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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Shaykh al-Kulayni narrates a sahāh (correct) hadith from `Ammār as-Sābāti who said: I heard (Imam) Abu `Abdullāh (as-Sādiq) ((عليه السلام).) 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 (mubāh) 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."

Truly someone who reached a different theological conclusion is free to follow what he wishes and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will then judge him accordingly in the hereafter, but after reading many Sahih Hadith and seeing what many of our major scholars say on this topic it seems to be the contrary.

I understand that treason does not only pertain to political and militaristic aspects, but I still don't understand if someone wishes to only differ with us theologically in the most peaceful manner, why is his blood lawful?

Only a religion that is not confident of itself will surely say that he who leaves it must be killed and I am certain that the religion of compassion, faith, love, and diginity will never allow any of it's adherents to kill over such reasons.

“But one who is born as a Muslim and then apostates (murtad fitri), he is to be killed even if he repents. It is important to understand that in case a murtad fitri repents, Allāh may accept his repentance and he may be forgiven in the hereafter, but he still has to go through the punishment prescribed for his treason in this world.”

And what baffles me the most is even if a murtad fitri repents he is still to be killed??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

What is the point to say openly to other that you leave Islam? If someone does that in a Muslim country he must not talk about such things openly because he will cause troubles in society. 

Within an Islamic society if you are abiding by the set jurisdiction and obey all laws and respect the inhabitants of that society, what is the problem of you coming out and stating you have come to a different theological conclusion? 

At the time of the Prophet Muhammad weren’t there Jews, Christians, and individuals of other faiths residing within an Islamic society under the protection of the Muslims, requiring them to only pay a certain tax seclusive to them. As the tax which was obligatory on the Muslims did not apply to them. 

I’ve also read numerous narrations that differ with such a jurisprudential ruling, however what leaves me perplexed is that scholars such as Sayed Sistani have this notion and I can’t wrap my head around it’s rationality. 

I am seeking to understand not to question the laws set by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and my confidence in his majesty leads me to seek a reasonable answer to this predicament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't you quote the sources of the references you made? I'd be curious to know the sources, the scholars who authored them, and the general consensus among contemporary scholars. Only afterwards it would make sense to discuss the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaya said:

Why didn't you quote the sources of the references you made? I'd be curious to know the sources, the scholars who authored them, and the general consensus among contemporary scholars. Only afterwards it would make sense to discuss the issue.

http://www.Sistani.org/Arabic/qa/0279/

السؤال: ما هو تعريفكم للمرتد بالتفصيل ؟ الجواب: المرتد وهو من خرج عن الاِسلام واختار الكفر على قسمين: فطري وملّي، والفطري من ولد على اسلام احد ابويه أو كليها ثم كفر، وفي اعتبار اسلامه بعد التمييز قبل الكفر وجهان اقربهما الاعتبار. وحكم الفطري انه يقتل في الحال، وتبين منه زوجته بمجرد ارتداده وينفسخ نكاحها بغير طلاق، وتعتد عدة الوفاة ـ على ما تقدم ـ ثم تتزوج ان شاءت، وتُقسّم امواله التي كانت له حين ارتداده بين ورثته بعد اداء ديونه كالميت ولا ينتظر موته، ولا تفيد توبته ورجوعه الى الاسلام في سقوط الاحكام المذكورة مطلقاً على المشهور، ولكنه لا يخلو عن شوب اشكال، نعم لا اشكال في عدم وجوب استتابته. وأما بالنسبة الى ما عدا الاحكام الثلاثة المذكورات فالاقوى قبول توبته باطناً وظاهراً، فيطهر بدنه وتصح عباداته ويجوز تزويجه من المسلمة، بل له تجديد العقد على زوجته السابقة حتى قبل خروجها من العدة على القول ببينونتها عنه بمجرد الارتداد، والظاهر انه يملك الاموال الجديدة باسبابه الاختيارية كالنجارة والحيازة والقهرية كالارث ولو قبل توبته. واما المرتد الملّي ـ وهو من يقابل الفطري ـ فحكمه انه يستتاب، فان تاب وإلاّ قتل، وانفسخ نكاح زوجته إذا كان الارتداد قبل الدخول أو كانت يائسة أو صغيرة ولم تكن عليها عدة، وأما إذا كان الارتداد بعد الدخول وكانت المرأة في سن من تحيض وجب عليها ان تعتد عدة الطلاق من حين الارتداد، فان رجع عن ارتداده الى الاسلام قبل انقضاء العدة بقي الزواج على حاله على الاقرب وإلاّ انكشف انها قد بانت عنه عند الارتداد. ولا تقسم أموال المرتد الملي إلاّ بعد موته بالقتل أو غيره، وإذا تاب ثم ارتد ففي وجوب قتله من دون استتابة في الثالثة أو الرابعة اشكال. هذا إذا كان المرتد رجلاً، واما لو كان امرأة فلا تقتل ولا تنتقل اموالها عنها الى الورثة إلاّ بالموت، وينفسخ نكاحها بمجرد الارتداد بدون اعتداد مع عدم الدخول أو كونها صغيرة أو يائسة وإلاّ توقف الانفساخ على انقضاء العدة وهي بمقدار عدة الطلاق كما مر في المسألة (٥٦٣). وتحبس المرتدة ويضيّق عليها وتضرب على الصلاة حتى تتوب فان تابت قبلت توبتها، ولا فرق في ذلك بين أن تكون مرتدة عن ملة أو عن فطرة.

[Disclaimer: translation below was provided by an anonymous person on a different forum. Feel free to suggest corrections if any.]

Question: What is your detailed definition of apostasy?

Answer: The apostate is the one who has left Islam and chosen disbelief, and their are two categories of apostastes: Fitri and Milli. A Fitri is the one who was born into Islam, and either one or both of his parents are Muslim, then he apostasized. This is under the assumption that he is any of level of religiosity, bar complete disbelief in Islam. The ruling on the Fitri is death immediately. His marriage with his wife is instantly made void, without need for a divorce, and continues until his death. Afterwards, she may marry as she pleases. His money/finances that he owned during his time of apostasy are divided between his heirs, but only after his financial debts are payed. This is done whilst he is alive, as if he had died. His repentance and return to Islam does not revoke the ruling against him in any case. However, he can repent. (a few lines underneath I couldn't really understand, sorry)

As for the Milli, His ruling is that he repents. He either repents, or is killed. His marriage to his wife is made void if he apostastized before consummation, or if she is upset with the marriage, or if she is small and Iddah doesnt apply to her (meaning virgin again)If he apostatized after consummation, or the wife has reached the age of menstruation then she must go through Iddah of divorce (3 month waiting period) and if he repents and returns to Islam before the 3 months of Iddah are up, the marriage is resumed as normal, unless she wanted to be irrevocably divorced whilst he was still an apostate. The finances of the Milli apostate are not divided whilst he is still alive, only after his death (compared to the Fitri, where it is done whilst alive). If he apostatizes a second time, it is then obligatory to kill him, with his repentance unable to revoke the ruling. 

In the case, of the apostate being a woman, she is not to be killed, and her money not removed from her unless she dies. Her marriage is void just by the fact she apostatises, regardless if they had consummated or she is small, or she is upset/doesnt want husband. It may be resumed if she repents during the Iddah (3 month period). She is to be imprisoned in a narrow space, and hit, to make her pray, until she repents. Her repentance is accepted. There is not difference in this ruling whether she is a Milli or a Fitri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Guest_313

The ruling or Hukm on the punishment for Ridda حدّ الردّة (denouncing Prophethood, Islam and Allah) is not disputed between Sunnis and Shia, although there are slight differences on the rulings pertaining to Murtad Fitri.

This also has no relation to Jews and Christians living in an Islamic jurisdiction; it specifically deals with Muslims who denounce the Prophet saw, Islam and Allah. 

It's important to understand first and foremost, that these rulings can and are ONLY to be applied In a proper Islamic system such as the time of the Imam AJF being the Hakim Shari' as opposed to anyone setting up an 'Islamic' jurisdiction and chopping people's heads off. 

Also, the Hakim Shari', at his own discretion, can waive the said punishment if he feels it will serve in the best interests at said time. Such was the case when the Prophet saw refused to allow the punishment on a Murtad (even mentioned in 'Sahih' Muslim: 3/109-111)

Once you've understood just how difficult the requirements are, that need to be met before such punishment is to be handed down, you can look into the reasoning behind it. 

1- Every jurisdiction has laws that its citizens must abide by. These laws protect the people as well as maintain peace and harmony amongst its citizens amongst other reasons. People who break the law are punshied and the severity of the punishment is reflective of the type and seriousness of the crime committed. Murder and Treason would be the two most common crimes that get handed the death penalty which is something many seem to agree with. 

One could argue that living in a jurisdiction where a system of set beliefs, morals and ethics (Islam) is not only rejected but spoken out against by the Murtad, amounts to much more than murder and treason. As it's targeting Islam and undermining it from within to destroy it. This is something that is actually widely used by world powers nowadays and is often referred to as 'fifth column'. 

2- Defending the Aqeeda: because the Aqeeda is the source of all actions and a corrupt Aqeeda results in corrupt actions as well as the spread of corruption in society. 

No jurisdiction would allow someone to sell poisonous food or spread disease amongst its citizens. A corrupt Aqeeda is the most serious disease that affects us both in this life and in the afterlife and destroys the future generations. Can there be a more serious crime?

Finally, one can simply leave the jurisdiction as opposed to stay within it and publicly denounce every set of ethics, beliefs and values that it lives by. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Guest_313 Perhaps someone Arabic speaking can confirm the translation. My Arabic isn't perfect.

As for the apostasy law, I think people have to acknowledge the fact that every social group has a right to live by their own laws. 

The Western societies have forced laws too. Some laws have to be accepted by birth without having the choice of saying "I don't want it to be this way". For example, you have to pay your taxes, or you go to prison. Not too long ago, all Western countries had blasphemy laws as well, but they removed it as atheism crept in. 

The point is - there is no country on the face of the Earth with absolute freedom of choice. The only difference is where the line is drawn. 

As for Islam, it draws the line at what is considered in Islamic belief to be the most important thing for a person's prosperity - belief in God and His Messengers. 

So, if Islam is accepted to be the true path of Salvation both in this world and the next, then the biggest mistake a person could do in their life is abandon their faith in Islam after believing in it (I. e. Apostasy). 

As for big mistakes/sins, it falls upon the Law to limit them so that society is not harmed. 

If liberal people will find this Islamic Law to be repressive/intolerant/etc, then the answer is simple: no one is forcing you to be a Muslim. As for Muslims, we have the right to live by our own laws, and non-Muslims have the right to live by their own laws. To each their own. Like the Qur'an says "To you your religion, and to us our religion". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moalfas said:

No jurisdiction would allow someone to sell poisonous food or spread disease amongst its citizens. A corrupt Aqeeda is the most serious disease that affects us both in this life and in the afterlife and destroys the future generations. Can there be a more serious crime?

I commend you for providing me with such a vivid explanation, however if an individual denounces their belief in Islam, Allah, and the Prophet then that person has made it evident to the people that his “Aqeeda” differs from theirs.

unlike a hypocrite who is like a disease spreading falsehood, corruption, and indemnity.

Therefore how can an individual who has made it apparent to the people his dismay from the religion of Islam be one who might poison it within, other then of course spreading their own deviated beliefs and misconceptions which can be adequately reprimanded through a concise and logical rebuttal which would serve in perhaps aiding the conviction of the Muslim community as they see that attacks from exterior or opposing parties can be negated through rationale. Other then just silencing their breathes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kaya said:

The Western societies have forced laws too. Some laws have to be accepted by birth without having the choice of saying "I don't want it to be this way". For example, you have to pay your taxes, or you go to prison. Not too long ago, all Western countries had blasphemy laws as well, but they removed it as atheism crept in. 

I see what you’re saying here but I don’t agree with the notion of a westernized society being the epitome of morality or the scale in which we use to rationalize certain jurisprudential laws, with the fact that such westernized societies had laws to the similitude of a certain Islamic law.

6 hours ago, Kaya said:

Some laws have to be accepted by birth without having the choice of saying "I don't want it to be this way".

Yes but those certain laws can either be abrogated, amended, or abolished unlike a law ordained by the lord of the heavens of the Earth through the infallible and immaculate Prophet (saww) 

6 hours ago, Kaya said:

As for Islam, it draws the line at what is considered in Islamic belief to be the most important thing for a person's prosperity - belief in God and His Messengers. 

Yes indeed this is one of the Usul al deen, but again if an individual has come to a different theological conclusion for whatever misconstrued reason it may be why is their blood lawful, even if we take the notion that only a hujja of Allah can go through with that law and can also choose to not go through with the punishment the issue is still there and that is their blood is halal.

As of now the only way I can possibly see it in my very limited understanding is that apostasy here is referring to an individual conspiring against the state, but I still have a hard time grasping the whole Murtad fitri and mili concept and how even if a murtad fitri were to repent sincerely and there is a chance that his repentance may be accepted the execution must go in place. 

6 hours ago, Kaya said:

So, if Islam is accepted to be the true path of Salvation both in this world and the next, then the biggest mistake a person could do in their life is abandon their faith in Islam after believing in it (I. e. Apostasy). 

As for big mistakes/sins, it falls upon the Law to limit them so that society is not harmed. 

 

Most definitely deviating from the religion of Allah is the greatest mistake an individual can make, but by limiting such mistakes shouldn’t the goal be answering the reasons as to why those certain individuals chose to leave the fold of Islam instead of simply executing them?

especially in our day and age wouldn’t such a law be counterintuitive to the goal of preserving the faith of the Islamic societal structure. Whereas we see a logical and concise response to any misconstrued conclusion Can show the rational, moral, and academic confidence the religion of Islam so rightfully has.

6 hours ago, Kaya said:

If liberal people will find this Islamic Law to be repressive/intolerant/etc, then the answer is simple: no one is forcing you to be a Muslim. As for Muslims, we have the right to live by our own laws, and non-Muslims have the right to live by their own laws. To each their own. Like the Qur'an says "To you your religion, and to us our religion". 

An ardent ruling that if you live the fold of Islam you will be killed sounds pretty forcing and daunting to me, especially for the individual who values the preservation of their own life. Yes no one is forcing you to be a Muslim or stay a Muslim, but if you do choose to be one and leave Islam then it will be at the price of your own life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kaya said:

Perhaps someone Arabic speaking can confirm the translation. My Arabic isn't perfect.

Question: What is your detailed definition of apostasy?

Answer: The apostate is the one who has left Islam and chosen disbelief, and there are two categories of apostastes: Fitri and Milli. A Fitri is the one who was born into Islam, and either one or both of his parents are Muslim, then he apostasized. This is under the assumption that he is any of level of religiosity, bar complete disbelief in Islam. The ruling on the Fitri is death immediately. His marriage with his wife is instantly made void, without need for a divorce, and continues until his death. Afterwards, she may marry as she pleases. His money/finances that he owned during his time of apostasy are divided between his heirs, but only after his financial debts are payed. This is done whilst he is alive, as if he had died. HIS REPENTANCE AND RETURN TO Islam DOES NOT REVOKE THE RULING AGAINST HIM IN ANY CASE. However, he can repent. 

As for the Milli, His ruling is that he repents. He either repents, or is killed. His marriage to his wife is made void if he apostastized before consummation, or if she is upset with the marriage, or if she is small and Iddah doesnt apply to her (meaning virgin again)If he apostatized after consummation, or the wife has reached the age of menstruation then she must go through Iddah of divorce (3 month waiting period) and if he repents and returns to Islam before the 3 months of Iddah are up, the marriage is resumed as normal, unless she wanted to be irrevocably divorced whilst he was still an apostate. The finances of the Milli apostate are not divided whilst he is still alive, only after his death (compared to the Fitri, where it is done whilst alive). If he apostatizes a second time, it is then obligatory to kill him, with his repentance unable to revoke the ruling. 

In the case, of the apostate being a woman, she is not to be killed, and her money not removed from her unless she dies. Her marriage is void just by the fact she apostatises, regardless if they had consummated or she is small, or she is upset/doesnt want husband. It may be resumed if she repents during the Iddah (3 month period). She is to be imprisoned in a narrow space, and hit, to make her pray, until she repents. Her repentance is accepted. There is not difference in this ruling whether she is a Milli or a Fitri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

Such rulings should apply to the Mu7areb (one who enters at war with Islam), not one who is just leaving his religion.

Imagine a man, who is learned, inteligent and polite ; a caring husband and father loved by his family whom he sustains. By leaving Islam, whatever the cause may be (fraud from a scholar, zhulm from a ruler,...) this man should be killed, his children orphaned and his wife widowed, without rizq, house and parental model ?

Now some will say that this law should not be enforced at our times, but that it would be under an infaillible Imam (ajtfs) or that our Prophet (sawas) would have liked it this way ?

I don't buy that. Allah tells His Prophet to leave their cases to Him, why should we simple humans decide to do otherwise ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Guest_313 said:

I see what you’re saying here but I don’t agree with the notion of a westernized society being the epitome of morality or the scale in which we use to rationalize certain jurisprudential laws, with the fact that such westernized societies had laws to the similitude of a certain Islamic law.

It definitely isn't the epitome of morality. There are certain laws in Western nations far more destructive and unjust compared to the Islamic apostasy law. 

The reason I mentioned Western laws is because most criticism of the apostasy law comes from the Western/Christian background groups.

8 hours ago, Guest_313 said:

Yes but those certain laws can either be abrogated, amended, or abolished unlike a law ordained by the lord of the heavens of the Earth through the infallible and immaculate Prophet (saww) 

Not necessarily, in some countries the constitution includes clauses that can never be changed. So some things for them can also never be abrogated, amended, or abolished (unless with a revolution).

From a philosophical point, why would someone want to abrogate, amend, or abolish the Divine Law, which Muslims believe is fully good for themselves and society?

8 hours ago, Guest_313 said:

As of now the only way I can possibly see it in my very limited understanding is that apostasy here is referring to an individual conspiring against the state

If you reflect on it more, you will see that it's not limited to a conspiracy against the state. Rather, it can be considered a rebellion against the creation and the Creator, as well as the Muslim society in which that individual lives.

8 hours ago, Guest_313 said:

Most definitely deviating from the religion of Allah is the greatest mistake an individual can make, but by limiting such mistakes shouldn’t the goal be answering the reasons as to why those certain individuals chose to leave the fold of Islam

You seem to assume that rational arguments are enough to make someone believe in the truth. Remember that the best possible rational arguments are given in the Qu'ran, yet some people read it and they never believe.

Another example of this phenomenon is that some people know the rational arguments that smoking is unhealthy, yet they still continue to smoke. Other people know that through rational arguments that using drugs is unhealthy, yet they still continue to use drugs. 

The fact is that there is no law-based system in the world that operates on rational arguments. No country in the world takes a convicted rapist/murderer and releases him instantly, only after briefly presenting him the rational arguments as to why murder/rape is bad. That would be ridiculous both from a justice point of view, as well as societal well-being point of view.

So the whole argument "why not present rational arguments to them" cannot stand up on its feet because all Law-based systems function based on the crime-punishment model. Not only the law of Muslims but the law of all non-Muslims function based on this model as well.

As to instant execution, I have my reservations on that. There are many hadiths in al-Kafi Sharif where the Imam (عليه السلام) is debating with Atheists (some of them apostates) and he is talking to them politely, without issuing for their death or informing the authorities. In one case a Christian becomes Muslim and then leaves Islam after seeing the bad actions of another Muslim. The Imam (عليه السلام) criticizes the Muslim man rather than the apostate man, and as I said he does not go around calling for the former-Muslim's death. So I believe that the flexibility of the Islamic Law should be investigated for this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, realizm said:

:salam:

Such rulings should apply to the Mu7areb (one who enters at war with Islam), not one who is just leaving his religion.

Imagine a man, who is learned, inteligent and polite ; a caring husband and father loved by his family whom he sustains. By leaving Islam, whatever the cause may be (fraud from a scholar, zhulm from a ruler,...) this man should be killed, his children orphaned and his wife widowed, without rizq, house and parental model ?

Now some will say that this law should not be enforced at our times, but that it would be under an infaillible Imam (ajtfs) or that our Prophet (sawas) would have liked it this way ?

I don't buy that. Allah tells His Prophet to leave their cases to Him, why should we simple humans decide to do otherwise ?

My thoughts exactly dear brother, but nonetheless the ruling is still there on the office of Sayed Sistani and many brothers are defending such an idea which is in my opinion morally preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaya said:

From a philosophical point, why would someone want to abrogate, amend, or abolish the Divine Law, which Muslims believe is fully good for themselves and society?

What I am trying to allude to here is that since such a law is claimed to be divinely ordained by the creator, then there must be a rational explanation without a doubt for the people, since such a law cannot undergo any change. 

The amendments within the constitution cannot be abolished yes, but they are subject to varying interpretations that furthermore lead to the acceptance of gay marriage, abortion, equal rights to races, etc.

the constitution did no change per se, however the interpretation of certain amendments varied and differed highly from what was presumed in the past.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to take such a criteria and place it upon such matter of jurisprudence, especially since the law brings forth like brother @realizm stated the orphaning of children, the widowing of a mother, and the execution of a man who simply differed theologically (wrongfully of course, but nonetheless) in a peaceful manner.

this is a question of life and death of the possibility of innocent blood to be shed and we cannot simply beat around the bush in regards to such matters. Where we oftentimes see varying ideas and interpretations to the law.

On one hand we see the claim that such a law can only be executed by the Hujja of Allah, on the other we see the notion that such a law pertains only to conspiracy against the state, and finally as we examine the office of Sayed Sistani the law explicitly states any Muslim of leaves the fold of Islam is subject to death.

when such a ruling comes from the office of the most prominent jurisprudential leader of our time then one must sit back and wonder, either his eminence has made a drastic mistake or there is something between the lines we aren’t just grasping, taking into consideration of the explicit nature of the ruling.

1 hour ago, Kaya said:

If you reflect on it more, you will see that it's not limited to a conspiracy against the state. Rather, it can be considered a rebellion against the creation and the Creator, as well as the Muslim society in which that individual lives.

Yes indeed you can call it whatever you may please, but in the end the rebellion is merely a theological one wherein the individual negates certain beliefs that the Muslim community and society hold onto dearly, and for such a rebellion an adequate response from the followers of the truth who speak nothing but truth as our Imam is with the truth and the truth is with him and how our lord is of divine justice and unicity.

1 hour ago, Kaya said:

You seem to assume that rational arguments are enough to make someone believe in the truth. Remember that the best possible rational arguments are given in the Qu'ran, yet some people read it and they never believe.

I am not claiming that rational arguments will bring the person back to the fold of Islam, but rather such arguments will remove the tension that the individual draws in the Islamic society when posing questions and ideas differing to the Islamic narrative.

1 hour ago, Kaya said:

Another example of this phenomenon is that some people know the rational arguments that smoking is unhealthy, yet they still continue to smoke. Other people know that through rational arguments that using drugs is unhealthy, yet they still continue to use drugs. 

The argument although directed towards the “smoker” it is also for the general public to perceive and to be able to discern the reality of the matter even if the “smoker” wishes to continue poisoning his body or in this case his philosophical and or theological standpoint those of a third party, I.e the Muslims will be able to see the deviated nature of believing in other then Allah, his Prophet, and Islam.

1 hour ago, Kaya said:

No country in the world takes a convicted rapist/murderer and releases him instantly, only after briefly presenting him the rational arguments as to why murder/rape is bad.

Indeed as no country in the world should execute someone who merely in the most peaceful manner reaches a different theological conclusion. 

To equate the sin to murder, and rape is not very adequate as the transgression is between the person and Allah, rather then the person and the infliction of harm on the creation which would completely flip the argument.

1 hour ago, Kaya said:

So the whole argument "why not present rational arguments to them" cannot stand up on its feet because all Law-based systems function based on the crime-punishment model. Not only the law of Muslims but the law of all non-Muslims function based on this model as well.

Yes laws that are reasonably equal to the transgression at hand.

 

1 hour ago, Kaya said:

As to instant execution, I have my reservations on that. There are many hadiths in al-Kafi Sharif where the Imam (عليه السلام) is debating with Atheists (some of them apostates) and he is talking to them politely, without issuing for their death or informing the authorities. In one case a Christian becomes Muslim and then leaves Islam after seeing the bad actions of another Muslim. The Imam (عليه السلام) criticizes the Muslim man rather than the apostate man, and as I said he does not go around calling for the former-Muslim's death. So I believe that the flexibility of the Islamic Law should be investigated for this issue.

Beautifully said brother and indeed it is necessary to investigate this law because blood may be shed or many Muslims will lose their faith when seeing that their religion, the religion of peace, tolerance, and compassion executes you for leaving it. 

نسأل الله تبيان الحق من الباطل 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the law that make perfect sense if we have a divine government established in the Earth with divine choosed leader who have shown clear proofs and which only a wicked person who have done so much injustice that his heart can't accept anymore Islam and fall for rejection and hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Guest_313 said:

I commend you for providing me with such a vivid explanation, however if an individual denounces their belief in Islam, Allah, and the Prophet then that person has made it evident to the people that his “Aqeeda” differs from theirs.

unlike a hypocrite who is like a disease spreading falsehood, corruption, and indemnity.

Therefore how can an individual who has made it apparent to the people his dismay from the religion of Islam be one who might poison it within, other then of course spreading their own deviated beliefs and misconceptions which can be adequately reprimanded through a concise and logical rebuttal which would serve in perhaps aiding the conviction of the Muslim community as they see that attacks from exterior or opposing parties can be negated through rationale. Other then just silencing their breathes.

If you had a person openly displaying his 'Aqeeda' that incest is a good thing, would you give him a platform to debate him logically?? or would you make sure his poison doesn't affect anyone else? 

The fact that he would openly denounce our basic morals and ethics is enough reason to make sure his posion isn't spread. 

As I said, he can simply leave the jurisdiction. 

Again this only applies at a time and jurisdiction ruled by the Imam AJF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam alaikum dear brother.

In my humble opinion this point is mostly theoretical/academic because as the narration you quoted points out, the execution is to be done by the Imam (عليه السلام). It is not something you or I will ever have to do.

Regarding the statement from sayyed al Sistani, I am not sure where the issue is because he is merely reiterating what the narrations say. The role of the faqih is to provide rulings based on the qur'an and hadith, rather than their own whims/desires.

Wallahu a'lam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Guest_313 said:

To equate the sin to murder, and rape is not very adequate as the transgression is between the person and Allah, rather then the person and the infliction of harm on the creation which would completely flip the argument.

 

6 hours ago, Guest_313 said:

Yes laws that are reasonably equal to the transgression at hand.

In both the above quotes you seem to suggest that disbelief is a less severe transgression compared to murder/rape/etc. This might be true in the western/Christian worldview, but you should know that in Islamic worldview Kufr (disbelief) is worse for a person (in this world and the hereafter) compared to any other sin or crime. (reference: https://www.al-Islam.org/greater-sins-volume-1-ayatullah-Sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/first-greater-sin-shirk)

There is a verse in the Qu'ran that illustrates this point. It talks about Moses (عليه السلام) and the wise man he met:

"So they set out, until when they met a boy, he killed him. [Moses] said, "Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul? You have certainly done a deplorable thing." (18:74)

Then, the wise man explains to Moses (عليه السلام) the reason why he killed the boy and the logic behind it:

"And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief. 

So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy." (18:80-81)

-

This is the Islamic perspective on the gravity of disbelief. If you cannot accept it, then you should ask yourself why. Is it possible that you have been influenced by the Western mindset to such a degree that you don't consider disbelief and apostasy to be a serious matter?

Again, if anyone has a hard time accepting this, then they should remember the verse in the Qu'ran: 

"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." (109:6)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kaya said:

 

In both the above quotes you seem to suggest that disbelief is a less severe transgression compared to murder/rape/etc. This might be true in the western/Christian worldview, but you should know that in Islamic worldview Kufr (disbelief) is worse for a person (in this world and the hereafter) compared to any other sin or crime. (reference: https://www.al-Islam.org/greater-sins-volume-1-ayatullah-Sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/first-greater-sin-shirk)

There is a verse in the Qu'ran that illustrates this point. It talks about Moses (عليه السلام) and the wise man he met:

"So they set out, until when they met a boy, he killed him. [Moses] said, "Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul? You have certainly done a deplorable thing." (18:74)

Then, the wise man explains to Moses (عليه السلام) the reason why he killed the boy and the logic behind it:

"And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief. 

So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy." (18:80-81)

-

This is the Islamic perspective on the gravity of disbelief. If you cannot accept it, then you should ask yourself why. Is it possible that you have been influenced by the Western mindset to such a degree that you don't consider disbelief and apostasy to be a serious matter?

Again, if anyone has a hard time accepting this, then they should remember the verse in the Qu'ran: 

"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." (109:6)

Kuffar is not believing in the truth after it has become apparent, perhaps some individuals especially those who have been born into the religion, then leave it are merely following their whims and desires and likewise for the individual who enters and leaves Islam perhaps they are just following the pejorative or merely jumping from belief system to another as they are experiencing a form of unstableness within themselves. Nonetheless wouldn’t a more adequate term be ignorance as it indeed is the defying culprit in their transgression against themselves.

I like to consider myself a free thinker (I most definitely draw a line for myself that I never dare cross which pertains to the Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt)  and no western or cultural narrative interests me, however I try my best to sincerely seek a reasonable answer after examining such a ruling from every possible angle. To not question the ruling of the divine, but to merely gain insight and understanding, so as to defend my religion and be aware of the wisdom behind such rulings.

Edited by Guest_313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moalfas said:

If you had a person openly displaying his 'Aqeeda' that incest is a good thing, would you give him a platform to debate him logically?? or would you make sure his poison doesn't affect anyone else? 

The fact that he would openly denounce our basic morals and ethics is enough reason to make sure his posion isn't spread. 

As I said, he can simply leave the jurisdiction. 

Again this only applies at a time and jurisdiction ruled by the Imam AJF.

Yes I would seek to eradicate that poison by not silencing the disease ridden individual with death, as many others who have been tainted with such a disease may arise, but instead provide a remedy through logical discourse that suffices in eradicating any such deviated notions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kaya said:

 

In both the above quotes you seem to suggest that disbelief is a less severe transgression compared to murder/rape/etc. This might be true in the western/Christian worldview, but you should know that in Islamic worldview Kufr (disbelief) is worse for a person (in this world and the hereafter) compared to any other sin or crime. (reference: https://www.al-Islam.org/greater-sins-volume-1-ayatullah-Sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/first-greater-sin-shirk)

There is a verse in the Qu'ran that illustrates this point. It talks about Moses (عليه السلام) and the wise man he met:

"So they set out, until when they met a boy, he killed him. [Moses] said, "Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul? You have certainly done a deplorable thing." (18:74)

Then, the wise man explains to Moses (عليه السلام) the reason why he killed the boy and the logic behind it:

"And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief. 

So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy." (18:80-81)

-

This is the Islamic perspective on the gravity of disbelief. If you cannot accept it, then you should ask yourself why. Is it possible that you have been influenced by the Western mindset to such a degree that you don't consider disbelief and apostasy to be a serious matter?

 

:salam:

Don't you think such a grave punishment should be written explicitly, the same way those for stealers and fitna mongers are written ?

You used here one of the most ambiguous paraboles of the Qur'an, going back to a period during which a certain Law was promulgated, to prove a law which is not present in the last Book of Law. And even under that Law, it seems even Nabi Musa (عليه السلام) could not comprehend the punishment. It transcends human comprehension and logic, because no kufr was even made at that moment. So yes, maybe in the eyes of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) kufr deserves death.

But man carried justice, nowhere in the Qur'an, our book of Law.

Following your logic, the story of the boat in the same surah should allow us to damage one's property on the assumption of what might happen ?

 

8 hours ago, Kaya said:

Again, if anyone has a hard time accepting this, then they should remember the verse in the Qu'ran: 

"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." (109:6)

Funny how people who use this verse are convinced they are on the same religion as the Prophet, like if the verse was descended to them :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 12:56 AM, Guest_313 said:

ولكنه لا يخلو عن شوب اشكال، نعم لا اشكال في عدم وجوب استتابته. وأما بالنسبة الى ما عدا الاحكام الثلاثة المذكورات فالاقوى قبول توبته باطناً وظاهراً، فيطهر بدنه وتصح عباداته ويجوز تزويجه من المسلمة، بل له تجديد العقد على زوجته السابقة حتى قبل خروجها من العدة على القول ببينونتها عنه بمجرد الارتداد، والظاهر انه يملك الاموال الجديدة باسبابه الاختيارية كالنجارة والحيازة والقهرية كالارث ولو قبل توبته.

but this is not free from problem , yes there is no problem in case of not  being able to fulfill  the rule ,but in regard of three rulings that mentioned so most powerful of them is accepting his repentance in appearance & from his heart , so his body becomes pure & his prayed will become fix , even can marry with a Muslim woman ,also he can renew his Aqd with his ex wife even before she comes out of idda after that started after  he apostates , in appearance  he owns new belongings & wealth with his own work like as carpeting and real state and compulsory like as inheriting even  he had it before his repenting. 

also for in Iran person that did apostasy & their apostasy was clear to everyone that they received death penalty by judges , they had choice to go to exile until time of their death in exile like as the two singers Shahin Najafi  &  Mohesn Namjoo that did apostasy in public that now they are  in forever exile out of Iran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, realizm said:

Funny how people who use this verse are convinced they are on the same religion as the Prophet, like if the verse was descended to them :rolleyes:

What a ridiculous statement. I don't have a religion of my own, I follow Sayed Sistani who is a Mujtahid. It is the duty of all Muslims who have not reached the level of Ijtihad to follow the rulings of someone who has reached that level of learning, who is called a Mujtahid. 

Of course, some arrogant people on online forums will make up their own laws without having even studied at a seminary basic-level Islamic education. Such arrogant people often never even bring up textual proofs for their arguments but rather 'feel-good' emotional reasoning. These types of people are usually more offended by two verses in the Qu'ran compared with an entire broadcast of the BBC. Also, these types of people often unnecessarily worry about how they can explain Islamic laws to some Christian woman at their workplace.

The reason I used that verse was not because I thought it "descended to me" or that it refers to my beliefs. Rather, I have confidence in the rulings of our Mujtahids (e.g. Sayed Sistani) and yes I believe they are upon the purest form of Islam, otherwise I would not follow them. This is because they spent many years studying the Qu'ran and the hadiths we have of Rasool Allah (S) and the holy Imams (عليه السلام). 

So when I quote the verse 

"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." (109:6) 

this simply means that we (the followers of these Mujtahids) have the right to live according to our own laws and religion, and that anyone else is free to live based on what they wish. 

Edited by Kaya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

but this is not free from problem , yes there is no problem in case of not  being able to fulfill  the rule ,but in regard of three rulings that mentioned so most powerful of them is accepting his repentance in appearance & from his heart , so his body becomes pure & his prayed will become fix , even can marry with a Muslim woman ,also he can renew his Aqd with his ex wife even before she comes out of idda after that started after  he apostates , in appearance  he owns new belongings & wealth with his own work like as carpeting and real state and compulsory like as inheriting even  he had it before his repenting. 

also for in Iran person that did apostasy & their apostasy was clear to everyone that they received death penalty by judges , they had choice to go to exile until time of their death in exile like as the two singers Shahin Najafi  &  Mohesn Namjoo that did apostasy in public that now they are  in forever exile out of Iran. 

Yes brother but what about the murtad fitri who even if he repents the execution is still to be undergone?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kaya said:

These types of people are usually more offended by two verses in the Qu'ran compared with an entire broadcast of the BBC. Also, these types of people often unnecessarily worry about how they can explain Islamic laws to some Christian woman at their workplace.

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

 

O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful.

 

O you mankind, surely We created you of a male and a female, and We have made you races and tribes that you may get mutually acquainted. Surely the most honorable among you in the Providence of Allah are the most pious; surely Allah is Ever-Knowing, Ever-Cognizant.

 

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

 

And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Guest_313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Guest_313 

Hadith from al-Kafi Sharif:

"... A man refers to a verse in the Holy Qur'an and gives it a meaning that is farther from the truth than the heavens are from Earth.” (H 98, Ch. 11, h4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 11/21/2019 at 2:17 PM, Guest_313 said:

And what baffles me the most is

Unless you and I are constitutional lawyers or Judges with comprehensive knowledge of the constitution, this (or any other constitutional issue) will be a difficult issue to comprehend. 

Nor are we to be involved with determination, judgement and execution of such cases or punishments- Its the job of the constitutional lawyers and judges and proper authorities to inact these laws based on due process and taking into consideration all factors in proper context on case by case basis. So, us layman need not be concerned with such issues. 

--------

If we are asked about this issue by an outsider.

In this case, we need to understand that most religions/spiritual paths  are considered a personal relationship between human and his/her creator. As such, these things are beyond their comprehension. To them, it is no ones business to judge what they believe in. Its a personal thing- Islam is not only a personal thing or some personal rituals to get to heaven. It incorporates the individual, family, society, community and the state and our actions which indulge on others and or undermine the community. 

If we have five people in a boat, one starts to drill a hole in the boat - and it will sink- he/she can't say its my body/life/I have a right to do what I think or want to do- If the action effects others the community/family right trumps your individual right/freedom. To actively undermining the Islamic government with out proper cause or debate is an act of treason. 

Islam is a way of life, not only a personal relationship with The God. Not only rituals, Its a comprehensive understanding of why, what, where and how - and living the life according to that. It also includes a government system, and treason & court martial is a well understood concept in secular countries. To denounce the system and become an enemy by openly/actively undermining it, and/or working with the enemy of the state - will get you these punishments in a secular county, by the army court or high/supreme court. 

So, these things put in proper context do not seem to cause such concerns, that you usually see marketed to the people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kaya said:

@Guest_313 

Hadith from al-Kafi Sharif:

"... A man refers to a verse in the Holy Qur'an and gives it a meaning that is farther from the truth than the heavens are from Earth.” (H 98, Ch. 11, h4)

Did I put my own interpretation under it? They’re just verses I added for reflection considering your assumptions and assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Guest_313 said:

Did I put my own interpretation under it? They’re just verses I added for reflection considering your assumptions and assertions.

No, you quoted the verses after referencing my post.

Anyway, I've said my part for this topic. It's perfectly fine to contemplate on the inner reasons for the rulings of Islamic Jurisprudence. For example, you can contemplate on the reasoning behind the prayer and its daily times, fasting in Ramadan, khoms, marriage laws, etc. In the same manner, it's okay to contemplate on the reasoning behind the punishments in Islamic Jurisprudence (e.g. apostasy in this case). 

However, I find it highly inappropriate to go against the consensus of the highly learned scholars of this faith, since all of the Mujtahids agree on this ruling. Even in Iran the punishment for apostasy is either exile or capital punishment because they cannot have that type of treason within their society, as someone pointed out in the thread earlier.  

If someone wishes to to against the Qu'ranic principles, the unambiguous hadiths from Rasool Allah (saww) and the Imams (عليه السلام), and the learned Marjai of taqlid of our own period, then there is nothing that will convince them because they obviously want to disobey and rebel against the religion, and go after their own personal wishes. Especially when these people issuing their own fatwa are just random people on the internet with no formal Islamic education to speak of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

Unless you and I are constitutional lawyers or Judges with comprehensive knowledge of the constitution, this (or any other constitutional issue) will be a difficult issue to comprehend. 

Nor are we to be involved with determination, judgement and execution of such cases or punishments- Its the job of the constitutional lawyers and judges and proper authorities to inact these laws based on due process and taking into consideration all factors in proper context on case by case basis. So, us layman need not be concerned with such issues.

I think you’re just beating around the bush here brother, to understand the constitutional laws and their implementations within a society should be the priority of every citizen.

Nobody said anything about determining, judging, or executing the sole purpose for my inquiry is to understand.

unfortunately I am getting remarks thrown over my questions, that they carry a westernized tone and an apologetic demeanor.

I am sorry if what I am saying goes against many of the perspectives of the brothers here, but I won’t just brush it under the rug and say well I’ll just leave it to those more qualified. In that case the Christian can also say he’ll leave the explanation of the “divinity” of Jesus Christ to those of the church who are most qualified and not dare “blaspheme” against the church. 

No matter what the ruling, Hadith, or Quranic verse may be my goal will always be to seek a logical understanding not by western standards of course, but by universally accepted criteria such as not killing an individual who simply differs with me theologically.

3 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

In this case, we need to understand that most religions/spiritual paths  are considered a personal relationship between human and his/her creator. As such, these things are beyond their comprehension. To them, it is no ones business to judge what they believe in. Its a personal thing- Islam is not only a personal thing or some personal rituals to get to heaven. It incorporates the individual, family, society, community and the state and our actions which indulge on others and or undermine the community. 

Yes Islam is a philosophy of life that an individual may choose to implement in their lives to attain a lofty status in all areas of significance and in order to attain a blessed hereafter. 

However if an individual within an Islamic society chooses to not take this philosophy of life and abandons it, but continues to respect the constitutional laws of an Islamic government and does not raise propagandist statements or infringe upon the rights of the people respectively why then should there even be discussion to the individuals execution? 

And a point which no one is yet to answer me on is even if the individual (murtad fitri) repents he is still to be killed.

3 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

If we have five people in a boat, one starts to drill a hole in the boat - and it will sink- he/she can't say its my body/life/I have a right to do what I think or want to do- If the action effects others the community/family right trumps your individual right/freedom. To actively undermining the Islamic government with out proper cause or debate is an act of treason. 

Yes if an individual is not respecting those who are living within his jurisdiction to practice a harmonious Islamic way of life then indeed it becomes highly problematic. However the law isn’t highlighting that explicitly.

Yes but there hasn’t been an opportunity in the narrative of the ruling to allow the person proper cause or debate, it merely states apostasy is punishable by death. 

Actively undermining against the Islamic government is evident treason and nobody is arguing against that. All I am saying is choosing to follow a different creed or leaving the fold of Islam should not be punishable by death, as it appears to be an evident transgression against the sanctity of human life, and I won’t beat around the bush and just take whatever answer I may get.

Then how can one truly claim to not be an inheritor of their religion like those who merely nod yes to their clergyman and religious leaders without questioning.

3 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

To denounce the system and become an enemy by openly/actively undermining it, and/or working with the enemy of the state - will get you these punishments in a secular county, by the army court or high/supreme court. 

Yes denouncing the system and becoming an active enemy that’s treason and the punishment is severe as you are an enemy and threat to the state, I am all aboard on this one, but this is not my concern.

 

3 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

So, these things put in proper context do not seem to cause such concerns, that you usually see marketed to the people. 

My concern is the proper context here is, if you leave Islam you die, your children are orphaned, your wealth is distributed, and your wife is widowed. Completely black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Kaya said:

However, I find it highly inappropriate to go against the consensus of the highly learned scholars of this faith, since all of the Mujtahids agree on this ruling.

Any human being no matter what their status may be is open to error. And that is why I am seeking to really delve deep into this ruling because such an error can result in the innocent shedding of blood.

31 minutes ago, Kaya said:

Even in Iran the punishment for apostasy is either exile or capital punishment because they cannot have that type of treason within their society, as someone pointed out in the thread earlier.  

Iran isn’t under the vicegerency of an immaculate Imam, nuclear weaponry is prohibited in the jurisprudential sense however they are still building are aiming to build nuclear weapons. Iran is a highly respectable nation however their laws are not a hujja upon us.

31 minutes ago, Kaya said:

If someone wishes to to against the Qu'ranic principles, the unambiguous hadiths from Rasool Allah (saww) and the Imams (عليه السلام), and the learned Marjai of taqlid of our own period, then there is nothing that will convince them because they obviously want to disobey and rebel against the religion, and go after their own personal wishes. Especially when these people issuing their own fatwa are just random people on the internet with no formal Islamic education to speak of.

Since when is questioning a fatwa in a means to understand and raise ones concerns in regards to that specific ruling going against Quranic principles? The Qur'an in fact advises us to ponder and to ask those of higher knowledge. That is the reason for me opening this discussion here because I was hoping from the brothers to aid me in conceptualizing this daunting ruling.

So seeking to understand is a rebellion against the religion.....? 

Yes a random concerned lover of the Ahlul Bayt who wishes to merely understand the wisdom behind the rulings of such an immaculate progeny and also raise my concerns as many individuals have done so at the times of our blessed Imams.

brother it’s unfortunate that you choose to resort to various ad hominem.

Edited by Guest_313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guest_313 said:

Yes I would seek to eradicate that poison by not silencing the disease ridden individual with death, as many others who have been tainted with such a disease may arise, but instead provide a remedy through logical discourse that suffices in eradicating any such deviated notions.

I feel like I'm having to repeat myself here. 

These laws are only to be applied in the jurisdiction and time of the Imam AJF. 

Only he AJF can perfectly remedy the disease from an individual or order the said punishment or otherwise with Haqq. 

There will be no injustice under the Imam AJF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
21 minutes ago, Guest_313 said:

Nobody said anything about determining, judging, or executing the sole purpose for my inquiry is to understand.

To understand what? 

Treason is Treason, Publicly misguiding is Publicly misguiding the naive. Creating doubts for the sole purpose of creating doubts is what it is.

If someone is sure of his/her theology - come out and intellectually debate it . Instead of saying I do not believe- believe in what? Not sure. If not sure stay quit. All other forms have a hidden agenda behind it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Moalfas said:

I feel like I'm having to repeat myself here. 

These laws are only to be applied in the jurisdiction and time of the Imam AJF. 

Only he AJF can perfectly remedy the disease from an individual or order the said punishment or otherwise with Haqq. 

There will be no injustice under the Imam AJF. 

I apologize for any misunderstandings 

what you’re saying resonates with me completely brother, but the ruling doesn’t state that explicitly it doesn’t say that this is special for the time of the Imam

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.


×
×
  • Create New...