It is not a good idea to elevate the books of hadeeth to the level of that of the Holy Qur’an. Otherwise you will find yourself trying to justify thingas that are categorically against the spirit and letter of Islam. http://www.understanding-islam.com/rp/p-018.htm
***Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
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.’“***
The referred narrative is placed in the Kitaab Al-Jihaad as well as the Kitaab Istitaabah Al-Murtaddeen by Al-Bukhari in his “Sahih”.
Although Bukhari’s narratives do not give any details regarding the incident, yet in his exegesis on Bukhari – “Fath Al-Baari” – Ibn Hajar has mentioned a few other versions of the same incident[3]. Considering all the narratives reporting this incident, the following major variations come to the forefront:
Firstly, there is quite a bit of variation regarding the people, who were subjected to this punishment. According to one version, they were atheists, according to a second version, they were apostates, according to a third version, they were a group of people, who secretly used to practice idolatry and according to a fourth version, they were a group of Rawafidh[4], who believed in the divinity of `Ali (ra).
Secondly, there is a significant difference between the reports regarding the incident itself. Although, the narratives given in Bukhari do not give any details of how the incident happened, yet Ibn Hajar has given a few narratives, which give some details of the happening. According to one version, when Ali (ra)* was informed regarding a people who considered him to be god, he called them and asked them to refrain from such blasphemy. They refused to comply. This went on for three days. Till, finally, *Ali (ra) ordered to dig a deep pit and burn a huge fire in it. The criminals were brought to the fire. Ali (ra)* told them that if they do not agree to refrain from their blasphemy, they would be thrown in the fire. They persisted in their refusal and were, subsequently, thrown in the fire. According to a second version, *Ali (ra) was informed of a people who secretly worshipped idols in a house. Ali (ra)* went to investigate the report. An idol was recovered from the house and, subsequently, the house was burnt the house to ashes. According to a third version, *Ali (ra) was informed of some apostates. He called for them. When they arrived, Ali (ra)* gave them food to eat and asked them to return to Islam. They refused. At their refusal, *Ali (ra) made them stand in a pit and killed them in it. Subsequently, he burnt them.
These are some of the various versions of the incident as reported in books of history and Hadith. One may take whichever explanation he believes to be more plausible to be accurate.
In my opinion, the second and the third versions of the incident are quite considerable. It seems that:
1. After it had become evident that the house was secretly being used for idolatry, `Ali (ra) ordered that it be burnt down. However, due to a mistake on the part of one or more of the narrators, the incident has been reported in a way that it gives the impression that the house was burnt down with its inhabitants. Whereas, it may not have been so; or
2. People were killed for their apostasy and later on their corpses were burnt to ashes. This is clearly implied in the third stated version of the incident.
Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that Ali (ra)* actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is that *Ali’s decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to a criticism on Ali’s* decision – not a criticism on Islam. After all, *Ali (ra) was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision.
They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 11, 2001).]
but Partypooper, Musalman's arguments try to show that Ali was not contradicting the Quran. Again, Musalman is clearly saying that religious tolerance for apostates is not written into the Quran, and punishments for apostates are further explained in accepted hadiths.
Until you can show him that the Quran does preach tolerance for apostates, every other argument falls down. And clearly, the Quran does not hold apostates in high esteem.
The key hinges on the interpretation of "there is no compulsion in religion". However, the context of that verse does not lend itself to religious tolerance, and there are precious few other verses in the Quran that can be used to substantiate such tolerance.
astrosfan, my sincere apologies. Let us go back to your earlier reply which included the commentary of Maududi.
The link that you provided above was very interesting. I have great respect for Maududi. In the above commmentary, he made a critical mistake. He equated the meaning of Kafir with that of non-Muslim or non-believer. Because of this, the opinion of Maududi diverges completely with that of “The Learner”. Let us see what the Learner says: http://www.understanding-islam.com
*Let us first take the term “Kaafir”. “Kaafir” in the Arabic language means “rejecter”. The term “Kaafir”, normally taken to be synonymous with “non-Muslim” or “non-believer” is quite different from the two terms. A “non-Muslim”, obviously, is a person who does not adhere to the Muslim faith. Thus, all those who do not ascribe to the Muslim faith are “non-Muslims”. A “non-believer”, generally used for a person who does not believe in God and the Day of Judgment. “Kaafir”, on the other hand, is a person who knowingly rejects the truth. A person may not believe in some ‘truth’ for a number of reasons. For instance, he may not be fully convinced of some aspect of that ‘truth’ or he may have some doubts in his mind regarding that truth. However, if all doubts are removed from his mind and he becomes fully convinced of that truth, yet he persists in not accepting it or persists in ascribing to a wrong belief after becoming certain of its incorrectness, he then becomes a “Kaafir” and is no longer just a “non-Muslim” or a “non-believer”.
In other words, all those people who persist in not accepting Islam after being fully convinced that Islam is the true religion of the Almighty or persist in ascribing to a false belief after being convinced of its incorrectness are “Kaafirs” or rejecters of the truth. All others for our purposes are “non-Muslims” or “non-believers”.
This explanation, if considered closely, should clarify the fact that we cannot call anyone a “Kaafir” unless we have absolute knowledge of the reasons for his rejection of faith (or Islam), which we do not possess. Thus, for the purpose of this world, we should not call anyone a “Kaafir”. It is only God, Who with His absolute knowledge can declare someone a “Kaafir”. No one besides God possesses the knowledge that is essential to declare someone a “Kaafir”.
Thus, we know on the basis of God’s declaration in the Qur’an that the Jews and the Christians (and those ascribing to other faiths) during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) refused to believe in the Prophet (pbuh) even after being fully convinced of his prophethood and were therefore termed “Kaafir” by the Almighty. As far as the Jews and the Christians of later times are concerned, we do not have adequate knowledge of the reasons for their rejection to term them “Kaafir”. God, on the Day of Judgment, shall give the decision regarding these Jews and Christians. Those, among them, who refused to accept Islam and the prophethood of Mohammed (pbuh), although they were fully convinced of it being the truth, shall stand in the category of “Kaafirs” on the Day of Judgment.
The general principle according to which human beings are being tested in the life of this world is that “there is no compulsion in the choice of one’s religion”. However, it should be kept in mind that the essence of the test, which we – as human beings – are faced with in the life of this world is whether we – without any external compulsion – choose to live our lives as the seekers of truth and the as seekers of the mercy of the Almighty or as the rejecters of the truth and the seekers of the wrath of the Merciful. The result of our behavior shall either be everlasting bliss of Paradise or the unending torture of Hellfire. Man, generally, is allowed to live as long as he has either proven himself to be deserving of the life of Paradise or till the time that he is left with no excuse of his rejection of the truth and thereby deserving of the tortures of hellfire. Whatever the case maybe, the final decision regarding the success or the failure of an individual shall be announced on the Day of Judgment. This is the general principle according to which the Almighty governs life in this world.
If we closely look at the mentioned principle, we shall see that the phrase “there is no compulsion in religion” only implies that man is generally not forced into submission of the truth, if he opts against it. However, if he is rebellious to the truth, he shall then have to face the dire consequences of his rebellion in the hereafter. Obviously, the dire consequences that he shall have to face do not in any case refute the principle of “No compulsion in religion”.
Summarizing this principle, we may say that the attribute of justice, which is a basic attribute of the Almighty, is generally kept dormant in the life of this world. It was essential, for the purposes of the test of this life to be possible, to keep this attribute dormant. Obviously, if evil was instantaneously punished and good was immediately rewarded, there would actually have been no freedom. No one, in such a life, would have had the courage or the desire to do evil. Thus, God kept His justice dormant and promised us that soon there shall be a day in which good and evil shall meet separate ends. That day shall be the Day of Judgment.
The above, as I have stated earlier, is the general principle governing our lives in this world. One exception to this principle is the time when a messenger (Rasu’l) of the Almighty is sent in a people. The Qur’an tells us that when a messenger of the Almighty is sent in a people, the decision of their ultimate success or failure is not deferred until the Day of Judgment. If they submit to the truth, the administration of their reward is initiated in the life of this world. On the contrary, if they persist in their rejection of the truth, the administration of their punishment is also initiated in the life of this world. For polytheists, the punishment of rejecting the messengers of the Almighty has always been death. Examples of this punishment may be seen in human history, in the shape of the destruction of the people of Noah, Lot, Hu’d, Sho`aib, Moses (pbut) etc. The same punishment was administered on the rejecters of Mohammad (pbuh).
Thus, if we see the referred verse in this perspective, it should be obvious that it does not refute the principle of “There is no compulsion in religion”. On the contrary, it tells us that when a people reject the messenger (Rasu’l) of God, there punishment is not deferred until the Day of Judgment, as is generally the case in the test of the life of this world. The rejecters of a messenger of God are punished in this world as well as the hereafter. In other words, the referred verse is not an exception to the principle of “No compulsion in Religion”, but rather a case of exception in the administration of God’s justice.*
I apologise for an unnecessarily long reply. You will find that the above comments by “The Learner” is consistent with the his earlier view that apostasy is not punishable by death.
Partypooper - don't worry about the long posts, they are good to read -
I have read much of The Learner's essays at understanding-islam.com . In general, I find him very liberal in his interpretations of Islam (which I consider a good thing - it's makes life as a Hindu easier for me). However, I think it is clear that he is trying to show Islam in it's best light, so that it is acceptable to anyone with a Western educational background.
The belief that only a prophet can kill an apostate, in my personal opinion, is a copout to justify that Muslims really did at one point kill kufirs for simply their religious beliefs, and that such religious killing is, at least in some respect, built into the religion as a whole. After all, the prophets are your example to follow, and represent the highest ideal.
Musalman's posts create a unified whole, from the Quran through the Hadiths. The Learner, on the other hand, has to pick and claw his way through various stories to try to show that the hadith is in opposition to the Quran - because at one point in another essay, The Learner realizes that Islam must not be hypocritical in it's stance. After all, if two mutally exclusive religions say that that kufirs or apostates should be killed, then there will be armageddon. Instead, the Learner tries to pass of Islam as the friendly party (which I hope he continues to do). But still, I'm not sure I can agree with him on this issue.
[quote]
Originally posted by astrosfan:
*but Partypooper, Musalman's arguments try to show that Ali was not contradicting the Quran. Again, Musalman is clearly saying that religious tolerance for apostates is not written into the Quran, and punishments for apostates are further explained in accepted hadiths.
*
[/quote]
I do not see why those accepted narrations contradict the view of the learner. In any case, as the quote with Ali (ra) shows, such hadeeth have to be proven to be Sahih. It is not as simple as saying that just because they are in these famous hadeeth books then it would thus follow that they are Sahih. As you rightfully know, it is not enough to make a general statement and say that they are accepted or Sahih.
Sahih hadith, has been defined by Ibn al-Salaah, one of the most prominent scholars of the field as:
“Sahih hadith is one whose chain of narrators does not have a break and is a narration of truthful and careful person from another truthful and careful person, till the end, and is not “Shaaz” (unusual) and neither “mo`allal” (having a problem).”
As should be clear from Ibn al-Salaah’s statement cited above, the term “Sahih” does not refer to ahadith collected by a particular “honorable man” like Muslim or Bukhari. The term refers to ahadith that meet specified conditions regarding its chain of narrators. Futhermore the scholar says:
“When they say: “Such and such is a Sahih hadith”, it means that its chain of narrators is not broken and the chain fulfills the conditions specified above, but this does not necessitate that the information given in it is absolutely true.”
[quote]
Originally posted by astrosfan:
**
Until you can show him that the Quran does preach tolerance for apostates, every other argument falls down. And clearly, the Quran does not hold apostates in high esteem.
**
[/quote]
With great respect, I would beg to differ with you and Musalman on this point. At the end of the day, nowhere has Muslman convinced me that apostasy is punishable by death. And neither am I here to convince you. I don't think you will agree with my interpretation of the referred verse and my opinion regarding this issue and nor do I require of you to do so, all that I intend is to show you that the material that Musalman has provided cannot be used as a basis for the assertion that apostasy is punishable by death. I think even you will agree with that.
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 12, 2001).]
Furthermore to my commentary on apostasy, please find the ruling of the four major school of Islamic Law. It is worth noticing that ** all four schools of Islamic law agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt (may ALLAH (SWT) forbid it) must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. In the matter of apostasy the Shia fiqh is also in agreement with the rest.
The Hanafites: ** When the Muslim falls away from Islam (may ALLAH (SWT) forbid it) he is first asked to return. If he has doubts, he is to express them; one can then clear up his doubts, for it may be that he truly has questions with regard to the faith, questions in need of explanation. By this it is possible to deal with his evil deed (sharr) through the best of two possibilities: death or the acceptance of Islam. However, it remains desirable to offer him the acceptance of Islam again, although this is not obligatory, because the message had already been offered him once.
If he needs time to reconsider, it is desirable that the judge allow him a three-day extension, during which he is to remain in custody. If he accepts Islam thereafter, it is good; if not, he is to be killed, without fixing a deadline, because the apostate is surely a hostile unbeliever and no asylum seeker (musta'min) who has asked for protection; furthermore, he is no dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Islamic rule), for no poll tax is demanded of him. Therefore, he should be killed without reservation.
** The Shafi’ites: ** If a Muslim becomes apostate (may ALLAH (SWT) forbid it) the imam should grant him three days grace; he is not to be killed before this period expires, for the apostasy of a Muslim from his faith often results from his confusion. Therefore a grace period is necessary, so that he can reflect, and that the truth can become clear to him again. We, the Shafi´ites, have determined that this time should consist of three days, whether he asks for it or not.
It has been told about, Umar b. al-Khattab (RA) that a man was sent to him by Abu Mosa al-Ashaari. Umar asked him: "Do you have any good news?"; the man said, "Yes, a man apostatised from Islam, so we killed him." Umar said: "Did you first take him into custody for three days, giving him one loaf per day, so that he may repent? O ALLLAH -- you are a witness -- I was not there, neither did I give any orders, nor did I concede to that action." This story was mentioned by Malek the imam in his book, Al-Muwattu, to the effect that Umar disapproved of what they did. Thus, one can conclude from this event that an apostate must be given a three-day time limit before he is put to death.
If the apostate repents, or utters the two main articles of faith (al-shahadatain), or confesses faith in the oneness of Allah (monotheism), he will be released. But if he does not repent, he is to be killed by the sword immediately. This punishment cannot be evaded, because apostasy is the most atrocious and severe form of blasphemy, and it deserves the harsh judgement, which invalidates all of a Muslim's previous deeds. ALLAH (SWT) says: "And for those among you who allow themselves to be led astray from their religion, and who die as unbelievers, their works are invalid now and in eternity" (Sura al-Baqara 2:217). If the apostate returns to Islam, he need not repeat the pilgrimage which had been performed before the apostasy. This is unlike the Hanafites who said: If the apostate repents, he must repeat the pilgrimage, because his apostasy has nullified it.
*The Malikites: * The imam should grant the apostate three days and nights, beginning with the day on which his apostasy was committed, and not with the day of his unbelief or the day upon which the accusation was brought against him. The three days of confinement are to follow in succession, and the day on which the apostasy was proven should not be considered as part of the time limit, if it was preceded by dawn. During his confinement, he is to be given food and drink, which are to be paid out of his assets, while his wife and children are not being cared for by his assets. If he has no assets, he is to be cared for by the public treasury or House of Property (bait ulmal), whether he promises to repent or not. He is not to be beaten in prison, even if he persists in his apostasy. He is surely to be given many chances to repent within this time-limit, in order to prevent bloodshed or punishment resulting from doubts. This should clear up his doubts and give him time to reconsider, so that he may change his mind and repent. If the judge decides on his death before the end of this grace period, his decision is legally binding, because he has ruled on a disputed issue. If he repents after three days, he is to be released; but if he does not, he is to be killed on the third day, at sunset. His corpse is to be neither washed nor embalmed. He is to be buried neither in the cemeteries of the Muslims nor of the unbelievers, for he is not one of them, having once been a Muslim. In fact, his body is to be thrown upon the ground as a public example.
** The Hanbalites: ** There are two opinions on this issue. Some believe that the apostate should be given a period for repentance consisting of three days, while others are of the opinion that he is to be granted no time for reconsideration but should only be offered Islam. If he accepts the offer, he is to be set free; if not, he is to be put to death immediately.
** The Shia’ites: ** Murtad can be of two types: fitri and milli. The term "murtad milli" implies that the person has apostated from his community. A former kafir who became a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Milli) is given a second chance; if he repents, then he is not to be killed. But one who is born as a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Fitri) he is to be killed even if he repents. His repentance might be accepted by ALLAH (SWT) but he still has to go through the punishment prescribed for him in this world.
** Conclusion: ** We see that the death penalty for apostasy is agreed by all four schools of Islamic law and also according Shia’ ite Fiqh unanimously without any doubt.
May ALLAH (SWT) forgive me for any mistakes that I may have made and may ALLAH (SWT) help me in understanding the truth. Ameen.
[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited January 12, 2001).]
But the scholar had already mentioned this opinion... He does not think it to be correct... and he has given his reasons... if Musalman thinks that the opinion of these scholars is correct, it would be better if he responded to the reasons of not accepting this opinion given by The Learner... however, he only cites the opinion of the scholars, which The Learner himself had mentioned... You guys waste a lot of time...
[quote]
Originally posted by stunned:
*But the scholar had already mentioned this opinion... He does not think it to be correct... and he has given his reasons... if Musalman thinks that the opinion of these scholars is correct, it would be better if he responded to the reasons of not accepting this opinion given by The Learner... however, he only cites the opinion of the scholars, which The Learner himself had mentioned... You guys waste a lot of time... *
[/quote]
If you would read my earlier post you will find out that I have already done that and my post was very spicific. The ruling by four schools of Law and Shia fiqh is on top of the evidence and proofs that were provided to counter The Learners interpretation of the ruling on this subject, which is contrary to all schools of Islamic Law. It seems that The Learners opinion is very unique and far apart from that of the majority of classical and contemporary Islamic jurists and scholars.
[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited January 12, 2001).]
I had said earlier that the narratives that Musalman had provided did not contradict the view of the learner. I was wrong. Therefore I should like to take time in order to explain why. The referred narratives actually contradict the Qur'an categorically.
The Qur’an has also clearly stated that a person cannot be subjected to the death penalty, unless he is guilty either of murder or of creating mischief or unrest in the land (Al-Maaidah 5: 32), whereas according to the words cited by you, the Prophet (pbuh) is ascribed to have said:
*Quote #1 Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
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."
Quote #2 Volume 9, Book 83, Number 37:
Narrated Abu Qilaba:
Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger 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 messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate....*
Now just compare the two directives with that of the Qur'an. You shall see that if taken in its absolute sense, the narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) has completely altered the implication of the directive of the Qur’an. In fact, except for the case of murder, the two directives differ on all accounts. It is primarily due to this point that it seems necessary that the narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) should either be explained in the light of the directive of the Qur’an or, if that is not possible, to reject the narrative as being wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as the Prophet (pbuh), obviously, could not have said or done anything contrary to the directives of the Qur’an.
If you would kill them (i.e. the apostates), according to the statement ascribed to Allah’s Apostle, what explanation would you have for the related statements of the Qur’an?
Furthermore, the last narrative that Musalman provided:
*Quote #4 Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:
Narrated Abu Musa:
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle"*
This is not even a saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) himself. Even if it was, Mu'adh bin Jabal may have understood the that such a reversion was done by a man who had "knowingly rebelled and rejected" the message of the Prophet (pbuh) and thereby automatically was punishable by death. Only the prophet (pbuh) had the authority to declare who and who was not Kafir. For the reasons explained by the learner above, no such authority exists today. Therefore the punishment for apostasy has been deferred to the Day of Judgement. Unfortunately, this hadeeth raises far to many new questions rather than any answers. None of the narratives that Musalman has cited support the contention that apostasy is punishable by death. Similarly, the narrative regarding Ali(ra) has already been dealt with previously.
As a result, the inferior quality of the hadiths, for the reasons cited above, cannot provide a basis for the view that apostasy is punishable by death. If the Qur'an and the Sunnah categorically do not support such a practice, then who are we to say otherwise?
The order of Rajm (Stonned to death an adulterer) and kill the converter (Murtid) is not discussed in Quran, but it was discussed as the Shareeah of Hazrat Mossa (Mosses) Alihis Salaam, and The Last Prophet (SAW) continued the thing and thus it is according to Sunnah…
Note that Shareeat-e-Muhammadi (SAW) is actually the extension of Shareeat-e-Mossa (AH)…
Wama Alaina Illal Balagh!
Wallaho Alam!
You (Muslims) are the best nation ever raised among the mankind: (because) you
advocate righteousness and FORBID EVIL, and you believe in (one) GOD (ALLAH).
(Sura: Alay-Imran; Ayat:110)
Sitaaron Pay Jo Daltay Hain Kamand!
Shaheen=An Eagle or A Flacon!
(And yes it’s a MALE Shaheen
[This message has been edited by Shaheen (edited January 12, 2001).]
The problem is not the inferior quality of Hadeeth as you have said. I see the real problem is with the inferior quality of interpretation of Quranic verses, which are not compatible with reputable Hadeeths and have practically rendered ** Bukhari,** one of the most authentic Hadeeth book as ** non credible.** The way you have interpreted the Quranic verses, it has left not one or two but numerous accounts of Hadeeth reported by not one or two but by several companions and great Muslims at different times faulty. That would amount to say that all these Muslims who were at the time of Prophet (PBUH) did not understood the Quran and what Prophet (PBUH) has said properly. Moreover thousands of early / contemporary scholars and all the schools of Islamic law also misunderstood the subject. Surely your interpretation is among a very small minority that is only ** You and The Learner. ** This type of interpretation has not been heard previously, in-fact it is brand new.
** Further more If we take your version of interpretation as correct then we will have to change the Islamic Sharia to exclude the death penalty for “Zinna” (Adultry), because adultery by consent do not create mischief or unrest in the land or does it? **
Besides all of that if we look at The Learners posts we will find out that he himself contradicts in this matter and is confused, for example notice the following:
When a Christian missionary cited the Hadeeth from Bukahari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought toAli 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.’“
** After giving explanations of various scenarios He forms his opinion and says QUOTE>> In my opinion, the second and the third versions of the incident are quite considerable.<<UNQUOTE
Here is the third version:
QUOTE>> People were killed for their apostasy and later on their corpses were burnt to ashes.<<UNQUOTE
Then he concludes:
QOUTE>> Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that Ali (ra) actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is thatAli’s decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to a criticism on Ali’s decision – not a criticism on Islam. After all,Ali (ra) was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision<<UNQUOTE**
Let’s analyze:
He himself thinks that people were killed for their apostasy, is correct, because his criticism directs only Hazrat Ali’s decision of burning the criminals in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the *contrary, which is killing them for their apostasy rather then burning. *
ON THE OTHER HAND majority of Jurists and Scholars consider apostasy as evil in the Islamic society and treason against the Islamic State which can by all account be considered as creating mischief in the land (note the arabic word used in Quran “Fassad” and look up its meaning), therefore justifiable by death. This is why it is in complete HARMONY with QURAN, SUNNAH and HADEETH and on top of that we do not have to change the Sharia and throw bunch of Hadeeth books out, all of it just because they do not fit your interpration.
May ALLAH (SWT) forgive me for any mistakes that I may have made and may ALLAH (SWT) help me in understanding the truth. Ameen.
[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited January 12, 2001).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
***Dear brother Partypooper *
The problem is not the inferior quality of Hadeeth as you have said. I see the real problem is with the inferior quality of interpretation of Quranic verses, which are not compatible with reputable Hadeeths and have practically rendered ** Bukhari,** one of the most authentic Hadeeth book as ** non credible.** The way you have interpreted the Quranic verses, it has left not one or two but numerous accounts of Hadeeth reported by not one or two but by several companions and great Muslims at different times faulty. That would amount to say that all these Muslims who were at the time of Prophet (PBUH) did not understood the Quran and what Prophet (PBUH) has said properly. Moreover thousands of early / contemporary scholars and all the schools of Islamic law also misunderstood the subject. Surely your interpretation is among a very small minority that is only ** You and The Learner. ** This type of interpretation has not been heard previously, in-fact it is brand new.**
[/quote]
With great respect, if I may point out that if the interpretation of the Qur'anic verses is so inferior, then you should have no problem in proving me wrong categorically. You yourself have admitted that "There are several places Quran mention apostasy, but no mention of an earthly punishment is made". This is what I have been saying yet you call that interpretation inferior? Especially when you hold the same view? This is very strange. Even the unreliable hadeeths that you have provided cannot be used as a basis for the assertion that apostasy is punishable by death. When I read your post, there were a lot of contradictions that you did not seem to pick up. For example, you said that it it is known that every person is born as a pure muslim. I agree with that. But is everybody who is not a muslim now therefore punishable by death? This does not make sense.
I do acknowledge the possiblity that the opinion of the majority of the Muslim scholars is correct, but I request all those who read my reply to please point out the error in my reasoning that follows, rather than informing me that I have presented an opinion that is different from the majority of the Muslim scholars.
[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
**
Further more If we take your version of interpretation as correct then we will have to change the Islamic Sharia to exclude the death penalty for “Zinna” (Adultry), because adultery by consent do not create mischief or unrest in the land or does it?
**
[/quote]
With great respect, I would kindly ask of you to check the meaning of Zina. Unless we both understand these terms correctly, then we cannot hope to engage in any constructive dialog. You have equated the whole concept of Zina with pre-marital sex under consent. I would have to disagree with your definition of Zina. For example, in one case, Zina may involve a man and a woman who will voluntarily indulge in the act of fornication or adultery, while in a second case, it will involve the situation where a man may rape a woman or a woman may open a brothel. All these situations come under the definition of Zina.
Crimes of the first case are basically against the person, property, respect and morality of individuals, while crimes of the second case are basically against the society, as a whole. The crimes relating to the second case are called "fasa’d fi’l-ard" in the Qur’an.
Islam, in its penal law, has proposed two different kinds of punishments for the crimes of the two cases. It proposes that the punishment of a thief should be amputation of his (right) hand; the punishment of a murderer should be "qisa’s" and the punishment of the individuals involved in fornication should be a hundred flogs, in public, and, if they are married, severing of their marriage with chaste individuals, and if they are not married, disallowing their marriage with chaste individuals. On the other hand, the punishment for "fasa’d fi’l-ard" has been mentioned in Maidah 5: 34. In this verse the Qur’an says that such individuals should slain in a painful manner (taqteel) or should be crucified (tasleeb) or one of their hands and one of their feet should should be amputated or they should be sent in exile (they should be removed from their society and thereby from the influence of bad company). It is obvious from this verse that the court has been given the authority to decide and implement from amongst these four punishments according to the gravity of the crime and according to the psyche of the criminal.
[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
**
Besides all of that if we look at The Learners posts we will find out that he himself contradicts in this matter and is confused, for example notice the following:
After giving explanations of various scenarios He forms his opinion and says QUOTE>> In my opinion, the second and the third versions of the incident are quite considerable.<<UNQUOTE
Here is the third version:
QUOTE>> People were killed for their apostasy and later on their corpses were burnt to ashes.<<UNQUOTE
Then he concludes:
QOUTE>> Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that Ali (ra) actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is thatAli’s decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to a criticism on Ali’s decision – not a criticism on Islam. After all,Ali (ra) was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision<<UNQUOTE
Let’s analyze:
He himself thinks that people were killed for their apostasy, is correct, because his criticism directs only Hazrat Ali’s decision of burning the criminals in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary, which is killing them for their apostasy rather then burning.
**
[/quote]
I cannot see any contradiction. It is correct that people were indeed killed for apostasy. If you would read the Learners response which I had posted right at the beginning of this page you would have found that he had said:
In my opinion, the directive ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) regarding the apostates is only with reference to the people of Bani Ismai’l. If seen in this perspective, the saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) actually would mean that these people (Bani Ismai’l) who were to be punished, according to the law of Allah, had they not accepted Islam, would face the same punishment, if at any time during their lives they leave the folds of Islam.
If you do not read all the stances on this issue, then how can you expect that this dialogue between us to be meaningful? I have been through all your posts and demonstrated that all the proofs that you have provided actually do not provide any reliable basis for the contention that apostasy is punishable by death. I am trying to fulfill my side of this duty. Now I would kindly ask of you to fully do your side of the bargain.
[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
**
ON THE OTHER HAND majority of Jurists and Scholars consider apostasy as evil in the Islamic society and treason against the Islamic State which can by all account be considered as creating mischief in the land (note the arabic word used in Quran “Fassad” and look up its meaning), therefore justifiable by death. This is why it is in complete HARMONY with QURAN, SUNNAH and HADEETH and on top of that we do not have to change the Sharia and throw bunch of Hadeeth books out, all of it just because they do not fit your interpration.
[/quote]
The issue of "apostasy is not punishable by death" is not "my idea". It is a deduction from the Qur’an and Sunnah for which detailed arguments were given earlier. Calling this deduction "your idea" does not prove it wrong. You can call it anything that pleases you: your idea, your imagination, your trickery, but only sound counter arguments from the Qur’an and the Sunnah can negate what is presented on these bases. As has been demonstrated, the basis that you have provided is not in harmony with the Qur'an and the Sunnah. And I am not throwing out any hadeeth books. Just because there exist a few unreliable hadeeth in them does not necessarily imply that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. With repsect to your comment on fasaad, "stunned" had already commented on this previously and I would request you to refer to what I had said earlier in this reply.
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 13, 2001).]
well I was reading this Q&A thing at i think it was at islamicity.com...soo anywayz...this girl had a question about what she should do about her mother who had converted to christanity, soo what she do...should she stop talking to her etc etc...soo to that the imam said that she should not do anything like that since parents are to be respected at all times, regardless of the situation unless they tell u to do something wrong...if her mother was imposing her beliefs of her then she shouls stop talking to her...but the daughter should continue trying to get her back to the rite path....soo that's what an imam said...
anywayz...latez
wasalam
"There as many ideas in the minds of men and women as there are stars in the sky, it is your job to hold on to one and make it come true"
Anonymous
The crime of Irtidad is punishable by death under current Islamic Law in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is by all means fair in consideration for the dispensation of Justice.
** Br. Partypooper: QUOTE >>With great respect, if I may point out that if the interpretation of the Qur'anic verses is so inferior, then you should have no problem in proving me wrong categorically. You yourself have admitted that "There are several places Quran mention apostasy, but no mention of an earthly punishment is made". This is what I have been saying yet you call that interpretation inferior? Especially when you hold the same view? This is very strange. Even the unreliable hadeeths that you have provided cannot be used as a basis for the assertion that apostasy is punishable by death.<< UNQUOTE**
The error in your understanding is already pointed out to you backed up by reliable HADEETH from BUKHARI, but instead of questioning your own reasoning you suspect the reliability of HADEETH in BUKAHARI. Surely your opinion is of a very small minority. WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT HADEETH IN BUKAHARI ARE FABRICATED? *You clearly fail to see Irtidad as equal to “Fassad” in the land. * For you convenience I am re-posting the parts of it as follow:
** Apostasy in Islam is equal to treason = “fasa’d fi’l-ard”, therefore punishable by death.**
Why? Read below:
The Western world limits treason to political and military terms. In the USA, treason consists "only in levying war against Americans, and in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." However, sometimes even the Western world stretches the concept of political treason to include things, which are not related to politics or military matters. . For example, according to Encyclopedia Britannica in England, it is also treason to violate the monarch's consort, eldest unmarried daughter, or heir's wife. Then, even now, "polluting" the Royal bloodline or obscuring it is included in the definition of treason.
Why has England included such non-political and non-military matters in treason? Because the Royal family and the purity of its bloodline is one of the most significant part of the British society and culture. In Islam, the concept of treason is not limited to political and military affairs, it also has a spiritual and cultural dimension to it. In the Islamic order of sacredness, ALLAH (SWT), then the Prophet (PBUH) and then the Quran occupy the highest positions. Tawhid, nubuwwa, and qiyama form the constitution of Islam. Just as upholding and protecting the constitution of a country is sign of patriotism, and undermining it is a form of treason-in the same way open rejection of the fundamental beliefs of Islam by a Muslim is an act of treason. Apostacy, i.e., the public declaration of rejecting the fundamentals of Islam, has also negative influence on the Muslim society; it is indeed a major fitna.
And that is why Islam has prescribed harsh punishment for apostacy. ** It must be emphasized that apostasy, which we are discussing here, involves open rejection, without any force and with the realization of what one's statements or actions imply.**
** Taking the above meaning of Fasa’d, it is evident that you have clearly misunderstood it’s real meaning. The literal meaning of Fasa’d, its base word and all other implied meaning can be easily looked at in any good Arabic dictionary. **
** Br. Partypooper: QUOTE >>When I read your post, there were a lot of contradictions that you did not seem to pick up. For example, you said that it is known that every person is born as a pure muslim. I agree with that. But is everybody who is not a muslim now therefore punishable by death? This does not make sense.<<UNQUOTE **
There is no contradiction, you just failed to grasp the context, what was said meant that ** everyone’s natural religion is Islam, as is evident from the saying of the Prophet (PBUH) which refers to as “every child is born Muslim, it is the parents who make him a Jew or a Christian.” Clearly that is not classified as Irtidad by the Prophet (PBUH) then how did you figure out that I advocate death for all non-Muslims?
With regards to the judgment of Hazrat Ali (RA) which called death for the Murtads. What is your proof that the people belonged to Bani Ismail? **
The Hadeeth ascribed to Prophet (PBUH) even though very clearly ** general ** in terms, it is presented against all odds by rejecting several other Hadeeth (from one of the most authentic book of Hadeeth namely ** Bukhari **) quoted by companions of Prophet (PBUH) and other early Muslims who definitely understood Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) better then any contemporary students of Islam.
To say that the Hadeeth fall to the people assigned to Prophet (PBUH) is wrong to begin with. Why? Because Islam is a universal religion and Prophet (PBUH) was sent as a mercy of ALLAH (SWT) to the entire humanity and unlike the previous Prophets (PBUT) who were assigned to specific people. ** Where is the proof from Quran and Sunnah that show the evidence that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was only sent to people of Bani Ismail and not to the entire Humanity for all times? **
Secondly to say that ALLAH (SWT) would have sent his “Azaab” to people of Bani Ismail if they would not had converted to Islam is judging the will of ALLAH. How can one know the will of ALLAH (SWT)? There is no one who can call on behalf of ALLAH (SWT), the destruction for any nations.
Clearly Surah Al-Qamar can be understood within context:
After the narration of each story the refrain that has been provided is : "This Qur'an is an easy means of admonition, which if a nation takes to heart and thereby takes the Right Way, the torment that descended on the former nations could be avoided. But it would indeed be a folly if instead of heeding the admonition through this easy means, one persisted in heedlessness and disbelieved until one was overtaken by the torment itself." Likewise, after citing admonitory precedents from the history of the former nations, the disbelievers of Makkah have been addressed and warned to this effect: "If you too adopt the same attitude and conduct for which the other nations have already been punished, why will you not be punished for it? Are you in any way a superior people that you should be treated differently from others? Or, have you received a deed of amnesty that you will not be punished for the crime for which others have been punished? And if you feel elated at your great numbers, you will soon see that these very numbers of yours are put to rout (on the battlefield) and on the Day of Resurrection you will be dealt with even more severely.
** Kindly provide the evidence which declare the will of ALLAH (SWT) that if the un-believers of Mecca did not accept Islam ALLAH (SWT) was going to annihilate them? **
If such a notion is accepted then how come the Hindu and the Buddhist nations who are neither Jews nor Christians (People of the Book) but merely Mushrikeens have not seen the same kind of annihilative Azaab as The Learner is propagating. Surly we know from Quran that ALLAH (SWT) has sent HU’s Messengers to every people on earth, so the Hindu and the Buddhist nations also got them, but even after their rejection they are not destroyed completely yet. Why?
The above clearly points to various flaws in The learners analysis.
Besides there is not a single Shariah court on this planet that accepts the version of The Learner in this regards. This type of interpretation cannot be included in the Shariah unless and until at-least ** One Shariah Court ** accepts the version that Murtad is not subject to death penalty. This type of interpretation should not be propagated until it has any legal significance. ** If The Learner is persistent upon imposing and propagating this type interpretation then he should kindly refer to the Federal Shariah Court of Pakistan which at present fixes Death for the Murtad under current Islamic laws. Very simply The Learner’s opinion is ILLIGAL under the present Islamic Law of Pakistan and Afghanistan therefore cannot and be implemented. **
May ALLAH (SWT) forgive me for any mistakes that I may have made and may ALLAH (SWT) help me in understanding the truth. Ameen.
[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited January 17, 2001).]
I do sincerely apologise for the delay in my response… I was somewhat busy with a number of things.
I must confess that you are correct in that I completely and utterly fail to see that in each and every case apostasy is equal to Fasad fi’l-Ard (creating disorder, anarchy, chaos etc.), especially in the light of your explanation. It seems strange that you are always continuing to generalise my comments when they specifically relate to a particular issue. For example, if I say that a particular hadeeth is not trustworthy, then you turn around and proclaim to everybody that I do not trust any hadeeth in Bukhari, Muslim. I don’t think that this discussion is worth the trouble. The Learner has already categorically demonstrated above that the hadeeth that you have cited are unsound in their nature. If they are not consistent with the Qur’an then of course there must exist a problem. I do not have a problem with The Learner’s opinion therefore I cannot see where you are coming from. If you have a real problem with this, then I suggest that you take your queries and seek to take the The Learner’s opinion by e-mailing him directly. As everybody knows, I regard him as my teacher, so you should approach him.
In a situation like this, anyone who holds that apostasy is punishable by death cannot afford to have the strict criteria, as is mentioned by you in your recent reply. Yes, you have all the right in the world to ask questions as to what exactly are the discrepancies or corruption in the text of the Islamic literature, and why does one believe them to be discrepancies or corruption, but I am afraid that insisting on the answers of the quoted questions and still believing that apostasy is punishable by death, can only be done if one is prone to believing and rejecting things by applying absolutely different criteria for the two.
In that case, are you entirely sure that I have misunderstood it? In that case, I would like you to take this issue to The Learner himself and ask him to elaborate the basis of his opinion. I think you should see what I have written above after your quote.
Again, you are seeking to generalise my comments when they specifically relate to an particluar issue. Unless you stop trying to put words in my mouth then I am afraid that the quality of this dialogue would be a reason as to why it is not worth continuing with.
It is generally believed that an apostate is punishable by death. This prevailing concept about apostasy, I believe, has arisen by not understanding a hadith. This hadith has been narrated by Ibn-i-Abbaas in the following way:
“Execute the person who changes his faith.” (Bukhari: Kitab Istatabatul-Murtaddeen)
Our jurists regard this verdict to have a general application for all times upon every Muslim who renounces his faith. In their opinion, this hadith warrants punishment by death for every Muslim who becomes a disbeliever. In this matter, the only point in which there is a disagreement among the jurists is whether an apostate should be granted time for repentance, and if so what should be the extent of this period. The Hanafite jurists though, exempt women from this punishment. Apart from them, there is a general concensus among the jurists that very apostate, man or woman, should punished by death.
This opinion of our jurists is not correct. The verdict pronounced in this tradition does not have a general application but is only confined to the people towards whom the Prophet (sws) had been directly assigned. The Quran uses the words mushrikeen and ummiyyeen for these people. An elaboration of this view follows.
In this world, we are well aware of the fact that life has been endowed to us not because it is our right but because it is a trial and a test for us. Death puts an end to it whenever the period of this test is over, as deemed by the Almighty. In ordinary circumstances, He fixes the length of this period on the basis of His knowledge and wisdom. In special circumstances, when a prophet is assigned towards a nation, the span is governed by another Divine law which has been explained in the Quran in detail. It is based upon certain premises which must be understood beforehand: A prophet is the final authority on this earth about matters which pertain to faith. No other person can illustrate and explicate the essentials of faith in a better manner. He uses his extraordinary powers of intellect and reasoning to deliver and disseminate the truth revealed to him. He exposes the truth in its ultimate form after which a person can have no excuse but stubborness and enmity to deny it. It has been indicated before that God’s purpose in endowing life to people is to test whether they accept and uphold the truth when it comes to them. In these special circumstances, the truth is unveiled to them in its purest form by no other a personality than a prophet. If they then deny it, there is no possibility whatsoever that a further extension in life can induce them to accept it. It is at this juncture that the Divine law sanctions the death sentence for them.
The sentence is enforced upon them in one of the two ways depending upon the situation which arises. In the first case, after Itmam-i-Hujjat (ie unveiling the truth to the extent that no one has an excuse to deny it), a prophet and his companions not being able to achieve political ascendancy in someother territory migrate from their people. In this case, Divine punishment descends upon them in the form of raging storms, cyclones and other calamities which completely destroy them. Historically speaking, the tribes of Aad and Thamud and the people of Noah and Lot besides many other nations met with this dreadful fate, as has been mentioned in the Quran. In the second case, a prophet and his companions are able to acquire political ascendancy in a land where after performing Itmaam-i-Hujjat upon their people they migrate. In this case, a prophet subdues his nation by force, and executes them if they do not accept faith. It was this situation which had arisen in the case of the Prophet (sws). On account of this, the Almighty bade him to declare that the people among the ummiyyeen who will not accept faith until the day of Hajj-i-Akbar (9th Hijra) will be given a final extension by a proclamation made in the field of Arafaat on that day. According to the proclamation, this final extension would end with the last day of the month of Muharram, during which they must accept faith, or face execution at the end of this period. The Quran says:
“When the forbidden months are over, slay the idolators wherever you find them. Seize them, surround them and every where lie in ambush for them. But if they repent and establish regular prayers and pay zakat, then spare their lives. God is oft-forgiving and ever merciful.” [9:5]
A hadith illustrates this law in the following manner:
“I have been ordained to fight against these people until they testify to the oneness of God and assent to my prophethood, establish regular prayers and pay zakat. If they accept these terms, their lives will be spared except if they commit some other violation that demands their execution by Islamic law.” (Bukhari: Kitab-ul-Imaan)
This law, as has been stated before, is specifically meant for the ummiyyeen or the people towards whom the Prophet (sws) had been directly assigned. Apart from them, it has no bearing upon any other person or nation. So much so, that even the people of the Book who were present in the Prophet’s times were exempted from this law by the Quran. Consequently, where the death penalty for the ummiyyeen has been mentioned in the Quran, adjacent to it has also been stated in unequivocal terms that the people of the Book shall be spared and granted citizenship if they pay Jizya. The Quran says:
“Fight against those among the people of the Book who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Prophet have forbidden and do not accept the religion of truth as their own religion, until they pay Jizya out of subjugation and lead a life of submission.” [9:29]
There is a natural corollory to this Divine law as obvious as the law itself. As stated above, the death penalty had been imposed upon the ummiyyeen if they did not accept faith after a certain period. Hence, it follows that if a person among the ummiyyeen after accepting faith reverts to his original state of disbelief, he must face the same penalty. Indeed, it is this reversion about which the Prophet (sws) has said `Execute the person who changes his faith.
The relative pronoun who'* in this hadith qualifies the *ummiyyeen* just as the words *the people’ (An-naas) in the hadith quoted earlier are specifically meant for the ummiyyeen. When the basis of this law as narrated in these Aahadith exists in the Quran with a certain specification, then quite naturally this specification should also be sustained in the corollory of the law. Our jurists have committed the cardinal mistake of not relating the relative pronoun who' with its basis in the Quran as has been done in the case of the people’ (An-naas). Instead of interpreting the tradition in the light of the relationship between the Quran and Sunnah, they have interpreted it in the absolute sense, totally against the context of the Quran. Consequently, in their opinion the verdict pronounced in the tradition has a general and an unconditional application. They have thereby incorporated in the Islamic Penal Code a punishment that has no basis in the Shariah.
There is no doubt whatsoever that this death penalty was prescribed only for the ummiyyeen who lived during the Prophethood of Mohammad (sws), be they the idolators or others like Warqah Ibni Nofal, a cousin of the Prophet’s wife, Khadijah, who was originally among the ummiyyeen and had later accepted Judaism or Christianity. It is absolutely evident that now if a Muslim becomes an apostate and is also not a source of nuisance for an Islamic State, he connot be administered any punishment merely on the basis of apostasy.
What is your point? This is the exception that proves the rule. If a few aspects of the present Islamic Law does not necessarily conform to what the Qur’an and Sunnah actually supports, then a person can only expect that there will exist reservations from some groups of people. In fact, you will be shocked to find out what other illegal things that myself, The Learner and his colleagues believe in.
How can an illetrate mullah impose such as stict penalty if someone wants to convert to other religion. Religion is the personal choice of human being which shows path to worship allah or god. Why these mullah's or maulvi's are threatning human beings, who gave them so much power. We common peoples are their followers who support them whenever they spread hatred against other religion. We should pull them to the streets and kick their ass and paint their face black then ride them on a donkey.......!! stupids contractors of god.
Asslamu Alikum brothers and sisters,
Br. Partypooper firstly it must be emphasized that the our dialog is on going on the pak.org platform. It is not appropriate for me to change the platform and go to The Learner to get the answers. You are the one who is taking The Learners aid to carry on this dialog therefore either you answer the questions or you ask The Learner to participate on this forum or if you find it difficult to carry on the dialog then you should quit. It is not at all appropriate that I should change the platform of dialog when a whole lot of people have been reading our respective commentaries. It would not serve justice to all these people.
Let’s just make it simple, this time I will have only one question.
Apostasy in Islam is equal to treason = “fasa’d fi’l-ard”, therefore punishable by
death.
Why?
The Western world limits treason to political and military terms. In the USA, treason
consists "only in levying war against Americans, and in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." However, sometimes even the Western world stretches the concept of political treason to include things, which are not related to politics or military matters. . For example, according to Encyclopedia Britannica in England, it is also treason to violate the monarch's consort, eldest unmarried daughter, or heir's wife. Then, even now, "polluting" the Royal bloodline or obscuring it is included in the definition of treason. Why has England included such non-political and non-military matters in treason? Because the Royal family and the purity of its bloodline is one of the most significant part of the
British society and culture. In Islam, the concept of treason is not limited to political and military affairs, it also has a spiritual and cultural dimension to it. In the Islamic order of sacredness, ALLAH (SWT), then the Prophet (PBUH) and then the Quran occupy the highest positions. Tawhid, nubuwwa, and qiyama form the constitution of Islam. Just as upholding and protecting the constitution of a country is sign of patriotism, and undermining it is a form of treason-in the same way open rejection of the fundamental beliefs of Islam by a Muslim is an act of treason. Apostacy, i.e., the public declaration of rejecting the fundamentals of Islam, has also negative influence on the Muslim society; it is indeed a major fitna.
MAJOR EMPHASIS: It must be emphasized that apostasy, which we are discussing
here, involves open rejection, without any force and with the realization of what one's
statements or actions imply.
Br. Partypooper QUOTE>>I must confess that you are correct in that I completely and
utterly fail to see that in each and every case apostasy is equal to Fasad fi’l-Ard (creating disorder, anarchy, chaos etc.), especially in the light of your explanation. <<UNQUOTE
Brother I have already mentioned what kind of apostacy is considered as fasa’d fi’l-ard;Apostacy, i.e., the public declaration of rejecting the fundamentals of Islam, it has a negative influence on the Muslim society; it is indeed a major fitna. It must be emphasized that apostasy, which we are discussing here, involves open rejection, without any force and with the realization of what one's statements or actions imply.
**QUESTION: In the light of the above kindly provide DALEEL-E-ROSHUN (clear
proof) according to QURAN and SUNNAH that IRTIDAD is not equal to “fasa’d
fi’l-ard”
[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited January 21, 2001).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
*Br. Partypooper firstly it must be emphasized that the our dialog is on going on the pak.org platform. It is not appropriate for me to change the platform and go to The Learner to get the answers. You are the one who is taking The Learners aid to carry on this dialog therefore either you answer the questions or you ask The Learner to participate on this forum or if you find it difficult to carry on the dialog then you should quit.
*
[/quote]
My dear brother, I simply cannot see how in each and every case of leaving the folds of Islam can be equated to creating disorder, anarchy and chaos etc. It simply does not make sense to me. You have qualified your statement by saying that in each and every case that apostasy occurs - it is a public declaration of clear and unequivocal rejection. But this does not have to be the case... why is it necessarily a public decleration in each and every case? You have actually referred to a very special case of apostasy called ‘Kufr e Bawaah’ which should be construed as a public declaration of refusal to believe in God or His prophet or to accept the Qur’an as the word of God or to submit to the directives of the Qur’an. But you have categorically stated that this is true of apostasy in every case that it occurs. I am not convinced. In my previous reply I had kindly asked you to note that "It is absolutely evident that now if a Muslim becomes an apostate and is also not a source of nuisance (i.e. an instance of fasad fi'l-ard) for an Islamic State, he cannot be administered any punishment merely on the basis of apostasy". Note the use of the conjunctive "and". Can you now understand where I am coming from?
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 21, 2001).]
