Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Basra

Apostasy In Shi'a Islam Lecture By Sayyed Ammar

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salamu alaikum I just listened to a very good lecture of Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani entitled "Examining Apostacy and the Apostate"; as the title suggests Sayyed Ammar's lecture was all about the topic of how Islam views the issue of apostasy and the apostate from the Islamic faith. The website I used were you can stream this whole speech from a Ramadhan Majalis in 2009 http://www.ius.org.uk/audio/ramadhan-majalis-09-ammar-nakshawani.html This speech on apostasy is the 2nd from the bottom on that page.

With the timing system shown by streaming speeches on this above website, one should go to the "Examining Apostasy and the Apostate" speech starting at time 2405/2916 (well more than halfway through Sayed Ammar's speech). At this point in the speech Sayyed Ammar mentions how certain hadiths within our main Shi'a Muslim hadith books that are very strict in terms of calling for the execution of apostates (even not giving them a chance to repent) were rulings given by our blessed Imams (as) in a specific context and time and this was because treacherous individuals were pretending to embrace Shi'ism to try to destroy Shi'ism "from within" as Sayyed Ammar says. Other than this Sayyed Ammar says most of the people in question in these very strict hadith from our Imams(as) deal with very extreme deviant Ghulats who went as far as declaring Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) and later Imam al-Sadiq (as) as allegedly Allah on earth: nauzubillah.

I found this issues mentioned on earlier posts (including the strict hadiths mentioned, that Sayyed Ammar talks about in this lecture on the topic of apostasy).

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234970225-apostasy-in-shia-islam/

and then also subsequently followed by this thread: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234982941-apostasy-in-islam/

Quote- I really don't know what to say, either Mr. Nakshawani is doing Taqiyyah or he really doesn't know what the Imams (as) said. In any case, I'll present you Saheeh proof that apostasy has the death penalty attached to it:

1. I heard (Imam) Abu `Abdullaah (Al Sadiq) (as) saying, "A Muslim from among the Muslims who renounces Islam and rejects the prophethood of Muhammad and considers him untrue, then verily his blood is lawful for anyone who hears that from him, his wife is to be separated from him the day he became murtad, his wealth will be divided among his heirs, and his wife will observe the `idda of a widow (i.e., four months). The Imam is obliged to kill him, and not ask him to seek forgiveness."

Source: al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 257, Man la Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih, vol. 3, p.89, Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, p. 136

Grading: Saheeh

2. I read (a question) in handwriting of a person addressed to (Imam) Abu 'l-Hasan ar-Ridha (a.s.): "A person born as a Muslim, then becomes an unbeliever (kaffir), polytheist (mushrik), and leaves Islam--should he be asked to seek forgiveness, or should he be killed and not be asked to seek forgiveness?" The Imam (a.s.) wrote: "He should be killed."

Source: Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, p. 139

Grading: Saheeh

3. `Ali ibn Ja`far said, "I asked him about a Muslim who became Christian." He answered, "He should be killed and not be asked to seek forgiveness." Then I asked: "What about a Christian who becomes a Muslim and then turns away from Islam (i.e., becomes murtad)?" He replied, "He should be asked to seek forgiveness; so if he returns (to Islam, then okay), otherwise he should be killed."

Source: al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 257, Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, 138

Grading: Saheeh

4. From Muhammad bin Muslim who said, "I asked (Imam) Abu Ja`far (al-Baqir) (a.s.) about the murtad." He said, "Whoever turns away from Islam and rejects what has been revealed to Muhammad (s.a.w.) after he had been a Muslim, then there is no repentance for him; rather it is obligatory to kill him; and his wife should separate from him, and his wealth should be distributed among his heirs."

Source: al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 256, , Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, p. 136.

Grading: Saheeh

5. From Muhammad bin Muslim who said that (Imam) Abu Ja`far (al-Baaqir) (a.s.) said, "Whoever rejects the prophethood of a prophet/messenger and considers him untrue, then his blood is lawful."

Source: Man La Yahdhuruhu 'l-Faqih, vol. 4, p. 76.

Grading: Saheeh

Now the question is, did the Imams (as) actually practise this rule? Of course they did:

1. Hishaam bin Salim, who said that he heard it from Imam Aboo `Abd Allaah (as) when he told that `Abd Allaah bin Saba called (to people) the lordship/divinity of Imaam `Alee (as). Upon that ‘Alee ordered him to repent, but he refused. Then Ali let him burn in fire."

Source: Al-Kashee, Rijaal, pg. 107, hadeeth # 171

Grading: Saheeh

http://revivingalisl...h-bin-saba.html

2. Muhammad b. Ya`qub from Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Ibn Abi `Umayr from Hisham b. Salim from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: A group came to Amir al-Mumineen عليه السلام, and they said: Peace be upon you, O our Lord! So he sought their repentance, but they did not repent. So he dug a pit for them and lit a fire in it and dug a pit to its other side and conveyed between them (i.e. joined the two pits to one another). So when they did not repent he threw them in the pit and lit (the fire) in the other pit until they died.

Source: Al Kafi Volume 7 Page 258

Grading: Saheeh

http://www.tashayyu....t-and-qadariyya

(wasalam)

end quote.

So we have the hadiths that seem very strict about executing apostates (who were born Muslim, whereas it seems any convert to Islam is given a chance to repent first before any punishment would be carried out), and then we have two clear hadiths mentioning people who claimed that one of the blessed Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) was allegedly God, nauzubillah. For example in this second batch we see in the work of Al-Kashee ("Rijal Al-Kashee") the story present in our Shi'a Muslim books of a deviant named Abdullah ibn Saba who came to Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib(as) and declared that Imam Ali(as) was allegedly God on earth in human form (clear heresy). Because of this, in Al-Kashee's "Rijal Al-Kashee", Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) ordered Abdullah ibn Saba to repent from his blasphemy against Allah (SWT) when Abdullah ibn Saba refused Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) had ibn Saba burned to death with fire. Just a side note this is our case of a Ghulat deviant named Abdullah ibn Saba who claimed that Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib(as) was allegedly God on earth in human form (not just the First Imam and not just the Prophet's rightful Designated Successor as we Ithna Ashari Shi'a Muslism believe). This is different than what lying Wahhabis like to try to claim in their worthless propaganda against the Shi'a Muslims, the Wahhabis claim Abdullah ibn Saba allegedly came up with the doctrine of Imamate, which we know is a lie as the doctrine of Imamate was from Allah(SWT) himself and declared clearly by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) at the day of Ghadir and many other times.

So does anybody have anything to add on this topic of apostasy. In general Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani did a wonderful job showing how the Holy Qur'an calls for religious freedom ("there is no compulsion in religion", Holy Qur'an Surah 2:256). There is no recorded incident of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) during his lifetime having anyone killed for just apostasy alone, apostasy in those early days of Islam always had a political dimension that involved treason against the Islamic state and joining the armies oppressing and attacking the Muslim Ummah (i.e. nation) in those days. Note that even in the United States today the crime of "treason" under the law can still be punished with the death penalty.

A good video by a Sunni Muslim brother:

So the man question is on why Sayyed Ammar says we have these few hadiths in some of our main Shi'a Muslim hadith books which again have the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (as) being very strict on apostasy (and executing the treasonous apostate individual); again anyone have more information on what Sayyed Ammar is saying about these few very strict hadith on apostasy being related (and thus only applied in that early time of Islam and that context) to specific people back then who were pretending to become Shi'a Muslims to try to destroy Shi'sm from within and people like the accursed (alleged individual, if we believe the hadith in Al-Kashee's "Rijal Al-Kashee") Abdullah ibn Saba who was executed (by being burnt with fire) by Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib(as) again because Abdullah ibn Saba the Ghulat claimed that Imam Ali(as) was not just an Imam but allegedly Allah on earth in human form (which is clear heresy), nauzubillah. Because deviants like Abdullah ibn Saba had to be stopped immediately as their heresy and blasphemy had gone so far they endangered dragging other Muslims and especially Shi'a Muslims into their wicked deviance. Thanks, Jazak Allah Khayr to all my Muslim brothers and sisters.

Edited by Basra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamu alaikum I just listened to a very good lecture of Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani entitled "Examining Apostacy and the Apostate"; as the title suggests Sayyed Ammar's lecture was all about the topic of how Islam views the issue of apostasy and the apostate from the Islamic faith. The website I used were you can stream this whole speech from a Ramadhan Majalis in 2009 http://www.ius.org.uk/audio/ramadhan-majalis-09-ammar-nakshawani.html This speech on apostasy is the 2nd from the bottom on that page.

With the timing system shown by streaming speeches on this above website, one should go to the "Examining Apostasy and the Apostate" speech starting at time 2405/2916 (well more than halfway through Sayed Ammar's speech). At this point in the speech Sayyed Ammar mentions how certain hadiths within our main Shi'a Muslim hadith books that are very strict in terms of calling for the execution of apostates (even not giving them a chance to repent) were rulings given by our blessed Imams (as) in a specific context and time and this was because treacherous individuals were pretending to embrace Shi'ism to try to destroy Shi'ism "from within" as Sayyed Ammar says. Other than this Sayyed Ammar says most of the people in question in these very strict hadith from our Imams(as) deal with very extreme deviant Ghulats who went as far as declaring Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) and later Imam al-Sadiq (as) as allegedly Allah on earth: nauzubillah.

I found this issues mentioned on earlier posts (including the strict hadiths mentioned, that Sayyed Ammar talks about in this lecture on the topic of apostasy).

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234970225-apostasy-in-shia-islam/

and then also subsequently followed by this thread: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234982941-apostasy-in-islam/

Quote- I really don't know what to say, either Mr. Nakshawani is doing Taqiyyah or he really doesn't know what the Imams (as) said. In any case, I'll present you Saheeh proof that apostasy has the death penalty attached to it:

1. I heard (Imam) Abu `Abdullaah (Al Sadiq) (as) saying, "A Muslim from among the Muslims who renounces Islam and rejects the prophethood of Muhammad and considers him untrue, then verily his blood is lawful for anyone who hears that from him, his wife is to be separated from him the day he became murtad, his wealth will be divided among his heirs, and his wife will observe the `idda of a widow (i.e., four months). The Imam is obliged to kill him, and not ask him to seek forgiveness."

Source: al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 257, Man la Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih, vol. 3, p.89, Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, p. 136

Grading: Saheeh

2. I read (a question) in handwriting of a person addressed to (Imam) Abu 'l-Hasan ar-Ridha (a.s.): "A person born as a Muslim, then becomes an unbeliever (kaffir), polytheist (mushrik), and leaves Islam--should he be asked to seek forgiveness, or should he be killed and not be asked to seek forgiveness?" The Imam (a.s.) wrote: "He should be killed."

Source: Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, p. 139

Grading: Saheeh

3. `Ali ibn Ja`far said, "I asked him about a Muslim who became Christian." He answered, "He should be killed and not be asked to seek forgiveness." Then I asked: "What about a Christian who becomes a Muslim and then turns away from Islam (i.e., becomes murtad)?" He replied, "He should be asked to seek forgiveness; so if he returns (to Islam, then okay), otherwise he should be killed."

Source: al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 257, Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, 138

Grading: Saheeh

4. From Muhammad bin Muslim who said, "I asked (Imam) Abu Ja`far (al-Baqir) (a.s.) about the murtad." He said, "Whoever turns away from Islam and rejects what has been revealed to Muhammad (s.a.w.) after he had been a Muslim, then there is no repentance for him; rather it is obligatory to kill him; and his wife should separate from him, and his wealth should be distributed among his heirs."

Source: al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 256, , Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, p. 136.

Grading: Saheeh

5. From Muhammad bin Muslim who said that (Imam) Abu Ja`far (al-Baaqir) (a.s.) said, "Whoever rejects the prophethood of a prophet/messenger and considers him untrue, then his blood is lawful."

Source: Man La Yahdhuruhu 'l-Faqih, vol. 4, p. 76.

Grading: Saheeh

Now the question is, did the Imams (as) actually practise this rule? Of course they did:

1. Hishaam bin Salim, who said that he heard it from Imam Aboo `Abd Allaah (as) when he told that `Abd Allaah bin Saba called (to people) the lordship/divinity of Imaam `Alee (as). Upon that ‘Alee ordered him to repent, but he refused. Then Ali let him burn in fire."

Source: Al-Kashee, Rijaal, pg. 107, hadeeth # 171

Grading: Saheeh

http://revivingalisl...h-bin-saba.html

2. Muhammad b. Ya`qub from Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Ibn Abi `Umayr from Hisham b. Salim from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: A group came to Amir al-Mumineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, and they said: Peace be upon you, O our Lord! So he sought their repentance, but they did not repent. So he dug a pit for them and lit a fire in it and dug a pit to its other side and conveyed between them (i.e. joined the two pits to one another). So when they did not repent he threw them in the pit and lit (the fire) in the other pit until they died.

Source: Al Kafi Volume 7 Page 258

Grading: Saheeh

http://www.tashayyu....t-and-qadariyya

(wasalam)

end quote.

So we have the hadiths that seem very strict about executing apostates (who were born Muslim, whereas it seems any convert to Islam is given a chance to repent first before any punishment would be carried out), and then we have two clear hadiths mentioning people who claimed that one of the blessed Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) was allegedly God, nauzubillah. For example in this second batch we see in the work of Al-Kashee ("Rijal Al-Kashee") the story present in our Shi'a Muslim books of a deviant named Abdullah ibn Saba who came to Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib(as) and declared that Imam Ali(as) was allegedly God on earth in human form (clear heresy). Because of this, in Al-Kashee's "Rijal Al-Kashee", Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) ordered Abdullah ibn Saba to repent from his blasphemy against Allah (SWT) when Abdullah ibn Saba refused Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) had ibn Saba burned to death with fire. Just a side note this is our case of a Ghulat deviant named Abdullah ibn Saba who claimed that Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib(as) was allegedly God on earth in human form (not just the First Imam and not just the Prophet's rightful Designated Successor as we Ithna Ashari Shi'a Muslism believe). This is different than what lying Wahhabis like to try to claim in their worthless propaganda against the Shi'a Muslims, the Wahhabis claim Abdullah ibn Saba allegedly came up with the doctrine of Imamate, which we know is a lie as the doctrine of Imamate was from Allah(SWT) himself and declared clearly by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) at the day of Ghadir and many other times.

So does anybody have anything to add on this topic of apostasy. In general Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani did a wonderful job showing how the Holy Qur'an calls for religious freedom ("there is no compulsion in religion", Holy Qur'an Surah 2:256). There is no recorded incident of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) during his lifetime having anyone killed for just apostasy alone, apostasy in those early days of Islam always had a political dimension that involved treason against the Islamic state and joining the armies oppressing and attacking the Muslim Ummah (i.e. nation) in those days. Note that even in the United States today the crime of "treason" under the law can still be punished with the death penalty.

A good video by a Sunni Muslim brother:

So the man question is on why Sayyed Ammar says we have these few hadiths in some of our main Shi'a Muslim hadith books which again have the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (as) being very strict on apostasy (and executing the treasonous apostate individual); again anyone have more information on what Sayyed Ammar is saying about these few very strict hadith on apostasy being related (and thus only applied in that early time of Islam and that context) to specific people back then who were pretending to become Shi'a Muslims to try to destroy Shi'sm from within and people like the accursed (alleged individual, if we believe the hadith in Al-Kashee's "Rijal Al-Kashee") Abdullah ibn Saba who was executed (by being burnt with fire) by Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib(as) again because Abdullah ibn Saba the Ghulat claimed that Imam Ali(as) was not just an Imam but allegedly Allah on earth in human form (which is clear heresy), nauzubillah. Because deviants like Abdullah ibn Saba had to be stopped immediately as their heresy and blasphemy had gone so far they endangered dragging other Muslims and especially Shi'a Muslims into their wicked deviance. Thanks, Jazak Allah Khayr to all my Muslim brothers and sisters.

(wasalam)

Look dude, unfortunately I just don't have the time to go through nakshwani's lecture so I'm replying by what you yourself posted of the lecture. Anyhow, whether people like it or not, these apologist sugar coated excuses just not add up. Fact of the matter is that as per shia imami jurisprudnce all apostates are to be severely punished and that's what all our classical scholars believed. Anyone who says these punishments are only reserved for those trying to harm the religion (such as by spreading ghulat ideologies) are either lying or just don't have a clue. Read this:

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih:

æÑæí ÇáÓßæäí¡ Úä ÌÚÝÑÈä ãÍãÏ¡ Úä ÃÈíå¡ Úä ÂÈÇÆå Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã (Ãä ÇáãÑÊÏ Úä ÇáÇÓáÇã ÊÚÒá Úäå ÅãÑÃÊå¡ æáÇ ÊÄßá ÐÈíÍÊå¡ æíÓÊÊÇÈ ËáÇËÇ ÝÅä ÑÌÚ æÅáÇ ÞÊá íæã ÇáÑÇÈÚ ÅÐÇ ßÇä ÕÍíÍ ÇáÚÞá

ÞÇá ãÕäÝ åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÑÍãå Çááå: íÚäí ÈÐáß ÇáãÑÊÏ ÇáÐí áíÓ ÈÇÈä ãÓáãíä[/b]

.............Imam Ja'far al Sadiq(as) narrated from his(as) father(as) from his forefathers(as) "One who apostates from Islam his woman would be separated from him, his zabiha(slaughtered meat) would not be eaten and he would be asked to come back to Islam for 3 days and if he doesn't then on the 4th day he would be killed provided he's sane."

The author of the book (Shaikh Sadooq, one of the greatest scholars ever of the shi'ites) says "This is referring to the apostate who's not an offspring of muslims.(i.e. that's why he's being offered to come back to Islam within 3 days, whereas a born muslim wouldn't get this chance and should be immediately killed)."

So as is clear from the above, Shaikh Sadooq (ra) definitely didn't try to twist these ahadith in an apologist manner. Here, see some more. Even the one who doesn't fast in ramadan deliberately for 3 consecutive days even though he's warned by the Imam should be put to death.

Kafi:

[b]ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ¡ Úä ÚËãÇä Èä ÚíÓì¡ Úä ÓãÇÚÉ ÞÇá:

ÓÃáÊå Úä ÑÌá æÌÏ Ýí ÔåÑ ÑãÖÇä æÞÏ ÃÝØÑ ËáÇË ãÑÇÊ æÞÏ ÑÝÚ Åáì ÇáÇãÇã ËáÇË ãÑÇÊ¡ ÞÇá: íÞÊá Ýí ÇáËÇáËÉ

..............Imam(as) was asked about the man who in the month of Ramadan doesn't fast 3 times and he's brought to the Imam 3 times (as in each time he's been brought to the Imam and warned but doesn't listen). Imam(as) said "He's to be killed on the 3rd."

And just for the record, the Imams(as) did implement the law of apostasy on ordinary people just for leaving Islam and not just for the ghulat.

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih:

æÝí ÑæÇíÉ ãæÓì Èä ÈßÑ¡ Úä ÇáÝÖíá Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã (Ãä ÑÌáÇ ãä ÇáãÓáãíä ÊäÕÑ ÝÇÊí Èå Úáí Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÝÇÓÊÊÇÈå ÝÃÈì Úáíå¡ ÝÞÈÖ Úáì ÔÚÑå æÞÇá: ØÆæÇ ÚÈÇÏ Çááå [Úáíå] ÝæØÆ ÍÊì ãÇÊ

...............Imam Ja'far al Sadiq(as) said "A man among muslims became christian so he was brought to Ali(as) who asked him to repent, he refused, (so Ali) grabbed his hair and said "Trample him, slaves of Allah" so they trampled him to death.

It is really sad that some shia speakers are seriously distorting the laws of shiaism to present a sugar coated version to the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Unfortunately, since this topic seems to come up all the time on this forum. I have made a blog post about the Punishment for an Apostate in Islaam. Majority of the aHaadeeth are taken from Al-Kaafi, vol. 7, Kitaab Hudood (Punishments) from the chapter titles بَابُ حَدِّ الْمُرْتَدِّ (Chapter on the Punishment of an Apostate).

I have present only SaHeeH (Authentic), Hasan (Good), and Muwaththaq (Reliable) hadeeth.

After reading this blog post, you will see that Killing of the Apostate is mutawaatir (widely narrated) and Muslims are unanimous on this opinion.

Here is the blog post: Punishment for an Apostate in Islam

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Unfortunately, since this topic seems to come up all the time on this forum. I have made a blog post about the Punishment for an Apostate in Islaam. Majority of the aHaadeeth are taken from Al-Kaafi, vol. 7, Kitaab Hudood (Punishments) from the chapter titles ÈóÇÈõ ÍóÏöø ÇáúãõÑúÊóÏöø (Chapter on the Punishment of an Apostate).

I have present only SaHeeH (Authentic), Hasan (Good), and Muwaththaq (Reliable) hadeeth.

After reading this blog post, you will see that Killing of the Apostate is mutawaatir (widely narrated) and Muslims are unanimous on this opinion.

Here is the blog post: Punishment for an Apostate in Islam

(salam)

Thanks for the article bro Nader.

As I posted in the comment section, some of the hadiths mention "Imam".

So, is it possible that this punishment is only implementable when we have a present (non-ghayb) Imam among us & rule us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Look dude, unfortunately I just don't have the time to go through nakshwani's lecture so I'm replying by what you yourself posted of the lecture. Anyhow, whether people like it or not, these apologist sugar coated excuses just not add up. Fact of the matter is that as per shia imami jurisprudnce all apostates are to be severely punished and that's what all our classical scholars believed. Anyone who says these punishments are only reserved for those trying to harm the religion (such as by spreading ghulat ideologies) are either lying or just don't have a clue. Read this:

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih:

وروي السكوني، عن جعفربن محمد، عن أبيه، عن آبائه عليهم السلام (أن المرتد عن الاسلام تعزل عنه إمرأته، ولا تؤكل ذبيحته، ويستتاب ثلاثا فإن رجع وإلا قتل يوم الرابع إذا كان صحيح العقل

قال مصنف هذا الكتاب رحمه الله: يعني بذلك المرتد الذي ليس بابن مسلمين[/b]

.............Imam Ja'far al Sadiq(as) narrated from his(as) father(as) from his forefathers(as) "One who apostates from Islam his woman would be separated from him, his zabiha(slaughtered meat) would not be eaten and he would be asked to come back to Islam for 3 days and if he doesn't then on the 4th day he would be killed provided he's sane."

The author of the book (Shaikh Sadooq, one of the greatest scholars ever of the shi'ites) says "This is referring to the apostate who's not an offspring of muslims.(i.e. that's why he's being offered to come back to Islam within 3 days, whereas a born muslim wouldn't get this chance and should be immediately killed)."

So as is clear from the above, Shaikh Sadooq (ra) definitely didn't try to twist these ahadith in an apologist manner. Here, see some more. Even the one who doesn't fast in ramadan deliberately for 3 consecutive days even though he's warned by the Imam should be put to death.

Kafi:

محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن عثمان بن عيسى، عن سماعة قال:

سألته عن رجل وجد في شهر رمضان وقد أفطر ثلاث مرات وقد رفع إلى الامام ثلاث مرات، قال: يقتل في الثالثة

..............Imam(as) was asked about the man who in the month of Ramadan doesn't fast 3 times and he's brought to the Imam 3 times (as in each time he's been brought to the Imam and warned but doesn't listen). Imam(as) said "He's to be killed on the 3rd."

And just for the record, the Imams(as) did implement the law of apostasy on ordinary people just for leaving Islam and not just for the ghulat.

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih:

وفي رواية موسى بن بكر، عن الفضيل عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام (أن رجلا من المسلمين تنصر فاتي به علي عليه السلام فاستتابه فأبى عليه، فقبض على شعره وقال: طئوا عباد الله [عليه] فوطئ حتى مات

...............Imam Ja'far al Sadiq(as) said "A man among muslims became christian so he was brought to Ali(as) who asked him to repent, he refused, (so Ali) grabbed his hair and said "Trample him, slaves of Allah" so they trampled him to death.

It is really sad that some shia speakers are seriously distorting the laws of shiaism to present a sugar coated version to the masses.

a) very academic first sentence. dude? no time?

B) would all ya please explain to me Ali's contradictory behaviour after Saqifa/Jamal/Siffin against known MURTADS? (Dont tell me they were not, because if we are going to use hadiths- then i can show you what they really are like in known Shii circles.Especially the saname-quraish

c) he clearly mentions if these punishments were to be enacted, it would have to be under Infallible? So you can present all the arguments, all it falls back on is having to refer to an inspired esoteric figure on earth. Shii get out clause.

Edited by Slave of Abbas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Thanks for the article bro Nader.

As I posted in the comment section, some of the hadiths mention "Imam".

So, is it possible that this punishment is only implementable when we have a present (non-ghayb) Imam among us & rule us?

Not really. You must have a hadeeth from the Imaams that say the punishment of an apostate is suspended until Al-Qaa'im (as) appears. As there are certain punishments that are suspended until Al-Qaa'im appears. (i.e. stoning of the adulteress, refusing to pay zakaah, etc.). I haven't found a hadeeth that says this punishment is suspended until Al-Qaa'im (as) . Wallaahu A`lim.

One way to know that Imaams are talking about the 12 Imaams, it to look at normal hadeeth language which is when they use the word "`aadil imaam" (just imaam). This is an indication for us to know that it is only the 12 Imaams. Like the hadeeth about declaring jihaad. There is also a couple hadeeth in the blog post, that allude to the apostate being killed by other than the Imaam. He (as) says in one hadeeth "فَإِنَّ دَمَهُ مُبَاحٌ لِكُلِّ مَنْ سَمِعَ ذَلِكَ مِنْهُ " (And that his blood is permissibile for anyone who hears that from him". Also, the Imaam (as) says: " قَبْلَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهُ إِلَى الْإِمَامِ" "before he is brought to the Imaam".

Also, the word Imaam has been used many times without it being one of the 12 Imaams, like the imaam of a prayer, etc.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) very academic first sentence. dude? no time?

would all ya please explain to me Ali's contradictory behaviour after Saqifa/Jamal/Siffin against known MURTADS? (Dont tell me they were not, because if we are going to use hadiths- then i can show you what they really are like in known Shii circles.Especially the saname-quraish

c) he clearly mentions if these punishments were to be enacted, it would have to be under Infallible? So you can present all the arguments, all it falls back on is having to refer to an inspired esoteric figure on earth. Shii get out clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like some thoughts on the following:

If indeed the punishment for an apostate is not contextual, i.e. is not for people who by leaving Islam in its early period were commiting an act of treason, but it is in fact for every Muslim who simply "changes their mind" and chooses another religion or none, how can we here in the West really stand in front our non-Muslim friends, neighbours, policy makers, Islam's critics etc. and claim we are a peaceful religion able to coexist in a modern Western context, posing no threat, etc. If indeed we have a religious duty (or at the very least we are allowed) to kill someone who changes their mind about Islam then we don't belong to this society and a lot of the so-called islamophobia is quite justified - people are perfectly justified in being scared of people who don't see anything wrong in killing someone for changing their mind (the fact it would have to be implemented by an islamic authority is irrelevant really, its more of a get out clause for us and for Westerners all the more reason to try and curb any growth of Islam here to prevent such authority from ever being put in place).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like some thoughts on the following:

If indeed the punishment for an apostate is not contextual, i.e. is not for people who by leaving Islam in its early period were commiting an act of treason, but it is in fact for every Muslim who simply "changes their mind" and chooses another religion or none, how can we here in the West really stand in front our non-Muslim friends, neighbours, policy makers, Islam's critics etc. and claim we are a peaceful religion able to coexist in a modern Western context, posing no threat, etc. If indeed we have a religious duty (or at the very least we are allowed) to kill someone who changes their mind about Islam then we don't belong to this society and a lot of the so-called islamophobia is quite justified - people are perfectly justified in being scared of people who don't see anything wrong in killing someone for changing their mind (the fact it would have to be implemented by an islamic authority is irrelevant really, its more of a get out clause for us and for Westerners all the more reason to try and curb any growth of Islam here to prevent such authority from ever being put in place).

I don't know of any legitimate Islamic scholar that says Muslims in some random country are allowed to execute somebody else in that country (meaning a non-Muslim land) for having changed their minds about Islam. There is difference between this and being an ally of the colonial/Zionist powers who from their alliance with the disbeliever colonialist forces is at war with Islam from their very speech. This is why Imam Khomeini (ra) gave the execution fatwa against the kaafir colonialist pig Salman Rushdie(la) for his evil book that he put out while under the protection of a Western imperialist cartel that is at war with the Muslim Ummah. Meaning it wasn't just for Rushdie(la)'s apostasy that he needed to be executed but for being a criminal at war with the Muslims in so many ways. Sayyed Ammar gives his thoughts on the issue and cites how Imam Khomeini (ra) likely came to his Islamic jurisprudential position on the Rushdie(la) affair, using specifically Allah(SWT)'s words in Holy Qur'an Surah 9 Ayah 61.

Holy Qur'an Surah 9:61-

وَمِنْهُمُ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ النَّبِيَّ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ أُذُنٌ ۚ قُلْ أُذُنُ خَيْرٍ لَكُمْ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَيُؤْمِنُ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَرَحْمَةٌ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ {61}

[shakir 9:61] And there are some of them who molest the Prophet and say: He is one who believes every thing that he hears; say: A hearer of good for you (who) believes in Allah and believes the faithful and a mercy for those of you who believe; and (as for) those who molest the Messenger of Allah, they shall have a painful punishment.

Imam Khomeini (ra) made a direct connection between Rushdie(la) and the imperial Western enemies of the Muslim Ummah; in this case the colonialist British who are allies of the colonialist Amerikkkan Empire and the evil Zionist "Israeli" entity. So this was not the same thing as simply being the case of an apostate.

But again no Islamic scholar I know of has ever said Muslim people living in a non-Muslim land can carry out the execution for apostasy (which has strong support in Islamic law under an actual Islamic state where apostasy would involve treason against the Islamic state: and even the Amerikkkan nation still has the death penalty on the books for treason). In fact Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani says it is a strong principal in Shi'a Muslim jurisprudence in particular that if an apostate leaves the Islamic state and goes off to a non-Muslim land the Muslim state is not to pursue them in that non-Muslim land (the apostate in that case is to be left alone). The case of Rushdie(la) was again different and Sayyed Ammar notes how this was for more than just apostasy and was thus and extraordinary case wherein Imam Khomeini (ra) likely applied Holy Qur'an Surah 6:91 and someone who has waged war on Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Allahu A'alam.

Islam is for freedom of speech and discussion but not the "freedom" to slander, defame, and through around "fighting words" (which even Amerikkkan law says is illegal). The hypocrites in the West (in this case Europe) regularly lock people up for simply voicing a scholarly, academic position regarding Nazi German and the true, realistic scope of their crimes during WWII.

http://vho.org/Intro/GB/Flyer.html

http://www.codoh.com/

To give the other side though (just to give both sides, not saying I agree fully with everything I'm about to say on this "sterner" position). If someone apostates from Islam they don't have to openly go around and announce it; thus even if the death penalty for apostasy wasn't contextual (meaning the Islamic state) you simply don't have to come forward in an Islamic state and announce your apostasy. Just like if a sad individual commits the crime of homosexuality they aren't force to come out and admit it in the Islamic state, they have to be discovered by actual witnesses (a very hard thing to even imagine) to receive a legal punishment (I believe the death penalty). This is what caused the issue with what President Ahmadinejad said about "homosexuals" in Iran. President Ahmadinejad didn't mean that there weren't deviant criminals who engaged in the crime of homosexual activity, its just that the Islamic Republic of Iran didn't have the problem of the West whereas filthy homosexuals parade around in the street with their sick filth and ask for their alleged "right" to marry in their unholy "unions".

Also some may argue that by leaving Allah(SWT)'s religion, after you had been a Muslim, makes you forfeit your right to live. I tend however to agree more strongly with the evidence put forth by Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani and others for the contextual nature of the use of the death penalty for apostasy; and for the fact that this would mainly only come into play in an Islamic state where the people have agreed in advance to be ruled by the Islamic Shari'ah according to the plan of Allah(SWT).

Edited by Basra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Any fatwa from marajas that allow execution/death sentence for an apostate?

a) very academic first sentence. dude? no time?

would all ya please explain to me Ali's contradictory behaviour after Saqifa/Jamal/Siffin against known MURTADS? (Dont tell me they were not, because if we are going to use hadiths- then i can show you what they really are like in known Shii circles.Especially the saname-quraish

Can someone please answer this question?

Do we have examples from the Life of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and Imam Ali(as) that a number of people who apostate were put to death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Do we have examples from the Life of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and Imam Ali(as) that a number of people who apostate were put to death?

(wasalam)

I did cite an example of Imam Ali punishing a man by death for apostasy. Of course, there are other examples as well in which Ali(as) put to death the ghulat but I'd cited a particular explicit example where Ali(as) put to death a man for converting to christianity, i.e. not a ghali and spreading ghali ideology since the OP is quoting nakshwani's apologist rhetoric regarding death punishment only being for ghalis or other people who are actively harming Islam. Here's that hadith again:

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih:

æÝí ÑæÇíÉ ãæÓì Èä ÈßÑ¡ Úä ÇáÝÖíá Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã (Ãä ÑÌáÇ ãä ÇáãÓáãíä ÊäÕÑ ÝÇÊí Èå Úáí Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÝÇÓÊÊÇÈå ÝÃÈì Úáíå¡ ÝÞÈÖ Úáì ÔÚÑå æÞÇá: ØÆæÇ ÚÈÇÏ Çááå [Úáíå] ÝæØÆ ÍÊì ãÇÊ

...............Imam Ja'far al Sadiq(as) said "A man among muslims became christian so he was brought to Ali(as) who asked him to repent, he refused, (so Ali) grabbed his hair and said "Trample him, slaves of Allah" so they trampled him to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Any fatwa from marajas that allow execution/death sentence for an apostate?

Can someone please answer this question?

Do we have examples from the Life of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and Imam Ali(as) that a number of people who apostate were put to death?

There is evidence for people being executed for apostating and joining the kuffar forces of the pagan Quraish in fighting the Muslims and their fledgling Muslim state. These individuals were apostates (likely spies) who were leaving the Muslim Ummah to take vital information (i.e. what we would term intelligence information) to the pagan Quraish enemy that wanted to destroy the Muslims simply for their religious beliefs and following our Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

As for Imam Ali (as) we do have the narration from Sheikh al-Kashi's "Rijal al-Kashi" that speaks of our version of the "Abdullah ibn Saba" story. Wherein a deranged, deviant named Abdullah ibn Saba came to Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) and declared that Imam Ali (as) was allegedly God on earth in human form, nauzubillah. For this heresy Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) is supposed to have had this deviant Abdullah ibn Saba executed by being burned with fire. If this occurred it was (from what the scholars seem to say) for Abdullah ibn Saba having gone so far in his kufr that he endangered the Muslim Ummah. We know Allah(SWT) gave the Holy Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) the ability to see the Knowledge of the Unseen, maybe Allah(SWT) wanted Imam Ali (as) to kill this deviant ibn Saba so he wouldn't led untold numbers of people astray into the kufr worshiping Imam Ali (as) as allegedly being God on earth in human form, nauzubillah. Allahu A'alam on this whole situation presented in this hadith in "Rijal al-Kashi".

I'm sure not of the grading of this specific hadith in "Rijal al-Kashi" by all our main Islamic scholars of both past and present. But it seems from the links I provided earlier on in this thread that some important Shi'a Muslim Ulama of the past graded this in question hadith in "Rijal al-Kashi" as Saheeh (authentic).

Edited by Basra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basra, I think you completely missed my point my friend.

the very fact that our religion allows (according to some) the killing of a person who simply starts believing in different things under ANY circumstances - whether by a regular vigilante or under an Islamic authority - is enough to rethink our claims of being a "peaceful" religion which fits well in a Western society. The fact that it is only allowed under an islamic authority only gives Westerners all the more reason to fear and fight us - because we are the most dynamically growing religion and one which already changes social/political landscapes in some parts of the west - how often do we brag about the fact that sooner or later Islam WILL BE a dominant religion here? Many non-Muslim analysts point to the fact that if things don't change this will be inevitable. So if we readily admit that in an Islamic system this is perfectly allowed, then this is a VERY good reason for Westerners to fight Islam in Europe/America etc. to ensure that Islam never comes close to any position of influence here. In simpler terms - if a very rapidly growing and increasingly influential community admits: "if we ever get power, killing people for changing their religion will be OK", can you really blame others for wanting this community out?

The example of Salman Rushdie makes things even worse - because the fatwa against him clearly shows that KILLING AN APOSTATE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ISLAMIC STATE, any Muslim in any country in the world has a duty to kill this man according to this fatwa. And then claiming that it was such an extraordinary and extreme case that it needed an exception makes things EVEN worse - because in a Western context writing a critical or blasphemous book is NOT in any way extraordinary. In other words, we are telling people: "if we ever get power, heads will fall in huge numbers. All you will need to do to get killed is writing a bad book."

And please don't start evading by pointing out some European laws that penalize publicizing certain opinions, mostly by minor punishments such as fines and in rare occassions prison. Show me a few European countries that EXECUTE people for their opinions and then we can start comparing this to the case of killing apostates.

Edited by sheikhspear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basra, I think you completely missed my point my friend.

the very fact that our religion allows (according to some) the killing of a person who simply starts believing in different things under ANY circumstances - whether by a regular vigilante or under an Islamic authority - is enough to rethink our claims of being a "peaceful" religion which fits well in a Western society. The fact that it is only allowed under an islamic authority only gives Westerners all the more reason to fear and fight us - because we are the most dynamically growing religion and one which already changes social/political landscapes in some parts of the west - how often do we brag about the fact that sooner or later Islam WILL BE a dominant religion here? Many non-Muslim analysts point to the fact that if things don't change this will be inevitable. So if we readily admit that in an Islamic system this is perfectly allowed, then this is a VERY good reason for Westerners to fight Islam in Europe/America etc. to ensure that Islam never comes close to any position of influence here. In simpler terms - if a very rapidly growing and increasingly influential community admits: "if we ever get power, killing people for changing their religion will be OK", can you really blame others for wanting this community out?

The example of Salman Rushdie makes things even worse - because the fatwa against him clearly shows that KILLING AN APOSTATE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ISLAMIC STATE, any Muslim in any country in the world has a duty to kill this man according to this fatwa. And then claiming that it was such an extraordinary and extreme case that it needed an exception makes things EVEN worse - because in a Western context writing a critical or blasphemous book is NOT in any way extraordinary. In other words, we are telling people: "if we ever get power, heads will fall in huge numbers. All you will need to do to get killed is writing a bad book."

And please don't start evading by pointing out some European laws that penalize publicizing certain opinions, mostly by minor punishments such as fines and in rare occassions prison. Show me a few European countries that EXECUTE people for their opinions and then we can start comparing this to the case of killing apostates.

At a certain point it comes down to what Allah(SWT) says and let those who follow it be blessed and let those who fight it be cursed. It is clear that in an Islamic state apostasy of a Muslim is viewed as treason and thus carries the death penalty just like treason in the laws of say the United States.

As for the case of the kaafir pig Salman Rushdie(la) who lived in Britain, one can easily state that the Islamic Republic of Iran was in a technical state of war with the British colonialists when Imam Khomeini (ra) issued the famous fatwa against the kaafir pig Salman Rushdie(la) in 1989. Rushdie(la)'s nation of England had supported Saddam's Western backed Iraq in the then recently ended Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The Islamic Republic of Iran actually broke diplomatic relations with Britain in this period. So there is that view, but there is also the fact that if you wage war against the Muslims we have a right to wage war on you back.

Again there is a difference between waging war on Islam like the kaafir pig Rushdie(la) did, and simply stating academically issues you have so our Islamic scholars can address and refute those claims or answer the issues raised in dialogue. Apostasy in an Islamic state is treason, the Rushdie(la) affair is a deeper issue I touched on a little here. For a nation to become an Islamic state people would have to agree and vote on it, like when the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed.

Edited by Basra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a certain point it comes down to what Allah(SWT) says and let those who follow it be blessed and let those who fight it be cursed. It is clear that in an Islamic state apostasy of a Muslim is viewed as treason and thus carries the death penalty just like treason in the laws of say the United States.

The treason that would carry death penalty in the US is actual participation in warfare against one's own country, show me some people executed in the US for simply declaring they don't consider themselves American anymore or for changing their citizenship for that of another country and then we can start comparing these two. In the early era of Islam apostasy might have been automatically linked to treason, in this day and age it is not. How is a guy somewhere in Shiraz commiting treason by stopping going to a mosque and starting going to a local church instead? Its not treason, its a change of heart and nothing else.

As for the case of the kaafir pig Salman Rushdie(la) who lived in Britain, one can easily state that the Islamic Republic of Iran was in a technical state of war with the British colonialists when Imam Khomeini (ra) issued the famous fatwa against the kaafir pig Salman Rushdie(la) in 1989. Rushdie(la)'s nation of England had supported Saddam's Western backed Iraq in the then recently ended Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The Islamic Republic of Iran actually broke diplomatic relations with Britain in this period. So there is that view, but there is also the fact that if you wage war against the Muslims we have a right to wage war on you back.

if that is the case then what you are now saying to non-Muslim Westerners is that any of them who writes a critical book in this day and age can be killed by any Muslim anyday. Most of them live in countries which are involved in one way or another in some conflict with some Muslim country. How's that for claiming we are a peaceful community that poses no threat in the West?

Again there is a difference between waging war on Islam like the kaafir pig Rushdie(la) did, and simply stating academically issues you have so our Islamic scholars can address and refute those claims or answer the issues raised in dialogue. Apostasy in an Islamic state is treason, the Rushdie(la) affair is a deeper issue I touched on a little here. For a nation to become an Islamic state people would have to agree and vote on it, like when the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed.

In that case again, westerners have all the reason in the world to be Islamophobic and to want us out - because their populations shrink and ours increase dramatically in the west, so one day we will have the majority and will be able to vote in an Islamic system.

A side point, how is a really lame book by an author previously virtually unknown which contains blasphemy but no actual arguments that would pose a challenge to islam more of a declaration of war than an academic book containing powerful arguments against Islam which will certailny stir the minds of many Muslims, potentially making them question their faith? If we are really to consider it in a context of "warfare" , then the first is virtually harmless for Muslims, the other is a real threat.

Edited by sheikhspear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Can someone please answer this question?

Do we have examples from the Life of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and Imam Ali(as) that a number of people who apostate were put to death?

I made a blog post, and in that blog post the Imaams (as) talk about Imaam `Alee (as) performing the execution. Also, another hadeeth it gives the account of `Abd Allaah bin Sabaa', and his execution.

I don't think people forget that Imaam `Alee (as) did not have power when he was usurped his caliphate. If he would've gone after and killed ANY of the major companions for apostating, then before Imaam `Alee (as) would've gone to the second person, he would've been killed on the spot. Don't forget, those major companions had major pull and influence.

But as soon as Imaam `Alee (as) got his caliphate, anyone who did anything remotely to an apostate, he killed them on the spot.

Click here for the blog post: Punishment for an Apostate in Islaam

I'm sure not of the grading of this specific hadith in "Rijal al-Kashi" by all our main Islamic scholars of both past and present. But it seems from the links I provided earlier on in this thread that some important Shi'a Muslim Ulama of the past graded this in question hadith in "Rijal al-Kashi" as Saheeh (authentic).

The hadeeth you quoted from my blog that can be found here. There are no questions regarding the chain. It is 100% authentic by any rijaal scholar and hadeeth scholar.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made a blog post, and in that blog post the Imaams (as) talk about Imaam `Alee (as) performing the execution.

You did not answer Zareen's question. She was asking for examples from the life of the Holy Prophet or Imam Ali, showing that people were put to death for apostasy. In that blog, you have given hadeethes but no examples from history.

Also, just because a hadeeth has been rated as true does not mean it is true. Scholars can make mistakes.

And everyone knows that Kafi and Majlisi books contain a lot of rubbish.

Please give an authentic account from history, not hadeeth.

Of course, our history books also contain a lot of doubtful stuff. But I think she asked for an example from history, not hadeeth.

Also, another hadeeth it gives the account of `Abd Allaah bin Sabaa', and his execution.

Abd Allah bin Saba’s case may have been very special. He was not only an apostate, but an anti-Islam activist.

But as soon as Imaam `Alee (as) got his caliphate, anyone who did anything remotely to an apostate, he killed them on the spot.

Let us see what the Quran says.

[10:99] And if your Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed - all of them.

Will you force men to believe ?

[50:45] We know what they say, you are not to compel them.

[109:6] To you your religion, and to me mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did not answer Zareen's question. She was asking for examples from the life of the Holy Prophet or Imam Ali, showing that people were put to death for apostasy. In that blog, you have given hadeethes but no examples from history.

Can you even read? Your question has been answered in this very thread TWICE. I'd answered sister Zareen's question. I'll post it the third time now.

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih:

æÝí ÑæÇíÉ ãæÓì Èä ÈßÑ¡ Úä ÇáÝÖíá Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã (Ãä ÑÌáÇ ãä ÇáãÓáãíä ÊäÕÑ ÝÇÊí Èå Úáí Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÝÇÓÊÊÇÈå ÝÃÈì Úáíå¡ ÝÞÈÖ Úáì ÔÚÑå æÞÇá: ØÆæÇ ÚÈÇÏ Çááå [Úáíå] ÝæØÆ ÍÊì ãÇÊ

...............Imam Ja'far al Sadiq(as) said "A man among muslims became christian so he was brought to Ali(as) who asked him to repent, he refused, (so Ali) grabbed his hair and said "Trample him, slaves of Allah" so they trampled him to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did not answer Zareen's question. She was asking for examples from the life of the Holy Prophet or Imam Ali, showing that people were put to death for apostasy. In that blog, you have given hadeethes but no examples from history.

Actually, he did. What about those people whom Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã burnt for calling him their rabb?

Also, just because a hadeeth has been rated as true does not mean it is true. Scholars can make mistakes.

Yes well you should give a daleel that it is not true then. the only reason why you are rejecting SAHIH or HASAN or MUWATHAQ ahadith is simply because you don't seem to understand them or can't accept them. However, if you're going to play the "scholars can make mistakes" game, then that makes all ahadith useless. Ghadir khumm is a fabrication, the scholars only made mistakes! Well, if you saw, the brother presented not just 1 or 2 ahadith but quite a lot of them and they were all good in grading (if not better). In this case, when you have a lot of ahadith regarding a subject I don't understand how you can reject them all because you think that the scholars might have made a mistake.

And everyone knows that Kafi and Majlisi books contain a lot of rubbish.

Yea. But as you saw, these were Sahih, Muwathaq, or Hasan ahadith... again this is just unjustified bias and rejection on no basis other than your personal "modernized" thinking.

Please give an authentic account from history, not hadeeth.

Why don't you accept hadith? He gave a lot of examples, like Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã killing Abd Allah ibn Saba and other examples.

Let us see what the Quran says.

[10:99] And if your Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed - all of them.

Will you force men to believe ?

[50:45] We know what they say, you are not to compel them.

[109:6] To you your religion, and to me mine.

Yea, the Quran also says how there is no compulsion in religion (2:256)...

However, there is no compulsion in BRINGING a person into Islam. Once you join Islam, you MUST fast, you MUST pray, etc. Once you are a Muslim, there is obviously compulsion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih:

وفي رواية موسى بن بكر، عن الفضيل عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام (أن رجلا من المسلمين تنصر فاتي به علي عليه السلام فاستتابه فأبى عليه، فقبض على شعره وقال: طئوا عباد الله [عليه] فوطئ حتى مات

...............Imam Ja'far al Sadiq(as) said "A man among muslims became christian so he was brought to Ali(as) who asked him to repent, he refused, (so Ali) grabbed his hair and said "Trample him, slaves of Allah" so they trampled him to death.

This is quite gruesome. Is trampling the prescribed method for killing the apostate? What about some of the hadeeths where some people are burned to death for apostasy? Is there a specific method for killing the apostate?

I am still interested to see some well-known examples of people who are killed for apostasy (not treason or waging a war against the Muslim). Do we have details about types of actions that someone did that make him/her an apostate? For eg if someone say The Holy Prophet (pbuh) didn’t receive a wahy, does that makes him/her an apostate? If someone say Imam Ali (as) is not the Imam or leader of the believers or divinely selected leader/Imam, does that make someone an apostate?

If someone rejects the Wilayah of ahlul bayt, is that apostasy?

Anyone know what Sayyid Sistani said about apostasy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, he did.

Really !

All I could see in that blog were hadeethes, not a single anecdote from history. Do please tell me the historical anecdote that he quoted.

What about those people whom Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã burnt for calling him their rabb?

We are talking about apostasy here. That is not the same as apostasy.

Yes well you should give a daleel that it is not true then.

Very simple.

It contradicts the Quran and the general drift of the teachings of our Holy Prophet and Imams.

Why don't you accept hadith?

It contradicts the Quran.

Once you join Islam, you MUST fast, you MUST pray, etc. Once you are a Muslim, there is obviously compulsion

None of those verses support the hadeethes that forbid a change of faith away from Islam.

It is easily possible for someone to have good reasons to change his (or her) faith.

If hadeethes cannot accept that, there veracity is under serious doubt.

Can you even read?

I think you are the one who cannot read.

I wasn't talking to you, but to Nader Zaveri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

If someone say Imam Ali (as) is not the Imam or leader of the believers or divinely selected leader/Imam, does that make someone an apostate?

If someone rejects the Wilayah of ahlul bayt, is that apostasy?

(wasalam)

You mean the sunnis? No they're muslims but definitely not momin. I'd posted this in another thread.

Kafi

ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÇáÍßã¡ Úä ÓÝíÇä Èä ÇáÓãØ ÞÇá: ÓÃá ÑÌá ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) Úä ÇáÇÓáÇã æÇáÇíãÇä¡ ãÇÇáÝÑÞ ÈíäåãÇ¡ Ýáã íÌÈå Ëã ÓÃáå Ýáã íÌÈå Ëã ÇáÊÞíÇ Ýí ÇáØÑíÞ æÞÏ ÃÒÝ ãä ÇáÑÌá ÇáÑÍíá¡ ÝÞÇá áå ÃÈæÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã): ßÃäå ÞÏ ÃÒÝ ãäß ÑÍíá¿ ÝÞÇá: äÚã ÝÞÇá: ÝÇáÞäí Ýí ÇáÈíÊ¡ ÝáÞíå ÝÓÃáå Úä ÇáÇÓáÇã æÇáÇíãÇä ãÇ ÇáÝÑÞ ÈíäåãÇ¡ ÝÞÇá: ÇáÇÓáÇã åæ ÇáÙÇåÑ ÇáÐí Úáíå ÇáäÇÓ: ÔåÇÏÉ Ãä áÇÅáå ÅáÇ Çááå æÍÏå áÇ ÔÑíß áå æÃä ãÍãÏÇ ÚÈÏå æÑÓæáå æÅÞÇã ÇáÕáÇÉ æÅíÊÇÁ ÇáÒßÇÉ æÍÌ ÇáÈíÊ æÕíÇã ÔåÑ ÑãÖÇä ÝåÐÇ ÇáÇÓáÇã¡ æÞÇá: ÇáÇíãÇä ãÚÑÝÉåÐÇ ÇáÇãÑ ãÚ åÐÇ ÝÇä ÃÞÑÈåÇ æáã íÚÑÝ åÐÇ ÇáÇãÑ ßÇä ãÓáãÇ æßÇä ÖÇáÇ

.........................................Imam(AS) said "Islam is the apparent condition upon which are the common people, (that is) saying shahada of Allah(SWT) and Prophet(PBUH), saying prayer(salat), giving zakat, going for hajj and fasting in ramadhan. This is Islam. As for Iman, that includes recognition of amr(of imamah), whoever doesn't recognize it is a deviant muslim.

Anyone know what Sayyid Sistani said about apostasy?

Some time back when I used to be his muqallid I remember reading on his website's Urdu section regarding apostate's punishment being death that it's only up to the hakim al sharia to determine that someone's become apostate. As in as far as I remember he didn't exactly answer the question, which is understandable since foolish people may take laws into their own hands. I'm sure he would have the same views about apostasy (as mentioned in this thread). You may find this helpful, though.

Ayatullah Jawad Lankarani (Late Ayatullah Fazel Lankarani's son)

Question 1: Why should an apostate be killed? How is this consistent with the Quranic verse which says, "There is no compulsion in religion"? Isn't a person free in choosing his religion?

Answer 1: If an apostate expresses his apostasy, he will be sentenced to death. In case, he does not express or announce it openly, he will not get such a punishment. In fact, by expressing his apostasy, the apostate has waged a war against the religion, God and His prophet. He should therefore be killed. We believe the religion of Islam is based on logic, wisdom and rationality. There is no way one can use his sound intellect yet he denies the religion of Islam which is the most perfect and comprehensive of divine religions. It incorporates all pre-revealed divine religions with more perfect laws and codes of practice. Moreover, freedom does not mean going against such a religion whose aim is to bring prosperity for humanity. Perhaps, an apostate, by his act, may cause others to deviate from the right path. For this reason, he should be killed. Finally, an apostate is like a fierce and ferocious animal that has to be annihilated. In addition, you should understand that the very law will have its impact on the people who may, out of their carnal desires, want to stand against this divine religion.

http://www.j-fazel.org/eng/qus/01.php#01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayatullah Jawad Lankarani (Late Ayatullah Fazel Lankarani's son)

Question 1: Why should an apostate be killed? How is this consistent with the Quranic verse which says, "There is no compulsion in religion"? Isn't a person free in choosing his religion?

Answer 1: If an apostate expresses his apostasy, he will be sentenced to death. In case, he does not express or announce it openly, he will not get such a punishment. In fact, by expressing his apostasy, the apostate has waged a war against the religion, God and His prophet. He should therefore be killed. We believe the religion of Islam is based on logic, wisdom and rationality. There is no way one can use his sound intellect yet he denies the religion of Islam which is the most perfect and comprehensive of divine religions. It incorporates all pre-revealed divine religions with more perfect laws and codes of practice. Moreover, freedom does not mean going against such a religion whose aim is to bring prosperity for humanity. Perhaps, an apostate, by his act, may cause others to deviate from the right path. For this reason, he should be killed. Finally, an apostate is like a fierce and ferocious animal that has to be annihilated. In addition, you should understand that the very law will have its impact on the people who may, out of their carnal desires, want to stand against this divine religion.

What a bestial piece of writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

You mean the sunnis? No they're muslims but definitely not momin. I'd posted this in another thread.

Kafi

محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن سفيان بن السمط قال: سأل رجل أبا عبدالله (عليه السلام) عن الاسلام والايمان، ماالفرق بينهما، فلم يجبه ثم سأله فلم يجبه ثم التقيا في الطريق وقد أزف من الرجل الرحيل، فقال له أبوعبدالله (عليه السلام): كأنه قد أزف منك رحيل؟ فقال: نعم فقال: فالقني في البيت، فلقيه فسأله عن الاسلام والايمان ما الفرق بينهما، فقال: الاسلام هو الظاهر الذي عليه الناس: شهادة أن لاإله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأن محمدا عبده ورسوله وإقام الصلاة وإيتاء الزكاة وحج البيت وصيام شهر رمضان فهذا الاسلام، وقال: الايمان معرفةهذا الامر مع هذا فان أقربها ولم يعرف هذا الامر كان مسلما وكان ضالا

.........................................Imam(AS) said "Islam is the apparent condition upon which are the common people, (that is) saying shahada of Allah(SWT) and Prophet(PBUH), saying prayer(salat), giving zakat, going for hajj and fasting in ramadhan. This is Islam. As for Iman, that includes recognition of amr(of imamah), whoever doesn't recognize it is a deviant muslim.

Some time back when I used to be his muqallid I remember reading on his website's Urdu section regarding apostate's punishment being death that it's only up to the hakim al sharia to determine that someone's become apostate. As in as far as I remember he didn't exactly answer the question, which is understandable since foolish people may take laws into their own hands. I'm sure he would have the same views about apostasy (as mentioned in this thread). You may find this helpful, though.

Ayatullah Jawad Lankarani (Late Ayatullah Fazel Lankarani's son)

Question 1: Why should an apostate be killed? How is this consistent with the Quranic verse which says, "There is no compulsion in religion"? Isn't a person free in choosing his religion?

Answer 1: If an apostate expresses his apostasy, he will be sentenced to death. In case, he does not express or announce it openly, he will not get such a punishment. In fact, by expressing his apostasy, the apostate has waged a war against the religion, God and His prophet. He should therefore be killed. We believe the religion of Islam is based on logic, wisdom and rationality. There is no way one can use his sound intellect yet he denies the religion of Islam which is the most perfect and comprehensive of divine religions. It incorporates all pre-revealed divine religions with more perfect laws and codes of practice. Moreover, freedom does not mean going against such a religion whose aim is to bring prosperity for humanity. Perhaps, an apostate, by his act, may cause others to deviate from the right path. For this reason, he should be killed. Finally, an apostate is like a fierce and ferocious animal that has to be annihilated. In addition, you should understand that the very law will have its impact on the people who may, out of their carnal desires, want to stand against this divine religion.

http://www.j-fazel.org/eng/qus/01.php#01

so if you fight Ali and kill fatima, you are still a muslim? What a joke. It means that you know who did die as muslims, and it is for God to judge them, as you yourself cannot reach the conclusion that they were apostates. if you can, then Ali did not order their killing or label them as apostates.

also, answer Ubaydullah b jahsh point?

Edited by Slave of Abbas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do you think we get our history from...?

Hadeethes do contribute to history. But history also contains a lot of stuff from outside hadeethes.

Those accounts could represent a common knowledge, a trend of general acceptance by a larger number of people, as opposed to a narration by one person.

Much of our knowledge comes from a mingling of the two.

I think Zareen may have been asking for historical anecdotes outside the scope of hadeethes. I certainly was.

What a bestial piece of writing.

I am not sure if it could be described as bestial, but most certainly very bizarre and not quite in agreement with the Islam of my understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if you fight Ali and kill fatima, you are still a muslim? What a joke. It means that you know who did die as muslims, and it is for God to judge them, as you yourself cannot reach the conclusion that they were apostates. if you can, then Ali did not order their killing or label them as apostates.

That's not at all what I said. Read this.

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih:

æÞÇá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå: (ÕäÝÇä ãä ÃãÊí áÇ äÕíÈ áåãÇ Ýí ÇáÇÓáÇã ÇáäÇÕÈ áÇåá ÈíÊí ÍÑÈÇ¡ æÛÇá Ýí ÇáÏíä ãÇÑÞ ãäå).

æãä ÇÓÊÍá áÚä ÃãíÑÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã æÇáÎÑæÌ Úáì ÇáãÓáãíä æÞÊáåã ÍÑãÊ ãäÇßÍÊå áÇä ÝíåÇ ÇáÇáÞÇÁ ÈÇáÇíÏí Åáì ÇáÊåáßÉ¡ æÇáÌåÇá íÊæåãæä Ãä ßá ãÎÇáÝ äÇÕÈ æáíÓ ßÐáß.

Prophet(PBUH) said "2 types of people have no part in Islam Nasibis who wage war against ahlul bayt and those who do ghulu in religion. Also those who consider it halal to send la'an on Amirul momineen(as) and wage war against muslims, doing nikah with them is not allowed since they destroyed themselves with their own hands. The ignorant people think that every mukhalif(aami/sunni) is a nasibi even though that's not the case."

also, answer Ubaydullah b jahsh point?

Punishment is not to be implemented in enemy(kafir) land.

Illal ul sharai

ÃÈí ÑÍãå Çááå ÞÇá¡ ÍÏËäÇ ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì ÇáÎÒÇÒ Úä ÛíÇË Èä ÇÈÑÇåíã Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Úä ÃÈíå ÞÇá: ÞÇá ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã áÇ ÃÞíã Úáì ÇÍÏ ÍÏÇ ÈÇÑÖ ÇáÚÏæ¡ ÍÊì íÎÑÌ ãäåÇ¡ áÆáÇ ÊáÍÞå ÇáÍãíÉ ÝíáÍÞ ÈÇáÚÏæ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadeethes do contribute to history. But history also contains a lot of stuff from outside hadeethes.

Those accounts could represent a common knowledge, a trend of general acceptance by a larger number of people, as opposed to a narration by one person.

Much of our knowledge comes from a mingling of the two.

Where do you get that from? Have you actually read any books of seera (I mean the actual source books)?

Punishment is not to be implemented in enemy(kafir) land.

Illal ul sharai

أبي رحمه الله قال، حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد عن محمد بن يحيى الخزاز عن غياث بن ابراهيم عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام عن أبيه قال: قال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام لا أقيم على احد حدا بارض العدو، حتى يخرج منها، لئلا تلحقه الحمية فيلحق بالعدو.

Not to mention it's looking like his apostasy was during the Makkan period prior to the Hijra. The establishment of the laws however was gradual (offhand I don't know when the hadd for apostasy was established). However from Amir al-Mu'mineen's (as) clear example during his rule after the completion of the religion, there's really no ambiguity in terms of what the punishment for this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really !

All I could see in that blog were hadeethes, not a single anecdote from history. Do please tell me the historical anecdote that he quoted.

Oh ok. I now understand. Hadith have nothing to do with history, and one cannot accept them unless they are supported by a "historical anecdote"

We are talking about apostasy here. That is not the same as apostasy.

Then what is it?? By committing shirk, you have left Islam. When you leave Islam, you have committed apostasy....

Very simple.

It contradicts the Quran and the general drift of the teachings of our Holy Prophet and Imams.

Oh ok. Can you please show me a verse where the Quran says "And do not kill the apostate!"

The verses like "there is no compulsion in religion" can be INTERPRETED in different ways. A contradiction is when it is clear that the hadith is going against the Quran

It contradicts the Quran.

Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...