitnah which is happening today. The prophet said that Allah will not remove knowledge from brains, instead he will remove the good scholars and the people will go to the bad scholars. This is what is happening today. The prophet said that the last of this ummah are the worst ones in faith. That means that the ones before us are akmost always better than us in faith. The older scholars were more knowledgeable and had more religous resources. As for verse 4:34, no the interpretations are all the same except for Osama Abdallah's. All translations say beat them lightly. 

"And if you say that Mohammed pbuh said that no one understood the Quran after me better than my sahaba (Umar, Uthman etc), what he really meant was at that specific time period, not now; did the sahaba have access to the number 19 miracle? Nope. Did they understand the verses on evolution? Nope. And so on."

No, he meant forever. Stop trying to change the meanings of the hadith. The sahabas knew the prophet (peace be upon him) way more. As for the 19 miracle, I don't believe in this lie. It was made up by a false prophet named Rashad Khalifa who claimed to be a prophet from Allah. If you are gonna let a number decide your faith, the  you are ridiculous. As for the verses about creation, they do not contradict with the understanding of the prophet or the sahabas to the Quran. We are talking about this from a theological view point not a scientific one.


@AhmadFarooq

 Brother, I cannot read our post. It looks like this:

"Not to criticize anyone, but just to state some facts and what the scholarly difference of opinion is on the matter.
[/size][/color]R[/font][/size][/color]egarding the matter of stoning, as far as my Islamic knowledge goes, [/font][/color][/size]the article that was linked [/color][/size]has a lot of incorrect and inaccurate material included[/size][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]In the second Caliph Hadith the author is probably talking about, if I am not very much mistaken, Caliph Umar never said that the verses were "lost". Caliph Umar said those verses, although revealed, were removed from the Qur'anic text on the command of Prophet Muhammad and therefore no longer part of the Qur'an. Most scholars accept this narration while those scholars who reject abrogation of this kind might criticize the authenticity of the narration, but even they do not reject the idea that stoning was one form of punishment during the Prophet's time[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]T[/font][/size][/color]here is also the problem with the Qur'an being compiled during the reign of the third Caliph, while there are narrations that indicate the author's viewpoint, there are other narrations which provide evidence that the Qur'an was already compiled in a book form during the first Caliph's reign[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]side from the Sahih Bukhari narration cited, as far as I know there are [/font][/size][/color]many[/size][/font][/size][/color] other narrations talking about the punishment of stoning[/font][/size][/color]. [/font][/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]lso, on the matter of the Hadiths books being compiled 200 years later, this is highly misleading. It is true that by 250-300 years our most reliable Hadith books [/font][/size][/color]Sahih Bukhari[/size][/font][/size][/color] and [/font][/size][/color]Sahih Muslim[/size][/font][/size][/color] get compiled but there were many other books and authors [/font][/size][/color]before[/size][/font][/size][/color] these works. From what I have read, we even have extant manuscripts of Hadith books dating about 70-90 after the Prophet's death.[/font]
[/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]s a person somewhat versed with the ideas of Javed Ahmad Ghamindi, I was surprised to read his name used in the article. Ghamidi is a strong believer in the Qur'an being [/font][/size][/color]Al-Furqan[/size][/font][/size][/color] (the measure or the criterion) and [/font][/size][/color]does[/size][/font][/size][/color] happen to base his judgment on other Islamic issues, laws and Hadiths by putting first what the Qur'an says on the matter. Because of this, even though, he argues against the stoning punishment being the one and only punishment for adulterers, as far as I know, he still maintains that under special circumstances it [/font][/size][/color]can[/size][/font][/size][/color] be given. He does not reject that this punishment was given by the Prophet.[/font]
[/size][/color]Ghamidi  basically argues that stoning was according to the [/font][/size][/color]Surah Maidah[/size][/font][/size][/color] punishments for the person creating corruption in the land. One of the four punishments mentioned there is a torturous death, which in 7th century Arabia was stoning. Therefore, the people who were stoned were either rapists or people who were habitual in such crimes. In any case, according to Ghamidi, stoning [/font][/size][/color]did[/size][/font][/size][/color] happen. Under normal circumstances however, the punishment for adultery according to Ghamidi's arguments is in line to what the author is basically saying, [/font][/size][/color]w[/font][/size][/color]hich is to put in simple terms, that the Qur'anic punishments are not abrogated by Hadiths[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]Additionally, regarding 4:34, although if Hadith literature is not taken into account, it [/font][/size][/color]is very much possible to come to the "modern" interpretation, however, the[/font][/size][/color] conservative interpretation appears to be closer to the original meaning. Even Ghamidi, whose interpretations are very non-conservative in the cases of adultery punishment and even [/font][/size][/color]Hijab[/size][/font][/size][/color], maintains the conservative opinion in the case of 4:34.[/font]"

 I think that you were talking about that hadith from Umar. So you should read this:

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2009/08/myth-of-qurans-lost-verse-about-stoning.html




I'm sorry for the harsh language, but I cannot let a person change my religion. Especially in a time of fitnah.
 

[AhmadFarooq]

 My previous comment:

Not to criticize anyone, but just to state some facts and what the scholarly difference of opinion is on the matter.
Regarding the matter of stoning, as far as my Islamic knowledge goes, the article that was linked has a lot of incorrect and inaccurate material included.
 
In the second Caliph Hadith the author is probably talking about, if I am not very much mistaken, Caliph Umar never said that the verses were "lost". Caliph Umar said those verses, although revealed, were removed from the Qur'anic text on the command of Prophet Muhammad and therefore no longer part of the Qur'an. Most scholars accept this narration while those scholars who reject abrogation of this kind might criticize the authenticity of the narration, but even they do not reject the idea that stoning was one form of punishment during the Prophet's time.
 
There is also the problem with the Qur'an being compiled during the reign of the third Caliph, while there are narrations that indicate the author's viewpoint, there are other narrations which provide evidence that the Qur'an was already compiled in a book form during the first Caliph's reign.
 
Aside from the Sahih Bukhari narration cited, as far as I know there are many other narrations talking about the punishment of stoning. Also, on the matter of the Hadiths books being compiled 200 years later, this is highly misleading. It is true that by 250-300 years our most reliable Hadith books Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim get compiled but there were many other books and authors before these works. From what I have read, we even have extant manuscripts of Hadith books dating about 70-90 after the Prophet's death.
 
As a person somewhat versed with the ideas of Javed Ahmad Ghamindi, I was surprised to read his name used in the article. Ghamidi is a strong believer in the Qur'an being Al-Furqan (the measure or the criterion) and does happen to base his judgment on other Islamic issues, laws and Hadiths by putting first what the Qur'an says on the matter. Because of this, even though, he argues against the stoning punishment being the one and only punishment for adulterers, as far as I know, he still maintains that under special circumstances it can be given. He does not reject that this punishment was given by the Prophet.
 
Ghamidi basically argues that stoning was according to the Surah Maidah punishments for the person creating corruption in the land. One of the four punishments mentioned there is a torturous death, which in 7th century Arabia was stoning. Therefore, the people who were stoned were either rapists or people who were habitual in such crimes. In any case, according to Ghamidi, stoning did happen. Under normal circumstances however, the punishment for adultery according to Ghamidi's arguments is in line to what the author is basically saying, which is to put in simple terms, that the Qur'anic punishments are not abrogated by Hadiths.
 
Additionally, regarding 4:34, although if Hadith literature is not taken into account, it is very much possible to come to the "modern" interpretation, however, the conservative interpretation appears to be closer to the original meaning. Even Ghamidi, whose interpretations are very non-conservative in the cases of adultery punishment and even Hijab, maintains the conservative opinion in the case of 4:34."
 

- "... whoever denies that the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), whether it describes his words or deeds, so long as it meets the conditions outlined by the scholars, may be quoted as evidence, is a kafir and has gone beyond the pale of Islam..."


So basically, the criteria created by fallible humans (i.e. scholars) for judging the authenticity of a narration is going to be used as a litmus test for a person's faith? And "conditions outlined by" which group of scholars are to be used to define a person as Kafir? Scholars since the beginning have differed over what should be these "conditions". Imam Bukhari had a somewhat different set and Imam Muslim had different. The Hanbalis and the Wahabbis, I suppose should use Imam Abdul Wahab's conditions, while the Hanafis and the Malikis should use Imam Abu Hanifa's and Imam Malik's. So basically, every group should start calling the other group Kafir. And what about the narrations which were deemed Sahih in the beginning but later faults were found in them, did people who criticised them in the beginning became Kafir and later automatically became Muslim, without changing their opinions? If anyone died in this "Kafir" state will he or she "be gathered with the Jews and the Christians or whomever Allah wills among the kafir sects"?


What about Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik who on at-least one occasion, regarding a matter related to Salat, gave more importance to the actual practice of the people then to a Hadith, and that too a Muttawatar Hadith? And from what I have read, Caliph Omar on the matter of blood money for non-Muslims and Hudood punishment for thieves apparently did things differently to how the Prophet did.


I believe, using Hadiths explaining religious rituals (like prayers, Hajj rituals, Zakat etc.) to defend, and dare I say promote blind faith on, all Hadiths is incredibly fallacious. These Hadiths reach us through Muttawatar traditions, similar to how the Qur'an reaches us while other narrations (like those of stoning and apostasy) are Khabr-e-Ahad. The two can never be comparable to each other in terms of reliability.


- "The Book and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) do not contradict one another at all..."


The Prophet probably did not contradict himself, but the Hadith traditions that reach us actually do exactly that. There are Hadiths which directly and plainly contradict each other. See sunnah.com/urn/1268810 and sunnah.com/abudawud/40/115.


While it is obligatory to follow the Sunnah, it isn't very clear exactly what Sunnah implies. Some scholars take Sunnah as all the Hadiths that reach us, while other scholars believe Sunnah to mean only those Hadiths which reach us through Muttawatar traditions. They argue that because it was the responsibility of Prophet Muhammad to teach as many people as he could about what is sinful and what is allowed, he would have taught such matters to large groups of people. The teachings about religion that were addressed to gatherings and large groups of people are the ones which make up the Muttawatar traditions. While the Khabr-e-Ahad traditions in which the Prophet advised or discouraged only a few people, are not supposed to be religious commandments and not part of the Sunnah. They argue that it is unthinkable that the Prophet would teach such important matters, which are supposed to be part of the everlasting final religion, to just a few people instead of addressing large gatherings.


On the matter of stoning, an additional point that I should point out is that, even though it might look like there has always been a consensus on the matter, from what I have read, this wasn't the case. Some particular scholars held that the adulterer should be both given lashes and then stoned to death.


- "The prophet said that the last of this ummah are the worst ones in faith. That means that the ones before us are akmost always better than us in faith. The older scholars were more knowledgeable and had more religous resources."


Where exactly did the Prophet say this? The one I have read says: “The best of my ummah are the first and the last, and between them there will be some crookedness. Would that I could see my brethren.” (https://islamqa.info/en/3374)
I personally haven't seen any narration that talks about a decreasing trend in faith of the Ummah. Also, while the first 3-5 or maybe up-to 10 generations their religious resources might have been more than the present day scholars but after the end of these generations, the religious resources have been constant if not increasing.


Regarding the "19 miracle", although I am more careful in calling it a miracle, there is so much more to it than what Rashad Khalifa did.

[iknowi]

Asalamu alaykum,

You mention that all scholars agree that stoning is applied to the adulterer, Shabir Ally (arguably the most famous and best Muslim debator alive today) disagrees: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x41Oz3PpeRs

So clearly that isnt true.

And about modern scholars being greater than classical scholars, sorry but i didnt convey what i meant properly. What i meant was that we can utilize the classical scholars criticisms AND we are in the computer age, so everyone can he better equiped and build a more reliable picture of Islam, both academics and laymen, by using ALL available tools (including classical scholars remarks).

And i am not emotional/liberal over the issue, if the Quran stated capital punishment (rajm) as punishment for adultery then so be it, but it doesn't. And i completely agree that we are in the prime age of fitna, but 100 lashings is enough of a deterrent for adultery.

I remember attending a lecture, dont know if its on youtube, about scholars being given too much authority. I agree.

I was raised sunni but im not emotionally attached to the sunnah like you are; this life is merely a passing phase and i do not want shirk to be on my record.

Salaams.

[AhmadFarooq]

A follow-up to the comment on www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2270.msg10134.html#msg10134:

The minority scholars who held difference of opinion on the matter of apostasy punishment are referenced at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Other_views_on_punishment

Some of the scholars mentioned in the article (like Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i (d. 95), a teacher of Imam Abu Hanifah and hadith expert Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161)) I know, from other sources, to have definitely held the minority opinion, while others like (Ibn Taymiyyah) are surely to be incorrectly represented here.

Once again the opinion majority of scholars have had, is not the litmus test for what Islam actually is. One example of the complicated nature of fiqh is the case of allowing women to attend congregational prayers, where majority of scholars have prohibited this even in the presence of clearly and directly opposing sayings of the Prophet (Sahih al-Bukhari 900, Sahih Muslim 442 (a-h), Sunan Abi Dawud 565, Sunan Abi Dawud 566, Sunan Abi Dawud 567, Sunan Ibn Majah Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 16). Not suggesting the scholars didn't have justified reasons for the prohibitions (whatever they may have been), just a comment on the complexities of the issues of fiqh.

- "... also said that their is no evidence that the one who was born a Muslim and leaves Islam shold the be killed however that is wrong since the hadiths regarding apostasy are general to everyone who leaves Islam."

Yes, there isn't much evidence to deny that the superficial meaning of the hadith is talking about everyone who leaves Islam, but the question is why a person, for example, who lived in a non-Muslim environment all his life, whose parents never really taught him Islam, never really got interested in the religion, never spent time learning about it etc. why is such a person regarded as a Muslim? This individual is liable for the capital punishment only because his parents were Muslim and that too by name only. Why is the default state Muslim? Contrast this with the case of a non-Muslim born in a Muslim country, learned deeply about Islam, have in-depth insight to Islamic theology and its evidences etc. and still rejects Islam, but this person is not liable for the death penalty. Where is the logic in this?

Additionally, using the same absolutist general understanding of the hadith, it can similarly be argued that - since Islamic doctrine holds that literally all human beings, when they are born are "Muslim", and the environment is what takes them away from Islam - all non-Muslim adults are, basically, apostates to Islam.

Also, a main point of my argument was the extremely odd case of Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn AbuSarh, as mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawud 4359 (that is if the narration is indeed reliable in the first place).

[RoyalMuslim]

this is difficult to explain

I follow the ideology that not everything in sahih bukhari,muslim,ahmed,tabari,etc is 100% authentic. There are many contradictions which are irrefutable (unlike the ''supposed contradictions'' from the quran).

Now let's just assume its 100% authentic , you have to understand its context. Is leaving the US army punishable by lifetime prison? no. Is leaving the US army during a war/operation punishable? yes

and not ALL scholars agree, many scholars today disagree , this includes some top theologians from Saudi Arabia who have a degree in Islamic jurisprudence

[QuranSearchCom]

Operation "Destroy Abdullah Almadi" from all directions and all topics .

[AhmadFarooq]

Just to clear up any misunderstandings, my posts have nothing to do personally with Abdullah Almadi (keeping a healthy distance from this Abdullah vs. Osama "discourse").

I should also mention that probably most notable scholars also don't absolutely believe that the Hadith books are 100% authentic (and definitely not Tabari and Ahmad). A point of significant importance is that of context. The interesting thing with the "kill whoever changes his religion" narration is that we have no context. Additionally, there are other very similar narrations which happen to interchange the crime of simple apostasy with the crime of apostasy with the addition of fighting God and His Messenger, implying that the context of the punishment included the condition of fighting for the "proscribed" punishment as-well.

[Saudi Salafi]

Just to clear up any misunderstandings, my posts have nothing to do personally with Abdullah Almadi (keeping a healthy distance from this Abdullah vs. Osama "discourse").

 But why? Why don't you contribute to the discussion to make it more interesting and fun?

[Ramihs97]

Hey guys i thought this would be an interesting read for you regarding apostasy. 

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/chapter_7.html

[QuranSearchCom]

Asalamu alaykum,

You mention that all scholars agree that stoning is applied to the adulterer, Shabir Ally (arguably the most famous and best Muslim debator alive today) disagrees: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x41Oz3PpeRs

So clearly that isnt true.

And about modern scholars being greater than classical scholars, sorry but i didnt convey what i meant properly. What i meant was that we can utilize the classical scholars criticisms AND we are in the computer age, so everyone can he better equiped and build a more reliable picture of Islam, both academics and laymen, by using ALL available tools (including classical scholars remarks).

And i am not emotional/liberal over the issue, if the Quran stated capital punishment (rajm) as punishment for adultery then so be it, but it doesn't. And i completely agree that we are in the prime age of fitna, but 100 lashings is enough of a deterrent for adultery.

I remember attending a lecture, dont know if its on youtube, about scholars being given too much authority. I agree.

I was raised sunni but im not emotionally attached to the sunnah like you are; this life is merely a passing phase and i do not want shirk to be on my record.

Salaams.

As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers,

I have covered the topic of fornication, and showed from the Glorious Quran and Hadiths that the punishment for fornication in Islam is limited to 100 lashes as the Glorious Quran Commands.  Please visit:

www.answering-christianity.com/was_muta_immoral.htm

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[AhmadFarooq]

Some thoughts on the article:

The article is written by members of the Ahmadiyya community, which makes it likely to be outright rejected by many Muslims, although such an action would be an obvious fallacy.

"The concept has therefore arisen from the conduct and policies of the post-Khalifat-i-Rashida1 Muslim governments of Baghdad."

It can be argued that this is untrue because history books detail the punishment to have been meted out during the times of the Rashiddun Khalifas too. However, those are only historical narratives and not hadiths which go through an exhaustive authentication process and therefore can not be used as basis for Islamic Shariah.

"... the use of force for the spread of its ideology"

Although, this became a common practical implementation of this punishment, Muslims who are proponents of the punishment definitely do not see this as a method of forcing their ideology on others. They argue that the individual of his/her own free will chose Islam (and with it all of its laws), no one forced them into accepting the religion.

As Surah Tauba is mentioned in the article, for information purposes I should also mention that some critics of the capital punishment for simple apostasy, argue that the people who were killed for changing their religion from Islam were on the basis of the fifth verse of this Surah. Here, Muslims, after the passage of four months, are ordered to fight the idolaters who either still remain polytheist or have not vacated a specific geographical location (probably the area of Hijaz). Some of them probably left while others converted to Islam. From these particular set of converts, if someone later apostatised, for them was ascribed the capital punishment as that punishment had already been defined for them and had been stopped only because of their conversion.

Regarding a woman's apostasy, in classical Islamic fiqh only the Hanafi school of thought holds that women cannot be killed (although they still can be imprisoned for an indefinite time until they "repent"). The other three schools of thought don't have any such restriction. Additionally, according to some jurists, also in cases where apostate women have been involved in active violent rebellion, they can be killed.

"It should be remembered that these traditions were compiled some three to four centuries after the advent of Islam..."

This is pretty much false or at-least misleading. The final compilation and authentication process can be argued to have been completed about three centuries after the Prophet's death, but the first writing down of the traditions happened much before. From what I have read, we even have extant manuscripts of haidth books dating from the end of first century Hijra. Additionally, the authentication (and therefore compiling) process is always an ongoing process, the latest, if I'm not mistaken, was Sheikh Albani's performed just a few decades ago.

"There are no two opinions regarding the accepted fact that whenever any so-called tradition attributed to the Holy Prophet of Islamsa contradicts any clear injunction of the Holy Quran, such a tradition is rejected as false and is not accepted as the word of the Holy Prophetsa."

As much as most Muslims would like to believe, this is not an "accepted fact". In early Muslim history, there were found to be apparent contradictions between what the Qur'an said and what was reported about the Prophet's actions (i.e. hadiths). When it came to widely accepted hadiths, a reconciliation was needed, which came in the form of the concept of abrogation of Qur'anic commandments by actions attributed to the Prophet in hadiths. This is pretty much the case for the issue of stoning of adulterers.
Why was Maulana Maududi specifically criticised? Some can argue against the article as being slightly non-objective because of this.

Most other things in the article, I agree with, found to be irrelevant or don't know enough to comment upon. One interesting question that I should add is the odd nature of the fact that the Ikramah hadith accepted by so many scholars was apparently not accepted by Imam Muslim.

For a more thorough investigation of the relevant hadiths in this regard, I would recommend Dr. Ahmad Shafaat's THE PUNISHMENT OF APOSTASY IN ISLAM, Part II: An Examination of the Ahadith on the Subject.

[Mohamed Saif]

There is one Hadith I know which says that a Bedouin accepted Islam and left Islam the next day.  But he wasn't executed. 

[AhmadFarooq]

That hadith and the criticism on such an interpretation of it have been discussed in the above referenced Dr. Ahmad Shafaat's article.