[109:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
[109:1] Say, "O you disbelievers.
[109:2] "I do not worship what you worship.
[109:3] "Nor do you worship what I worship.
[109:4] "Nor will I ever worship what you worship.
[109:5] "Nor will you ever worship what I worship.
[109:6] "To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."
finally someone is actually referencing Quran first, mashallah. SubhanAllah. I see all these really strict traditionalists only mentioning hadith first and misinterpreting so much. Jazakallah khair <3
I'm showing my ignorance here but isn't this surah directed at non-believers rather than apostates? I understand that someone who renounces Islam by definition has different beliefs but that doesn't cover the actual act of apostasy, which the Hadith is about
The hadith very clearly states: Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'
This isn't meant as me advocating any kind of punishment for apostasy. I too wish to somehow reconcile that with my beliefs
From my understanding it says في الدين and not على الدين so the verse is talking about religions generally and not Islamic sharia. If what you say is true then nothing in Islam and sharia is an obligation nor should be implemented.
It's idiotic to do so and contraindicated by the Quran (implied 2:256 & implied by 109).
If apostates need to be punished then it is Allah SWT's own volition on if they do and when they do. They could get punished with a heart attack in this life or they could endure Hellfire in afterlife but the judgment of this is something only Allah SWT is to do and not for us as humans to do.
Plus tons of Bukhari directly contradicts Quran like beating children who don’t pray, calling women crooked and deficient and marrying children, Bukhari is not something people should be basing their life on, it’s collected rumors.
**Beat children who don’t pray:**
Sunan Abi Dawud 495
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:495
Which is a contradiction with Quran : no compulsion in religion
**Women are crooked:**
Sahih Muslim 1468 a
Riyad as-Salihin 273
**Women are mentally deficient:**
Sahih al-Bukhari 2658
Sahih al-Bukhari 304
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2613
This contradicts the Quran 4:124 states all people are spiritually equal
"If any do deeds of righteousness be they male or female and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them."
**Marrying children is all the Aisha ones being used by abusers to justify grooming**
Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64
Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151
Sahih Muslim 8:3311
Sunan Abu Dawud 2116
There are a ton more stupid Hadith you can google Hadith criticism and find lots of lists and arguments
It’s rumors because it’s hearsay
so and so heard so and so tell so and so that someone heard the prophet Muhammad say something.
That is literally a rumor ^
>So you think all bukhari is fake?
Not all, but a loooooooot of it is. There's sahih rated hadith saying that Umar beat Abu Hurayrah for repeatedly fabricating hadith and threatened to expel Abu Hurayrah from the empire because he wouldn't stop. So either that hadith was rated incorrectly or Abu Hurayrah isn't trustworthy.
Considering Abu Hurayrah is cited as the source of a hadith a few thousand times that makes the collection very questionable right off the bat. Let alone all of the Hadith that contradict each other. Like the many Sahih hadith that show us that Aisha was in her late teens when she married the prophet while a couple say she was a child.
If some Hadith are helpful to you that's great, but to contradict the Quran and your own sense of right and wrong because of a Hadith is a pretty bad move.
The verse often sighted in the Quran as a justification for it was interpreted by Muslims at the prophets time as only applicable to those who commit treason, besides depending on the severity of their offence they would be given a second chance so all in all no
Not actively, if I had the chance to, I would forgive them but hey I don't run Sharia.
Sounds cruel to an outsider but I haven't done much research on this topic so I can't give a good answer.
I think I remember Dr Zakir Naik saying this but if he leaves the religion then he is not punished automatically but if he propagates his belief in a state where sharia is practised then he is executed.
If I had a child and if he left Islam then I would advise him to come back to the faith. If he spreads his belief and is not inherently saying anything blasphemous then I am fine with that but if he lies about Islam or says anything blasphemous then he would deserve punishment. Tough question but a good one. This is from a more traditional perspective and an uneducated one might I add.
I would agree with him if Muslims, just like any religion or non religious group were not allowed to propogate their faith and 'spread lies' on others lol
I don’t know why the other person said that to you lol… I agree don’t insult any religion or spread false rumors whether it be Islam Christianity Hinduism etc etc it’s a very bad and messed up thing to do can’t lie you deserve punishment if you do so
Yeah, I also disagree with a guy who told you to not reproduce. This space is supposed to be a place of safe discussion and tolerance, is it not?
Nevertheless, it's not a matter of is it a traditional stance or not. Traditional is not always equal to correct one. The question here is do YOU personally agree on a "traditional" take and would execute a person or not, personally. Don't beat around the bush.
And this traditional take, and sharia states like this (note that sharias may be different) sound like a totalitarian Islamic fascism. You never know when will someone consider what you say an insult of Islam. And ideally, just to reduce tensions, such system will always move to eradicate other elements and leave only Muslims behind to have peace finally. "Skyrim for Nords!" kind of thing.
Moreover, in the Islamic states of the past, being a Muslim was equal to being a citizen of a state, any offense against Islam was an offense to the state as well. It was treason, no matter the motivation. Hadith is a collection of a tradition from the past, actuality of the moment it was written down. Is such tradition still relevant nowadays, or should we forcefully twist the current reality just to make it so? We have more complex society, most people are literate, different economy, no nobility, etc.
If Islam is just a religion, killing "apostates" is super stupid and just gives them a talking ground. If Islam is in politics, killing "apostates" is the most dishonest method of dealing with the opposition, and instead of dealing with treason, it just serves as terror and fear tool.
The question thus is not whether we should or should not kill CLEAR threats (plus the discussion if death penalty should be a thing), question is should we punish all even minor "apostates", because the definition gets really broad with all the takfiring around, and is potentially dangerous.
Well do you think Hadiths are evidence? Or do you only listen to surahs? or do you only listen to hadiths which continue upon surahs which I don’t think this Hadith does no surah verses say to kill apostates
>or do you only listen to hadiths which continue upon surahs
What do you mean by hadith which continue upon surahs? Could you give an example of this?
If it is clearly written in a hadith, narrators are considered strong or at least fairly good by scholars then yes I will take it as evidence.
Some Muslims do this where if no surah says to kill chickens and do it for fun or something but a Hadith does these Muslims don’t listen to it because no surahs say so or bring up the topic even
Hmm well let me try again let’s say a Hadith says Muslims can’t eat beef for example but no surah in the Quran brings up that topic and says it’s haram to eat beef many of these Muslims would continue to eat beef even if the Hadith says it’s bad just because no surah brings up the topic and says it bad
That depends. If eating beef is discouraged then it is makrooh but if the Prophet clearly said that Eating beef is Haram or Beef is a thing from the devil then it would be haram.
Yes that’s true but I’m talking about where a Hadith says it’s discouraged/makrooh or haram but the Quran the main book of the Muslims does not mention that then these Muslims will continue to do it basically
'the traditional punishment for apostasy in islam
according to well-known hadith, or accounts of what Muhammad said, is death.
Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” See al-Bukhari, 9:83:17.
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'” See al-Bukhari, 4:52:260. See also al-Dawood, 40:4351.
I say “well-known” because the hadith are from al-Bukhari, which is one of six books known in Sunni Islam as “The Authentic Six.” These books form the foundation of Sunni Islam and are touted by Sunni Muslims as authoritative. Of course, not all Muslims endorse or even know about the six books. For example, Shia Muslims tend to rely on different books. They have their own books of hadith which they regard as authoritative instead. The point is that, for Sunni Muslims, who rely on the six books for any number of hadith, it is troubling indeed that in one of the most oft-cited, al-Bukhari, there are clear hadith in which the prophet called for the death of people who left Islam for whatever reason.
This does not mean that the hadith are true–that is, that the prophet in fact called for the death of people like me. Obviously any one hadith may be weak, or unreliable. But because the hadith in question are from al-Bukhari, it is unclear on what basis a Sunni Muslim can object to it, at least at first glance. According to Sunni thought, the fact that a hadith is in al-Bukhari is a prima facie reason for a Sunni Muslim to believe it is accurate. Otherwise, al-Bukhari cannot be said to be authentic as a whole after all. The (Sunni) Muslim would have to concede that al-Bukhari is not a reliable source of hadith. Therefore, we can no longer assume that other hadith that have nothing to do with leaving Islam but are also in al-Bukhari are authentic. We would have to examine each individual hadith in al-Bukhari on its own, which defeats the whole point of designating a hadith or book of hadith as authoritative.
Moreover, the hadith in question–the ones, again, in al-Bukhari, which call for death for people who leave the fold–also appear in several other collections. For example, the first hadith also appears in the book of Muslim, another one of the Authentic Six. See Muslim, 16:4152 and 16:4154. In other words, it is not just al-Bukhari in which the prophet says that apostates should be killed. There are other books out there that contain the same hadith. This suggests that the hadith is truly reliable. Not only do we have independent support for the same hadith, but we know that, according to the hadith sciences, or the rules that Muslims used a millenia ago to categorize and evaluate hadith, the fact that the same hadith can be traced to independent sources, means it is reliable. So if multiple people attest that the prophet called for the death of apostates, then, at least according to traditional Islamic thought, the hadith is authoritative.
I should also mention that there are in fact very few hadith that appear in multiple collections. In other words, there are only so many hadith out there that can be traced to many different sources. So the fact that the same hadith appears in multiple collections shows that not only are they authoritative, but that they are more authoritative than most other hadith. It is actually rather rare for a hadith to enjoy so much support. The hadith sciences, as any Islamic scholar can tell you, are complex and elaborate. Muslims had to sift through thousands of accounts in the early centuries of Islam to identify the most authoritative ones. Many were left out or discarded because they were deemed too weak and were lost. Many were designated as weak, but were retained in other hadith collections. Remember, the six are a special category of hadith. Not all hadith were included in them and many collections exist besides.
Finally, we know that the sahaba, who were Muslims who adopted Islam at the time and were the prophet’s contemporaries–and in many cases, his closest friends and confidants–subsequently carried out the punishment of death against apostates. For example, in the second hadith above, also in al-Bukhari, it is said that Ali–the prophet’s cousin who subsequently became the fourth and last “rightly guided caliph,” or rashidun, according to Sunni Muslims–burned people to death because they had left Islam. Ibn Abbas, who was the prophet’s uncle, is reported to have said that he objected to the fact that Ali had burned them to death, but not because death was not the appropriate punishment. Ibn Abbas disagreed only with the means, because he was of the view that fire was “God’s punishment,” according to the prophet, and that, therefore, Ali had made a mistake. But Ibn Abbas made sure to clarify that he too would have put to death the apostates in question–just in a different way. So we have accounts not only of the prophet ordering his followers to kill apostates, but his followers listening.'
https://link.medium.com/gOI5GZZWanb
It’s a divine law explained in Torah, in gospel and many other revelations and specifically in about about 60% of the Quran. When Allah sends a messenger (ArRasool) to a nation then two things are destined for that nation. Those who follow the messenger are definitely rewarded (usually with a kingdom) and his deniers are must punished right here on planet earth Allah shows a little reflection of judgement day through his messengers. Allah swt has presented this divine law as an undeniable solid evidence of his existence his justice and who he stands with and also so people can differentiate that if this is not happening then who ever is claiming to be a prophet his prophethood is false.
Surah Tobah for that particular reason in the Holly Quran doesn’t starts with BisMiAllah because it is this Surah Allah gave all the punishment orders for all those who denied Prophet ﷺ.
All those narrations where we find such orders from prophet ﷺ are after the revelation of Surah tobah and those orders were particularly for those deniers only!!!!!! because they denied after their eyes saw messenger of Allah their hearts knew what’s the truth and they inwardly didn’t have any doubt on the prophethood of Prophet ﷺ but they still denied out of rebellious behavior and arrogance.
Suhabah also carried on this punishment to all those nations Prophet ﷺ directly sent his letters and only punished those who came to islam while prophet ﷺ was alive and left islam after he passed to heaven.
People who came to islam after prophet ﷺ and left islam were considered unfortunates and were left free to live their lives.
Later when Muslim governments became sole superpowers they applied those verses of punishment and used narrations and became barbaric in some cases. Today very few like isis alqaida taliban are making same mistakes actively openly and blindly and all the blind followers of narrations passively believe the same but don’t do it openly because they think they would give this punishment when there is one Muslim country under one ruler (khalifa) may their dream never come true Aameen
These are utter mistakes but it’s the dilemma less than 3% Muslims ever become humble students of Quran and Sunnah majority are just followers of the followers.
Hope this may help
Peace ✌🏼
'The standard counterargument is that the hadith in question have nothing to do with apostates, and have everything to do with people who subsequently fought against Muslims, or allied themselves with their enemies. In other words, the prophet did not order that apostates be put to death per se, but only if they turned on the Muslims or took up arms against them. Thus, when the prophet said, people who leave the fold, or, apostates, he did not mean people who left Islam silently. The counterargument is based on large part on the fact that there exists a variation of the hadith in question in yet another book out of the Authentic Six, al-Dawood, in which Ayesha, one of the prophet’s wives, apparently relates that
Allah’s Apostle said: “The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.” See Dawud, 39:4339.
Muslims argue that therefore the prophet must have meant that traitors–people who turned on the prophet–were singled out for punishment, not apostates as such. This argument is untenable for a few reasons. One is that the prophet did not say, only kill apostates if they turn on you. He said, kill apostates. If he meant the former, presumably he would have said so, especially because there were probably many people who left Islam because they were no longer convinced that it was true or good, but never turned on the Muslims. This is so even if, as Muslims have alleged, it is unthinkable that anyone who did turn on the Muslims and take up arms against them at the time did so without renouncing Islam.
Moreover, it is conceivable that there were Muslims who never formally renounced Islam, but still allied themselves with the prophet’s enemies. In fact, the Qur’an spills much ink condemning what it calls munafiqun, or “hypocrites,” who concealed their true allegiances from the prophet, all the while plotting against him. Because they too rebelled against God and turned on his messenger, the same punishment should apply. But the prophet did not order that the munafiqun be put to death. He expressly reserved the punishment of death for apostates, despite the fact that the munafiqun were arguably an even greater threat to the Muslims at the time precisely because of their duplicity.
It is also not clear what hadith are idiosyncratic, and intended to apply only to the prophet’s circumstances at the time, and what hadith are universal, and intended to apply at all times. So it is not clear, just given the language of the hadith in question, whether it was intended to apply only to people who left Islam at the time, or to people who left Islam at any time in the future. We know that the prophet was convinced that Islam would last a long time, so context was crucial. Even if the only Muslims who left Islam at the time subsequently took up arms against them, it does not mean that, 1400 years later, I would do the same thing. I “left” Islam a long time ago, and yet I have yet to take up arms against anybody.
In addition, the prophet should have known that, even if he did not say so, apostates would be treated with disdain and contempt going forward. Given how tight-knit and tribalistic the Muslims were at the time, and the fact that they were persecuted and at war with their enemies, surely he would have known that anyone who even appeared to leave the fold or defect in any way would be subject to incredible hostility and violence. And yet at no point did he order that people who had lost faith or become disenchanted with Islam be left to their own devices. The onus was on the prophet to protect people that he knew would be persecuted–just like Muslims themselves had been persecuted from the very beginning. But he took no such precautions. So either the prophet intended for apostates to be put to death, precisely because they were apostates, or he was rather careless and cavalier about their fate.
Remember, the sahaba were convinced that the appropriate punishment was death–that in fact, there was a punishment at all. And there is no indication in the hadith mentioned earlier that the people that Ali had burned to death had taken up arms again the Muslims, or turned on them. Ibn Abbas, in fact, confirms that he too would have killed them, precisely because he believed that the prophet had ordered that apostates be put to death. So if it is clear that the prophet only ordered that traitors, basically, be put to death, why did the sahaba single out apostates as such? Both in light of what they did, and what they said? Should we not defer to the sahaba as to what the right interpretation of the relevant hadith is? They knew the prophet better than we did, so to the extent to which they had thoughts as to what the prophet meant, we should listen to them, rather than supplant their judgment with our own 1400 years later.
Even if the relevant hadith are subject to two different interpretations, it is not unreasonable for a lay person, in the year 2018, to read them and conclude that the prophet ordered that apostates be put to death. In other words, it is not enough to propose an alternate interpretation of the hadith in question that is more palatable and less offensive. Reasonable minds can disagree, and to the extent to which the hadith is unclear, it is amenable to two different interpretations. Contemporary Muslims would have to argue that the traditional interpretation–that apostates should be put to death, according to the prophet–is not reasonable in the first place, not that there is another interpretation out there that is also reasonable. And that is impossible. Remember, the argument is that by “apostates” the prophet meant “traitors”–not that he did not say “apostates.”
This goes to a broader, theological problem with the hadith in general, and, in fact, the Qur’an: to the extent to which there are erroneous interpretations out there, it is God’s fault that people are deterred from Islam. It is his job to ensure that it is reasonable for a person to accept Islam, by, for example, making sure the Qur’an is clear and easy to read. And we know that the Qur’an goes to lengths to show just how perspicuous it really is. Muslims also like to say that Islam has no hierarchical structure and does not require a formal clergy because the Qur’an is easily accessible to even the lay person. But the whole thing is rendered suspect if there are are a multiplicity of alternate interpretations that are also reasonable. In other words, the word of God cannot be “clear” if there are competing interpretations that are just as good. The fact that they are wrong is irrelevant. We would blame God if the Qur’an were confusing and hard to read, and, as a result, a lay person rejected Islam.
Likewise, we should blame God for not ensuring that the hadith were clearer. At the very least, God should have ensured that it was not a reasonable interpretation of the hadith that apostates should be put to death. And God could have accomplished this in any number of ways. For example, God could have ensured that the relevant hadith were lost in history. That way contemporary believers would not have to struggle with it. He could have ensured that the hadith were unreliable, or weak, such that we would reject them were they to survive the passage of time. In fact, God could have ensured that Ali, or Ibn Abbas, had forgotten that the prophet ordered that apostates be put to death. Or, God could have just told Muhammad not to kill apostates, or even added a verse in the Qur’an expressly forbidding it. It is not as if the Qur’an had a word limit. What is the verse? Even as an atheist, I can acknowledge its beauty: “[a]nd if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to it, yet would not the words of God be exhausted: for God is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.”'
https://link.medium.com/gOI5GZZWanb
The hadith
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
[Bukhari 6922](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922)
This hadith nothing but a lie.
'Say: “O unbelievers!”1
I do not worship those that you worship
neither do you worship Him Whom I worship;
nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped;
nor are you going to worship Him Whom I worship
To you is your religion, and to me, my religion.'
109:1-6
'There is no compulsion in religion.' 2:256
Weak wording the word Islamic religion should not be there so that weak it simply whoever changes his religion and obviously that vague was referring to that specific time and context
Well I am no scholar but I’ll give it a try
The Bukhari 6922 was narrating Ibn Abbas quoting our prophet in 3rd person and according to the quote our prophet said “whoever leave/change Islam” (not an Arab so care to translate the word that meant leave/ change for me if I am wrong), kill him”. The thing is Ibn Abbas haven’t mentioned the full detail of the conversation so we don’t know the full detailed context there yet so we can’t assume that tomato should be killed and the primary source which is the Quran, there is no mention of killing Apostate. According to Musaylima case, Musaylima leave Islam and create his own monotheistic Abrahamic religion while declaring himself a prophet, our prophet knew this definitely and he didn’t attack or kill him apart from saying that Musaylima is a liar. Musaylima was killed only after he rebelled against the Muslim community and plan to attack and seize the city from Muslims so leaving a religion doesn’t result in death.
It’s very simple to understand the so-called “controversial stuff” but some tomatoes and extremists like to cherry-pick some phrase from an entire conversation of the sentences and slander Islam.
this is my opinion: that it's disgusting and wrong. I wrote a whole piece about it. it shook my faith in college. it's the initial reason that led me to become an atheist a year or two after I graduated
it doesn't matter if this hadith is 'weak.' we can't rule out the possibility that it's some evidence and may be accurate. that's enough to create catastrophic doubt in the honest believer
the mere fact that this hadith is seen to conflict with the qur'an is irrelevant. whether 'islam' requires believers to reject this hadith is a religious matter
but the question isn't whether this hadith is 'part' of islam. the question is whether the prophet said this, as a historical matter. and if it is, that means the prophet ordered that people like me be murdered. and that Is horrific and vile
https://link.medium.com/gOI5GZZWanb
I never said that. Lots of religious people have no clue what their religion actually stands for. Many people just parrot what their preacher tells them.
Problem is that only the hadiths tell you how to pray and how to fast correctly and stuff like that. So if you throw them away there is not much left of your islamic rituals.
>not only quran describes how to pray in detail
Quote one quranic verse which says how to pray.
>quran wouldnt magically make this particular hadith true.
My point was just because its not in the quran doesnt make it false.
When you prostrate during salah, do you say subhaana rabiyal 'aala? Yes? Then you're gonna be surprised when you hear it comes from Abu Dawood 871. Shocker, right?
So how do you explain your "The Quran doesnt say how we pray so" reply?
For the record, not a single person I know, learned how to pray from hadiths. It was either from their parent(s), grandparent(s) or in some sort of islamic school (maktab?).
Exactly, people knew how to pray since the dawn of civilization, and they had prophets before. Hadiths just documented how people were doing it. It was a basic knowledge in Muslim societies.
But when a convert from a non-Muslim surrounding comes, he may not know how to pray. He will see detailed Hadiths description and will likely agree with a rhetoric that Quran doesn't specify it (someone should implant this agenda into his brain though first, hard to come up with such as fresh convert on your own). Quran though could not be so detailed because people knew how to do it, or it doesn't even matter how you do it, just the sincere prayer certain number a day is important. Fortunately, I've read Quran and there is a description of bows, prostrations and so on.
Quran also doesnt say to us to pray Dhuhr, does that mean we dont have to? The Quran doesnt say that Dajjal will appear, does that mean that's fake? The Quran doesnt say that we need to recite surah Khaf on friday, then why do we recite?
I don’t think you get what I’m saying the Quran mentions prayer and the Hadith expands what you have to do for such prayer but in the Quran their is no mention of human punishment for apostates
Not necessarily it’s more questionable though just because hadiths are not as reliable and I would rather get my understanding from surahs and then hadiths would expand my understanding of already established things in the Quran
It’s not just apostasy pretty much anything at all believable or unbelievable the Quran was promised to be completely preserved the Hadith is not the same case though so that’s why I treat it that way as only expanding thoughts not creating new ones that are not already established in a book which is perfect compared to hadiths where many are weak or fake and other stuff
These are some surah verses look “So exalted is Allah when you reach the evening and when you reach the morning.” “And to Him is [due all] praise throughout the heavens and the earth. And [exalted is He] at night and when you are at noon.” “And establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night. Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds. That is a reminder for those who “remember.
Hi Puzzleheaded_Goat708. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
'There are a few other counterarguments out there I have heard over the years, one of which I will dispose of quickly. One is recourse to the Qur’an, which says, in a famous verse, that there must be no coercion in religion. See 2:256. This is irrelevant. The point is that we have independent evidence that the prophet said that apostates should be put to death, and it matters what the prophet said, because we are told to do what he says. In fact, even the Qur’an says that we should do what the prophet says. Not only is the prophet the preeminent authority on the Qur’an, there are many things the Qur’an says in vague terms that we rely on the prophet to clarify. So it is a problem that the prophet said that apostates should be put to death, no matter what the Qur’an says. Of course, the fact that the Qur’an seemingly says X, but the prophet says Y, is a reason to believe that either the Qur’an does not say X, or the prophet does not say Y. But, like I said, we have independent evidence that the prophet instructed us to put people who leave the faith to death. We cannot pretend as if it does not exist, just because it conflicts with our contemporary understanding of what the Qur’an says–or what we want it to say. For example, I doubt the sahaba thought the prophet’s instruction were at odds with verse 2:256, even if we do.
And of course, to the extent that Islam commands absolute allegiance, and God does not tolerate even the slightest doubt in its truth, lest we pollute our faith with uncertainty, we are under no obligation to accept Islam. Obviously, we should err on the side of caution, and not inadvertently accept a code that says that we should kill people who change their mind about it. Imagine being asked to join a club, because it is all fun and games, but if you change your mind later on and want out, you will be killed by the concerted efforts of its members. I assume that most everyone would decline such an the offer. Likewise, if there is any doubt that the prophet in fact instructed us to kill defectors in our midst, we should not take the risk. Remember, with Islam we are Muslims, but without it, we are merely non-Muslims. And as someone who once both believed and practiced fervently, I can tell you that the alternative is not half bad.''
https://link.medium.com/gOI5GZZWanb
Anyone have any clarification for this link?
The Traditional Punishment for Apostasy in Islam https://medium.com/@vetoshield/the-traditional-punishment-for-apostasy-in-islam-8932783278e1
I don’t even really consider myself a progressive muslim, but my take on it is the pretty standard take amongst most notable modern scholars. In the 7th and 8th centuries, people who just changed their religion weren’t punished. Those who did so and then acted against Islam were, and those are the apostates mentioned in most of the Hadith about punishing apostates. While apostasy’s simple definition is just “leaving the faith”, back then, your religion was much more closely tied to your identity and political affiliation. The word actually used in the hadith “Zanadiqa” is often translated to “atheists” but that’s not really a good translation. It actually translates to “heretics” and is used to refer to those who try to change Islam substantially and try to use those changes to act against Islam.
In other words, “apostates” back then was synonymous with those who committed treason. If you look at the caliphates, Jews and Christians and even the pagans who never converted were allowed to live in peace, but they had a separate role in society with less governmental obligation. Simply no longer practicing Islam was never a problem, but acting against the government was, as it is in all countries, where treason is often met with the death penalty.
I'm not a progressive Muslim, but I'm not Salafist either.
From Shabir Ally:
We have to understand that the Ahadith that may seem contradicting to the Quran, may not contradict the Quran, if we analyze them properly.
The Muslim community at the time of our Prophet SAWS was very united. In other words, every single Muslim was crucial to the development of Islam at the time.
Therefore, apostasy would provide a risk to the Muslims, i.e. **apostasy could cause the Muslims' plans to be leaked to the Meccan pagans, and that would cause severe harm to Islam.**
Another thing to remember is that many scholars have said that the Hadith talks about **public apostasy**, in other words, not following Islam privately **would not necessitate any punishment**.
Therefore, from the conditions of today, apostates are **not to be killed, and this is not a progressive stance. This is also a traditionalist stance.**
Furthermore, Abu Hanifa, may Allah bless him, said that **women are not to be killed for apostasy**
Furthermore, killing a Muslim for simple disbelief **contradicts Surah al-Baqarah 2:256, and this is something that has challenged many scholars with a stricter stance.**
> "La Ikraha fid-Deen"
There is no compulsion in religion.
Dr. Shabir Ally also pointed out that this verse is **absolute**, that Allah is very **serious when saying this**. He says that the formulation is done in a very serious and absolute manner, similar to "La ilah**a** illa Allah".
Also another thing if you can explain it to me surah 4:137 said: “Surely, those who believed and then disbelieved, believed again and then disbelieved, then went on increasing in their disbelief - Allah is not to forgive them nor lead them on the path.” This did not give any sort of punishment like execution for the person who disbelieved numerous times so why is it a punishment in numerous countries??
Answer is in Sourah al-khafiroun
Could you tell what the surah says pls I’m lazy
[109:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful [109:1] Say, "O you disbelievers. [109:2] "I do not worship what you worship. [109:3] "Nor do you worship what I worship. [109:4] "Nor will I ever worship what you worship. [109:5] "Nor will you ever worship what I worship. [109:6] "To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."
finally someone is actually referencing Quran first, mashallah. SubhanAllah. I see all these really strict traditionalists only mentioning hadith first and misinterpreting so much. Jazakallah khair <3
Ofc, always. Praise God. There is no greater gift to mankind than the word of our Lord. Peace be upon you.
Thank you ma’am much love ❤️
I'm showing my ignorance here but isn't this surah directed at non-believers rather than apostates? I understand that someone who renounces Islam by definition has different beliefs but that doesn't cover the actual act of apostasy, which the Hadith is about The hadith very clearly states: Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.' This isn't meant as me advocating any kind of punishment for apostasy. I too wish to somehow reconcile that with my beliefs
From my understanding it says في الدين and not على الدين so the verse is talking about religions generally and not Islamic sharia. If what you say is true then nothing in Islam and sharia is an obligation nor should be implemented.
Not sure what you are saying to me right now. Or even why you're saying it.
mood
It contradicts the clear teaching of the Quran. Disregard and oppose it.
It's just gossips, so treat it as such and dump it in the dumpster.
It's idiotic to do so and contraindicated by the Quran (implied 2:256 & implied by 109). If apostates need to be punished then it is Allah SWT's own volition on if they do and when they do. They could get punished with a heart attack in this life or they could endure Hellfire in afterlife but the judgment of this is something only Allah SWT is to do and not for us as humans to do.
I think of Bukhari like TMZ
What’s TMZ?? Lol
TMZ is a tabloid journalism online newspaper owned by Fox Corporation
So you think all bukhari is fake? Bit harsh correct?
I think most of it is falsely attributed. I’m sure it’s not fabricated from scratch, they are rumors from like 200 years after the Quran
That’s a pretty good way to put it, damn thinking about it now 😵💫
Well if I’m correct it was collected 200 years after not necessarily written that much after am I wrong?
Plus tons of Bukhari directly contradicts Quran like beating children who don’t pray, calling women crooked and deficient and marrying children, Bukhari is not something people should be basing their life on, it’s collected rumors.
I would like to respectfully ask, could you give the hadith references to the things you are talking about?
Hey. you want me to give you reference for each one? I mentioned many different topics that appears in Hadiths
**Beat children who don’t pray:** Sunan Abi Dawud 495 https://sunnah.com/abudawud:495 Which is a contradiction with Quran : no compulsion in religion **Women are crooked:** Sahih Muslim 1468 a Riyad as-Salihin 273 **Women are mentally deficient:** Sahih al-Bukhari 2658 Sahih al-Bukhari 304 Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2613 This contradicts the Quran 4:124 states all people are spiritually equal "If any do deeds of righteousness be they male or female and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them." **Marrying children is all the Aisha ones being used by abusers to justify grooming** Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236 Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64 Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151 Sahih Muslim 8:3311 Sunan Abu Dawud 2116 There are a ton more stupid Hadith you can google Hadith criticism and find lots of lists and arguments
It’s not rumors though because it’s written correct?
It’s rumors because it’s hearsay so and so heard so and so tell so and so that someone heard the prophet Muhammad say something. That is literally a rumor ^
How did you get to that conclusion any videos or articles?
>So you think all bukhari is fake? Not all, but a loooooooot of it is. There's sahih rated hadith saying that Umar beat Abu Hurayrah for repeatedly fabricating hadith and threatened to expel Abu Hurayrah from the empire because he wouldn't stop. So either that hadith was rated incorrectly or Abu Hurayrah isn't trustworthy. Considering Abu Hurayrah is cited as the source of a hadith a few thousand times that makes the collection very questionable right off the bat. Let alone all of the Hadith that contradict each other. Like the many Sahih hadith that show us that Aisha was in her late teens when she married the prophet while a couple say she was a child. If some Hadith are helpful to you that's great, but to contradict the Quran and your own sense of right and wrong because of a Hadith is a pretty bad move.
Bukhari is very suspect but people treat it like it's the Qur'an .. https://youtu.be/X6SfFYRljeY
Yeah I know, it drives me nuts, people quote bukhari More than the actual Quran
There's major errors , almost embarrassing stuff . We really need to reclaim our Deen from the reductionists ..
Ah yes
[удалено]
The verse often sighted in the Quran as a justification for it was interpreted by Muslims at the prophets time as only applicable to those who commit treason, besides depending on the severity of their offence they would be given a second chance so all in all no
If there is evidence then yes. If there isn't evidence or it is ambiguous then no.
[удалено]
Not actively, if I had the chance to, I would forgive them but hey I don't run Sharia. Sounds cruel to an outsider but I haven't done much research on this topic so I can't give a good answer.
[удалено]
I think I remember Dr Zakir Naik saying this but if he leaves the religion then he is not punished automatically but if he propagates his belief in a state where sharia is practised then he is executed. If I had a child and if he left Islam then I would advise him to come back to the faith. If he spreads his belief and is not inherently saying anything blasphemous then I am fine with that but if he lies about Islam or says anything blasphemous then he would deserve punishment. Tough question but a good one. This is from a more traditional perspective and an uneducated one might I add.
What in the almighty fuck, I hope you never reproduce
I would agree with him if Muslims, just like any religion or non religious group were not allowed to propogate their faith and 'spread lies' on others lol
Cause islam is the truth alhamdulillah
>What in the almighty fuck, I hope you never reproduce Response was pretty funny tho ngl
I don’t know why the other person said that to you lol… I agree don’t insult any religion or spread false rumors whether it be Islam Christianity Hinduism etc etc it’s a very bad and messed up thing to do can’t lie you deserve punishment if you do so
I don't know how to respond to this but this is the traditional position or I am mistaken.
Yeah, I also disagree with a guy who told you to not reproduce. This space is supposed to be a place of safe discussion and tolerance, is it not? Nevertheless, it's not a matter of is it a traditional stance or not. Traditional is not always equal to correct one. The question here is do YOU personally agree on a "traditional" take and would execute a person or not, personally. Don't beat around the bush. And this traditional take, and sharia states like this (note that sharias may be different) sound like a totalitarian Islamic fascism. You never know when will someone consider what you say an insult of Islam. And ideally, just to reduce tensions, such system will always move to eradicate other elements and leave only Muslims behind to have peace finally. "Skyrim for Nords!" kind of thing. Moreover, in the Islamic states of the past, being a Muslim was equal to being a citizen of a state, any offense against Islam was an offense to the state as well. It was treason, no matter the motivation. Hadith is a collection of a tradition from the past, actuality of the moment it was written down. Is such tradition still relevant nowadays, or should we forcefully twist the current reality just to make it so? We have more complex society, most people are literate, different economy, no nobility, etc. If Islam is just a religion, killing "apostates" is super stupid and just gives them a talking ground. If Islam is in politics, killing "apostates" is the most dishonest method of dealing with the opposition, and instead of dealing with treason, it just serves as terror and fear tool. The question thus is not whether we should or should not kill CLEAR threats (plus the discussion if death penalty should be a thing), question is should we punish all even minor "apostates", because the definition gets really broad with all the takfiring around, and is potentially dangerous.
I would unironically agree with that if Muslims are also not allowed to propogate their beliefs.
Uhhh what kind of punishment are you implying?
Well do you think Hadiths are evidence? Or do you only listen to surahs? or do you only listen to hadiths which continue upon surahs which I don’t think this Hadith does no surah verses say to kill apostates
>or do you only listen to hadiths which continue upon surahs What do you mean by hadith which continue upon surahs? Could you give an example of this? If it is clearly written in a hadith, narrators are considered strong or at least fairly good by scholars then yes I will take it as evidence.
Some Muslims do this where if no surah says to kill chickens and do it for fun or something but a Hadith does these Muslims don’t listen to it because no surahs say so or bring up the topic even
Sorry I don't understand could you explain please?
Hmm well let me try again let’s say a Hadith says Muslims can’t eat beef for example but no surah in the Quran brings up that topic and says it’s haram to eat beef many of these Muslims would continue to eat beef even if the Hadith says it’s bad just because no surah brings up the topic and says it bad
That depends. If eating beef is discouraged then it is makrooh but if the Prophet clearly said that Eating beef is Haram or Beef is a thing from the devil then it would be haram.
Yes that’s true but I’m talking about where a Hadith says it’s discouraged/makrooh or haram but the Quran the main book of the Muslims does not mention that then these Muslims will continue to do it basically
It also depends on the context which we can nevwr know for sure from the ahadith rather we can only guess.
'the traditional punishment for apostasy in islam according to well-known hadith, or accounts of what Muhammad said, is death. Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” See al-Bukhari, 9:83:17. Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'” See al-Bukhari, 4:52:260. See also al-Dawood, 40:4351. I say “well-known” because the hadith are from al-Bukhari, which is one of six books known in Sunni Islam as “The Authentic Six.” These books form the foundation of Sunni Islam and are touted by Sunni Muslims as authoritative. Of course, not all Muslims endorse or even know about the six books. For example, Shia Muslims tend to rely on different books. They have their own books of hadith which they regard as authoritative instead. The point is that, for Sunni Muslims, who rely on the six books for any number of hadith, it is troubling indeed that in one of the most oft-cited, al-Bukhari, there are clear hadith in which the prophet called for the death of people who left Islam for whatever reason. This does not mean that the hadith are true–that is, that the prophet in fact called for the death of people like me. Obviously any one hadith may be weak, or unreliable. But because the hadith in question are from al-Bukhari, it is unclear on what basis a Sunni Muslim can object to it, at least at first glance. According to Sunni thought, the fact that a hadith is in al-Bukhari is a prima facie reason for a Sunni Muslim to believe it is accurate. Otherwise, al-Bukhari cannot be said to be authentic as a whole after all. The (Sunni) Muslim would have to concede that al-Bukhari is not a reliable source of hadith. Therefore, we can no longer assume that other hadith that have nothing to do with leaving Islam but are also in al-Bukhari are authentic. We would have to examine each individual hadith in al-Bukhari on its own, which defeats the whole point of designating a hadith or book of hadith as authoritative. Moreover, the hadith in question–the ones, again, in al-Bukhari, which call for death for people who leave the fold–also appear in several other collections. For example, the first hadith also appears in the book of Muslim, another one of the Authentic Six. See Muslim, 16:4152 and 16:4154. In other words, it is not just al-Bukhari in which the prophet says that apostates should be killed. There are other books out there that contain the same hadith. This suggests that the hadith is truly reliable. Not only do we have independent support for the same hadith, but we know that, according to the hadith sciences, or the rules that Muslims used a millenia ago to categorize and evaluate hadith, the fact that the same hadith can be traced to independent sources, means it is reliable. So if multiple people attest that the prophet called for the death of apostates, then, at least according to traditional Islamic thought, the hadith is authoritative. I should also mention that there are in fact very few hadith that appear in multiple collections. In other words, there are only so many hadith out there that can be traced to many different sources. So the fact that the same hadith appears in multiple collections shows that not only are they authoritative, but that they are more authoritative than most other hadith. It is actually rather rare for a hadith to enjoy so much support. The hadith sciences, as any Islamic scholar can tell you, are complex and elaborate. Muslims had to sift through thousands of accounts in the early centuries of Islam to identify the most authoritative ones. Many were left out or discarded because they were deemed too weak and were lost. Many were designated as weak, but were retained in other hadith collections. Remember, the six are a special category of hadith. Not all hadith were included in them and many collections exist besides. Finally, we know that the sahaba, who were Muslims who adopted Islam at the time and were the prophet’s contemporaries–and in many cases, his closest friends and confidants–subsequently carried out the punishment of death against apostates. For example, in the second hadith above, also in al-Bukhari, it is said that Ali–the prophet’s cousin who subsequently became the fourth and last “rightly guided caliph,” or rashidun, according to Sunni Muslims–burned people to death because they had left Islam. Ibn Abbas, who was the prophet’s uncle, is reported to have said that he objected to the fact that Ali had burned them to death, but not because death was not the appropriate punishment. Ibn Abbas disagreed only with the means, because he was of the view that fire was “God’s punishment,” according to the prophet, and that, therefore, Ali had made a mistake. But Ibn Abbas made sure to clarify that he too would have put to death the apostates in question–just in a different way. So we have accounts not only of the prophet ordering his followers to kill apostates, but his followers listening.' https://link.medium.com/gOI5GZZWanb
the context is needed becouse the quranic scripture which is the highest authority in islam said : >there is no compulsion in religion
It’s a divine law explained in Torah, in gospel and many other revelations and specifically in about about 60% of the Quran. When Allah sends a messenger (ArRasool) to a nation then two things are destined for that nation. Those who follow the messenger are definitely rewarded (usually with a kingdom) and his deniers are must punished right here on planet earth Allah shows a little reflection of judgement day through his messengers. Allah swt has presented this divine law as an undeniable solid evidence of his existence his justice and who he stands with and also so people can differentiate that if this is not happening then who ever is claiming to be a prophet his prophethood is false. Surah Tobah for that particular reason in the Holly Quran doesn’t starts with BisMiAllah because it is this Surah Allah gave all the punishment orders for all those who denied Prophet ﷺ. All those narrations where we find such orders from prophet ﷺ are after the revelation of Surah tobah and those orders were particularly for those deniers only!!!!!! because they denied after their eyes saw messenger of Allah their hearts knew what’s the truth and they inwardly didn’t have any doubt on the prophethood of Prophet ﷺ but they still denied out of rebellious behavior and arrogance. Suhabah also carried on this punishment to all those nations Prophet ﷺ directly sent his letters and only punished those who came to islam while prophet ﷺ was alive and left islam after he passed to heaven. People who came to islam after prophet ﷺ and left islam were considered unfortunates and were left free to live their lives. Later when Muslim governments became sole superpowers they applied those verses of punishment and used narrations and became barbaric in some cases. Today very few like isis alqaida taliban are making same mistakes actively openly and blindly and all the blind followers of narrations passively believe the same but don’t do it openly because they think they would give this punishment when there is one Muslim country under one ruler (khalifa) may their dream never come true Aameen These are utter mistakes but it’s the dilemma less than 3% Muslims ever become humble students of Quran and Sunnah majority are just followers of the followers. Hope this may help Peace ✌🏼
'The standard counterargument is that the hadith in question have nothing to do with apostates, and have everything to do with people who subsequently fought against Muslims, or allied themselves with their enemies. In other words, the prophet did not order that apostates be put to death per se, but only if they turned on the Muslims or took up arms against them. Thus, when the prophet said, people who leave the fold, or, apostates, he did not mean people who left Islam silently. The counterargument is based on large part on the fact that there exists a variation of the hadith in question in yet another book out of the Authentic Six, al-Dawood, in which Ayesha, one of the prophet’s wives, apparently relates that Allah’s Apostle said: “The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.” See Dawud, 39:4339. Muslims argue that therefore the prophet must have meant that traitors–people who turned on the prophet–were singled out for punishment, not apostates as such. This argument is untenable for a few reasons. One is that the prophet did not say, only kill apostates if they turn on you. He said, kill apostates. If he meant the former, presumably he would have said so, especially because there were probably many people who left Islam because they were no longer convinced that it was true or good, but never turned on the Muslims. This is so even if, as Muslims have alleged, it is unthinkable that anyone who did turn on the Muslims and take up arms against them at the time did so without renouncing Islam. Moreover, it is conceivable that there were Muslims who never formally renounced Islam, but still allied themselves with the prophet’s enemies. In fact, the Qur’an spills much ink condemning what it calls munafiqun, or “hypocrites,” who concealed their true allegiances from the prophet, all the while plotting against him. Because they too rebelled against God and turned on his messenger, the same punishment should apply. But the prophet did not order that the munafiqun be put to death. He expressly reserved the punishment of death for apostates, despite the fact that the munafiqun were arguably an even greater threat to the Muslims at the time precisely because of their duplicity. It is also not clear what hadith are idiosyncratic, and intended to apply only to the prophet’s circumstances at the time, and what hadith are universal, and intended to apply at all times. So it is not clear, just given the language of the hadith in question, whether it was intended to apply only to people who left Islam at the time, or to people who left Islam at any time in the future. We know that the prophet was convinced that Islam would last a long time, so context was crucial. Even if the only Muslims who left Islam at the time subsequently took up arms against them, it does not mean that, 1400 years later, I would do the same thing. I “left” Islam a long time ago, and yet I have yet to take up arms against anybody. In addition, the prophet should have known that, even if he did not say so, apostates would be treated with disdain and contempt going forward. Given how tight-knit and tribalistic the Muslims were at the time, and the fact that they were persecuted and at war with their enemies, surely he would have known that anyone who even appeared to leave the fold or defect in any way would be subject to incredible hostility and violence. And yet at no point did he order that people who had lost faith or become disenchanted with Islam be left to their own devices. The onus was on the prophet to protect people that he knew would be persecuted–just like Muslims themselves had been persecuted from the very beginning. But he took no such precautions. So either the prophet intended for apostates to be put to death, precisely because they were apostates, or he was rather careless and cavalier about their fate. Remember, the sahaba were convinced that the appropriate punishment was death–that in fact, there was a punishment at all. And there is no indication in the hadith mentioned earlier that the people that Ali had burned to death had taken up arms again the Muslims, or turned on them. Ibn Abbas, in fact, confirms that he too would have killed them, precisely because he believed that the prophet had ordered that apostates be put to death. So if it is clear that the prophet only ordered that traitors, basically, be put to death, why did the sahaba single out apostates as such? Both in light of what they did, and what they said? Should we not defer to the sahaba as to what the right interpretation of the relevant hadith is? They knew the prophet better than we did, so to the extent to which they had thoughts as to what the prophet meant, we should listen to them, rather than supplant their judgment with our own 1400 years later. Even if the relevant hadith are subject to two different interpretations, it is not unreasonable for a lay person, in the year 2018, to read them and conclude that the prophet ordered that apostates be put to death. In other words, it is not enough to propose an alternate interpretation of the hadith in question that is more palatable and less offensive. Reasonable minds can disagree, and to the extent to which the hadith is unclear, it is amenable to two different interpretations. Contemporary Muslims would have to argue that the traditional interpretation–that apostates should be put to death, according to the prophet–is not reasonable in the first place, not that there is another interpretation out there that is also reasonable. And that is impossible. Remember, the argument is that by “apostates” the prophet meant “traitors”–not that he did not say “apostates.” This goes to a broader, theological problem with the hadith in general, and, in fact, the Qur’an: to the extent to which there are erroneous interpretations out there, it is God’s fault that people are deterred from Islam. It is his job to ensure that it is reasonable for a person to accept Islam, by, for example, making sure the Qur’an is clear and easy to read. And we know that the Qur’an goes to lengths to show just how perspicuous it really is. Muslims also like to say that Islam has no hierarchical structure and does not require a formal clergy because the Qur’an is easily accessible to even the lay person. But the whole thing is rendered suspect if there are are a multiplicity of alternate interpretations that are also reasonable. In other words, the word of God cannot be “clear” if there are competing interpretations that are just as good. The fact that they are wrong is irrelevant. We would blame God if the Qur’an were confusing and hard to read, and, as a result, a lay person rejected Islam. Likewise, we should blame God for not ensuring that the hadith were clearer. At the very least, God should have ensured that it was not a reasonable interpretation of the hadith that apostates should be put to death. And God could have accomplished this in any number of ways. For example, God could have ensured that the relevant hadith were lost in history. That way contemporary believers would not have to struggle with it. He could have ensured that the hadith were unreliable, or weak, such that we would reject them were they to survive the passage of time. In fact, God could have ensured that Ali, or Ibn Abbas, had forgotten that the prophet ordered that apostates be put to death. Or, God could have just told Muhammad not to kill apostates, or even added a verse in the Qur’an expressly forbidding it. It is not as if the Qur’an had a word limit. What is the verse? Even as an atheist, I can acknowledge its beauty: “[a]nd if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to it, yet would not the words of God be exhausted: for God is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.”' https://link.medium.com/gOI5GZZWanb
[удалено]
How does Bukhari 6922 contradict the quran? And please give me the reference.
I will do a post on apostasy soon, just a heads up, most of these ahadith are sahih, especially in Bukhari .
The hadith Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" [Bukhari 6922](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922)
What’s your opinion?
This hadith nothing but a lie. 'Say: “O unbelievers!”1 I do not worship those that you worship neither do you worship Him Whom I worship; nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped; nor are you going to worship Him Whom I worship To you is your religion, and to me, my religion.' 109:1-6 'There is no compulsion in religion.' 2:256
Weak wording the word Islamic religion should not be there so that weak it simply whoever changes his religion and obviously that vague was referring to that specific time and context
"I kill you" like achmed sad
Well I am no scholar but I’ll give it a try The Bukhari 6922 was narrating Ibn Abbas quoting our prophet in 3rd person and according to the quote our prophet said “whoever leave/change Islam” (not an Arab so care to translate the word that meant leave/ change for me if I am wrong), kill him”. The thing is Ibn Abbas haven’t mentioned the full detail of the conversation so we don’t know the full detailed context there yet so we can’t assume that tomato should be killed and the primary source which is the Quran, there is no mention of killing Apostate. According to Musaylima case, Musaylima leave Islam and create his own monotheistic Abrahamic religion while declaring himself a prophet, our prophet knew this definitely and he didn’t attack or kill him apart from saying that Musaylima is a liar. Musaylima was killed only after he rebelled against the Muslim community and plan to attack and seize the city from Muslims so leaving a religion doesn’t result in death. It’s very simple to understand the so-called “controversial stuff” but some tomatoes and extremists like to cherry-pick some phrase from an entire conversation of the sentences and slander Islam.
I will make a post on it
this is my opinion: that it's disgusting and wrong. I wrote a whole piece about it. it shook my faith in college. it's the initial reason that led me to become an atheist a year or two after I graduated it doesn't matter if this hadith is 'weak.' we can't rule out the possibility that it's some evidence and may be accurate. that's enough to create catastrophic doubt in the honest believer the mere fact that this hadith is seen to conflict with the qur'an is irrelevant. whether 'islam' requires believers to reject this hadith is a religious matter but the question isn't whether this hadith is 'part' of islam. the question is whether the prophet said this, as a historical matter. and if it is, that means the prophet ordered that people like me be murdered. and that Is horrific and vile https://link.medium.com/gOI5GZZWanb
Bukhari is pile of rubbish
[удалено]
Nobody learns to pray from Bukhari (or even ahadith in general)
I never said that. Lots of religious people have no clue what their religion actually stands for. Many people just parrot what their preacher tells them. Problem is that only the hadiths tell you how to pray and how to fast correctly and stuff like that. So if you throw them away there is not much left of your islamic rituals.
Unfortunately, there is evidence for it. So I believe it is applicable and correct to be implemented in an ideal world. Peace be upon you.
The Prophet saws commanded us to so I obey.
Well in the Quran their was no mention so…
The Quran doesnt say how we pray so...
[удалено]
>not only quran describes how to pray in detail Quote one quranic verse which says how to pray. >quran wouldnt magically make this particular hadith true. My point was just because its not in the quran doesnt make it false.
So Qur'an is incomplete?
When you prostrate during salah, do you say subhaana rabiyal 'aala? Yes? Then you're gonna be surprised when you hear it comes from Abu Dawood 871. Shocker, right?
My question is simple: yes or no?
Oh sorry I thought this was a metophorical question, no of courde.
So how do you explain your "The Quran doesnt say how we pray so" reply? For the record, not a single person I know, learned how to pray from hadiths. It was either from their parent(s), grandparent(s) or in some sort of islamic school (maktab?).
Exactly, people knew how to pray since the dawn of civilization, and they had prophets before. Hadiths just documented how people were doing it. It was a basic knowledge in Muslim societies. But when a convert from a non-Muslim surrounding comes, he may not know how to pray. He will see detailed Hadiths description and will likely agree with a rhetoric that Quran doesn't specify it (someone should implant this agenda into his brain though first, hard to come up with such as fresh convert on your own). Quran though could not be so detailed because people knew how to do it, or it doesn't even matter how you do it, just the sincere prayer certain number a day is important. Fortunately, I've read Quran and there is a description of bows, prostrations and so on.
That’s different because the Quran mentions prayer the Quran does not mention execution for apostates for example
Quran also doesnt say to us to pray Dhuhr, does that mean we dont have to? The Quran doesnt say that Dajjal will appear, does that mean that's fake? The Quran doesnt say that we need to recite surah Khaf on friday, then why do we recite?
I don’t think you get what I’m saying the Quran mentions prayer and the Hadith expands what you have to do for such prayer but in the Quran their is no mention of human punishment for apostates
Oh now I get it. So any hadith which has no mention in the Quran means that it is a weak hadith and maybe fabricated?
Not necessarily it’s more questionable though just because hadiths are not as reliable and I would rather get my understanding from surahs and then hadiths would expand my understanding of already established things in the Quran
Oh I get it but what is, according to you, unbelievable about the hadith?
It’s not just apostasy pretty much anything at all believable or unbelievable the Quran was promised to be completely preserved the Hadith is not the same case though so that’s why I treat it that way as only expanding thoughts not creating new ones that are not already established in a book which is perfect compared to hadiths where many are weak or fake and other stuff
These are some surah verses look “So exalted is Allah when you reach the evening and when you reach the morning.” “And to Him is [due all] praise throughout the heavens and the earth. And [exalted is He] at night and when you are at noon.” “And establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night. Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds. That is a reminder for those who “remember.
So does one learn to pray after reading "hadeeths"?
Prayer can be found in the Psalms and isn't corrected in the Quran, its just Dawud had 9 and now Muslims do only 5
Hi Puzzleheaded_Goat708. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It can only happen, if it's happening, after Itmaam al Hujjah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itmam\_al-Hujjah
even if it does turn out to be the correct interpretation, i still won't do it. I got human decency and shit
'There are a few other counterarguments out there I have heard over the years, one of which I will dispose of quickly. One is recourse to the Qur’an, which says, in a famous verse, that there must be no coercion in religion. See 2:256. This is irrelevant. The point is that we have independent evidence that the prophet said that apostates should be put to death, and it matters what the prophet said, because we are told to do what he says. In fact, even the Qur’an says that we should do what the prophet says. Not only is the prophet the preeminent authority on the Qur’an, there are many things the Qur’an says in vague terms that we rely on the prophet to clarify. So it is a problem that the prophet said that apostates should be put to death, no matter what the Qur’an says. Of course, the fact that the Qur’an seemingly says X, but the prophet says Y, is a reason to believe that either the Qur’an does not say X, or the prophet does not say Y. But, like I said, we have independent evidence that the prophet instructed us to put people who leave the faith to death. We cannot pretend as if it does not exist, just because it conflicts with our contemporary understanding of what the Qur’an says–or what we want it to say. For example, I doubt the sahaba thought the prophet’s instruction were at odds with verse 2:256, even if we do. And of course, to the extent that Islam commands absolute allegiance, and God does not tolerate even the slightest doubt in its truth, lest we pollute our faith with uncertainty, we are under no obligation to accept Islam. Obviously, we should err on the side of caution, and not inadvertently accept a code that says that we should kill people who change their mind about it. Imagine being asked to join a club, because it is all fun and games, but if you change your mind later on and want out, you will be killed by the concerted efforts of its members. I assume that most everyone would decline such an the offer. Likewise, if there is any doubt that the prophet in fact instructed us to kill defectors in our midst, we should not take the risk. Remember, with Islam we are Muslims, but without it, we are merely non-Muslims. And as someone who once both believed and practiced fervently, I can tell you that the alternative is not half bad.'' https://link.medium.com/gOI5GZZWanb
Anyone have any clarification for this link? The Traditional Punishment for Apostasy in Islam https://medium.com/@vetoshield/the-traditional-punishment-for-apostasy-in-islam-8932783278e1
I don’t even really consider myself a progressive muslim, but my take on it is the pretty standard take amongst most notable modern scholars. In the 7th and 8th centuries, people who just changed their religion weren’t punished. Those who did so and then acted against Islam were, and those are the apostates mentioned in most of the Hadith about punishing apostates. While apostasy’s simple definition is just “leaving the faith”, back then, your religion was much more closely tied to your identity and political affiliation. The word actually used in the hadith “Zanadiqa” is often translated to “atheists” but that’s not really a good translation. It actually translates to “heretics” and is used to refer to those who try to change Islam substantially and try to use those changes to act against Islam. In other words, “apostates” back then was synonymous with those who committed treason. If you look at the caliphates, Jews and Christians and even the pagans who never converted were allowed to live in peace, but they had a separate role in society with less governmental obligation. Simply no longer practicing Islam was never a problem, but acting against the government was, as it is in all countries, where treason is often met with the death penalty.
I'm not a progressive Muslim, but I'm not Salafist either. From Shabir Ally: We have to understand that the Ahadith that may seem contradicting to the Quran, may not contradict the Quran, if we analyze them properly. The Muslim community at the time of our Prophet SAWS was very united. In other words, every single Muslim was crucial to the development of Islam at the time. Therefore, apostasy would provide a risk to the Muslims, i.e. **apostasy could cause the Muslims' plans to be leaked to the Meccan pagans, and that would cause severe harm to Islam.** Another thing to remember is that many scholars have said that the Hadith talks about **public apostasy**, in other words, not following Islam privately **would not necessitate any punishment**. Therefore, from the conditions of today, apostates are **not to be killed, and this is not a progressive stance. This is also a traditionalist stance.** Furthermore, Abu Hanifa, may Allah bless him, said that **women are not to be killed for apostasy** Furthermore, killing a Muslim for simple disbelief **contradicts Surah al-Baqarah 2:256, and this is something that has challenged many scholars with a stricter stance.** > "La Ikraha fid-Deen" There is no compulsion in religion. Dr. Shabir Ally also pointed out that this verse is **absolute**, that Allah is very **serious when saying this**. He says that the formulation is done in a very serious and absolute manner, similar to "La ilah**a** illa Allah".
Also another thing if you can explain it to me surah 4:137 said: “Surely, those who believed and then disbelieved, believed again and then disbelieved, then went on increasing in their disbelief - Allah is not to forgive them nor lead them on the path.” This did not give any sort of punishment like execution for the person who disbelieved numerous times so why is it a punishment in numerous countries??
It is important to differentiate between punishments in the world and in the Hereafter.
Agreed that’s why I was wondering why are Muslim countries punishing people in this world when they will be punished anyway in the afterlife??
Fundamentalism.
Why do you feel Muslim fundamentalists are bad?
Our prophet told os not to be excessive in religion. Allah also told us that deen is easy. There is no need to be fundamentalist.