Again, their test has ended in this world is decided by Muhammad himself. This is problematic.

Decision from God is claimed by Muhammad only.. and he justified each of his actions as coming from God. That way, everything he did, he was blameless. The same argument is used by my friend John in other thread.

Even Muhammad didn’t have an “undeniably” true Qur’an … if it was undeniable, it would have been accepted as true by now.

Like gravitational theory is considered true.

Interestingly, Qur’anic view by many scholars was understood to be that earth was flat and Sun revolved around the earth .. but anyway that is not the topic of this thread.

Wasn’t the God using Muhammad’s army to kill the disbelievers apparently and it was based on their stubbornness ? How did it get fixed apriori then ?

Which medicine ?

My understanding of the word is fine, however you have a believer’s lens and justifying everything.

I didn’t watch all the videos .. some of which are 2 hrs long… please present summarized arguments .

Can you please summarize the arguments and present them ? It is difficult to watch Urdu videos .. though some you sent were in English.

I don’t know if to understand a topic, we have to read all the verses together which are scattered throughout the book. Now, there could be following ways of reading the two passages when the two passages are independently saying opposite things.

1. There is logical contradiction in the book.

2. There is some exception in the general ruling.

3. Later verse abrogates the former verse.

Now, who will decide which of the 3 ways is the best way to read the book ?

The one which we are discussing here in this thread is one example .. also there are many others like shirk being forgiven/ marrying christian woman etc.

I don’t understand why you don’t see the contradiction in killing people when they don’t believe . The excuse used that their test in this world is over, is a poor one.

As I said, it contradicts no compulsion verse ..

The contradiction is not if he dies due to natural causes or the disease itself kills him… but there is contradiction if the salesman decides to kill him.

Ha ha.. sorry I couldn’t control my laughter .

1. Accept me or I will kill you.

2. You are under no compulsion to accept it.

These two are contradictory statements.

No.. compulsion doesn’t ONLY mean forcing them when they do NOT understand.

Compulsion means forcing them EVEN if they do understand and reject you.

Let me put it another example.. a random guy stalks a girl and professes his love for her.. and says that he truly loved her, and shows enough proof for his love, and also says that girl is under no compulsion to accept his proposal but if she doesn’t accept it, he will kill her.

It IS compulsion.

Instead of giving me video links, can you please provide Qur’an verses numbers which I can refer to ? Why should I accept SS’s explanation when he is not divinely guided by God to give the correct interpretation of Qur’an ?

18:29 : And say, “The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.”

It doesn’t say kill him if he doesn’t believe after your truth is made clear to him. Please provide that verse.

God chooses to end their test by killing them .. but how ? Muhammad killed them and claimed that God killed them. Again it boils down to the same argument we had in other thread.

If Muhammad had cursed them and God killed them through disease or flood or some other natural means, we could have accepted it as divine punishment.. but Muhammad himself killing them and claiming God killed them.. well this is just the same claim all false Prophets make.

It seems we are going in circles. We had discussed it earlier in other thread as well.

But this claim is made by Muhammad in the Qur’an which is where we started our discussion that it is not proven. If that were undeniably proven, then anything Muhammad did would have been justified .

Anyway, I think we are going in circles.

The definition of the word compulsion :

The action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

“the payment was made under compulsion”

If someone says that if he doesn’t make the payment, he will be killed, yes it is under compulsion. I can’t make it anymore clear .

Can you say the same for the stalker boy example I gave that he also gave two choices to the girl on gunpoint .. accept his love and marry him OR he will kill her..

Would you say he is not compelling her and it depends on her free will , and she should suffer the consequences of her free will and be killed if she makes the choice of rejecting that stalker boy ?

Yes, reward or denial of reward is not compulsion, it is a choice.

However threat of being harmed if not following the order, is a compulsion. Not giving chocolate is no compulsion, but denying food altogether is compulsion.

I don’t understand, how can you say that the stalker boy is compelling her, when he clearly outlined his conditions. She is under free will even though she is at gunpoint, either accept his love and marry him OR face the consequences of being killed.

Why is it compulsion ?

It is your argument, not mine. I am only asking you to be consistently applying the same criterion to that stalker boy you are applying to Muhammad. It seems you are criticising the boy for doing the same action which you are not criticising Muhammad for.

I just took the standard dictionary definition and example of the word compulsion. If the English translation of Qur’an uses the word “compulsion” and we all understand the dictionary meaning of it, what is the need for context and nuances to explain the real meaning? Why is Allah’s word so confusing ?

But why is your fourth approach the best and proper way when so many scholars use the other methods to read the Qur’an ?

Deniers of truth and followers of false Gods are to be receiving punishment if they don’t change their ways and accept the truth by Muhammad. This is compelling them to accept the truth.

How did Ali know if they are denying the truth intentionally or not ? Did Allah tell him that ?

So, Allah not only made things clear to Muhammad, but to all people of that generation ?

So, any companion was right in killing apostates ?

Why did Prophet not kill them then ? Why did he leave it to Ali or other companions (after his death) ?

Also, when exactly it became illegal to kill apostates ? When did Allah say .. now enough.. no more apostate killing because I am not ordering it further ?

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'”

I am not considering them source of religion.. but it was quite clear that apostasy hadith was quite common knowledge and mentioned by Prophet to various people.

People were applying it pretty generally :

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.”

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271

Can you please provide a Qur’an verse or hadith which says that apostasy verdict is only applicable to direct audience of the Prophet and later it should not be used ?

Qur’an is very clear, so it should be available as a clear verse, right ?

Why ? It is not only my thinking but the thinking of many many reputed scholars. It seems Prophet or Allah never said things clearly, confusing the most reputed scholars .

Can you please explain the other 2 conditions for killing the muslim being justified ? Did those two also depend on if truth is made clear to him ? Also, why an unmarried muslim be not killed for illegal sexual encounter, but only a married muslim ?

We can discuss blasphemy also as part of no compulsion.. or may be open a separate thread for it.

The most closest of companions of Prophet said the rule to kill apostates was mentioned by Prophet. It was about them leaving Islam.. If the most closest companions understood it wrong, I don’t have anything else to say.

Qur’an and Sahih hadiths contradict each other.

They understood it wrong as mentioned by many hadiths .. and 4 sunni schools of thought also understood it wrong, they all are very reputed scholars. Unless you blame Abu Hanifa and others for corrupting Islam, I don’t see your point.

You don’t blame them for corrupting the message of Islam ? If by pure intention and full knowledge, they still did NOT understand Islam, and are considered mainstream most reputed scholars by majority of Muslims, what does it say about Allah’s plan to send the message to humanity ?

Einstein and Newton weren’t interpreting divine message.

That’s not enough.. Allah didn’t make sure that Islam isn’t corrupted by its scholars. If mainstream Islamic scholars believe such a major concept of Islam (apostasy) to be one way, which is opposite to what Allah intended, then what is the point of preserving the text of Qur’an ? The important point is to make sure that the message as a whole remains uncorrupted.. preserving the text itself is meaningless, if the majority understands it wrong. What is the beauty and miracle of Qur’an if it is not even clear to the majority of reputed scholars ?

He has preserved its word in text only (though some verses are doubtful) .. but what is the point if core message is misunderstood by the reputed scholars ?

I am not talking about some minor mistakes here and there.. I am talking about the core of Islam.. the freedom of belief and apostasy are very important part of the faith.

It is not one random human.. the majority of the scholars are of the view that apostasy is punishable by death. You are claiming ALL of them misunderstood the hadith and its context was not clear to them ?

The test should be only conducted on them understanding the message. If they are not even understanding the message correctly, despite their sincere efforts, how can they be tested ?

I am talking about the most reputed scholars and when they ALL got it wrong, there is no hope for general public.