Deviant psuedo-scholar Yasir Qadhi wants to reform Islam and make it like Christianity and Judaism

[cooli3o]

How can we know Umar ra suspended the implementation of Hudud in the year of famine? I asked you this question before and you deflected from it. Proof the Athar are rightfully attributed to Umar ra?

https://www.abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/09/18/umar-hudud-suspended-famine/

Now assuming this is true for the sake of the conversation, I don't see any problem with it and neither have the scholars. Sayiduna Umar would've been wrong if he cut the hand of the starving people who stole to survive for Allah allowed the person in need to feed on forbidden foods and the prophet ﷺ pardoned Ammar when Abu Jahl forced him to insult the prophet and praise pagan gods. All this would've constituted kufr and transgression of the Hudood of Allah in normal times.

You don't see a problem with it because the hudood of Allah has certain conditions to be implemented, and isn't unrestrictedly implemented in all times and places, rather it must be the correct time and place, now during a time of famine or need, the purpose of theft is not the same, as the person is not stealing something for the sake of wanting the item and is not doing so only with oppression of the person, so the purpose of the punishment doesn't exist, as there is notreason to punish a person for a crime which was committed in the context it was meant to.

punishment is for people who steal while having no need to steal, only oppressing people, these people are made an example of, in the shareeah, we look at the reasons for the prohibition of certain things and the punishment in order to understand when we apply the punishment
now the question is, why is there a law which states apostates should be killed, what is the purpose of this law and what does it prevent, and in what conditions can it be applied. All I am asking you to be is open minded, there are people of knowledge who see these hudood and want to further understand the aim of them, and see if it can be applied, yaasir is saying that ni our modern day it may not be applicable as it was in the past.

How can you compare this to some compassionate Imams trying to reform Islam to please their Kuffar masters? Why do you think they want to reform certain parts of Islam like apostate laws, dispute the age of Aisha..... and not the others that are harmonious with the morals of the liberal West? Isn't it obvious that they want to fit Islam with the Western liberal standards? Change the age of Aisha so that the liberals will not say you follow a paedophile prophet... this is all to please kuffar.

Please do not use themuslimskeptics rhetoric it is embarrassing and unintellectual.

first of all he is not trying to reform Islam, he is merely stating that this law is not implemented everywhere all times and places and as soon as we get in power we will kill all apostates, there is a process and a way to implement the law and it isn't as simple as the person thinks, but the law still exists

what do you mean they? yaasir qadhi cannot be grouped up with all other imams he is his own individual person,
what he is doing here is not to please kuffar he is just telling him their is more nuance to this than black and white,

imagine we just implemented shareeah law today in the land, how many of our population would be punished or be dead or in prison right now for all the crimes they commit, thats not how it works, people need to be accustomed to the right way of life before the laws come down, Islam works gradually, so its not just black and white.

yes there are imams who do give in and appease to the kuffar but thats not what we are talking about now, this conversation is about yaasir qadhi

 

[World]

It’s a short clip without much background or explanation. Not even one minute long.

 

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

My Views On the Punishment For Apostasy

This article is a brief overview of my position on the punishment for apostasy within Islam. Over the years, I have discussed it very few times, whether in video or on social media platforms. The r…

web.archive.org

have you read this?

I'll give it a read

 

[Gerigo'an]

Not surprised. South Asians will do anything to please whites.

 

[Omar del Sur]

That context doesn't really exist in the modern era anymore. And without that context, the rule itself would contradict the law in Quran that says that there is no compulsion in religion.

this is why tafsir is so important, we can't just make up our own interpretation.

 

[AMusee]

I agree with him. the pseudo salafis with little understanding of the deen who have never studied in depth will say otherwise, the people who have studied fiqh and history of Islam will see there is always room for flexibility.
but let these Muslims backbite and make fun of yaasir, they are only exposing their true nature, I bet you 99% of these guys have studied an advanced but in arabic grammer, or fiqh, in their entire life.

You agree because you are also a liberal, your post history is clear.

It is more evidence against Qadhi when its people like you who support him.

 

[AMusee]

He is a guy with functioning brain and understanding of Islam. Islam had the law in the early days for those who were in Muslim camps in time of war, if you were in one military in time of war and you suddenly wanted to defect you had only one fate if your ex team caught you.

That law had a purpose at that time, but now it doesn't. There are many verses of the Quran give the right of freedom of faith, and we should not throw them out of the window for a law that was put for for a certain specific reason.

and you are the one who rejects Hadith are you not? More Qadhi fans, makes sense you would support someone who wants to liberalize Islam.

 

[cooli3o]

You agree because you are also a liberal, your post history is clear.

It is more evidence against Qadhi when its people like you who support him.

didn't you say you were a women before?

 

[Omar del Sur]

You agree because you are also a liberal, your post history is clear.

It is more evidence against Qadhi when its people like you who support him.

the post history of people supporting this doesn't even matter... if all we know about someone is that they're supporting YQ in this issue of wanting to change the sharia of Allah... that tells us everything we need to know... that by itself settles it, case closed...

there are issues where there are grounds for legit difference of opinion... and then there's instances where we have to draw a line... anyone supporting YQ in this has gone way past the line and way off the deep end...

things have gone so far... whether it's "let's change the shariah of Allah"... or "we need homo propaganda in kids' schools".... this kind of thing isn't even worthy of debate or being treated as an acceptable or respectable opinion.... I wonder if ten years from we'll have Muslim YouTubers doing hour-long videos on why humans shouldn't marry dogs... maybe I'll be scrolling on twitter and see "Muslim gets fired from his job for hate speech against human-dog marriage"... liberals posting underneath "so what if humans marry dog, bigots!"... some liberal outlet- "dangerous extreme right fascists seek to undo constitutional right to human-dog marriage"... interview with crying liberal person married to their dog..... "extreme right-fascist" outlet: "look, I'm not against people marrying their dogs- it's those puppyphiles I'm against!"... liberal "Muslim" "scholar"- "the sharia allows gay marriage but human-dog is haraam"... gets slammed as "extreme fundamentalist"...

 

[Omar del Sur]

honestly, I would be shocked if it turned out Yasir Qadhi was not a munafiq.... if betting was halal and betting money on that was halal... I would bet every penny he's a munafiq... I'm not saying he is- I am not making takfir..... but if it was halal I would bet every penny he's a munafiq

this guy pushes weird undermining-Islam stuff like a bird flies or a fish swims..... it's like every time you turn around this guy is pushing some weird stuff undermining Islam.... "i support homos politically".... "holes in the narrative about Quran preservation".... "problematic texts"..... doubts about Gog and Magog.... "let's change the shariah".... every time you turn around it's some new Islam-undermining thing with this guy.... at what point is no longer just an accident or a coincidence????

I'm just saying... if we take as a theory.... just a hypothesis... that this guy is a munafiq.... it all makes sense... the dots all connect... the puzzle-pieces all come together.... and if we say he isn't a munafiq.... then it all seems to make zero sense.... but you try the munafiq theory.... it all makes perfect sense.... that to me seems to be the one theory that to my knowledge connects all the dots with this guy... I am not making takfir, I don't want to liable for making takfir of him.... but I would absolutely shocked if I found out he wasn't a munafiq.... if it was halal, I'd bet every penny he is.... I'd start selling some of my possessions so I could bet even more pennies on it