armughal and saif-ul-islam:
The issue of religion is ONLY between the person and God. So, only HE can judge. Whereas, the worldy courts provide justice for crimes committed against humanity.
And Allah knows best.
Everybody has a lot of comments about shias etc so naturally I thought they might share their wealth of knowledge about this topic with me.
Hum Sa Ho To Samne Aaye,
First let me make it absolutely clear that I do not believe that Islam teaches any such doctrine. IMO, Islam teaches total freedom of conscience and actually encourage people to show proof & discuss their doubts. If you would like, I will be more than happy to give the background of my belief.
But as you asked a question regarding those who actually believe in death for the apostate, let me summarize to you some of the responses I have gotten from different people I have spoken to & have asked the same question you asked. You might get insight to their justification!
Their support for the decree has the following two points of logic.
1). It is reported in the Sahih Hadiths that such punishment for apostate was practiced in the time of the Holy Prophet (saw) & also at the time of Khulafa-e-Rashideen. Those Hadiths are hard to be disregarded and as we all should follow Allah & his Prophet as said in Quran, so we must also carry on with this practice. If presented with the Quranic verses that contradict with these narrations, their argument is "Prophet (saw) knew Qur'an better, if he didn't consider such punishment contradictory, how can we?' For them, the reason for following such a punishment is the same as to why Muslims pray in Arabic (because AnHazoor (saw) did so), why in prayers men stand on the right of the Imam & women on the left (because it's the tradition of the Holy Prophet (saw). So, in their opinion, they are only following the Sunnah.
2). Their second justification is; when a person converts to another faith, he is bound to profess that other faith which will probably mean that he will use the argument against Islam & give reasons why he left Islam. If you & I believe in Islam, then the convert must be professing something false & thus creating a 'fitna' (disorder) among the believers. And such a fitna cannot be tolerated as if gone out of hands would mean discord in the society. They also quote the quranic verse which states that capital punishment is permissible against those who have committed murder or have created fitna. And so they argue that it's wiser to kill that one person than to cause harm to the whole society from his misguidance.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
so all these courts set up all around r the world r meant to do what????
provide entertainment????
[/QUOTE]
You need a crash course in fiqh. There is a difference between a Hadd, Tazeer, and Gunah:
Hadd = Obstruction - The Punishment for comitting an act that Allah has suggested a punishment for (Theft & Adultry). These are the acts by which we interfere in the independence spheres of other individuals.
Tazeer = Prohibition - A discretionary punishment by the State, for committing an act of crime, i.e. interfering into the independence spheres of one or more individuals, or breaking the state law, for those crimes which Allah has not suggested any punishment for, but has also not disallowed any punishment for.
Gunah = Sin - to yourself, or to individuals without interefering in their independence spheres, or failing to fulfill Haqooqullah (the Rights of God) for which only God can punish an individual.
According to the Koran, Apostacy falls in the third category, and I have quoted a verse from the Koran ealier, to support my point of view. Religion is based on scriptures and not on your personal whims and guesses.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
**Hum Sa Ho To Samne Aaye*,
First let me make it absolutely clear that I do not believe that Islam teaches any such doctrine. IMO, Islam teaches total freedom of conscience and actually encourage people to show proof & discuss their doubts. If you would like, I will be more than happy to give the background of my belief.
But as you asked a question regarding those who actually believe in death for the apostate, let me summarize to you some of the responses I have gotten from different people I have spoken to & have asked the same question you asked. You might get insight to their justification!
Their support for the decree has the following two points of logic.
1). It is reported in the Sahih Hadiths that such punishment for apostate was practiced in the time of the Holy Prophet (saw) & also at the time of Khulafa-e-Rashideen. Those Hadiths are hard to be disregarded and as we all should follow Allah & his Prophet as said in Quran, so we must also carry on with this practice. If presented with the Quranic verses that contradict with these narrations, their argument is "Prophet (saw) knew Qur'an better, if he didn't consider such punishment contradictory, how can we?' For them, the reason for following such a punishment is the same as to why Muslims pray in Arabic (because AnHazoor (saw) did so), why in prayers men stand on the right of the Imam & women on the left (because it's the tradition of the Holy Prophet (saw). So, in their opinion, they are only following the Sunnah.
2). Their second justification is; when a person converts to another faith, he is bound to profess that other faith which will probably mean that he will use the argument against Islam & give reasons why he left Islam. If you & I believe in Islam, then the convert must be professing something false & thus creating a 'fitna' (disorder) among the believers. And such a fitna cannot be tolerated as if gone out of hands would mean discord in the society. They also quote the quranic verse which states that capital punishment is permissible against those who have committed murder or have created fitna. And so they argue that it's wiser to kill that one person than to cause harm to the whole society from his misguidance.
[/QUOTE]
Dear Ahmedjee:
You have written:
"*First let me make it absolutely clear that I do not believe that Islam teaches any such doctrine. IMO, Islam teaches total freedom of conscience and actually encourage people to show proof & discuss their doubts. *
And, then you proceed to explain why Islam does allow such doctrines.
Maybe - you were attempting to suggest that Ahmedia Islam **doesn't **teach any such doctrine.
Sunni Islam does teach such docrines which justify killing in the name of Allah.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pagal Insaan: *
According to the Koran, Apostacy falls in the third category, and I have quoted a verse from the Koran ealier, to support my point of view. Religion is based on scriptures and not on your personal whims and guesses.
[/QUOTE]
Dear Sir,
Apostasy being the third category is - maybe "your fiqh's" interpretation doesn't make it universal.
An individual has the right to BELIEVE or NOT to BELIEVE. There is no need for first, second or third category business.
BTW - Sunni religion is not based on personal whims & guesses. The source for both ahmedia & sunn islam are those hadis.
Re: Confusion
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hum Sa Ho To Samne Aaye: *
When a Muslim converts to some other religion, why does Islam order for them to be killed? I just want to understand the reason behind this. Please explain in simple terms though.
[/QUOTE]
Show me where are you quoting your argument from? I've found exactly opposite to what you are saying, in Quran:
Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the right way. (4:138)
This verse proclaims that persons who renounce Islam have the opportunity to re-enter Islam if they so choose. This verse disproves the assertion that according to the Holy Quran an apostate should be put to death. Were death the automatic punishment for an apostate then there arises no question of having the opportunity to join Islam again. This verse mentions apostates who again accept Islam.
There is no mention in the Holy Quran or anywhere else of any punishment for an apostate which may be meted out to him by any other person. The consequences of his apostasy in this world and in the next life lie solely in the hands of God. Man is free to accept or reject whatever beliefs he chooses. God says in the Holy Quran:
There is no compulsion in religion. (2:257)
It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve. (18:30)
Islam recognizes the right of freedom of conscience and freedom of belief and that as far as one's religious belief is concerned one is answerable to God alone. No man has the right to punish another for his choice of belief. There is absolutely no compulsion whatsoever in Islam and no punishment of any kind permitted in the Holy Quran for apostasy.
zakia it's not in the Quran as far as I know but there are Sahih Ahadith clearly stating this ruling. You can refer to the above post by Pakistani Abroad. I'm not challening anything or anyone. I just wanted to understand the logic behind this. If you say it's not an Islamic ruling, does that mean we should ignore the Ahadith regarding this matter? Please note, i'm not trying to argue with anyone here. I just really would like to understand this issue.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hum Sa Ho To Samne Aaye: *
zakia it's not in the Quran as far as I know but there are Sahih Ahadith clearly stating this ruling. You can refer to the above post by Pakistani Abroad. I'm not challening anything or anyone. I just wanted to understand the logic behind this. If you say it's not an Islamic ruling, does that mean we should ignore the Ahadith regarding this matter? Please note, i'm not trying to argue with anyone here. I just really would like to understand this issue.
[/QUOTE]
One thing is for sure. If Hadith states something that is clearly against Quranic teachings, ignore that hadith because that hadith could be 'zaeef' or try to find a different meaning from that hadith which goes in accordance with Quran, as Quran is the word of God and Allah is its protector.
Thanks :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zakiahmed: *
One thing is for sure. If Hadith states something that is clearly against Quranic teachings, ignore that hadith because that hadith could be 'zaeef' or try to find a different meaning from that hadith which goes in accordance with Quran, as Quran is the word of God and Allah is its protector.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree!
Sunni islam is not about -PICK & CHOOSE!
One follows or does taqleed to what has been laid out.
REJECT laws of apostasy today and tommorrow we can REJECT the five namaz as being anti-Quran and later zakat and so on.
We follow those teachings because they were followed by the prophet as authenticated by the scholars.
If one followed what zaki is suggsting then there would be no more Sunni Islam.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hafeez123: *
I disagree!
Sunni islam is not about -PICK & CHOOSE!
One follows or does taqleed to what has been laid out.
REJECT laws of apostasy today and tommorrow we can REJECT the five namaz as being anti-Quran and later zakat and so on.
We follow those teachings because they were followed by the prophet as authenticated by the scholars.
If one followed what zaki is suggsting then there would be no more Sunni Islam.
[/QUOTE]
Do you want to follow sunni islam or 'Islam'? All I am suggesting is Quran and Hadith cannot go 'against' each other as Hadhrat Muhammad (SAW) was THE HOLY PROPHET OF ALLAH who was given Quran with its understanding. How could it be possible for our holy prophet to do or speak something that is against the directions and preachings laid out in Quran.
Don't you see in Quran what Allah has said?
69: 45. And if he (ie., Muhammad s.a.w) had forged and attributed any sayings to US,
69: 46. We would, surely, have seized him by the right hand,
69: 47. And then, surely, WE would have cut his life-vein,
69: 48. And not one of you could have held Our punishment off from him.
69: 49. And verily, it is a reminder for the righteous,
69: 50. And, surely, WE know that there are some among you who reject OUR Signs.
69: 51. And, verily, it will be a source of regret for the disbelievers.
69: 52. And, surely, it is the absolute truth.
69: 53. So glorify the name of thy Lord, the Great.
Its not that hard to understand that Hadith that we have today CAN BE ZAEEF or FORGED but Quran CANNOT BE. And Quran clearly rejects punishment for blasphemy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hafeez123: *
REJECT laws of apostasy today and tommorrow we can REJECT the five namaz as being anti-Quran and later zakat and so on.
[/QUOTE]
How can Namaz or Zakat be anti_Quranic. Have you ever read Quran? It has been mentioned many a times in Quran that Namaz is 'Farz' on every muslim and so is 'zakat'. Get a life man!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zakiahmed: *
How can Namaz or Zakat be anti_Quranic. Have you ever read Quran? It has been mentioned many a times in Quran that Namaz is 'Farz' on every muslim and so is 'zakat'. Get a life man!
[/QUOTE]
Mybe you should reflect on what I am saying.
The 5 namaz:
Does the quran say to namaz 5 times or how to say the namaz
or
Is it Sunnah?
Same for zakaat!
The interpretations for the above i.e namaz & zakat and ASOSTASY are all based on seera of the prophet . The deen of Ahl as sunnah is based upon the seera of the prophet.
Today you do not like one law; tomorrow you will question another.
All I saying is that is not allowed in sunni islam. You cannot PICK & CHOSE!
If you don't like it then leave sunni Islam!
Ooops, there's the apostasy law to DETER you from doing that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hafeez123: *
Mybe you should reflect on what I am saying.
The 5 namaz:
Does the quran say to namaz 5 times or how to say the namaz
or
Is it Sunnah?
Same for zakaat!
The interpretations for the above i.e namaz & zakat and ASOSTASY are all based on seera of the prophet . The deen of Ahl as sunnah is based upon the seera of the prophet.
Today you do not like one law; tomorrow you will question another.
All I saying is that is not allowed in sunni islam. You cannot PICK & CHOSE!
If you don't like it then leave sunni Islam!
Ooops, there's the apostasy law to DETER you from doing that.
[/QUOTE]
C'mon man! I am not at all stating that don't follow the hadith. All I am saying don't follow hadith that is contradictory to Quran. Can't you understand this simple logic?
Now I can understand why are you so stiff and rigid in your beliefs that you don't even use your brain.
As Allah says:
2: 8. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a grievous chastisement.
Hehe I just wanna apologize for call you zakia :) I guess it's zaki.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zakiahmed: *
C'mon man! I am not at all stating that don't follow the hadith. All I am saying don't follow hadith that is contradictory to Quran. Can't you understand this simple logic?
Now I can understand why are you so stiff and rigid in your beliefs that you don't even use your brain.
As Allah says:
2: 8. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a grievous chastisement.
[/QUOTE]
I hear you OKAY!
You are suggesting that when the great mujthahids canonized the hadis as SAHIH and canonized the sunni madzhab based upon them, they, according to you, *did not know what they were doing * , and to quote your surah in this regard:
[2: 8]Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a grievous chastisement.
You do what you feel is correct but do not call it sunni islam. It would be zaki Islam or Zaki-ism.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hafeez123: *
I hear you OKAY!
You are suggesting that when the great mujthahids canonized the hadis as SAHIH and canonized the sunni madzhab based upon them, they, according to you, *did not know what they were doing * , and to quote your surah in this regard:
[2: 8]Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a grievous chastisement.
You do what you feel is correct but do not call it sunni islam. It would be zaki Islam or Zaki-ism.
[/QUOTE]
So you are suggesting every Hadith that has been quoted in all the Ahadith books should be taken as true as Quran is? Means if their is a contradiction between Quran and Hadith, reject Quran and follow Hadith? If this is your Islam, then I TOTALLY REJECT it.
As my faith falls first with Quran AND then with Hadith. If there is a contradiction, I will take Quran's verdict as superior to Hadith, because in Quran it is said that Muhammad (PBUH) doesn't speak/do anything but what is revealed on him. I would definitely take that Hadith as 'False' because otherwise Quran becomes false which I cannot believe.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zakiahmed: *
So you are suggesting every Hadith that has been quoted in all the Ahadith books should be taken as true as Quran is? Means if their is a contradiction between Quran and Hadith, reject Quran and follow Hadith? If this is your Islam, then I TOTALLY REJECT it.
As my faith falls first with Quran AND then with Hadith. If there is a contradiction, I will take Quran's verdict as superior to Hadith, because in Quran it is said that Muhammad (PBUH) doesn't speak/do anything but what is revealed on him. I would definitely take that Hadith as 'False' because otherwise Quran becomes false which I cannot believe.
[/QUOTE]
Are you a mujthahid?
A sunni follows the taqleed of anyone of the four Imams/mujthahid.
My previous responses STANDS. You need to figure out the significance to Sunni Islam re: the Book of Six and what it (Sunni Islam) is based upon.
According to the canons of Suni Islam there are no Contradictions in the laws of apostasy and all alims will vouch for that, just like there are no contrdictions in namaz & zakat. *If there is contradiction in one then there is FLAW in all.
* And, Like a pack of cards - it will all crumble.
God luck to you.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hum Sa Ho To Samne Aaye: *
It's not in the Quran as far as I know but there are Sahih Ahadith clearly stating this ruling.
[/QUOTE]
Dear Hamsa, not being in the Koran is one thing, rejected by the Koran is another thing. In this case, the Koran has rejected the punishment for Apostacy. And for something that Koran has outrightly rejected and disallowed, presenting Ahadith in its favor is a brave act. I'd fear Allah too much before committing such an act, but for those who do, I will hereby present on account on the punishment of Apostacy according to the Hadith, and the foul play by the Molvis in this regard:
-== A Rule from the Rules of *Fiqh* ==-
There is an accepted rule of Fiqh: ﺪﻴﻘﻤﻟﺍ ﻲﻠﻋ ﻖﻠﻄﻤﻟﺍ ﻞﻤﺤﻳ ﺎﻟ ﺎﻧ ﺪﻨﻋﻭ i.e. Mutlik is not Mahmool on Muqeed.
This is difficult language for a commoner, but it can be explained with the following example:
If a few people have seen X shot Y dead, then if, 10 of them say 'X has killed Y' and only 1 says 'X has killed Y because Y had first attacked him with a sword', then we will accept the statment of the 11th person, because it includes the statement of the other 10. The above rule means, that if 10 people have narrated the above incident without accepting or denying the fine details presented by the 11th, then we can not say that the 11th person is wrong, and Y had not attacked X with a sword first.
This rule is logically correct. We will need to keep this rule in mind in order to know the correct meaning of the Ahadith about Apostacy.
I will now first analyse the Ahadith presented by PakistaniAbroad based on this rule.
-== *Hadith 1: ﺖﻋﺎﻤﺠﻠﻟ ﮎﺭﺎﺘﻟﺍ ﻪﻨﻳﺪﻟ ﻕﺭﺎﻔﻤﻟﺍ *==-
Narrated 'Abdullah:
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."
In this Hadith, the Holy prophet has considered it legal to kill someone who leaves Islam and becomes an apostate. However, the Movlis hide from you all that this is NOT the only version of this Hadith. There are many versions of this Hadees, narrated by dependable narrators in the Sahee books. The other versions of the same Hadees, however, add some words to the condition of rhe punishment of Apostacy. These versions of the Hadith are intentionally hidden by the molvis, so that they can associate their barbarianism to Islam and make a mockery of Islam in the world.
Here are some other versions of the Hadith:
1- Narrated by Aisha in Sunan of Abu Daud: "The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) 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 with 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.
This Hadith describes the one posted by PakistaniAbroad, by changing the word "Apostate" with the words "one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle", which means this fighting against Allah and his prophet is a punishable act, and not apostacy in itself. Interestingly, other than death, this Hadith also gives an option of Exile. After reading this Hadith it becomes clear as to what type of apostates were killed, and for what reason.
2- Aisha narrates in Nissai the same hadith with the following words instead of an apostate: ﻪﻟﻮﺳﺭﻭ ﻪﻠﻟﺍ ﺏﺭﺎﺤﻴﻓ ﻡﺎﻠﺳﺎﻟﺍ ﻦﻣ ﺝﺮﺨﻳ ﻞﺟﺭ and also gives the option of exile as stated in the previous Hadith too.
3- Interestingly, in the very same Volume and very same Book of Bokhari, there is another version of the Hadith under discussion. It is sad that the Molvis show us one version and hide the other one.
In a long Hadith narrated Abu Qilaba: "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostleand deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Note that this version of the Hadith makes it very very clear that in order to deserve a punishment, the apostate must have waged a war against Allah and his prophet! Islam allows a defensive war and thus such a killing is not against the Koran.
4- Narrated by Abu Qilaba again in Bokhari: "I do not know that killing a person is lawful in Islam except in three cases: a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, one who has murdered somebody unlawfully, or one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle."
In this version, the words of Apostacy and changing of religion are completely gone, and replaced with the words "one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle".
Now, according to the rule mentioned at the start of this post, do you think we should take the hadith which says apostates should be killed, and throw away all the versions of the same hadith which describe as to what type of apostates are to be killed??? This is not a game, this issue involves human lives. Can a god fearing person play with the issue like our molvis do, by deliberately hiding some ahadith?
Why is it that the Molvis hide the descriptive versions of the Hadith, and only let people know of the one that could help them confuse the common people? It is a disgrace to Islam from these molvis to associate their filthy vulgar and barbaric way of thinking to Islam, by hiding the ahadith which go against their opinion, and popularizing the ones that are against the rules of conscience and against the teachings of Koran!
-== Hadith 2: Allegation on Ali==-
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.'"
1- This hadith does not describe as to what type of crimes are punishable by death, but its main focus is to point out, that IF some apostates qualify for a death punishment, it is not allowed that he should be burnt alive. This hadith focuses on the comparison of ﻞﺘﻗ and ﻕﺍﺮﺣﺎ and not on the punishable crimes. For the above reason, if this hadith does not contain the words "one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle" unlike the few ahadith I posted above, it should not be uncomrehendable.
2- Now lets come to the authencity of this Hadith. It has been narrated by Ikrma, who happens to be probaby the weakest and most unreliable narrator of all. It has been said that he was a Kharji, i.e. among the group of people who waged a war against Hazrat Ali. For this reason he has made an allegation against Ali as to he did know how a death punishment was to be carried out. It is absurd, that Ali who has been with the prophet since he was a child, did not know ﻕﺍﺮﺣﺎ was not allowed! It is only an allegation Ikrma has made against Hazrat Ali.
Ibne Musayyab, the renouned scholar of Hadith used to call him Ikrma Kazzaab (liar). Suleman bin Moabbad has narrated, that Muslims refused to say the funeral prayer of Ikrma. Imam Hussain openly accused this man of forging lies against Hazrat Ali, and once kept him tied to his door like an Animal.
Its such a shame, that the molvis want us to believe in blasphemous allegations against Hazrat Ali, by this man whom the muslims didn't even consider to be among themselves, and force us to follow his narration by associating a meaning to it which is against the teachings of the Koran! This shows us the evil and barbaric nature of the Molvis, that in order to take innocent lives in the name of Islam, they do not hesitate to make such ridiculous allegations against Hazrat Ali.
-== ** Hadith 3: Apostates of the Last Days?** ==-
Narrated 'Ali:
Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."
Here again, the thirst of the molvis for the blood of innocent humans have compelled them to use the same gimmickry as described in the first Hadees. Other versions of the Hadees contain different words:
1- Narrated by Abu Said in Bokhari: "When the man left, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said, "Among the offspring of this man will be some who will recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an will not reach beyond their throats (i.e. they will recite like parrots and will not understand it nor act on it), and they will renegade from the religion as an arrow goes though the game's body. They will kill the Muslims but will not disturb the idolaters. If I am still alive in their time I shall kill them as the people of 'Ad were killed (i.e. I shall kill all of them)."
The underlines words make it very very clear as to why the punishment of death was suggested by the prophet to the people mentioned in the Hadith. This version of the Hadees, which is a descriptive one, has been intentionally hidden under the carpet by the Molvis, whereas the one that is confusing and unclear, and gives them the authority to kill innocent humans and fulfill their barbaric desires of terrorism, has been shown to the common people, so that they can make it easy for the enemies of Islam to say Islam is a religion of terrorism.
2- Abdullah ibn Umar Narrates in Bokhari: "Regarding Al-Haruriyyah, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said, "They will go out of Islam as an arrow darts out of the game's body."
In this narration of the same Hadith, it has been said that the words of the prophet were about Al-Haruriyyah, which are also called the Khwarij!! How on earth can this Hadith then be used to justify the killing of all Apostates??? Why is this narration of the Hadith not shown in the articles of the molvis who try to associate terrorism to Islam?? Why has only the unclear narration been advertised, and the narration that actually explains the Hadith, been ignored?? If the punishment of an apostate is death according to the Hadith so conveniently, why on earth do the molvis have to resot to foul play, by only narrating the most confusing versions of each Hadith?
Another interesting fact I must point out, that Ikrma, the narrator of the Hadith no. 2 discussed above, was also a Kharji! So according to this Hadith, if anyone deserves to be killed, its Ikrma himself, and not the apostates!
3- Sahl Ibne Hunays Narrates in Bokhari: "Yusayr ibn Amr narrated that I asked Sahl ibn Hunayf, "Did you hear the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) saying anything about al-Khawarij?" He said, "I heard him saying while pointing his hand towards Iraq, 'There will appear in it (i.e. Iraq) some people who will recite the Qur'an but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will leave Islam as an arrow darts through the game's body.'"
These narrations are from the same Book Bokhari, yet since they told clearly as to who was the intended target of the Hadith, the Molvis dropped them out, and picked up the confusing ones, so that they could choose the targets themselves! So that they could kill whosoever opposes their views. So that they can justify their terrorism and barbaric practices. So that they can carry out attacks on Shia mosques. Shameful!!
After finding out all this, if someone still says that the Hadith suggests death as the punishment for apostacy, then all I can do for him is pray!
-== ** Treaty of Hudaibiya ** ==-
Bokhari narrates:
"On the day of Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) made a peace treaty with the pagans on three conditions:-
1. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) would return to them any person from the pagans ;
2. The pagans would not return any of the Muslims going to them, and
3. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and his companions would come to Makkah the following year and would stay there for three days and would enter Makkah with their weapons in cases, e.g. swords, arrows, bows, etc.
AbuJandal came hoping, his legs being chained, but the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) returned him to the pagans."
(Sahee Bokhari, 3.863)
If the prophet was of opinion that apostacy is a punishable offence, why did he sign a treaty which stated the Muslim the Muslim that leaves the Muslims and goes to the Pagans, need not even be sent back?