Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 167

Apostasy

This is a discussion on Apostasy within the Beliefs and Fundamentals forums, part of the Main Topics category; Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair Answer my question, Jaysh: A question to you, Jaysh: if a reputable scholar holds a ...

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair View Post
    Answer my question, Jaysh:

    A question to you, Jaysh: if a reputable scholar holds a controversial opinion, does that make his opinion tolerable?

    Yes/No?
    Answer: It depends.

  2. #112
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,385
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default

    depends on what?
    A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    Albert Einstein

  3. #113
    Junior Member Converted2Islam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Ok, lets look at Abuz Zubairs outbursts!

    In response to JayshAllahs post #29

    Abuz Zubair stated:

    It is indeed heretical if it goes against the consensus. (Post # 31)

    Abuz Zubairs takfeer is more obvious in his response to my post # 68.

    He said: which shows that you have none of the scholars to support you in your heretical views. (Post # 71)

    Akhi waziri yes I know what the word heretic means. Heres the definition from Websters Dictionary: heretic (n.) A person holding opinions different from orthodox beliefs, especially religious beliefs. Heretical (adj.). (New Revised Updated Edition, page 388).

    Maybe Abuz Zubair should fear Allah more because no Muslim in his right mind would make takfeer against a brother without being 100% sure! Instead Abuz Zubair displays his immaturity and lack of sunnah knowledge by statements like this: The Incredible Sulk: *wailing* Mummy! He's calling me a kafir!!! (Abuz Zubair, post # 106). Seems like the brother is obsessed with the word heretic, he even has it as his bottom signature.

    Besides Abuz Zubair has not yet even given me one single example where the Prophet (sas) had someone killed for apostasy alone. Im still waiting for the daleel but all I get is childish attacks and even serious sins like takfeer.

    I have given at least 3 examples that prove the Prophet Muhammad (sas) did not kill people for apostasy alone (peaceful apostasy). To refresh your memory they were:

    #1 Ubaydullah bin Jahsh (who became Christian).
    #2 Abdullah ibn Sad (who reverted to idolatory)]. Ibn Hisham even says the Prophet (sas) pardoned Abdullah ibn Sad!
    #3 The Bedouin man who left Islam. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, # 318].

    Abuz Zubair why dont you respond to these 3 examples and why do you call my opinion heretical when my opinion is based on the Prophets (sas) opinion? If my opinion is the weak opinion why do you find it so difficult to refute me? You cant give me a single piece of daleel on the contrary! I dont want your questions, I dont want your insults, I dont want your takfir, I want your daleel.

    Careful brother your walking on thin ice!!!!!!!!!

    Nobody has posted any solid evidence here that Islam teaches us to kill apostates. No one was sentenced to death solely for renunciation of faith unless accompanied by hostility and treason or was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. In fact I said this in my video.

    Yes Im aware of what Shaykh Ul Islam ibn Taymeeah (rh) and others said, but scholars can make mistakes as they are not infallible. I think brother Bilal Philips is basically saying the same thing as me but in different words. Im surprised people here have yet to label brother Bilal as a kafir or qadari! It wouldnt surprise me.

  4. #114
    The Serial Repper Skillganon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,956

    Default

    Bro,

    Saying someone has heretical view is not the same thing as making takfir on them...so I will advise one refrain from making head and tails out of it...since people are not stupid and it lessens your credibility further.

    Secondly the daleel for the punishment of apostate is the messenger of Allah(swt). (Bukhari 3017)

    You can discuss this issue as much as one like without reverting to attributing a lie to brother Zubair.
    Last edited by Skillganon; 2nd June 2007 at 07:46 PM.

  5. #115
    Rep-manz
    Abu'l 'Eyse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Converted2Islam View Post
    Ok, lets look at Abuz Zubairs outbursts!

    In response to JayshAllahs post #29

    Abuz Zubair stated:

    It is indeed heretical if it goes against the consensus. (Post # 31)

    Abuz Zubairs takfeer is more obvious in his response to my post # 68.

    He said: which shows that you have none of the scholars to support you in your heretical views. (Post # 71)

    Akhi waziri yes I know what the word heretic means. Heres the definition from Websters Dictionary: heretic (n.) A person holding opinions different from orthodox beliefs, especially religious beliefs. Heretical (adj.). (New Revised Updated Edition, page 388).

    Maybe Abuz Zubair should fear Allah more because no Muslim in his right mind would make takfeer against a brother without being 100% sure! Instead Abuz Zubair displays his immaturity and lack of sunnah knowledge by statements like this: The Incredible Sulk: *wailing* Mummy! He's calling me a kafir!!! (Abuz Zubair, post # 106). Seems like the brother is obsessed with the word heretic, he even has it as his bottom signature.

    Besides Abuz Zubair has not yet even given me one single example where the Prophet (sas) had someone killed for apostasy alone. Im still waiting for the daleel but all I get is childish attacks and even serious sins like takfeer.

    I have given at least 3 examples that prove the Prophet Muhammad (sas) did not kill people for apostasy alone (peaceful apostasy). To refresh your memory they were:

    #1 Ubaydullah bin Jahsh (who became Christian).
    #2 Abdullah ibn Sad (who reverted to idolatory)]. Ibn Hisham even says the Prophet (sas) pardoned Abdullah ibn Sad!
    #3 The Bedouin man who left Islam. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, # 318].

    Abuz Zubair why dont you respond to these 3 examples and why do you call my opinion heretical when my opinion is based on the Prophets (sas) opinion? If my opinion is the weak opinion why do you find it so difficult to refute me? You cant give me a single piece of daleel on the contrary! I dont want your questions, I dont want your insults, I dont want your takfir, I want your daleel.

    Careful brother your walking on thin ice!!!!!!!!!

    Nobody has posted any solid evidence here that Islam teaches us to kill apostates. No one was sentenced to death solely for renunciation of faith unless accompanied by hostility and treason or was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. In fact I said this in my video.

    Yes Im aware of what Shaykh Ul Islam ibn Taymeeah (rh) and others said, but scholars can make mistakes as they are not infallible. I think brother Bilal Philips is basically saying the same thing as me but in different words. Im surprised people here have yet to label brother Bilal as a kafir or qadari! It wouldnt surprise me.


    you need to be consistent brother.

    Either akhbar al-ahaad is daleel in this case for you or it isn't?

    The examples you quote. Are they tawatur or ahaad?

    If they are ahaad are they sufficient to establish that the apostate is not executed by the state?

    You reject the qati'e dalalah hadith where Rasul(Sallahu 'alayhi was-sallam) said:

    Whoever changes his religion kill him and many other ahadith based upon the fact they are akhbar al-ahaad.

    You said they are not suficient to establish the hadd of riddah

    who told you this? and where is this extrapolated from i.e. hadd mentioned in akhbar al-ahaad cannot be enacted upon?

    jazakALLAHU Khairan
    "Sit with one whose limbs address you, not his mouth." Sahl ibn `Abd Allah ibn Yunus, Abu Muhammad al-Tustari (d. 283), may Allah be well-pleased with him.

    : " " , : :

    Ibn 'Umar said: "And do not let your words be in excess to your actions", Al-Baihaqi: Shu'ab al-Imaan and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani: Al-Isaabah fee Taymeez as-Sahaaba




    Justice for those who are oppressed!

  6. #116
    Salafi (Retd.)
    justabro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,555

    Default

    this is translated by a christian from mawdudi's writing. he documents the hadiths as well as the verdicts of the sahaba all about executing the apostate, as well as the positions of the four imams.

    it is quite absurd to debate this issue as it is well-known from islamic history to an extent that no one can dispute that immediately after the death of the PRophet ( ), Abu Bakr led the Companions on a campaign remembered as "the Apostacy Wars."
    Attached Files Attached Files

  7. #117
    Rep-manz
    Abu'l 'Eyse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,775

    Default

    they say the "wars of apostacy" was against rebellion
    "Sit with one whose limbs address you, not his mouth." Sahl ibn `Abd Allah ibn Yunus, Abu Muhammad al-Tustari (d. 283), may Allah be well-pleased with him.

    : " " , : :

    Ibn 'Umar said: "And do not let your words be in excess to your actions", Al-Baihaqi: Shu'ab al-Imaan and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani: Al-Isaabah fee Taymeez as-Sahaaba




    Justice for those who are oppressed!

  8. #118
    Salafi (Retd.)
    justabro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abu imaan an-nepalee View Post
    they say the "wars of apostacy" was against rebellion
    i know... which is why its so absurd... they are not known as the "wars of rebellion/revolt"

    i challenge anyone to find a historical reference that gives them a title besides "the apostasy wars"

  9. #119
    Salafi (Retd.)
    justabro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,555

    Default

    1. Any person (i.e., Muslim) who has changed his religion, kill him.[3]

    This tradition has been narrated by Abu Bakr, Uthman, Ali, Muadh ibn Jabal, Abu Musa Ashari, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Khalid ibn Walid and a number of other Companions, and is found in all the authentic Hadith collections.

    2. Abdullah ibn Masud reports:

    The Messenger of God stated: In no way is it permitted to shed the blood of a Muslim who testifies that "there is no god except God" and "I am the Apostle of God" except for three crimes: a. he has killed someone and his act merits retaliation; b. he is married and commits adultery; c. he abandons his religion and is separated from the community.[4]

    3. Aisha reports:

    The Messenger of God stated that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim other than for the following reasons: a. although married, he commits adultery or b. after being a Muslim he chooses kufr, or c. he takes someone's life.[5]

    4. Uthman reports:

    I heard the Messenger of God saying that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three situations: a. a person who, being a Muslim, becomes a kafir; b. one who after marriage commits adultery; c. one who commits murder apart from having an authorization to take life in exchange for another life.[6]

    Uthman further reports:

    I heard the Messenger of God saying that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim with the exception of three crimes: a. the punishment of someone who after marriage commits adultery is stoning; b. retaliation is required against someone who intentionally commits murder; c. anyone who becomes an apostate after being a Muslim should be punished by death.[7]

    All the reliable texts of history clearly prove that Uthman, while standing on the roof of his home, recited this tradition before thousands of people at a time when rebels had surrounded his house and were ready to kill him. His argument against the rebels was based on the point of this tradition that apart from these three crimes it was unlawful to put a Muslim to death for a fourth crime, "and I have committed none of these three. Hence after killing me, you yourself will be found guilty." It is evident that in this way this tradition became a clear argument in favour of Uthman against the rebels. Had there been the slightest doubt about the genuineness of this tradition, hundreds of voices would have cried out: "Your statement is false or doubtful!" But not even one person among the whole gathering of the rebels could raise an objection against the authenticity of this tradition.

    5. Abu Musa Ashari reports:

    The Prophet appointed and sent him (Abu Musa) as governor of Yemen. Then later he sent Muadh ibn Jabal as his assistant. When Muadh arrived there, he announced: People, I am sent by the Messenger of God for you. Abu Musa placed a cushion for him to be comfortably seated.

    Meanwhile a person was presented who previously had been a Jew, then was a Muslim and then became a Jew. Muadh said: I will not sit unless this person is executed. This is the judgement of God and His Messenger. Muadh repeated the statement three times. Finally, when he was killed, Muadh sat.[8]

    It should be noted that this incident took place during the blessed life of the Prophet. At that time Abu Musa represented the Prophet as governor and Muadh as vice-governor. If their action had not been based on the decision of God and His Messenger, surely the Prophet would have objected.

    6. Abdullah ibn Abbas reports:

    Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh was at one time secretary to the Messenger of God. Then Satan seized him and he joined the kuffar. When Mecca was conquered the Messenger of God ordered that he be killed. Later, however, Uthman sought refuge for him and the Messenger of Allah gave him refuge.[9]

    We find the commentary on this last incident in the narration of Sad ibn Abi Waqqas:

    When Mecca was conquered, Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abi Sarh took refuge with Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman took him and they presented themselves to the Prophet, requesting: O Messenger of God, accept the allegiance of Abdullah. The Prophet lifted his head, looked in his direction and remained silent. This happened three times and he (the Prophet) only looked in his direction. Finally after three times he accepted his allegiance. Then he turned towards his Companions and said: Was there no worthy man among you who, when he saw me withholding my hand from accepting his allegiance, would step forward and kill this person? The people replied: O Messenger of God, we did not know your wish. Why did you not signal with your eyes? To this the Prophet replied: It is unbecoming of a Prophet to glance in a stealthy manner.[10]

    7. Aisha narrates:

    On the occasion of the battle of Uhud (when the Muslims suffered defeat), a woman apostatized. To this the Prophet responded: Let her repent. If she does not repent, she should be executed.[11]

    8. Jabir ibn Abdullah narrates:

    A woman Umm Ruman (or Umm Marwan) apostatized. Then the prophet ordered that it would be better that she be offered Islam again and then repent. Otherwise she should be executed.[12]

    A second report of Bayhaqi with reference to this reads:

    She refused to accept Islam. Therefore she was executed.

    C. The Views of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs

    After the above I note the views during the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs:

    1. During the time of Abu Bakr a woman named Umm Qarfa became a kafir after accepting Islam. Abu Bakr requested that she repent but she did not. Abu Bakr had her put to death.[13]

    2. Amru ibn al-As, the governor of Egypt, wrote to Umar that a man accepted Islam, then became a kafir, then accepted Islam and then became a kafir. He committed this act several times. Now should his Islam be accepted or not? Umar replied: As long as God has accepted his Islam, you too should do so. Offer him Islam. If he accepts it, leave him alone. Otherwise kill him.[14]

    3. Sad ibn Abi Waqqas and Abu Musa Ashari sent a messenger to Umar after the Battle of Tustar. The messenger presented a report of the events to Umar. Finally Umar asked: Did anything unusual happen? He said: Yes, Leader of the Faithful. We caught an Arab who had become a kafir after accepting Islam. Umar asked: Then what did you do with him? He said: We killed him. At that, Umar said: Why did you not confine him to a room, put a lock on the door, keep him there for three days and daily throw him a loaf of bread? Perhaps during that time he may have repented. O God! This act did not take place at my command or in my presence; nor after hearing about it am I pleased with it. Nevertheless Umar enquired no further about the matter from Sad and Abu Musa Ashari, nor did he plan to punish them.[15]

    This proves that the action of Sad and Abu Musa was indeed within the limits of the law, but that in Umar's opinion it would have been much better to have given the person an opportunity to repent before killing him.

    4. Abdullah ibn Masud was informed that in one of the mosques of the Banu Hanifah some people were testifying that Musaylimah was a messenger of God. Hearing this, Abdullah sent police to arrest and bring them. When they were brought before him, they all repented and promised never to do it again. Abdullah let all of them go except one, Abdullah ibn al-Nawahah, whom he punished by death. The people said: How is it that you have given two conflicting verdicts in the same case? Abdullah replied that Ibn al-Nawahah was the very man who has been sent by Musaylimah as an ambassador to the Prophet (Muhammad). I was present at that time. Another man, Hajar ibn Wathal, was also with him as a partner in this diplomatic mission. Muhammad asked both of them: Do you bear witness that I am the Messenger of God? They both responded by asking: Do you bear witness that Musaylimah is the Messenger of God? Hearing that, Muhammad replied: If it were permitted to execute the delegates of a political mission, I would execute you both. After relating this event, Abdullah said: For this reason I punished Ibn al-Nawahah by death.[16]

    It is clear that this event occurred during the time of Umar when Abdullah ibn Masud was chief judge of Kufah under him.

    5. Some men who were spreading the claim of Musaylimah were captured in Kufah. Uthman was informed in writing about it. He wrote in response that the true religion (din-i haqq) and the confession: "There is no god except God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God", should be presented before them. Whoever accepts it and reveals his rejection of Musaylimah should be released. Whoever upholds the religion of Musaylimah should be executed.[17]

    6. A man who was formerly a Christian, then was Muslim, and again became a Christian was brought before Ali. Ali asked him: What is the cause of your conduct? He replied: I have found the religion of the Christians better than your religion. Ali asked: What is your belief about Jesus? He said: He is my Lord (Rabb); or else he said: He is Lord of Ali. Hearing this, Ali ordered that he be executed.[18]

    7. Ali was informed about a group of Christians who had become Muslims and then became Christians again. Ali arrested them, summoned them before himself and enquired about the truth of the matter. They said: We were Christians. Then we were offered the choice of remaining Christians or becoming Muslims. We chose Islam. But now it is our opinion that no religion is more excellent than our first religion. Therefore we have become Christians now. Hearing this, Ali ordered these people to be executed and their children enslaved.[19]

    8. Ali was informed that some people regarded him as their Lord (Rabb). He called them and asked: What do you say? They said: You are our Lord, our Creator and Sustainer. Ali said: You are in a sad situation. I am a servant like you. Like you I eat and drink. If I obey God, He rewards me. If I disobey Him, I fear He will punish me. Therefore fear God and abandon your confession. But they refused. The next day Qanbar came and reported the people were saying the same thing. He called them, and on enquiring about the matter, they repeated the same things. The third day Ali called and threatened them: If you say the same thing, I will kill you in a most terrible manner. Still they remained adamant in their opinion. Finally Ali had a pit prepared and a fire burning in it. Then he said: Look, stop this confession immediately. Otherwise I will throw you into this pit. But they persisted in their affirmation. Then at Ali's command all of them were thrown into the pit.[20]

    9. When Ali was in Rahbah, someone informed him that the occupants of a particular house kept an idol in it and worshipped it. Hearing this, Ali himself went there. The idol was discovered after searching. Ali set the house on fire and it was burnt along with its occupants.[21]

    10. A man who had been a Muslim but became a kafir was arrested. This happened during the time of Ali and he was brought to Ali. Ali gave him a one month period to repent and then enquired of him. But he refused to repent. Finally Ali had him put to death.[22]

    These ten examples cover the whole period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphate and demonstrate that whenever apostasy occurred during the time of these four caliphs, the punishment meted out for it was death alone. In any of the events that these examples portray, the inclusion of another crime, apart from the apostasy itself, cannot be demonstrated whereby it could have been said that, in fact, the punishment of death had been given for another crime, not for apostasy.

    D. The First Caliph's Jihad (Holy War) against Apostates

    But more weighty than all of these examples is the example of the jihad of Abu Bakr Siddiq against "the people of apostasy". The whole company of the Companions of the Prophet participated in it. Even if in the beginning anyone disagreed with this war, later the disagreement changed to agreement. This event therefore clearly proves that those persons who received religious instruction directly from the Prophet were united in deciding that an Islamic government should wage war against any group that renounces Islam. Some people argue that this event was a jihad because they understand the apostates to have been in fact rebels who had ceased paying the government tax (zakat), dismissed the government officials and began to establish their own governments. But this argument is definitely wrong on four accounts:
    1. Not all the people against whom the jihad was conducted withheld zakat. In fact they included various types of apostates. Some Arabs believed in individuals who had laid claim to prophethood and proclaimed their message in various corners of Arabia. Others renounced their faith in the prophethood of Muhammad, saying that if Muhammad had been a prophet, he would not have died (law kana Muhammadun nabiyyan ma mata). Some people acknowledged all the requirements of religion and were ready to pay even zakat. But, they added, they themselves would collect and spend their zakat and would not give it to the officials of Abu Bakr. Still others said: We followed God's Messenger when he was among us, but how amazing that Abu Bakr's rule is imposed upon us!

    It was as if they opposed the establishment of the caliphate after the prophet and the arrangement that all Muslims by compulsion were attached to this focal point as they had been attached to the personality of the Messenger of God.

    2. For all these various kinds of people the Companions of the Prophet used the word "apostate" (murtadd) instead of "rebel" and the word "apostasy" (irtidad) instead of "rebellion" when referring to that disturbance. From this it is clearly evident that in their view the real crime that the people had committed was apostasy and not rebellion. At the time when Abu Bakr sent Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl to wage a jihad against the people in South Arabia who had confessed the prophethood of Laqit ibn Malik al-Azdi, he advised him: Wherever you find apostates from Oman to Hadramaut and Yemen, crush them.

    3. When doubt was expressed regarding the permissibility or otherwise of waging a war against those who refused to pay zakat, Abu Bakr replied: By God! I will wage war against anyone who differentiates between namaz (ritual prayer) and zakat (almsgiving). This clearly means that in the view of the first caliph their real crime was not the withholding of zakat but the acceptance of one pillar (of Islam) and the rejection of another.[23]

    Finally the companions agreed with the caliph to wage jihad against those refusing to pay zakat only because they were completely satisfied with the incumbent caliph's arguments that the opponents had renounced the true religion by drawing a (false) distinction between namaz and zakat.

    4. More decisive than all of the above is Abu Bakr's proclamation which he had issued in writing to each of the commanders of the eleven armies at the time he sent the armies to the various parts of Arabia to wage jihad against the apostates. Hafiz ibn Kathir has copied the full proclamation in his book al-Badayah w'al-Nahayah (Vol. 6, p. 316). The following sentences especially merit consideration:

    I have come to know about the movement of those among you who have accepted following Satan and who, having no fear of God, have turned from Islam to kufr. Now I have sent you someone with an army of faithful followers[24] and have advised him to accept nothing from anyone except faith and to execute no one without first inviting him to God, the Mighty and Glorious One. Then whoever accepts his invitation to God and, after confession, maintains good conduct, he will accept his confession and assist him in walking in the right path. And he will fight whoever refuses until he returns to the commandment of God. And he has been ordered to leave no one alive whom he has seized among those who have refused, to set fire to their villages, to destroy them, to enslave their women and children and to accept nothing from anyone except Islam. Thus whoever accepts his word does it for his own good and whoever does not will not be able to impoverish God. I have also directed the commander whom I have sent to announce my plan in all your assemblies and that the sign of accepting Islam is the call to prayer. Do not oppose the village where the call to prayer is heard. Where there is no call to prayer, ask the people why. If they refuse, attack them. If they confess, treat them as they deserve.[25]

    E. Agreement of the Leading Mujtahids (Jurists)

    To copy the consecutive writings of all the lawyers from the first to the fourteenth century A.H. would make our discussion very long. Yet we cannot avoid mentioning that however much the four Schools of Law may differ among themselves regarding the various aspects of this problem, in any case all four Schools without doubt agree on the point that the punishment of the apostate is execution.

    According to the School of Malik, as written in his book Muwatta:

    From Zayd ibn Aslam, Malik has reported that the Apostle of God declared: Whoever changes his religion should be executed. Malik said about this tradition: As far as we can understand this command of the prophet means that the person who leaves Islam to follow another way, but conceals his kufr and continues to manifest Islamic belief, as is the pattern of the Zindiqs[26] and others like them, should be executed after his guilt has been established. He should not be asked to repent because the repentance of such persons cannot be trusted. But the person who has left Islam and publicly chooses to follow another way should be requested to repent. If he repents, good. Otherwise, he should be executed.[27]

    According to the Hanbali School as explained in the well authenticated book al-Mughni:

    In the opinion of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal any adult and rational man or woman who renounces Islam and chooses kufr should be given a three day period to repent. The person who does not repent should be executed. This is also the opinion of Hasan Basri, Zuhri, Ibrahim Nakhi, Makhul, Hammad, Malik, Layth, Awzai, Shafi'i and Ishaq ibn Rahwiyah.[28]

    Imam Tahawi has provided an interpretation of the Hanafi School in his book Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar as follows:

    The lawyers differ among themselves concerning whether or not the person who has apostatized from Islam should be requested to repent. One group says it is much better that the imam (leader) requests the apostate to repent. If he repents, he should be released. Otherwise he should be executed. Imam Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Rahmatullah are among those who have expressed this opinion. A second group says there is no need to request repentance. For them the condition of the apostate resembles that of the harbi kafir ("the infidel at war"). The infidels at war whom our invitation has already reached need not be invited to Islam before initiating war against them. Nevertheless every effort should be made to fully inform all others who have not been previously invited to repent, before attacking them. Likewise every effort should be made to bring back to Islam the person who has apostatized for lack of information about Islam. But the person who understands Islam well and deliberately renounces Islam, should be executed without any invitation to repentance. This opinion is supported by a statement of Imam Abu Yusuf also who writes in his book al-Amla': I will execute an apostate and will not ask for repentance. If, however, he hastens to repent, I will leave him and commit his affair to God.[29]

    An extended explanation of the Hanafi school is found in the Hidayah and reads:

    When any person forsakes Islam -- Refuge is in God -- then Islam should be presented to him. If he has any doubt, every effort should be made to clear it. For it is highly possible that he is afflicted by some doubt, which, if removed, will avert his evil prospect of death by the better prospect of re-embracing Islam. But according to the leading lawyers it is not necessary to offer him Islam because he has already received its invitation.[30]

    Unfortunately at this time I have no reliable book dealing with Shafi'i jurisprudence; yet the representation of this school as found in the Hidayah is as follows:

    It is recorded from Shafi'i that it is incumbent upon the imam to grant the apostate a three day respite. It is illegal for him to execute him before the respite expires, since the apostasy of a Muslim could be the result of some form of doubt. Thus there must be some time given him as an opportunity for consideration and reflection. We consider three days to be sufficient for this purpose.[31]

    Probably these many witnesses will dispel all doubt about the penalty for the apostate according to Islamic law. The penalty is execution, and the penalty is because of apostasy itself and not because of any other crime that may have been connected with the apostasy.[32]

    Some people, after hearing these discourses from the Hadith and the Law, keep on asking: Where is the punishment written in the Qur'an? Even though we have demonstrated the presence of this order also in the Qur'an in the beginning of our discussion, yet, for the satisfaction of these people, let us suppose the commandment is not found in the Qur'an. Still the large number of Hadith, the decisions of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the united opinions of the lawyers suffice fully to establish this commandment.

    We ask those who deem this evidence insufficient and request some Quranic reference to prove the existence of this commandment: In your opinion is the full Islamic penal code the same as that which is found in the Qur'an? If your answer is in the affirmative, it is as if you are saying that apart from those actions which the Qur'an designates as criminal and for which a penalty is prescribed, no other action will be punishable as a crime. Then consider this matter again. Can you run any government in the world successfully even for one day on this principle? If you answer in the negative and you yourself also admit that an Islamic order of government must reckon with other crimes also besides those crimes and their punishment mentioned in the Qur'an and the need for a detailed penal code relative to them, then we ask a second question. Which law will be more worthy to be called Muslim: The law which was in use during the rule of the Prophet and the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs and which was accepted with full agreement and without break for thirteen hundred years by the whole Muslim community's judges, magistrates and legal scholars or the law formulated at present by some persons who have been influenced and overcome by non-Islamic studies and non-Islamic culture and civilization and who have not obtained even a partial education in Islamic disciplines?

    Footnotes:
    3. We have translated this and the following traditions from Mawdudi's Urdu translations of the original Arabic texts. Cf. al-Bukhari, The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari, tr. Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, vol. 9, p. 45. The translator translates din as "Islamic religion".
    This and the following citations of Arabic source materials are Mawdudi's.
    4. Bukhari, Kitab al-Diyat; Muslim, Kitab al-Qasamah w'al-Maharabin w'al-Qisas w'al-Diyat; Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Hudud, Bab al-Hukm fi Man Artadda.
    5. Nasa'i, Sunan, Bab Dhikr Ma Yuhillu Bihi Dam al-Muslim.
    6. ibid.
    7. Nasa'i, Sunan Bab al-Hukm fi'l Murtadd.
    8. ibid.; Bukhari, Sahih, Bab Hukm al-Murtadd w'al Murtaddah wa Istitabathum; Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Hudud Bab al-Hukm fi Man Artadda; cf. al-Bukhari, tr. Khan, op. cit. vol. 9, pp. 45, 46.
    9. Abu Dawud, op. cit.
    10. ibid. For more information on how Abdullah ibn Sad fabricated Quranic passages, deceived Muhammad and later, under Uthman, became a general and governor see The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah by A. Guillaume, O.U.P., London, 1955, p. 550; Encyclopaedia of Islam[2] (under Abdullah ibn Sa'd); T. P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam (under Abdullah ibn Sa'd); I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen der Islamischen Koranauslegung, Brill, Leiden, 1920, p. 35. Has any Muslim writer provided a serious analysis of the dynamics involved in this event as alluded to in this tradition and its commentary?
    11. Bayhaqi.
    12. Daraqutni and Bayhaqi.
    13. ibid.
    14. Kanz al-'Ummal.
    15. Tahawi, Kitab al-Siyar, Bahth Istitabat al-Murtadd; also Bayhaqi, Muwatta; al-Shafi'i, Kitab al-Umm.
    16. Tahawi, op. cit. Mawdudi adds the following note: "To understand this matter one must know that the tribe of Banu Hanifah, along with Ibn al-Nawahah and Hajar bin Wathal, had previously become Muslims. When Musaylimah laid claim to prophethood, they acknowledged it. Thus, when the Prophet said to Abdullah ibn al-Nawahah and Hajar ibn Wathal: 'If it were permitted to execute the delegates of a diplomatic mission, I would execute you both', it clearly means that because of your apostasy you ought to die. But since you have come this time as an ambassador, the rule of the shari'ah cannot be applied against you. For more information on the Wars of Secession (Riddah), Musaylimah and others, see any edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam.
    17. Tahawi, op. cit.
    18. ibid.
    19. ibid.
    20. ibid., p. 239.
    21. Fath al-Bari, vol. 12, p. 239.
    22. Kanz al-'Ummal, vol. 1, p. 8.
    23. The five duties of Islam: 1. confession of faith; 2. ritual prayer; 3. fasting; 4. alms; 5. pilgrimage.
    24. lit. "migrants (from Mecca) and helpers (from Medina) and their good followers".
    25. For an early Muslim historian's report on the apostasy of the Arabs at the time of Abu Bakr, see al-Baladhuri, Kitab Futuh al-Buldan (The Origins of the Islamic State), tr. P. K. Hitti, Khayat, Beirut, 1966, esp. pp.116-162. The even earlier biography of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq refers to the apostasy of Ubaydullah ibn Jahsh, who "had migrated with the Muslims, but when he got to Abyssinia he turned Christian and died there as such having abandoned Islam ..." (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, op. cit., p. 527). Nothing indicates he was punished for apostasy. Do this and other early events during the life of Muhammad suggest the possibility of a development in the legal response to apostasy from Islam, perhaps even the matter of consistency regarding the response? Cf. ibid., especially p. 504 regarding the truce of Hudaybiyya which seems to allow for the possibility of followers of Muhammad returning to the enemy. For a useful account of jihad in general and jihad against apostates in particular see Khadduri, op. cit., esp. pp. 76, 77. Among Muslims today, especially in the West, the nature of jihad is perhaps an even more contentious issue than apostasy.
    26. Mawdudi's footnote: "Zindiq means 'atheist'"
    27. Bab al-Qada' fi Man Artadda 'an al-Islam; cf. Imam Malik, Muwatta, trans. by Muhammad Rahim-ud-din, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, p. 317.
    28. Vol. 10. p. 74.
    29. Kitab al-Siyar Bahth Istitabat al-Murtadd.
    30. Bab Ahkam al-Murtaddin. The Urdu text has been translated. A later reprinting of the English translation of the Hidayah: The Hedaya, tr. Charles Hamilton Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, 1985, which appears to be a photocopy of the original edition in 1791. The section "Of the Laws concerning Apostates" contains 22 pages. A portion of it appears in this work as part of Appendix B and includes Hamilton's versions of the above and following quotations.
    Another reprint of the English translation (The Hedaya, Charles Hamilton, Premier Book House, Lahore, 1975) claims to be an exact reproduction of the second edition (1870), adding: "It is hoped that the publication of this treasure of Islamic Jurisprudence which remained out of print for more than half a century will be greatly appreciated." The whole of Book IX, containing also ch. 9 on Apostates, is only outlined and concludes with the note: "This subject is omitted, as it is inapplicable to India" (pp. 205, 206). Would converts from Islam in India agree to its inapplicability?
    31. Again, our translation. See Note 30.
    32. For Mawdudi, it seems, apostasy "pure and simple", quite apart from any consideration of the apostate's rebellion against or threat to the state, merits execution. Or, he would insist, the apostate is a rebel against the state; his apostasy is his act of treason against the state. Mawdudi's apparent rejection of any distinction between the two is what appears especially to frustrate S. A. Rahman and other like-minded Muslims, who would insist that the execution of the apostate for "pure and simple" apostasy from Islam mocks Islam's claim to proclaim religious freedom.

  10. #120
    Salafi (Retd.)
    justabro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,555

    Default

    note: the translation and footnotes are from a christian, and not me... i have left them "as is"

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Apostasy? (sensitive question for bro's only)
    By teek_taak in forum Fiqh and its Application
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11th July 2007, 07:54 PM
  2. Are these figures on apostasy correct?
    By Intoodeep in forum Islam in General
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 30th May 2007, 11:43 PM
  3. Comments: Apostasy and Islam: The Current Hype
    By Anonymous in forum Comment on Articles
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 17th July 2006, 01:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38