Freedom of religion

[Hubble]

The Quran is a bastion of freedom of religion but someone sent me messages and unaddedme from Twitter for stating that. He was livid and obsessed with killing apostates. It made me realise how unsafe the Muslim world is. Why are hadith which contradict the Quran allowed to surpass it?

 

[John Michael]

Twitter is full of al kebabs what do you expect?

 

[Hubble]

Twitter is full of al kebabs what do you expect?

He's slightly borderline. I worry for him because he wants to debate like he needs some guidance away from that ideology but he's too black and white. He sees everything as kufr I hate these shayatiin for emotionally abusing young people in that way.

 

[54321]

Afaik, all four madhabs said the ruling should be death if one leaves Islam. I guess rulings are not made on hard and fast verses without context or understanding, and who better to understand it than the scholars. That said, scholarly rulings on apostasy are now changing, some distinguish between minor and major apostasy.

 

[Zayd]

Freedom for every man to choose his faith.

The hadiths where the apostates are said to be killed have a story that most don't know, the hypocrites who never really were Muslims would purposely denounce their Islam in public, which would then lead most to believe it is a faith that is unstable, becsuse it's members leave it. This was a clever move by the hypocrites, so when the prophet announced that he who changes his faith must be killed, the context is he who changes his faith with the intentions of tarnishing that faith's reputation. After that announcement the hypocrites continued to pretend to be Muslims, what changed was they no longer could play the "Well I used to be a Muslim" card.

The Qur'an sits in judgement of the hadith, if there is a hadith that is in conflict with an ayah of the Qur'an, then it is better and safer to follow the ayah with full intention and hope that Allah guides you. Do not, and I repeat do not, try to separate Islam from the Prophet, that's the mistakes the Qur'an only Muslims make.

 

[Hubble]

I don't because the Quran says to follow Allah and listen to the messenger. I agree with your post entirely.

 

[John Michael]

Freedom for every man to choose his faith.

The hadiths where the apostates are said to be killed have a story that most don't know, the hypocrites who never really were Muslims would purposely denounce their Islam in public, which would then lead most to believe it is a faith that is unstable, becsuse it's members leave it. This was a clever move by the hypocrites, so when the prophet announced that he who changes his faith must be killed, the context is he who changes his faith with the intentions of tarnishing that faith's reputation. After that announcement the hypocrites continued to pretend to be Muslims, what changed was they no longer could play the "Well I used to be a Muslim" card.

The Qur'an sits in judgement of the hadith, if there is a hadith that is in conflict with an ayah of the Qur'an, then it is better and safer to follow the ayah with full intention and hope that Allah guides you. Do not, and I repeat do not, try to separate Islam from the Prophet, that's the mistakes the Qur'an only Muslims make.

I thought everyone knew it was treason and not apostasy that is punishable by death. I think a lot of muslim must learn there religion from gaalos.

That's a well known story as well.

 

[BebsiBolice]

Tell me about it. Freedom of religion yet become an atheist or christian and be killed. fucking idiotic.

 

[Hubble]

Barni we're not allowed to kill atheists and Christians we just don't like their faiths because it's a bunch of lies.

 

[54321]

I thought everyone knew it was treason and not apostasy that is punishable by death. I think a lot of muslim must learn there religion from gaalos.

That's a well known story as well.

Are you denying that the vast majority of scholars throughout islamic history have considered apostasy (and not treason) to be punishable by death??? It wasn't ordinarily instituted but afaik those were definitely the rulings.

 

[Hubble]

Are you denying that the vast majority of scholars throughout islamic history have considered apostasy (and not treason) to be punishable by death??? It wasn't ordinarily instituted but afaik those were definitely the rulings.

The scholars are third in line when it comes to authority.

 

[54321]

The scholars are third in line when it comes to authority.

But they're the jurists, it's not like they have no power. The understand of the law comes from them, they weren't there for decoration.

 

[John Michael]

Are you denying that the vast majority of scholars throughout islamic history have considered apostasy (and not treason) to be punishable by death??? It wasn't ordinarily instituted but afaik those were definitely the rulings.

Are you serious? even if you only consider scholars, even during the ottomans, death for apostasy wasn't upheld. The formal fatwa against death for apostasy was in the '50. It's an extremely ambiguous Hadith and that if interpretated that way goes against the Quran,

My opinion is the opinion of the vast majority, you are in the 'new age' growing minority of salafi atheists.

 

[54321]

Are you serious, even if you only consider scholars during the ottomans death apostasy wasn't upheld. The formal fatwa against death for apostasy was in the '50. It's an extremely ambiguous Hadith and that if interpretated that way goes against the Quran,

My opinion is the opinion of the vast majority, you are in the 'new age' growing minority of salafi atheists.

I said it wasn't ordinarily upheld. But that doesn't negate the majority of the jurists' understanding of the law for the majority of islamic history.
I don't know how they would square the circle of it going against the Quran, but they obvious rationalized it in some way, because those were the ruling (it's an interesting thing to look into actually). All I'm saying is, there's no need to white wash it as these are inherent parts of the religion. These are the things that the jihadist use, there's no point in pretending they're not there, we have to be able to address it and work up from there. I feel like people skip the middle part and jump to the end.

 

[John Michael]

I said it wasn't ordinarily upheld. But that doesn't negate the majority of the jurists' understanding of the law for the majority of islamic history.
I don't know how they would square the circle of it going against the Quran, but they obvious rationalized it in some way, because those were the ruling (it's an interesting thing to look into actually). All I'm saying is, there's no need to white wash it as these are inherent parts of the religion. These are the things that the jihadist use, there's no point in pretending they're not there, we have to be able to address it and work up from there. I feel like people skip the middle part and jump to the end.

Maybe we've misunderstood each other. I agree at certain points that's how the Hadith was understood. However I disagree with your assertion that jihadist use archaic Islamic jurisprudence to rationalize what they do. But anyway that's neither here nor there.

I think we mostly agree, and my previous comment was in regards to the OP ( on Twitter) and not towards you btw.

 

[54321]

Maybe we've misunderstood each other. I agree at certain points that's how the Hadith was understood. However I disagree with your assertion that jihadist use archaic Islamic jurisprudence to rationalize what they do. But anyway that's neither here nor there.

I think we mostly agree, and my previous comment was in regards to the OP ( on Twitter) and not towards you btw.

I should probably say extremists not jihadist. but yeah, I would like to know how they addressed the clear religious freedom verses in the quran