Killing for apostacy is against Quran.

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you wish to discuss these matters Daniel, I would suggest that you ask the question directly rather than saying "he said this".

Ill give you an example. You dont know if I am even a Muslim. You will only take my word for it. No one is authority, thus when I say something you should question it or ask why and analyse it. You normally do that. So rather than referring to others, ask the questions directly. I will explain a few things as quick as I can, if you like it or not. These are traditions, not contemporary attitudes I will show. When I say traditions, they are the oldest in existence.

There are different methods some of the so called scholars have been employing in order to present their opinion on a particular question. An opinion is a Fatawa. Generally a qualified Mufti is known to have a handed over right or status to issue a fatawa. A fatawa in the past was an opinion. Thats what it means.

The Maliki school in Islam follows the method of Sunnah. This Sunnah is their inherited traditions from Medina. Their school of thought is called the school of Medina. Their Sunnah is only supplemented or supported by ahadith, ahadith doesnt drive their tradition. Their Sunnah is inherited from person to person, teacher to student. Thats their school of thought.

The Hanafi school of thought was traditionally very stringent in their Quranic tradition. Ahadith and the contemporary analysis methods came later. Abu Hanifa was condemned by the Shafi school for their Quran centric doctrine.

Because the Shafi school were very much hadith based. So were the Hanbalis. But somehow they found themselves coexisting as one Islamic sect. Some people have this idea that they should practically worship their teachers. Thats it. Shop closed. Some people promote using of the Akal or reason, which is predominantly the Maliki and the Hanafi schools. So some people are indoctrinated not to use their Akal. That is also very modern phenomena, stemming from Ibn Taimiyyah propagated by Abdul Wahhab and that was for a political agenda. Thus, this is what you know and this is what you are hearing. The problem is that you may think this is Islam and this is their tradition.

I have seen a Muslim here who promotes all kinds of dirty violence and the typical child marrying doctrines but he doesnt even know the first few words of one single Surah or the meaning of one single Arabic word, claiming a life long Islamic background and scholarship but gets caught out so easily. Of course you would not have a problem with them and you even seem to like them for a strange reason. You have quoted this person in every single thread in this kind of topic. This is why, you should try to analyse things.

Anyway, these are nuances in theology. In Islam, according to any school of thought, the Quran is known as the Muhaymeenun, and the Furqan. Thus, there is absolutely no argument about that. Any argument that is proven through the Quran by default must take precedence over any other document or literature. This is universal Islamic theology. Banking on this, some may superimpose a 700 years later idea onto the Quran which came in the 7th century. Even Christians and atheists do this.

Contd.

Well, I notice that in your profile you have written Islam as religion.
You then go about analysis and apparently an incorrect way of doing Islam

Which methodology did I say is correct? I never spoke of some "correct methodology" in this thread prior to starting this trail of questioning.

Whats your real question. Why dont you just ask your question Mikkel? Its perfectly fine if you have a question, but ask directly.

 

[Link]

In other words you follow humans/scholars, but claim they are appointed by God. I don't think of scholars as God's messengers, prophets or anything devine, but at least I trust their expertise instead of picking and choosing from what they say. It's called consistency.

Well, Quran sanctifies following those chosen by God, it doesn't sanctify other than that. It actually shows religion always go wrong and corruption occurs when people follow scholars not appointed by God. It's one of the reasons he appoints chosen ones in the first place.

And I have to follow insights from Ahlulbayt (A) and leave what I don't know and oppose what contradicts Quran. This itself is their instructions on ahadith and Quran.

According to Ahlulbayt (a)- all ahadith to be followed must be verified in Quran.

 

[Link]

@Link said, "They prefer ahadith over Quran when their scholars emphasize on those hadiths.".
I interpreted this to mean that they acknowledge the Quran and hadith to be contradictory then prefer or choose the hadith over the Quran.
If they do not acknowledge the Quran to be contradictory to the hadith then the argument is directly addressed.

In my opinion

People don't always admit to things coming clear to them in Quran. They oppose despite their knowledge of the truth.

 

[Link]

Caused death of anyone, for any other reason, than murder, and murder in the name of God, is forbidden.

You are right other than for murder or mischief in the earth - Quran does not sanctify killing a person. I forgot to use that verse as evidence, but it's a proof as well.

 

[Link]

This is very similar to you claiming a previously discussed verse and it's interpretation did not disagree with your "interpretations" of it because the commentary didn't mention them. As I said, it wasn't mentioned because it had nothing to do with the verse and here it is a similar issue: no one, as far as I have seen, connects these verses with apostates in general. They're about hypocrites. Hypocrites and apostates are two different things when it comes to their judgment.

I already replied to this and showed why it is about apostates and you are repeating your point with no substance as usual.

 

[Link]

I verify no man or woman from the sixth or seventh century has ever spoken directly to me. That's a relief.

If you never had experiences with the Nabi (a) and unseen, you should ask God to open your heart to that and allow you to see his light and be guided by his hands. Maybe, you too afraid he will guide you to the truth you oppose?

 

[firedragon]

You then go about analysis and apparently an incorrect way of doing Islam

Which post in this thread are you speaking of?

 

[firedragon]

You are right other than for murder or mischief in the earth - Quran does not sanctify killing a person. I forgot to use that verse as evidence, but it's a proof as well.

True that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which post in this thread are you speaking of?

This:

If you wish to discuss these matters Daniel, I would suggest that you ask the question directly rather than saying "he said this".

Ill give you an example. You dont know if I am even a Muslim. You will only take my word for it. No one is authority, thus when I say something you should question it or ask why and analyse it. You normally do that. So rather than referring to others, ask the questions directly. I will explain a few things as quick as I can, if you like it or not. These are traditions, not contemporary attitudes I will show. When I say traditions, they are the oldest in existence.

There are different methods some of the so called scholars have been employing in order to present their opinion on a particular question. An opinion is a Fatawa. Generally a qualified Mufti is known to have a handed over right or status to issue a fatawa. A fatawa in the past was an opinion. Thats what it means.

The Maliki school in Islam follows the method of Sunnah. This Sunnah is their inherited traditions from Medina. Their school of thought is called the school of Medina. Their Sunnah is only supplemented or supported by ahadith, ahadith doesnt drive their tradition. Their Sunnah is inherited from person to person, teacher to student. Thats their school of thought.

The Hanafi school of thought was traditionally very stringent in their Quranic tradition. Ahadith and the contemporary analysis methods came later. Abu Hanifa was condemned by the Shafi school for their Quran centric doctrine.

Because the Shafi school were very much hadith based. So were the Hanbalis. But somehow they found themselves coexisting as one Islamic sect. Some people have this idea that they should practically worship their teachers. Thats it. Shop closed. Some people promote using of the Akal or reason, which is predominantly the Maliki and the Hanafi schools. So some people are indoctrinated not to use their Akal. That is also very modern phenomena, stemming from Ibn Taimiyyah propagated by Abdul Wahhab and that was for a political agenda. Thus, this is what you know and this is what you are hearing. The problem is that you may think this is Islam and this is their tradition.

I have seen a Muslim here who promotes all kinds of dirty violence and the typical child marrying doctrines but he doesnt even know the first few words of one single Surah or the meaning of one single Arabic word, claiming a life long Islamic background and scholarship but gets caught out so easily. Of course you would not have a problem with them and you even seem to like them for a strange reason. You have quoted this person in every single thread in this kind of topic. This is why, you should try to analyse things.

Anyway, these are nuances in theology. In Islam, according to any school of thought, the Quran is known as the Muhaymeenun, and the Furqan. Thus, there is absolutely no argument about that. Any argument that is proven through the Quran by default must take precedence over any other document or literature. This is universal Islamic theology. Banking on this, some may superimpose a 700 years later idea onto the Quran which came in the 7th century. Even Christians and atheists do this.

Contd.

BTW: Do you list Islam as your religion? If, yes, does that make you a Muslim?

 

[Shakeel]

If you never had experiences with the Nabi (a) and unseen, you should ask God to open your heart to that and allow you to see his light and be guided by his hands. Maybe, you too afraid he will guide you to the truth you oppose?

I am afraid of psychosis, but if I did hear voices, I would see a doctor. There are many good medications for that. The sooner one starts them the better.

 

[Link]

I am afraid of psychosis, but if I did hear voices, I would see a doctor. There are many good medications for that. The sooner one starts them the better.

Fair enough. But Quran does talk about the lanterns in the sky of this world and I will quote:
And even if We open to them a gateway of heaven, so that they ascend into it all the while, 14They would certainly say: Only our visions are intoxicated rather we are an enchanted people. 15And certainly We have made lanterns in the heaven and We have made it an adornment to the beholders. 16And We guard it against every accursed Shaitan, 17But he who steals a hearing, so there follows him a visible flame.


I would just rely on God. In my view, psychosis and Spiritual experiences, are two different things.

 

[Shakeel]

You are right other than for murder or mischief in the earth - Quran does not sanctify killing a person. I forgot to use that verse as evidence, but it's a proof as well.

That's a weird reply. He said for nothing but murder, which contradicts the Qur'an, and you say, "you are right," and then add mischief in the earth as if it was somehow implied by murder.

What is mischief?

(Work not confusion) through sins and invitation to other than Allah (in the earth after the fair ordering (thereof)) through obedience and calling to Allah, Exalted is He, (and call on Him) worship Him (in fear) of Him and His torment (and hope) in Him that you shall enter His Paradise. (Lo! the mercy of Allah) the Paradise of Allah (is nigh unto the good) the believers who are good in their words and works.
QuranX.com The most complete Quran / Hadith / Tafsir collection available!

 

[Link]

Also, a person with schizophrenia and that illness in my view, should not mix their spiritual experiences with illness. It's two different things.

 

[Shakeel]

Fair enough. But Quran does talk about the lanterns in the sky of this world and I will quote:
And even if We open to them a gateway of heaven, so that they ascend into it all the while, 14They would certainly say: Only our visions are intoxicated rather we are an enchanted people. 15And certainly We have made lanterns in the heaven and We have made it an adornment to the beholders. 16And We guard it against every accursed Shaitan, 17But he who steals a hearing, so there follows him a visible flame.


I would just rely on God. In my view, psychosis and Spiritual experiences, are two different things.

Yes, but how many people in a psychosis know that?

 

[Link]

What is mischief?

Fasad can't be inward fasad as that would include all sins, but it means causing bloodshed or chaos in the land.

 

[Shakeel]

Also, a person with schizophrenia and that illness in my view, should not mix their spiritual experiences with illness. It's two different things.

If they could not they would not be in a psychosis.

 

[Shakeel]

Fasad can't be inward fasad as that would include all sins, but it means causing bloodshed or chaos in the land.

Okay. What is chaos and bloodshed?

 

[Link]

Yes, but how many people in a psychosis know that?

Most people with psychosis and medications, have negative experiences. Their voices are negative almost all the time. I believe the heaven talked about in Quran connected to this world, would change their vibrations from that of the evil Qareen(s) and help them defeat the negative voices.

This is my view because I have schizophrenia and seen a lot of people and talked to a lot with my illness.

It's almost never positive experiences. Therefore to me it's actually a battleground between Shayateen and the forces of God, mainly the two Qareens spoken about in Surah Qaaf.

 

[firedragon]

This:

That post was way after your barrage of questioning. No problem. Whats your specific question?

BTW: Do you list Islam as your religion? If, yes, does that make you a Muslim?

Yes.

 

[Link]

Okay. What is chaos and bloodshed?

You tell me.