NewStats: 3,261,538 , 8,174,308 topics. Date: Thursday, 29 May 2025 at 03:11 PM 2y3kp

TheJustPath:
Your attempt at a gotcha moment falls flat due to a shallow and cherry-picked understanding of Islamic jurisprudence and hadith sciences.

First, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur’an 2:256) is an unequivocal verse from the Qur’an itself — the highest source of authority in Islam. It refers to the individual's freedom to accept or reject faith without coercion. This is the cornerstone of Islamic belief regarding conversion.

Now let’s deal with the hadith you referenced (Sunan an-Nasa’i 4060). You parade this hadith around without understanding its context, classification, or jurisprudential scope. The ruling “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” refers not to a simple change of belief in a private setting, but to active political treason during wartime — a rebellion that posed an existential threat to the Muslim community. Apostasy in early Islam was often tied to sedition, espionage, or betrayal of the state — not personal disbelief.

Let me make this clearer for you: apostasy punishable by death was never about someone quietly changing their religion — it was about publicly defecting in a way that endangered the early Muslim state, which was under siege and fragile. Every legal system in history — including yours — has had capital punishment for treason. This is no different.

Even scholars have disagreed over the interpretation of this hadith. Ibn Abbas disagreed with Ali. Many classical and modern scholars also restrict or reject the use of this hadith as a basis for punishment in today's context, especially in non-theocratic, pluralistic societies.

So no, this doesn’t contradict “no compulsion in religion” unless you insist on ripping hadiths out of context and interpreting Islamic law through your own ignorance. If you're going to critique Islam, at least do the homework first.

Hear yourself

Even scholars have disagreed over the interpretation of this hadith. Ibn Abbas disagreed with Ali. Many classical and modern scholars also restrict or reject the use of this hadith as a basis for punishment in today's context, especially in non-theocratic, pluralistic societies.

BUT then,

So no, this doesn’t contradict “no compulsion in religion” unless you insist on ripping hadiths out of context and interpreting Islamic law through your own ignorance.


Meaning that there is no CONSENSUS about this hadith in Islam as your Learned Scholars disagree about it.

All you did was to chose the set of scholars that align with your views!


I align with your other set of scholars and the plain reading of the Hadith!

The news is fake Sahara reporters are a bunch of liars.

https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/8430957/no-lady-trial-converting-christianity

TenQ:

Hear yourself

Even scholars have disagreed over the interpretation of this hadith. Ibn Abbas disagreed with Ali. Many classical and modern scholars also restrict or reject the use of this hadith as a basis for punishment in today's context, especially in non-theocratic, pluralistic societies.

BUT then,

So no, this doesn’t contradict “no compulsion in religion” unless you insist on ripping hadiths out of context and interpreting Islamic law through your own ignorance.


Meaning that there is no CONSENSUS about this hadith in Islam as your Learned Scholars disagree about it.

All you did was to chose the set of scholars that align with your views!


I align with your other set of scholars and the plain reading of the Hadith!

Your argument collapses under the weight of its own inconsistency. First, you appeal to scholarly disagreement as if it nullifies my position, but then proceed to affirm your own based on another set of scholars. That’s not rigorous argumentation—it’s selective bias masquerading as principle. If scholarly disagreement disqualifies a view, then yours is equally disqualified. You can’t have it both ways.

You mentioned Ibn Abbas disagreed with Ali. Yes—welcome to Islamic legal tradition, where scholarly debate is not a flaw but a feature. But disagreement does not imply equivalence of positions. The strength of a position is measured by its dalil (evidence), not by how many people held it. The classical jurists—Imam Malik, Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi’i, Ibn Taymiyyah, and others—did not treat every opinion as equal, and neither should we.

Your invocation of “no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) is a textbook example of decontextualization. That verse addresses initial acceptance of faith, not the legal consequences of public apostasy, which is treated distinctly in classical fiqh across all major madhhabs. Even modern reformist scholars like Fazlur Rahman or Abdullah Saeed—whom you likely lean on—acknowledge this, while advocating for reinterpretation based on maqasid al-shari‘ah (higher objectives of law), not on denial of historical precedent.

So let’s be clear: I’m not 'ripping hadiths out of context.’ I’m engaging with centuries of scholarly tradition that you’re oversimplifying or ignoring. If your argument is that certain rulings may be unsuitable for modern, secular contexts—fine, make that argument. But don’t pretend your stance is the singular enlightened interpretation while dismissing the rest as ignorant. That’s not critical thinking—that’s intellectual arrogance..

TheJustPath:
Your argument collapses under the weight of its own inconsistency. First, you appeal to scholarly disagreement as if it nullifies my position, but then proceed to affirm your own based on another set of scholars. That’s not rigorous argumentation—it’s selective bias masquerading as principle. If scholarly disagreement disqualifies a view, then yours is equally disqualified. You can’t have it both ways.

You mentioned Ibn Abbas disagreed with Ali. Yes—welcome to Islamic legal tradition, where scholarly debate is not a flaw but a feature. But disagreement does not imply equivalence of positions. The strength of a position is measured by its dalil (evidence), not by how many people held it. The classical jurists—Imam Malik, Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi’i, Ibn Taymiyyah, and others—did not treat every opinion as equal, and neither should we.

Your invocation of “no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) is a textbook example of decontextualization. That verse addresses initial acceptance of faith, not the legal consequences of public apostasy, which is treated distinctly in classical fiqh across all major madhhabs. Even modern reformist scholars like Fazlur Rahman or Abdullah Saeed—whom you likely lean on—acknowledge this, while advocating for reinterpretation based on maqasid al-shari‘ah (higher objectives of law), not on denial of historical precedent.

So let’s be clear: I’m not 'ripping hadiths out of context.’ I’m engaging with centuries of scholarly tradition that you’re oversimplifying or ignoring. If your argument is that certain rulings may be unsuitable for modern, secular contexts—fine, make that argument. But don’t pretend your stance is the singular enlightened interpretation while dismissing the rest as ignorant. That’s not critical thinking—that’s intellectual arrogance..

My argument is that whatever you want me to believe about Islam contrary to my understanding is just your OPINION as even your scholars disagree over these things.

So, how dare you claim I am wrong when I am simply stating the position of a chunk of your scholars.

I want to believe that you are not a scholar are you!?

TenQ:

My argument is that whatever you want me to believe about Islam contrary to my understanding is just your OPINION as even your scholars disagree over these things.

So, how dare you claim I am wrong when I am simply stating the position of a chunk of your scholars.

I want to believe that you are not a scholar are you!?

First of all, don’t mistake your limited understanding for intellectual superiority. I am a scholar—and unlike you, I don’t hide behind selective interpretations or use disagreement among scholars as an excuse to push lazy generalizations.

Yes, Islamic scholars differ on many issues—because Islam encourages ijtihad (independent reasoning) within the bounds of its jurisprudential tradition. But don’t twist that legitimate diversity into a blank cheque for distortion. The existence of scholarly debate doesn't automatically validate your take, especially when it’s rooted in shallow readings or bias.

You’re not just “stating the position of a chunk of scholars.” You’re cherry-picking views that fit your narrative while dismissing the rigorous methodologies that real scholarship demands. That’s not opinion—that’s intellectual dishonesty.

And your smug little “are you even a scholar?” jab? Laughable. If you need to question credentials every time you’re out-argued, you’ve already lost the argument. I don’t have to be loud to be right—I have facts, context, and depth. You just have ego.

So next time, come with knowledge, not arrogance. Because when it comes to serious discourse, posturing won’t save you—substance will. And clearly, you’re running low on that.

TheJustPath:
First of all, don’t mistake your limited understanding for intellectual superiority. I am a scholar—and unlike you, I don’t hide behind selective interpretations or use disagreement among scholars as an excuse to push lazy generalizations.

Yes, Islamic scholars differ on many issues—because Islam encourages ijtihad (independent reasoning) within the bounds of its jurisprudential tradition. But don’t twist that legitimate diversity into a blank cheque for distortion. The existence of scholarly debate doesn't automatically validate your take, especially when it’s rooted in shallow readings or bias.

You’re not just “stating the position of a chunk of scholars.” You’re cherry-picking views that fit your narrative while dismissing the rigorous methodologies that real scholarship demands. That’s not opinion—that’s intellectual dishonesty.

And your smug little “are you even a scholar?” jab? Laughable. If you need to question credentials every time you’re out-argued, you’ve already lost the argument. I don’t have to be loud to be right—I have facts, context, and depth. You just have ego.

So next time, come with knowledge, not arrogance. Because when it comes to serious discourse, posturing won’t save you—substance will. And clearly, you’re running low on that.

Here yourself again.

Islamic scholars differ in OPINIONS about this but your opinion is the correct one
AND
Someone like you who take the Opinions of your own scholars different from you are arrogant!?

Listen to yourself speak.


You claim to be a scholar and I laughed in Mandarin. So, you are in the same class as Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas the cousin of your prophet!?


If you are, then from the Arabic explain Qur'an 9:31

TheJustPath:
First of all, don’t mistake your limited understanding for intellectual superiority. I am a scholar—and unlike you, I don’t hide behind selective interpretations or use disagreement among scholars as an excuse to push lazy generalizations.

Yes, Islamic scholars differ on many issues—because Islam encourages ijtihad (independent reasoning) within the bounds of its jurisprudential tradition. But don’t twist that legitimate diversity into a blank cheque for distortion. The existence of scholarly debate doesn't automatically validate your take, especially when it’s rooted in shallow readings or bias.

You’re not just “stating the position of a chunk of scholars.” You’re cherry-picking views that fit your narrative while dismissing the rigorous methodologies that real scholarship demands. That’s not opinion—that’s intellectual dishonesty.

And your smug little “are you even a scholar?” jab? Laughable. If you need to question credentials every time you’re out-argued, you’ve already lost the argument. I don’t have to be loud to be right—I have facts, context, and depth. You just have ego.

So next time, come with knowledge, not arrogance. Because when it comes to serious discourse, posturing won’t save you—substance will. And clearly, you’re running low on that.

So,

If you are what you claim, then from the Arabic explain Qur'an 9:31