Shariah Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Muslims, could you please tell us all a little bit about Shariah Law? Why is it considered to be just by Muslims? Doesn’t Shariah Law allow for the killing of an apostate from Islam? 🤷:confused:
 
Muslims, could you please tell us all a little bit about Shariah Law?
“Shariah Law” is derived from Quran, Muhammed’s traditions (i.e., Hadiths), and Ijma (e.g., Fatwas).
Why is it considered to be just by Muslims?
I didn’t understand what do you mean!
Doesn’t Shariah Law allow for the killing of an apostate from Islam?
Yes, per these hadiths:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
(E) (A)

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
"*…Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Muisa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) *and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed…”
(E) (A)

Sahih Muslim, Book 016, Number 4152:
“'Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community.”
(E) (A)
 
Muslims, could you please tell us all a little bit about Shariah Law? Why is it considered to be just by Muslims? Doesn’t Shariah Law allow for the killing of an apostate from Islam? 🤷:confused:
It is generally thought that the Holy Quran (The Muslims Holy Scripture) provides the death sentence for those who desert the religion of Islam. There is not the least ground for such a supposition. The Holy Quran speaks repeatedly of people going back to unbelief after believing, but never once does it say that they should be killed or punished. Although the Holy Quran does provide the death sentence for some situations such as putting a murderer to death, but it never provided death sentence or ordered the death of those who leave Islam.

Some group of Muslims believe in killing apostates because they follow a Hadith (Saying) from Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him regarding the apostates. While Islam was weak and still growing among Jews, Christians and Pagans, Muslims did not have the full and complete religion that they needed. Some Jews and Christians wanted to take advantage of such situation to destroy Islam. They had a plan to adopt Islam first and then desert it, thus creating the impression that Islam was not a religion worth adopting.

Let us look at Noble Verse 3:72 “A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say: Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).”
To protect Islam from such Satanic attempts done by a group of the people of the book (Jews and Christians), Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him ordered the death of those who enter Islam and leave it. This temporary law that was put by our Prophet had stopped the hypocrites from the People of the Book who carried so much hatred toward Islam to enter Islam and desert it afterwards.​

another reason
Those who advocate the death penalty for apostasy based their reasoning on a hadith which proclaims, “kill whoever changes his religion”. But this hadith is open to varying interpretations on several grounds.

First, this hadith is considered a weak hadith with just a single isnad (this means there is only one chain of transmission or narration) and thus according to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not enough to validate the death penalty.

Second, this hadith is also considered a general ('amm) hadith in that it is in need of specification (takhsis); for it would otherwise convey a meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious reading of the hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the intention of the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, when a text is interpreted once, it becomes open to further interpretation and specification. Therefore, many scholars interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high treason (hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or God or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.

Third, and most importantly, there is no evidence to show that Prophet Muhammad saw or his Companions ever compelled anyone to embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of the faith.

In modern times, the celebrated Sheikh of al-Azhar University, the late Mahmud Shaltut who was esteemed for his vast knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and Qur’anic interpretation, wrote that many ulama are in agreement that hudud cannot be established by a solitary hadith and that unbelief by itself does not call for the death penalty. The current Sheikh of al-Azhar, who was Egypt’s former Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also declared that apostasy is not a capital crime.
 
“Shariah Law” is derived from Quran, Muhammed’s traditions (i.e., Hadiths), and Ijma (e.g., Fatwas).

I didn’t understand what do you mean!

Yes, per these hadiths:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
(E) (A)

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
"*…Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Muisa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) *and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed…”
(E) (A)

Sahih Muslim, Book 016, Number 4152:
“'Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community.”
(E) (A)
In view of what Bukhari itself has indicated by describing apostates as fighters or by associating their name with the name of enemies of Islam, it is clear that this refers only to those apostates who join hands with the enemies of Islam and fight with Muslims. It is only by placing this limitation on the meaning of the hadith that it can be reconciled with other hadith reports or with the principles laid down in the Quran. In fact, its words are so comprehensive that they include every change of faith, from one religion to any other whatsoever; thus even a non-Muslim who becomes a Muslim, or a Jew who becomes a Christian, must be killed. Evidently, such a statement cannot be ascribed to the Holy Prophet. So the hadith cannot be accepted, without placing a limitation upon its meaning. This example also illustrates how translation of one word erroneously, in this case dina-hu, translated as his Islamic religion, can add on a whole new meaning to a statement, which can then be used for anti-Islamic propaganda.

An instance of a simple change of religion is also contained in Bukhari:

“An Arab of the desert came to the Prophet and accepted Islam at his hand; then fever overtook him while he was still in Madinah; so he came to the Prophet and said, Give me back my pledge; and the Prophet refused; then he went away” (Bukhari, 94: 47).

This hadith shows that the man first accepted Islam, and the next day on getting fever he thought that it was due to his becoming a Muslim, and so he came and threw back the pledge. This was a clear case of apostasy, yet it is nowhere related that anyone killed him. On the other hand, the hadith says that he went away unharmed.

Another example of a simple change of religion is that of a Christian who became a Muslim and then apostatized and went back to Christianity, and yet he was not put to death:

“Anas says, there was a Christian who became a Muslim and read the Baqarah and Al Imran (2nd and 3rd chapters of the Quran), and he used to write (the Quran) for the Prophet. He then went over to Christianity again, and he used to say, Muhammad does not know anything except what I wrote for him. Then Allah caused him to die and they buried him” (Bukhari, 61:25).
 
Interesting. So Shariah Law does not condemn apostates to death? If that is the case then why are apostates put to death in so many Muslim countries?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top