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

Guest Pschological Warfare
1 hour ago, Guest_313 said:

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.

I am not a Jurist, Nor allowed to determine the punishment. I do understand the philosophy in general. 

 

Quote

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. 

"Divinity" is a Theological issue. Not a Fiqhi ( Jurisprudential/Law issue). Your rational is wrong. or your understanding of the issue is incomplete. 

 

Quote

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.

"Following a Mujtahid

1. It is necessary for a Muslim to believe in the fundamentals of faith on the basis of proof and he cannot follow anyone in this respect I.e. he cannot accept he word of another with regard to the fundamentals without demanding proof.

However, in order to act on Islamic code (except in those matters which are considered by all to be indisputable e.g. the obligatory nature of the five daily prayers, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan etc.).."

https://www.al-Islam.org/Islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/taqlid

Share this post


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

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

Salam ,yes it is still undergone by law & Sharia but until now , no execution happened in Iran for it which as I said the famous murtad fitris are now in exile until time of death but if they return to Iran so they must execute.

Share this post


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

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

No need to apologise my friend. Perhaps it's worth contacting your Marje's office to get confirmation or otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 12:21 PM, Kaya said:

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. 

:salam:

Failing to bring you textual proof for a chastisement which has no textual proof is not arrogance, brother.

It rather shows how your expectations and the image you built yourself about Islam is not aligned with the original message of the Qur'an.

Face it, all you have to defend your thesis is a few ahadith.  All of them quoting an Imam mentioning the 7ad in itself, but none quoting an occurence where such 7ad was carried out against a known individual.

And yes, I do not care whether I am not a mujtahid. Funnily enough, all the websites of the mujtahids are full of apologist theories for the Christian women as you put it so well. Like 'yes he must be killed but only with conditions' etc. 

Now compare that to the Qur'an and ponder for a while.

Quote

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَن يَرْتَدَّ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللَّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ يُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلَا يَخَافُونَ لَوْمَةَ لَائِمٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ

“O you who have faith! Should any of you desert his religion, God will soon bring a people whom He loves and who love Him, [who will be] humble towards the faithful, stern towards the faithless, wage jihad in the way of God, not fearing the blame of any blamer. That is God’s grace which He grants to whomever He wishes, and God is all-bounteous, all-knowing.” (al-Qur`an 5:54)

 

Share this post


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

Face it, all you have to defend your thesis is a few ahadith.  All of them quoting an Imam mentioning the 7ad in itself, but none quoting an occurence where such 7ad was carried out against a known individual.

If I may interject on behalf of @Kaya 

There are several narrations in Al Kafi 

الكافي للشيخ الكليني 

That do mention the occurrence of what you allude to. In some instances, it was not carried out and in others, it was by the order of the Imam (عليه السلام).

Refer to: Al Kafi - Sheikh AlKulaini (Arabic) Vol.7 Page 256 (Hadd Al Murtad)

 

Share this post


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

If I may interject on behalf of @Kaya 

There are several narrations in Al Kafi 

الكافي للشيخ الكليني 

That do mention the occurrence of what you allude to. In some instances, it was not carried out and in others, it was by the order of the Imam (عليه السلام).

Refer to: Al Kafi - Sheikh AlKulaini (Arabic) Vol.7 Page 256 (Hadd Al Murtad)

 

You mean here ?

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1128_الكافي-الشيخ-الكليني-ج-٧/الصفحة_256

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 1:12 PM, Guest_313 said:

 

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.

 

1. There is no right that you, me, or anyone else has to an intellectually satisfying justification for many aspects of shari'a. We will never know WHY there are 5 daily prayers and not 4 or 6, even if we feel our entire belief rests upon such an explanation, we are no more owed one. Islam means submission, do we submit to our creator or not?

2. Yes, in the time of the Prophet, there were Jews and Christians as there are today, and they were and are Kafir Asli, Original kuffar. They didn't reject the truth after embracing it like the apostate.

Share this post


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

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??

Simply put... this rule is no longer relevant to us in the modern era, so just ignore it.  It made sense to people back then (before the modern era) because at that time they didn't have a modern concept of "nation-state" and also because their value system was not based on a fragmented system called "secularism" (there was no "democracy" back then, no liberalism, no "freedom of speech").  These modern values were unheard of back then simply because they were not needed when they already had a value system that was integrated and unified within the context of revelation seen as coming from the source of Reality.  When such a sacred paradigm is lost then and then only is there a need to replace this with a pseudo value system... it is not really a replacement but a shattered version of the previous value system based revelation.  "Shattered" because this time it is not based on a unified vision of Reality visa-vi revelation (but rather fragments of it).  What unified a people was their civilization and their civilization was an inception of a religious revelation from Heaven.  In the modern context this paradigm no longer exists.  

Let me explain to you or give you a taste of what we mean here...

liberalism is blasphemous in the pre-modern-Islamic context because man is an ABD or Slave of God.  This is not just a theory, but reality.  They knew what this meant very concretely because there were slaves all around at that time to remind them what a slave was.    "Freedom of speech" is blasphemous because the Speech of God was the Truth and everything was true if and only if it conformed to God's Speech. 

This was the world view back then, and it WORKED for a LONG TIME.  It really really worked.  and many people accepted it and lived like that.  

You cannot critique this world view by another world view (namely, secularism).  Secularism is the only "world view" that happens to not be a genuine world-view as it is literally created OUT OF THE FRAGMENTS of a holistic and genuine world view. 

Anyway, if you want to read more on this you should read more about this from the esteemed

Dr.. Seyed Hossein Nasr.  

I would also read: "The Impossible State" by Wael Hallaq.        

Thank you

Ethereal

 

       

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab said:

2. Yes, in the time of the Prophet, there were Jews and Christians as there are today, and they were and are Kafir Asli, Original kuffar. They didn't reject the truth after embracing it like the apostate.

Salam I don't agree with this they are Jahil /ignorant but they are not Kafir 

3.there is even between companions that even one of them was writer of Qur'an in name of Abdallah ibn Sa'd

ʿAbdallāh ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Sarḥ; (Arabic: عبدالله بن سعد بن أبي السرح‎) was the milk brother of Uthman. His father was Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh that apostates before conquering of Mecaa that after conquering of Mecca Prophet Muhammad (pbu) ordered his kiling although forgiving Mushriks of Mecca but   third caliph protected him that it recorded he repented in presence of Prophet (pbu) but Prophet was silent until he left his presence then Prophet criticized people around himself that first &second caliph were among them that why they didn't kill him while Prophet was silent that they responded why you don't show a sign or blink of eye for his killing that Prophet responded such behavior is not behavior of a Prophet but you must been wise enough to kill him while I was silent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah_ibn_Sa'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Simply put... this rule is no longer relevant to us in the modern era, so just ignore it.  It made sense to people back then (before the modern era) because at that time they didn't have a modern concept of "nation-state" and also because their value system was not based on a fragmented system called "secularism" (there was no "democracy" back then, no liberalism, no "freedom of speech").  These modern values were unheard of back then simply because they were not needed when they already had a value system that was integrated and unified within the context of revelation seen as coming from the source of Reality.  When such a sacred paradigm is lost then and then only is there a need to replace this with a pseudo value system... it is not really a replacement but a shattered version of the previous value system based revelation.  "Shattered" because this time it is not based on a unified vision of Reality visa-vi revelation (but rather fragments of it).  What unified a people was their civilization and their civilization was an inception of a religious revelation from Heaven.  In the modern context this paradigm no longer exists.  

Let me explain to you or give you a taste of what we mean here...

liberalism is blasphemous in the pre-modern-Islamic context because man is an ABD or Slave of God.  This is not just a theory, but reality.  They knew what this meant very concretely because there were slaves all around at that time to remind them what a slave was.    "Freedom of speech" is blasphemous because the Speech of God was the Truth and everything was true if and only if it conformed to God's Speech. 

This was the world view back then, and it WORKED for a LONG TIME.  It really really worked.  and many people accepted it and lived like that.  

You cannot critique this world view by another world view (namely, secularism).  Secularism is the only "world view" that happens to not be a genuine world-view as it is literally created OUT OF THE FRAGMENTS of a holistic and genuine world view. 

Anyway, if you want to read more on this you should read more about this from the esteemed

Dr... Seyed Hossein Nasr.  

I would also read: "The Impossible State" by Wael Hallaq.        

Thank you

Ethereal

 

       

 

 

 

Thank you very much brother for this explanation may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) reward you for your efforts and I’ll be sure to check those references out.

Share this post


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

Salam I don't agree with this they are Jahil /ignorant but they are not Kafir 

And as I stated earlier respected brother such “apostates” can also follow under the category of jahil/ignorant, because they mainly choose to leave the fold of Islam due to their whims and desires as they are like so many, inheritors of their religion, and or also they are individuals who have existential instabilities where they jump from one faith to another.

rather then being a Kafir who witnesses the truth in its actual essence and rebels against it willingly and with conviction that what he/she is rebelling against is the truth. To the similitude of the dajjal when he fights our blessed Imam (عجل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) knowing that he is on the path of falsehood and our Imam is on the path of righteousness.

Share this post


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

Simply put... this rule is no longer relevant to us in the modern era, so just ignore it.  It made sense to people back then (before the modern era) because at that time they didn't have a modern concept of "nation-state" and also because their value system was not based on a fragmented system called "secularism" (there was no "democracy" back then, no liberalism, no "freedom of speech").  These modern values were unheard of back then simply because they were not needed when they already had a value system that was integrated and unified within the context of revelation seen as coming from the source of Reality.  When such a sacred paradigm is lost then and then only is there a need to replace this with a pseudo value system... it is not really a replacement but a shattered version of the previous value system based revelation.  "Shattered" because this time it is not based on a unified vision of Reality visa-vi revelation (but rather fragments of it).  What unified a people was their civilization and their civilization was an inception of a religious revelation from Heaven.  In the modern context this paradigm no longer exists.  

"The rules laid down by Ali regarding human rights appear to be better and more useful as compared with the declaration made by the U.N. on the subject."

https://www.al-Islam.org/voice-human-justice-sautul-adalatil-insaniyah-George-jordac/un-charter-human-rights

Letter 53: An order to Malik al-Ashtar

Written1 for (Malik) al-Ashtar an-Nakha'I, when the position of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr had become precarious, and Amir al-mu'minin had appointed al- Ashtar as the Governor of Egypt and the surrounding areas;

https://www.al-Islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-53-order-malik-al-ashtar

Share this post


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

Indeed, the section 'حد المرتد' continues for several pages with examples of what was alluded to. 

Edited by Moalfas
Typo

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...