Killing the apostate! Islamic?? Whats the source? Whats there to consider?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is very well known in the Islamic circles who are considered extremist or fanatical that there is nothing about apostasy laws in the Qur'an. Anyone who studies a little bit of Islamic Jurisprudence knows this very well. Of course there are some non-muslim apologists who propagate otherwise through some websites.

Nevertheless, I wish to discuss with those who propagate apostasy laws, be it muslim or non-muslim, what their sources are and what the justifications are based on the Islamic literature.

To reiterate, there are no killing apostates in the Qur'an. None.

So, are you arguing that there is just a single source of understanding of Islam, and that is the Qur'an? In other words, are you going to make the claim that even those Hadith considered to be sahih are not authentic sources of knowledge about the religion?

 

[firedragon]

So explain how the most important aspect applies to negate the sayings of these narrators as well.

Mate. Thats not how it works. One narrator like Ikrima says Ali did something, and others repeat after him. Thats good enough to drop the sanad.

If you want to know something, just speak and ask Daniel.

 

[firedragon]

So, are you arguing that there is just a single source of understanding of Islam, and that is the Qur'an? In other words, are you going to make the claim that even those Hadith considered to be sahih are not authentic sources of knowledge about the religion?

It depends on who's Islam. There are varying schools of thought on ahadith. But the Quran is universally accepted as the criterion.

I think you should try and understand what someone says. According to any school of thought in Islam, even the most fanatical groups will proclaim that the Quran is the criterion, and everything is secondary and supplementary. And everyone agrees there is no death penalty for apostates. Thats universal.

If you read the OP, you will understand what is said.

 

[firedragon]

Tell that to those who interpret stuff like that to mean kill apostates.

Who? Can you specifically cite who and why?

 

[firedragon]

You are strawmanning me, where did I say that I trust this particular hadith?

If you dont trust them, dont try to make them so super authentic. If you dont trust them, question them. And ask decent questions.

If you propagate them, I will always ask you why you trust them so much and it is generally a persons burden to provide that evidence.

I presume you understand, but of course you won't accept it. Thats fine as long as you understand.

 

[firedragon]

I will take your lack of answer to mean that you do not want to discuss patterns. That's fine of course, but it's a very self-limiting approach to analysis.

Where in the Quran does it make a "tone" that apostasy is such a crime that it should be punishable by death?

Please provide evidence to your claim.

 

[firedragon]

No I don't understand.

1. Isn't that a passage of the Quran?
2. How is the context of the story going to radically inverse the meaning of "if someone changes religion, kill him"? That's a tall order. How did you do it?
3. Please make the demonstration of that, just name dropping religious texts and school of interpretations without providing any explanation seems more like a fallacious appeal to authority than a sound argument derived from special relevent expertise.

1. No
2. Answer the questions and you will understand.
3. Answer the questions and you will understand.

When you are talking about name dropping and other etceteras while quoting a few lines which you thought was the Quran but is in fact from a collection called sunan an nasai shows your expedience.

Please make a little more effort, or just ask with a bit of humility.

Until then, when you cut and paste a hadith, or quote something, it is your burden of proof to provide certain explanations. So answer those questions I asked you, and you will understand.

Cheers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who? Can you specifically cite who and why?

I have to point out who? It's common enough some Muslim countries have it as official policy.
Apostasy - Wikipedia

Apostasy is subject to the death penalty in some countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, although executions for apostasy are rare. Apostasy is legal in secular Muslim countries such as Turkey.[92] In numerous Islamic majority countries, many individuals have been arrested and punished for the crime of apostasy without any associated capital crimes.[93][94][95][96] In a 2013 report based on an international survey of religious attitudes, more than 50% of the Muslim population in 6 Islamic countries supported the death penalty for any Muslim who leaves Islam (apostasy).[97][98] A similar survey of the Muslim population in the United Kingdom, in 2007, found nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-old faithfuls believed that Muslims who convert to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same.[99] There is disagreement among contemporary Islamic scholars about whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for apostasy in the 21st century.[100] A belief among more liberal Islamic scholars is that the apostasy laws were created and are still implemented as a means to consolidate "religio-political" power.[100]

In an effort to circumvent the United Nations Commission on Human Rights's ruling on an individual's right to conversion from and denunciation of a religion some offenders of the ruling have argued that their "obligations to Islam are irreconcilable with international law."[101] United Nations Special Rapporteur Heiner Bielefeldt recommended to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the issues of freedom of religion or belief that "States should repeal any criminal law provisions that penalize apostasy, blasphemy and proselytism as they may prevent persons belonging to religious or belief minorities from fully enjoying their freedom of religion or belief."[102]

 

[firedragon]

I have to point out who? It's common enough some Muslim countries have it as official policy.
Apostasy - Wikipedia

Thats a strawman fallacy.

Who interpreted the verse you quoted as killing the apostates?

I didnt ask who in the world kills apostates.

Do you understand the question?

Just to make sure you do, let me ask again.

You said: verse 89 says to kill the apostate. You cherry picked it ignoring the immediate next verse and having never referred to the book anyway.
I said: It doesnt speak about apostates, and to at least read the immediate next verse rather than cherry picking.
Then you said: "Tell that to those who interpret stuff like that to mean kill apostates."
I asked: Who does that

So I think you understand the question. Your wikipedia link has nothing to do with this verse you provided and your claim that people interpret it as killing apostates.

So please provide some references to who interpreted the verse 4:89 as killing apostates and why. I ask for the second time.

After all, its your claim.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who interpreted the verse you quoted as killing the apostates?

Those people that bit I cited is about.

 

[firedragon]

You said, "The Isnad is the most important aspect in Usul ul hadith according to the Sunni school of thought"

I would advice you to not cherry pick a part of a sentence that you cherry picked already. Its intentionally misrepresenting someone and what they said. Its like making things up.

"The Isnad is the most important aspect in Usul ul hadith according to the Sunni school of thought other than the Maliki school and probably the earliest Abu Haneefa's school of thought. So since it seems like you are from the other three fikhussunnah, lets make an analysis based on your own theology mate."

 

[firedragon]

Those people that bit I cited is about.

Nope. You are wrong. Maybe you didnt read the page you are sharing. It has nothing about the verse you quoted or that anyone used it to kill apostates.

So go back and please read the question.

 

[danieldemol]

If you dont trust them, dont try to make them so super authentic

Where did I do that?

 

[danieldemol]

I would advice you to not cherry pick a part of a sentence that you cherry picked already. Its intentionally misrepresenting someone and what they said. Its like making things up.

"The Isnad is the most important aspect in Usul ul hadith according to the Sunni school of thought other than the Maliki school and probably the earliest Abu Haneefa's school of thought. So since it seems like you are from the other three fikhussunnah, lets make an analysis based on your own theology mate."

It doesn't change in context. If you are saying the isnad is the most important to @Shakeel 's theology then it is still incumbent on you to cite the isnad of all the hadith he picked and then demonstrate what was wrong with them.

 

[firedragon]

Where did I do that?

Daniel. Please try and avoid a rhetorical exchange.

If you have a question, ask it directly rather than making statements you don't understand.

If you want to discuss a hadith, ask the question you wish to ask about it.

Anyway, I think since the ahadith quoted in the post you were cutting and pasting from is in English and is concise, the full chain of people who narrated that particular story is not there in that. What I will do is give you the image of the name "Ikrima" just to show you that though you didnt know this name was there, it is there.

Also, you cherry picked a small portion of a sentence from a whole post. You missed a lot of it and focused on one single part. Its shameful to do that. I spoke of Mathn, I spoke of Isnad, I spoke of different schools of thought, I spoke of narrations, time periods, first narrator, the last narrator, etc etc in that single small post. You left everything, and focused on one small portion and pretended that's all I said.

If you have a query, just ask.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

It doesn't change in context. If you are saying the isnad is the most important to @Shakeel 's theology then it is still incumbent on you to cite the isnad of all the hadith he picked and then demonstrate what was wrong with them.

Ah. So you have taken a Muslim into your tribe since both of you have the same target to make "Islam kills apostates". Its strange that people quickly group up finding a common enemy more than grouping up on intellectual discourse. Its a great observation.

Anyway, again, you have missed the whole post mate. Intentionally. I mean it is impossible one could mistakenly ignore a whole post because vision is not limited to one cherry picked part of a sentence.

Anyway, now could you tell me if the chain of narration being so important in the theology of Shakeel that you are siding with for your agenda, is it valid to have such a foundation? And please tell me according to Shakeels theology, where does it say the Quran is not valid, the hadith that is quoted by you and him takes super precedence, and that a hadith that is not attributed to the prophet but some one else is valid aaqidah?

Please explain.

 

[danieldemol]

Daniel. Please try and avoid a rhetorical exchange.

Your playing dodgeball rather than admitting you were wrong.

If you have a question, ask it directly rather than making statements you don't understand.

I have directly asked you to cite its isnad for *all* the hadith presented its not a difficult request as far as I can tell.

I also asked you why it makes a difference when @Shakeel is more intent on imitating the opinions of his well known scholars.

But you just want to repeat "ask a question" rather than comprehensively answering my questions.

If you want to discuss a hadith, ask the question you wish to ask about it.

Also, you cherry picked a small portion of a sentence from a whole post. You missed a lot of it and focused on one single part. Its shameful to do that. I spoke of Mathn, I spoke of Isnad, I spoke of different schools of thought, I spoke of narrations, time periods, first narrator, the last narrator, etc etc in that single small post. You left everything, and focused on one small portion and pretended that's all I said.

A) i never pretended that's all you said
B) it is not at all shameful to quote the relevant section of a post one is responding to. All the rest was irrelevant. You're just attacking my character because you don't like being questioned which is what is really shameful.

 

[firedragon]

Your playing dodgeball rather than admitting you were wrong.

Your playing dodgeball rather than admitting you were wrong.

I have directly asked you to cite its isnad for *all* the hadith presented its not a difficult request as far as I can tell.

First, address the one hadith I addressed. Then one could reflect on the other.

Also, please address them according to your theology, not be a hypocrite and refer other peoples theologies you dont follow.

I also asked you why it makes a difference when @Shakeel is more intent on imitating the opinions of his well known scholars.

Please read your colleagues mind and tell me which scholar says to ignore Isnad! Did you just imagine it or someone else imagine it for you?

Please quote the scholar, and which book he speaks of this phenomenon.

A) i never pretended that's all you said
B) it is not at all shameful to quote the relevant section of a post one is responding to. All the rest was irrelevant. You're just attacking my character because you don't like being questioned which is what is really shameful.

It is shameful to cherry pick and misquote others where a comprehensive and holistic reading of at least one post is necessary to be intellectually honest.

I dont expect it of course but one could always remind.

 

[danieldemol]

Ah. So you have taken a Muslim into your tribe since both of you have the same target to make "Islam kills apostates". Its strange that people quickly group up finding a common enemy more than grouping up on intellectual discourse. Its a great observation.

Nope I have not taken a Muslim into my tribe, I have just acknowledged that Islam is what Muslims make of it. So if a Muslims Islam says kill the apostate then his Islam is different to your Islam because his Islam is sourced from the analysis of trusted scholars, whereas your Islam is not.

Anyway, now could you tell me if the chain of narration being so important in the theology of Shakeel that you are siding with for your agenda, is it valid to have such a foundation? And please tell me according to Shakeels theology, where does it say the Quran is not valid, the hadith that is quoted by you and him takes super precedence, and that a hadith that is not attributed to the prophet but some one else is valid aaqidah?

Please explain.

I don't say that @Shakeel or his scholars believed the Quran has no validity, I am not able to read the interpretations of his scholars to see how they interpreted the Quran. All I know is that in practice Shakeel supports the killing of apostates based on those ahadeeth, and whether you like it or not, that makes those ahadeeth part of his Islam.

 

[danieldemol]

Your playing dodgeball rather than admitting you were wrong.

So much for avoiding rhetorical exchanges

First, address the one hadith I addressed. Then one could reflect on the other.

Sure, that is a valid way to approach it, but not the only way. The other way is to imitate what the scholars of the past said about it.

Also, please address them according to your theology, not be a hypocrite and refer other peoples theologies you dont follow.

Hypocrisy has nothing to do with acknowledging that not everyone takes my approach. That is just being honest to acknowledge that.

Please read your colleagues mind and tell me which scholar says to ignore Isnad! Did you just imagine it or someone else imagine it for you?

I never claimed that @Shakeel 's scholar said to ignore isnad.

It is shameful to cherry pick and misquote others where a comprehensive and holistic reading of at least one post is necessary to be intellectually honest.

I dont expect it of course but one could always remind.

I gave it a comprehensive and holistic reading then selected the part that was relevant to respond to, no intellectual dishonesty or shamelessness required.