Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

Ron Webb wrote: Pardon me, but it's your claim, and a highly improbable claim indeed, that "there was no third option".

I thought you would be knowing the Early Muslim History. Anyhow, please go and verify my statement that by and large what I stated about the Binary communities, is true. Few exceptions might be there, but the fact remains that almost all the examples people give to justify their claim comes only from these binary format of existing communities at that time. Not a single case, as an example, comes where a person who had no other offense associated with him, got killed purely on the crime of change of faith.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: I thought you would be knowing the Early Muslim History. Anyhow, please go and verify my statement that by and large what I stated about the Binary communities, is true. [IMG]smileys/smiley36.gif" align="middle" /> Sorry, that's not how it works. Either you can support your claim, or you can't. It's not up to me to do your research for you. Anyway, what exactly are you suggesting here? Why is/was it not possible for a Muslim to leave Islam without becoming hostile to his neighbours or a traitor to his community? Or why is/was it not possible for a Muslim community to tolerate a non-Muslim minority in its midst without becoming hostile to them?.

The tribal Arab history of those days tells us that the protection of an individual was only guaranteed through his allegiance/loyalty/association with a tribe. When Islam came, it presented them a very unique way of community living, and that is based upon their faith. Thus, Muslims became one community against whom almost all non-Muslim tribes (barring few around Medina) became hostile to them.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Few exceptions might be there, but the fact remains that almost all the examples people give to justify their claim comes only from these binary format of existing communities at that time. Not a single case, as an example, comes where a person who had no other offense associated with him, got killed purely on the crime of change of faith. So what do you make of the two hadith I quoted? Did Muhammad actually say that those who leave Islam are to be killed? If so, does this command still apply today? And if not, then why would you trust any of the other supposedly "sahih" hadith?

As I said earlier, this issue has confused the Muslims because of misunderstanding of the effect of a deserter on a community as compared to peaceful coexistence of a person with a changed faith. Primarily because of the phenomena of faith based community vs tribal community persisted throughout many centuries down the time tunnel. You posted the view of Islamicity scholar, who I think, was unable to provide the justification about a person who has not been given the opportunity of understanding Islam before being adopting it, just like those who are born Muslims. Would they still kill him, if his only crime is that he wants to change his faith peacefully?
On the issue of ahadith, as I said earlier or elsewhere, none can be accepted if they are found contradicting clear Quranic injunctions. This does not mean rejecting all ahadith in generality. Regarding those which are considered �Sahih�, IMHO, it only implies that their chain of transmission is sound. Secondly, this doesn�t imply the exact wordings of the Prophet, but only the implied meanings as per the understanding, memorization, and then oral transmission through at least 2 to 3 generations, before they were written down and compiled.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: The tribal Arab history of those days tells us that the protection of an individual was only guaranteed through his allegiance/loyalty/association with a tribe. When Islam came, it presented them a very unique way of community living, and that is based upon their faith. If protection is based on faith, then would it not follow that anyone abandoning the faith would also lose that protection?

The protection of an individual was assured through his association with a tribe/community. It is the Islam that brought the transformation of traditional lineage based community/tribe into faith based. A quite interesting example is seen from early Muslim history. After the Muslims were recognize as on organized community at Medina, a peace treaty was put in place between the Arabs (mostly the Meccans) and the Muslims of Medina. During this time frame, many examples of such people exists who wanted to join the opposite camps. While those who chose to leave Meccans and join the Muslims, were not allowed to do so. However, those who left the Muslims (apostates), very convienently joined back to Meccans without any retribution from Muslims. Later on even at the conquest of Mecca, only few out of them and not all, were destined to be killed because of their other heinous crimes possibly including the apostasy. This example clearly shows that �Apostasy� alone was never a crime by default during the time frame of the presence of the Prophet.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Thus, Muslims became one community against whom almost all non-Muslim tribes (barring few around Medina) became hostile to them. Do you think that hostility could have anything to do with Muhammad's history of attacking and plundering the trading caravans in the area?

Attacking of Caravan was only limited against the Meccans or their allied tribes and not elsewhere.

Besides, I think it's only fair to point out that the hostility was mutual.

Don�t you think the aggression of an aggressor must be stopped by whatever language of the time, space, and other tools, he understands?

The Quran itself, with its countless exhortations to fight the unbelievers, and its slanders of non-Muslims as "accursed", "miserably slinking apes", "unclean", "evildoers", etc., is sufficient evidence for that.

Reading Quranic verses out of the context has misled many, and probably you are no exception to it.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: As I said earlier, this issue has confused the Muslims because of misunderstanding of the effect of a deserter on a community as compared to peaceful coexistence of a person with a changed faith. Primarily because of the phenomena of faith based community vs tribal community persisted throughout many centuries down the time tunnel. You posted the view of Islamicity scholar, who I think, was unable to provide the justification about a person who has not been given the opportunity of understanding Islam before being adopting it, just like those who are born Muslims. Would they still kill him, if his only crime is that he wants to change his faith peacefully? Apparently so. That's what Muhammad said, according to several reliable narrators. Remember, Allah told him to be "harsh" with unbelievers and hypocrites (66:9).

So their whole objective to match up with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith, falls flat on the ground. Thus, their point of view about the issue of �Apostasy� can�t be accepted.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: On the issue of ahadith, as I said earlier or elsewhere, none can be accepted if they are found contradicting clear Quranic injunctions. This does not mean rejecting all ahadith in generality. Regarding those which are considered �Sahih�, IMHO, it only implies that their chain of transmission is sound. Secondly, this doesn�t imply the exact wordings of the Prophet, but only the implied meanings as per the understanding, memorization, and then oral transmission through at least 2 to 3 generations, before they were written down and compiled. I don't know of any Quranic injunction against the death penalty for apostates. On the contrary, it is perfectly consistent with the Quran's declaration of apostasy as an unforgivable sin, as I said earlier.

This is not true simply because all the alternative point of views of Muslims about this issue, specifically deal to bring it in harmony with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith. How well their explanation are and thus can be accepted/rejected is through logical deductions/implications, as I have done and presented above.

Ron Webb wrote: On the other hand, we agree that it is abhorrent to kill someone merely because they don't believe in God. I gather from your comments that you don't believe Muhammad ever commanded such a thing. I think he probably did, but his commands were directed to specific people in specific circumstances, and never intended to apply in generality or in perpetuity.

I can agree with you, but would also add that whatever example of such an order could be presented, none of them had just one single crime of being apostate, as I have argued above.

Ron Webb wrote: Either way, how do you decide which hadith should be believed and which should not? Merely having an apparently sound chain of transmission is no guarantee. If these hadith are false or unreliable, we can assume there are others -- not all of which we will be fortunate enough to be able to identify as contradictory to the Quran and/or the principles of natural justice. I see no option but to treat them all as suspect.

This could be true for the novice people like you or even myself; and this is one reason that it is the work of the Jurists to ensure that all these issues (eg authentication/verification of Isnaad and compatibility etc) are taken care of before making taking any evidence into consideration and forming any opinion on any matter pertaining to the Muslims.


Edited by AhmadJoyia - 05 January 2016 at 12:55am

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: The protection of an individual was assured through his association with a tribe/community. It is the Islam that brought the transformation of traditional lineage based community/tribe into faith based. Yes, I get it. Faith, not lineage or tribal membership, is the Islamic basis for human rights and status in the community. The Quran makes that abundantly clear. And therefore the loss of faith would imply a loss to those rights and status.

While with pagan tribal communities there were no ethical or moral grounds to respect for �human rights�, other than the fear of revenge from the individual�s tribe, but with the advent of Islam, these were clearly defined, irrespective of their faith or tribe, as shown in the Quran. Kindly refer verses 9:4 and 9:6, in this connection.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: A quite interesting example is seen from early Muslim history. After the Muslims were recognize as on organized community at Medina, a peace treaty was put in place between the Arabs (mostly the Meccans) and the Muslims of Medina. During this time frame, many examples of such people exists who wanted to join the opposite camps. While those who chose to leave Meccans and join the Muslims, were not allowed to do so. However, those who left the Muslims (apostates), very convienently joined back to Meccans without any retribution from Muslims. Later on even at the conquest of Mecca, only few out of them and not all, were destined to be killed because of their other heinous crimes possibly including the apostasy. This example clearly shows that �Apostasy� alone was never a crime by default during the time frame of the presence of the Prophet. Were those who left actually Muslims who had taken the shahada, or were they native Medinans who refused it?

IMHO, those who left Muslims (after taking shahada) were Meccans and went back to Mecca. Those of Medinans, mostly got willing conversion to Islam, but there were few who apparently did take Shahada, but remained unconvinced. They were called the �Hyopcrites�.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Attacking of Caravan was only limited against the Meccans or their allied tribes and not elsewhere. I doubt that would matter much to most non-Muslims at the time. Highway robbery is highway robbery. Anyone committing such crimes, regardless of how they chose their victms, can expect some hostility from civilzed society.

Which �civilized society� are you referring to?

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Don�t you think the aggression of an aggressor must be stopped by whatever language of the time, space, and other tools, he understands? No, I don't. I will not abandon my own moral principles just because the other side has apparently done so. That is the morality of a terrorist.

Justice is one principle that no civilized society would forget, how humane it might appear otherwise.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Reading Quranic verses out of the context has misled many, and probably you are no exception to it. In what way are those verses taken out of context? Surely no one reading the Quran could miss its blatant hostility toward unbelievers.

My brother who stops you from specifics? Aren�t we doing exactly the same, one by one, God�s Willing.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: So their whole objective to match up with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith, falls flat on the ground. Thus, their point of view about the issue of �Apostasy� can�t be accepted. What a relief it must be for apostates to know that instead of being compelled to return to the faith, they are merely to be killed. [IMG]smileys/smiley24.gif" align="middle" />

Despite my sound arguments with appropriate references, the basis of your sarcasm is beyond comprehension. No compulsion in faith dictates no compelling what to talk of killing.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: This is not true simply because all the alternative point of views of Muslims about this issue, specifically deal to bring it in harmony with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith. How well their explanation are and thus can be accepted/rejected is through logical deductions/implications, as I have done and presented above. As I just said, this is not about compulsion in faith. It is about the death penalty for the unforgivable sin of apostasy.

In the absence of your proof from Quran, just repeating the original hypothesis, is meaningless.