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

[Shadow Wolf]

Why dont you do that?

I'm not claiming they are wrong and I don't have a horse in this race, especially in America where we have two massive oceans that help to isolate us from the worst of it.
You are insisting they are wrong, it's up to you to convince those who would say you are wrong, especially and mostly Muslims.
I say you're both right and wrong.

This is not relevant to the thread. Im sure you know that.

This thread is about Muslims killing apostates. How can it not be relevant to discuss Muslims who kill apostates and Quran passages and Hadith they use to justify it?

 

[firedragon]

This thread is about Muslims killing apostates.

No.

 

[icehorse]

@icehorse

You will never substantiate your claim. It will never happen. So of course some rhetoric could be expected. If it takes 10 years, it will still be the same.

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 - From what I can gather, you've been studying a certain approach to analyzing the Quran. No worries, major scripture is worthy of various forms of analysis.

And you seem to want people to debate with you given that particular form of analysis. Also, no worries.

But what you're failing to do is set the constraints properly in these debate threads you're starting. From your perspective, sometimes a poster is cherry-picking and sometimes another poster is NOT considering the context of the Surah. And in my case, your form of analysis does not consider larger patterns in the book, which is the form of analysis I'm doing.

I think we'd all save a lot of time if you were clearer up front about the ground rules you want to use for analyzing / debating about the Quran.

But to be clear, your form of analysis is NOT the last word on how to understand the book. It's ONE way, and I'm sure it's a well regarded way amongst some scholars. But it is NOT the only way.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon - From what I can gather, you've been studying a certain approach to analyzing the Quran. No worries, major scripture is worthy of various forms of analysis.

And you seem to want people to debate with you given that particular form of analysis. Also, no worries.

But what you're failing to do is set the constraints properly in these debate threads you're starting. From your perspective, sometimes a poster is cherry-picking and sometimes another poster is NOT considering the context of the Surah. And in my case, your form of analysis does not consider larger patterns in the book, which is the form of analysis I'm doing.

I think we'd all save a lot of time if you were clearer up front about the ground rules you want to use for analyzing / debating about the Quran.

But to be clear, your form of analysis is NOT the last word on how to understand the book. It's ONE way, and I'm sure it's a well regarded way amongst some scholars. But it is NOT the only way.

One verse at least.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No.

Here is the title of the thread:
Killing the apostate! Islamic?? Whats the source? Whats there to consider?
Here is the original post:

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.

And it's in a debate section.
Looks like it's all very well within staying on topic to me.

 

[firedragon]

Here is the title of the thread:
Killing the apostate! Islamic?? Whats the source? Whats there to consider?

Exactly.

So it is not about "Muslims killing apostates".

Its about "Killing the apostate! Islamic?? Whats the source? Whats there to consider?"

 

[Shakeel]

Thats fine. No need for any guessing. Just dont make absolutely false, sectarian remarks. You spoke of those Hadiths you quoted, and just made a sweeping statement "Those would be the shias, the ahmadis and the general hadith rejectors." in order to make a sectarian argument for your murderous cause.

So I ask you

How about Imam Malik Ibn Annas? Tell me how your sectarian strife works on him!

How about Yahya ibn said alansari? How about Ibn Sireen? What did Al Qasim say (grand son of Abu Bakr Ral)? How about hafiz addhahabi? What did Ibn Maeen say?

Are they all Shii and Ahmadi mate? Show me how you will apply your sectarian strife onto them!

Mate. They are all Sunni, and the closest to the source. Some of the most respected scholars you will ever come across. They are not Shii's or Ahmadi's. They are Sunni. And the oldest. All of them, without an exception, rejected all the ahadith narrated by Ikrima. When I say all, I mean "all".

Are you gonna call Imam Malik a Shii or Ahmadi?

I am sure you understand this question.

Based on what do you say any of them rejected the ahadith narrated by Ikrima?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is for those who participated in this thread. If you like, this is an absolute synopsis. @danieldemol @Shadow Wolf @Shakeel @Gargovic Malkav

Murder in the name of God

In a nutshell, the Islamic scripture directly tells you never to take an innocent life. So says the Quran in chapter 5 verse 32 - “It is because of this that we have decreed for the Children of Israel: “Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people. “

Now notice that this verse says as a blanket statement that a person who has not committed murder should not be killed or even as a government give a death sentence. But there is a phrase here that many people misunderstand that says “or who has not committed corruption in the land” which is open for interpretation. The Arabic phrase “Al Fasadhu Fil Ardh (الفساد في الأرض)”, or corruption in the land has a definition which a lot of people have ignored. This maybe the boring part for the reader, but this also maybe a piercer of faith to the fanatic. Read further.

So says the Quran in chapter 27, verses 48 to 50, - “And in the city were nine ruffians who were causing corruption in the land, and they were not reforming. They said: “Swear by God to one another that we will attack him and his family at night, … “

Notice that it says “Swear by God”. This is what the Quran is saying by the phrase “Spreading corruption in the land”. These are the people the verse 5:32 above is speaking about and they are very clearly explained.

So far so good. You have given your subjective reasoning.

So it should be evident, ...

More below.

...that their claim of murdering innocents shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, calls for Gods wrath on them, and the penalty is nothing but death. You murderer, your Quran is mandating a death sentence to you purely for murdering people using Gods name.

Bottomline: If you say Allah/God and kill an innocent human being, you are the scum of the earth according to the Quran. YOU!

No, it is not evident, because there is no objective evidence. There is subjective reasoning based on your standard of subjective reasoning.
The problem is that you subjectively claim access to an objective source, Allah/God. But you haven't made it evident that you have access to this source.
So you are no different than those you condemn. They do as you do; claim an objective source of morality.

So as long as you do that, I will call you out. You claim in effect evidence for something, where there is no evidence presented.

 

[firedragon]

Based on what do you say any of them rejected the ahadith narrated by Ikrima?

Okay. Let me try to engage with you.

Tell me, what of Imam Malik or/and Ibn Hajar al Askalani have you read?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Exactly.

So it is not about "Muslims killing apostates".

Its about "Killing the apostate! Islamic?? Whats the source? Whats there to consider?"

 

[Shakeel]

Okay. Let me try to engage with you.

Tell me, what of Imam Malik or/and Ibn Hajar al Askalani have you read?

I don't know.

Why can't you just provide the evidence for your claim? That way you would be immediately proven correct, no?

 

[Shakeel]

Ikrima was a well known Khawarij.

As is common in debates, this requires evidence.

You dumped Isnad down the drain saying "it doesnt matter"

I didn't say isnad doesn't matter in general. I said it is irrelevant to us in this discussion. Of course, you are free to provide the isnad and everything wrong with it with evidences anytime if you feel it is relevant.

the ahadith you are referring to were referencing the harbulriddha in the early period. A murthad in this era can never mean an apostate.

This is also calls for evidence.

On top of all of this, of course knowing you would in your desire to avoid will avoid all of that, the Quran saying La Ikraaha fiddheen is absolutely conflicting with this narration.

Some scholars say that is abrogated. Others say it only applies to those who never accepted Islam before.

 

[icehorse]

One verse at least.

Just to make sure we're communicating.. You might not agree with the form of analysis I'm doing, and that's okay. But can you at least summarize my approach? Just to make sure we're communicating?

And remember, just because you summarize my approach, doesn't mean you're agreeing with it

thanks

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not the topic of this thread to inform the terrorists and the Saudis. Anyway, none of them quote the Quran for apostasy laws that I have ever seen in any kind of literature ever in my entire life. So this is just a red herring fallacy.

Also, you are more extreme than all of them because it is you who is making false claims about one verse that has nothing to do with apostates. Of course you won't accept that you cut and pasted it without having a clue what it was.

There is not a single verse in the Qur'an speaking of killing an apostate. Thats the reason no one here has been able to provide a single verse. Because it doesnt exist.

So try. If you google "apostasy in Islam" you will come to a wikipedia page, and you already shared it which shows your level of research. Even that doesnt have a single verse of the Quran.

At least have the humility to accept that all you did was a cut and paste from some website but you never even read the immediate next verse.

All I can say is I'm glad people are leaving religion. As Christianity and Islam are both filled with people who try to dismiss all criticisms. Such as yourself with false claims I have not provided sources and refusing to consider what these violent Muslims themselves are citing as justification. It's so bad when I linked to a source that covers the debate on it Islam, you make it apparent you didn't consider it or read it by stating it doesn't support my point.
And keep in mind, you trying to call me extreme is something that takes being so far off base and wrong I don't even know where to start with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes of course it is, but that's just on the surface of things. Thats not how things work, or has ever worked, even with some of the most fanatical Muslims.

So how does it work according to your personal interpretation?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A murthad in this era can never mean an apostate

What a surprise. The core of the argument is, once again, quibling over ambiguous words and translations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Your question is dishonest consider the statements he already made.
You ask for specific example and he already explained to you that it concerns patterns instead of single statements.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know.

Why can't you just provide the evidence for your claim? That way you would be immediately proven correct, no?

No problem.

If you read Malik Ibn Anas's book Al mudhawwanaa al kubra, you would note that the the man with the golden chain, the jurist and the father of the school of Medina, narrates one narration of Ikrima, and quotes that he dislikes Ikrima because he was from the Khawarij. If you read Mufassireen Ibn Abi Hathim he says that Imam Malik did not disliked Ikrima because he had Khawarij views. If you know Ibn Sireen, he wrote in his book muntakabool Kalaam that Ikrama was a Kazzab, a liar. Ibn Katheer in his book kusasul anbiyai writes that "the resistance led by Ikrima and Safwan resulted in killing many Muslims" showing very clearly that he was a kharijite.

 

[firedragon]

All I can say is I'm glad people are leaving religion. As Christianity and Islam are both filled with people who try to dismiss all criticisms. Such as yourself with false claims I have not provided sources and refusing to consider what these violent Muslims themselves are citing as justification. It's so bad when I linked to a source that covers the debate on it Islam, you make it apparent you didn't consider it or read it by stating it doesn't support my point.
And keep in mind, you trying to call me extreme is something that takes being so far off base and wrong I don't even know where to start with it.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

As is common in debates, this requires evidence.

Please read the previous post at least. And if you want more, there is more.

I didn't say isnad doesn't matter in general. I said it is irrelevant to us in this discussion. Of course, you are free to provide the isnad and everything wrong with it with evidences anytime if you feel it is relevant.

I am only quoting your standards because it is evident that you use sectarian dismissals as arguments. So I am using your own sects standards. Unless of course you dont value people like Malik Ibn Anas and Imam Hanbal, which would throw you out of the Sunni Madhab.

This is also calls for evidence.

Sure. To get a decent understanding of this so called "History" you could always read something like "Parable and politics in early Islamic history" by Tayyib al hibri. Its not bad.

Nevertheless, think about the harbal ridda in Yemen. Who were they fighting with? They were the rebels of alaswad alansi. So do you just say that they just changed their religion? No way. It was a battle. A war. After the wars of buzaha in Najd the Ridda wars were with rebels. Not just someone who changed their religion. Consider all the wars from Najd, Bahrain, Oman, Hadramawth, Yemen, Hijazi leading up tp Damascus, they were not just battles with those who changed their religion. Read up on the history. The first campaigns against the tribes were a retaliation for the incoming losses in Muta. Initially these tribes were part of the Islamic Rashidun's legacy and then they defected. That was the reason for these initial campaigns we call Ridda wars or the wars against the Irtidads. This is well known history. Why dont you read Attabari. I am sure you would have some regard for his history. Read volume ten.

Some scholars say that is abrogated. Others say it only applies to those who never accepted Islam before.

Could you quote the scholars who say "Quran verses 5:82 and 2:256 were abrogated"?
Also tell me why you agree with them.

Thanks and peace.