Apostate prophet shows the good side of Islam; Muslims the best of nations?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

Muslims are told to remain God-conscious rather than self satisfied and conceited because the loss of that spiritual humility results in moral degeneration as happened to the previous holders of such honor with the passage of time 57:16. This task, rather than racist or unconditional superiority, as those uneducated in Islam try to portray, this task of being the "best of the nations" is progressively instilled in Muslim minds.

The Quran does so by recounting as a warning, how the Israelites failed holding up God's covenant by not fulfilling their spiritual responsibilities not only towards themselves but also towards the people they mingled with. It then immidiately deposes them from their spiritual leadership over mankind, then appoints the righteous among the Ishmaelites, those that fulfill the qualifications spoken of earlier, by symbolically turning the Qibla away from Jerusalem to the Kaaba built by their forefathers Ibrahim and Ismail.

It that shocking context that caused much polemic when it was announced, God told these Ishmaelites willing to enter into that covenant and bear the burden of being the light of the nations, He told them the tremendous responsibilities and hardships such leadership would entail 2:153-7.

Not fulfilling these responsibilities spoken of as well as in 3:110 would only be these new leader's own loss, not God's whose sovereignty ecompasses all things. It would invalidate this honorific status and cause God to ultimately replace one chosen comunity with another

4:131"and certainly We enjoined those who were given the Book before you and (We enjoin) you too that you should be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and if you disbelieve, then surely whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's and Allah is Self-sufficient, Praise-worthy". 

That this honoring is certainly not unconditional is further confirmed in the same chapter with 3:104 as it isolates a group from among the Muslim community "And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong, and these it is that shall be successful". It clearly says that the choseness of the Muslims as upholders of the covenant does not make them all equal in God's eyes

35:32"Then We gave the Book for an inheritance to those whom We chose from among Our servants; but of them is he who makes his soul to suffer a loss, and of them is he who takes a middle course, and of them is he who is foremost in deeds of goodness by Allah´s permission; this is the great excellence".

Again when refering to the battle of Uhud, the Quran narrows its selection of the true Muslims

3:172"(As for) those who responded (at Ohud) to the call of Allah and the Messenger after the wound had befallen them, those among them who do good (to others) and guard (against evil) shall have a great reward".

Among the Muslims, they were those who didnt yield to their selfishness and greed, they answered the calls of the prophet, and even among those, the verse reiterates what constitutes honor in God's eyes: correct belief and righteousness, not mereley being Muslim, see also 6:88. It is to be noted that the correct faith characterizes itself through a constant focus, no matter the conditions, to God, and a captivated heart by the awe of an unseen Entity, which in turn leads one to guard himself from evil 50:31-3.

3:110 also says that this "best nation" was raised to benefit mankind. Harming mankind or causing it to reject Islam by portraying it in a light that isnt true to its message, is contrary to the purpose of that "best nation". That purpose of being beneficial for mankind can only occur by spreading the reality of Islam, remaining true to the divine covenant and bearing witness to it 3:103,22:78 by displaying outstanding moral qualities regardless who is addressed 4:135, transmitting this beneficial knowledge and not keep it for themselves, leading mankind to the straight path by it

81:27"It is naught but a reminder for the nations, For him among you who pleases to go straight".

This is just as the Bani Israil were enjoined to do when God appointed them a living torch for mankind, yet failed 2:63-64,3:187,28:5,32:24. That among a chosen nation, chosen to fulfill a specific task, some will inevitably fail in their duty is again reflected in

35:32"Then We gave the Book as inheritance unto those whom We elected of Our servants. But of them are some who wrong themselves, and of them are some who follow the middle course, and of them are some who outstrip (others) through good deeds, by Allah's leave".

Apostate prophet wounded in self-esteem; non-Muslims are the worst creatures?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

The issue of best of creatures and worst of creatures has nothing to do with appellation, or belonging to a group or race. Whether in the Quran or the Bible, it has to do with spiritual uprightness. As already explained in another video to another youtuber similarly to this uneducated one, here is the proper definition of the phrase in details.

After enumerating the favors bestowed on the Israelities, the covenant they had entered into with God and their failure to uphold it despite having witnessed outstanding signs, Allah deposes the Israelites from their position of spiritual leadership and "living torch" over the world and addresses the Muslims

3:110"You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men".

This is a honourific, but conditional status. It was similarly bestowed upon the Israelites 2:47,5:12-13 before their breaking their covenant, provoking and rebelling against God. Very soon after Jesus' departure, something similar happened among those that claimed to be his followers. They neglected and forgot the directives of their prophet, followed their whims and leaders instead, 5:14,9:31. The common denominator found in the message brought by every prophet, is Islam, surrender to Allah. Each message being in essence a manifestation of the pre-eternal covenant that God made with all of humanity when they were still in Adam’s loins

"And when thy Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their progeny and made them bear witness concerning themselves, “Am I not your Lord?” they said, “Yea, we bear witness”. 

What the prophets brought were essentially a renewal of this genetic cognition of divine oneness 

33:7"And [remember] when We made with the prophets their covenant, and with thee, and with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary; We made with them a solemn covenant". 

The various prophets thus served the purpose of reminding, so that no human being can claim ignorance of that gut-feeling

7:172-3"Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Truly of this we were heedless,” or lest you should say, “[It is] only that our fathers ascribed partners unto God aforetime, and we were their progeny after them. Wilt Thou destroy us for that which the falsifiers have done?”.

That honorific title now bestowed upon the Muslims is conditional on obedience, righteousness and deep God-consciousness, as stated in the verse itself

"you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah".

Only those who base their lives on that principle can live up to that covenant, as well as achieve success in this life and the next

4:131"We have enjoined upon those who were granted revelation before your time, as well as upon yourselves, to remain conscious of God".

The Quran beautifully describes those worthy of upholding a divine covenant as such

25:63-73"And the servants of the Beneficent Allah are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace. And they who pass the night prostrating themselves before their Lord and standing. And they who say: O our Lord! turn away from us the punishment of hell, surely the punishment thereof is a lasting, Surely it is an evil abode and (evil) place to stay. And they who when they spend, are neither extravagant nor parsimonious, and (keep) between these the just mean. And they who do not call upon another god with Allah and do not slay the soul, which Allah has forbidden except in the requirements of justice, and (who) do not commit fornication and he who does this shall find a requital of sin..And they who do not bear witness to what is false, and when they pass by what is vain, they pass by nobly. And they who, when reminded of the communications of their Lord, do not fall down thereat deaf and blind."

Apostate prophet learns rules of dialogue; when is criticism against Islam allowed?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

When the critic's aim is to objectively assess the Islamic arguments, carefully listen and evaluate the Islamic position, instead of shutting his ears or pretending to listen while preparing his counter arguments, telling others to do the same, raising irrelevant objections just for the sake of discrediting, without any solid basis for argument, isolating a word or a sentence from its context, hairsplitting it so as to make it a basis of doubts and accusations, misconstruing words so as to prevent them being properly understood 4:46,40:4-5,56,41:40 then a meaningful discussion can be engaged

16:125"with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".

The prophet's own life and ability to take on criticism is testimony to this. As well, Muslims can freely mingle with kindness and justice with any non-muslims who do not seek to fight Islam, do not opress Muslims unjustly 60:8-9. Although the prophet never initiated the kind of verbal attack he was calumnied with, when he was approached by a Muslim poet, Hasan bin Thabit, who proposed verbally attacking the enemy poetry that targeted him, the Muslims and Islam, he did not instruct him to steep to their lowly immoral, unwarranted standards. For example he told Hasan that his lineage shouldnt be attacked, meaning he did not want Hasan to provoke them on that point lest they in turn insult the prophet's ancestors.

Apostate prophet is offended; Islam insults other religions?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

Muslims must avoid those circles where Islam is being mocked and defamed, after expressing their dissociation with them, or gatherings where spirituality as a whole is completely disfigured or absent

6:68,70,4:140"until they enter into some other discourse".

So to argue that a Muslim, although he is to avoid this kind of circles, is allowed to create a similar circle where other people are defamed and mocked is baseless. The opening statement of the book of Psalms echoes this position of the Quran

Ps1:1"The praises of a man are that he did not follow the counsel of the wicked, neither did he stand in the way of sinners nor sit in the company of scorners".

Avoiding and retreating from such atmosphere does not equal to arrogance and haugtiness. Muslims should always try and speak in the most kindly manner to the followers of other faiths who do not act insiduously, seeking to undermine one's faith and community 17:53,29:46, nor should one be repulsed and turn away with contempt from those who, despite their beliefs not being in full accordance with the Quran

6:52"call upon their Lord in the morning and the evening". 

Although denouncing any worship directed to other than Allah isnt forbidden, yet the Quran explains that this should be done with proper arguments, not simply using insulting and obscene language

6:108"lest exceeding the limits they should abuse Allah out of ignorance".

The verse explains, such an improper manner of conducting a dialogue can only lead to harm and similar obscene language in return. This was the prophet's way of denouncing false worship since the beginning of his call. Although the pagans were offended by his arguments, it was not on account of using improper language, misplaced arguments, distortions of other people's true beliefs, but the mere fact of speaking the hurtful truth against their sacred but inherently false system.

For example when the prophet, like the prophets of the HB from Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jonah, down to Micah, Habakkuk, described false idols as worhtless pieces of man made carved wood or stone, devoid of any sense of perception and incapable of fending for themselves, much less for those bowing to them, he was not using profanity but only speaking the hurtful truth. On the other hand when Jesus used profanity against Jewish "races of vipers" and "sons of satan", he was being expletive "when you say these things, you insult us" said the Rabbis. Jesus was in turn exposing himself to similar profanity. It is ironic that this type of personal abuse, initiated by Jesus, not even in answer to them insulting him, isnt regarded as offensive by the Christian critics of Islam. Why would they, when it is with such background that later antisemitism developped and flourished, with Jesus' example. That is not even getting into the vile language of the HB by YHWH in reference to the spiritual "harlotry" of Israel. The whole book of Jeremiah including Lamentations which is traditionaly attributed to him, and Ezekiel after him, as well as Micah are filled with metaphors of adultery, shameless exhibitionism, betrayal and divorce, sensless harlotry by paying tributes and gifts in subjugation to the "lover" instead of receiving payment as a prostitute would, fornication with foreigners endowed with donkey-like "large genitals" who ejaculate like horses, to whom her "virgin breasts" are shamelessly displayed, "scattering of ways" and "spreading of legs to every passerby" without ever being sated, in reference to Israel's unfaithfulness to God's covenant, going after false gods and forsaking the true God

Ezek16:38"And I shall judge you [with] the judgments of adulteresses and murderesses, and I shall deliver you [to those who shed] blood with fury and zeal".

In the book of proverbs, the use of a similar imagery is directed at the idolaters, compared to a lurking harlot ready to snatch the souls caught off-guard Prov23:27-8. Elsewhere, other "brides" of God have their share of metaphorical sexual debauchery, like the non-Jewish city of Nineveh that reformed itself under the prophet Jonah but returned to its evil ways afterwards and was thus condemned with equal anger and fury by God who will

Neh3:5-6"uncover your skirts upon your face-and I will show the nations your nakedness, and the kingdoms your shame. And I will cast detestable things upon you and make you vile, and I will make you like dung".

Sexual metaphors are also employed in reference to the Torah itself, supposed to be as intoxicating as a woman's love annd as satisfying as her breasts Prov5:19-20.

 These critics instead find fault when Abubakr answered the unjust accusations of treachery and lack of faith, with typical Arabic terminology to refer to the worthlessness of a person. He said

"go suck al-Laat's clitoris".

Abubakr's abuse in return for abuse isnt even a personal attack, as is the case with Jesus' words, but a scorn of an inanimate object. It is everyone's right to reply to a hurtful attack, verbal or physical, in a similarily painful way. Denying that right is an injustice towards the victim, just as forcing someone to be passive or forgiving. Magnanimity is always encouraged in the Quran, but never at the expense of justice, it must come freely and without pressure, by the victim itself.

Even though the use of defamatory speech may be exceptionaly justified in case a person has in some way been wronged, pardonning the evil which has been done is much preferable to God 4:148-9. ALJAHRA means something that is out in the open with the aim to be noticed and not missed. This includes loud expression and anything that is flagrant and so on. The message is that Allah does not love this kind of communication unless the person was himself victim of it. In this case God hears and knows what is going on, which is a message in itself of reassurance to the victim, but still gives license to retaliate in the same manner, without transgressing himself the bounds by which he was assaulted. The verse hints to self-restraint while still not denying the person's injured self, and his natural right to answer back and defend himself. This is speaking of situations where a soft speech and forbearance, as is the general rule in Islam when one is confronted to ill mannered people and verbal attacks, is not enough to stop the harrassement and abuse.

Denouncing falsehood in all circumstances, religious or else, is therefore never condemned or prevented in the Quran, but rather the manner in doing it is regulated. So in the case of one's beliefs being insulted one doesnt reply with an insult, the Quran tells the believer in such case to avoid the circles where Islam is being mocked 4:140, precisely to avoid such lowly behavior of mockery for mockery as described in

6:108,68:10-11"And yield not to any mean swearer, Defamer, going about with slander".

A righteous person should act accordingly, responding to falsehood with dignity 25:72. Ridiculing or mocking one another while arguing does not behoove the God-conscious, it is the trait of those devoid of upright character.

Apostate prophet disillusioned with another semitic religion; Christian death for apostasy?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

The capital punishment solely for renouncing one's religion isnt Quranic, it is a Biblical ruling outlined in Deut13 or Deut17:1-7 and stipulates that all those who are caught enticing others into, or commiting idolatry, are to be put to death, in such a forceful manner that all the inhabitants of the city are to be indiscriminately executed, their livestock and possessions burned and their dwellings razed to the ground.

A demonstration of the law's application, on a large-scale and in a systematic way, directly commanded by God is when thousands of Israelites were executed by their own brethren for having reverted to idol worship during the exodus. This incident is reported in both the Torah and Quran.

Further, the Biblical law of apostasy isnt specific to particular circumstances. When for instance the Israelite prophets executed apostates and idolaters from among their own, it wasnt in war times where the apostate risked joining enemy ranks. 

Later on in the course of their tumultuous history and as they were adapting the revealed law (of apostasy and other inconvenient and/or difficult laws) to their needs and whims, the passing of the death penalty required a much more stringent procedure.It was the case before, during and after the time of Jesus which is why it was rarely if ever applied then, whether by Jews or early followers of Jesus. 

This by the way is one of the many points that undermine the crucifixion tale, as will be shown further below.

In Christianity a similar process of reinterpretation occurred as regards the capital punishment for apostasy. Up to the middle ages, whether it was church leaders, popes, thinkers and saints the likes of Thomas Aquinas, all justified and applied whenever they could, based on passages of both the HB/NT, the death penalty to apostates, as well as heretics and open sinners. It was not until Christianity and its church weakened through reforms and secularism that the capital punishment for religious transgressions was abandoned.

The Jews, in the times of Jesus didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses:

-the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.

-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).

Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"

means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.

-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).

- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned 

-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple 

So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic comandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? When in Jn18 the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up their irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation. 

The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation leading to the Christian God's suicide.

Apostate prophet launches his attacks; ibn abi Sarh's punishment?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh who had converted then apostised, joined the enemy side and began undermining the authenticity of the Quran by spreading rumors that he had been forging verses. He in addition incited the opposite party to war.

When the Muslim side finally overcame against all odds and his own inciting efforts, his inevitable, legitimate fate was now execution for high treason. This is what governments generally do once a traitor is apprehended, especially when a conflict ends while the person is still among enemy ranks. At that point, ibn Abi Sarh sought Uthman's intercession and came to the prophet to pledge his allegiance. The prophet ignored Uthman's plea twice before finally accepting. The prophet knew that he deserved to be put to death but at the same time, because of the general amnesty he had declared upon Mecca's conquest, he hesitated in the case of Sarh' special case, leaning more towards the capital penalty. By his silence, he left it to the attendance of close followers to do as they liked and as he saw that they leaned the opposite way, he reluctantly validated their judgement and accepted Sarh's pledge. 

However and as already shown from the Quran, should one leave Islam peacefully without intending any harm to the community, not combining apostasy with public rejection of the state system, which includes refusal to acquit oneself from fiscal obligations, then the consequences of the sin are left for the Creator to decide in the Hereafter. A case in point is that of a bedouin that apostised though he had accepted Islam, pledging allegiance in front of the prophet the day before. The prophet did not punish him, the most that he did was to ignore him 3 times before stating

"Medina is like a furnace. It expels its impurities and collects what is pure".

The early caliphs followed the same line. Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz did not bother a group of apostates so long as they did not rebel against government laws. It is thus rejection of the religion in a way that threatens the stability of the Islamic system in place that warrants death penalty. These were the cases covered by the prophet's saying

"Whosoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him".

In fact there are explicit reports where the prophet let people leave the community in security following their spiritual apostasy.

Once more, there is no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 so no punitive measure can be directed at an apostate neither can he be compelled to go back to Islam or forced to repent solely on the basis of his choice of creed.

Per the Quran and as made clear in 4:88-90 quoted earlier, action is to be undertaken against an apostate when he engages in hostile behavior towards Muslims and the Muslim state. Fighting, punishing or killing an apostate has therefore nothing to do with a person's choice of creed but with his behavior towards the Muslims.

Apostate prophet recovers historical truth; ridda wars in Islam?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

The misquoted reports about Abu Bakr's ridda wars do not come in the context of apostasy. The people fought against were regarded as Muslims according to many other reports, although a minority had apostised.

They were fought for their refusal to pay due government taxes and poor rate, and after they initially and unexpectedly attacked those that sided with Abu Bakr on the issue, and after causing bloodshed among government ranks and attempted to overthrow the first caliph. Prior to giving further details about this event, it is important noting that the Quran sanctions warfare against anyone, including Muslims, who refuse to desist from destructive practices such as riba 2:278-9. The events of the ridda war occured shortly after the prophet's death when many disheartened recent converts apostised and others attempted to reduce their community contributions.

Umar is reported to have pleaded with Abubakr to be more lenient with those that refused paying their dues, which he categorically refused. Clearly the issue was not about spiritual apostasy or else Abubakr would have acceded to Umar's request, accepting that they pay less in exchange of their adherence to the Muslim community. Abubakr sent them an official letter calling them back to Islam, those very people who were nominal Muslims, but that refused adhering to the laws of the Islamic state. He instructed his emissaries to fight the rebels after they have been informed of their obligations towards the state and have rejected

"(the duties) that are incumbent upon them and [the advantages] that accrue to them, and (the emissary) should take what is [imposed] on them and give them what they are due".

In his letter Abubakr additionaly appealed to the prophet's practice in a similar situation. When he was confronted to Muslims who rebelled against the state and refused paying their dues, unjustly taking advantage of the system which others were sacrificing their own wealth and lives to maintain

"he struck whoever turned his back to Him (God) until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly".

Such a behavior is equal to turning one's back to God, as is represented by the state religion. This isnt speaking of simply renouncing the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations.

The rebels of the ridda war lauched their assault by night while the majority of the Muslim soldiers were sent on an expedition outside Medina. Abu Bakr fought back with his people and killed those who were involved. It is with such historical and Quranic perspective that the killing of apostates as reported in the history and hadith books should be understood, spiritual apostasy was never the sole charge warranting the death penalty, but rather political apostasy ie socio-political destabilisation and conspiracies to commit bloodshed, especially in times of war or other sort of trials that caused the early Muslims to be on high alert against those who wished to overthrown the system.

In addition, some among the early Muslims' enemies pretended converting in attempts to infiltrate the community and harm it through inciting sedition and providing vital information in times of war 3:72,33:60. All governements would punish and sometimes execute foreign spies, double agents, or traitors to an enemy with whom one is at war. These are the people covered in the saying

"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".

This clearly puts 2 condition for the execution of an individual in war times, leaving the religion combined with seperation from the community to join the enemy. Leaving the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations does not warrant the death penalty. This openly declared threat would make the conspirators think twice before engaging in their insidious behavior. All scholars have understood that leaving Islam must be coupled with a will to harm it and its people, to warrant the death penalty. Ibn Taymiyah said

"Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective".

Apostate prophet learns social distancing; Muslims should stay away from apostates?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

Severing of social ties must be made with apostates who were former hypocrites, especially in the context of war as in the verses that will be quoted, since these former Muslims used to hide their hatred and enmity from other Muslims, and now openly declare it, even striving to make them leave their religion

4:88-89"What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned?..They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike".

They are therefore to be cut off from the community to avoid the spread of their mischief

4:89"take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes)/hajiru in Allah's way".

Ties with them can only be restored when they decisively return to Islam (as indicated by the clause "fi sabilillah/for Allah's sake") and prove their faith to the rest of the community through difficult sacrifices such as leaving their homes and doing hijra in Allah's way, forsaking the domain of evil for an environment where they can practice their faith without restrictions, as the true believers were doing. If they do not do so then their expression of Islam is only for the purpose of spying and destruction, serving the purpose of those with whom Muslims are at war. In this case

4:89"if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper".

They must be executed because of their open and secret hostile activities. However if those apostates refuse to flee their homes in Allah's way but nevertheless end the threat from within the community, by migrating for

4:90"a people between whom and you there is an alliance"

or who decide to remain within the Muslim community but have decisively abandoned all hostilities

4:90"who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people..withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them".

This Quranic passage establishes the social ruling as regards apostasy. The Quran frames it exclusively in the context of war, which is also the historical context in which the early scholars of Islam discussed the law of apostasy. That is why neither the Quran nor the scholars impose a punishment solely for the act of apostasy, but when it is coupled with hostile activity, verbal or physical. 

Ridda is the word used in reference to those who engage in this multifaceted behavior. This historical perspective is often missed, disregarded or obscured whenever critics quote a saying from the prophet on apostasy, or the rulings of the fuqaha'. One can now understand the words of the prophet 

"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him". 

Here, the apostate is to be killed if he in addition severes all ties with the community. In those days, this amounted to joining enemy ranks. If the apostate remains in the community he is left unharmed. We thus see the prophetic practice in clear congruence with the aforementioned Quranic passage.

However even in times of peace, execution of an apostate is sometimes justified. In an Islamic state, Islam itself is what constitutes and legislates life on every level; administrative, economic, social etc. For a Muslim citizen to abandon Islam means to reject the law of the land. One cannot at the same time pledge to abide by those rules while rejecting the essence of the legislative authority, which is the Quran and the prophetic sunna. The entire system derives from these 2 pillars, and new laws are continuously formulated based on them. This constitutes a destabilising factor on all levels of society; how can a government endure if people reject a system unanimously adopted by the community? Except under a tyranny, such an attitude is unjustifiable and is an existential threat to the state. That is why the jurists have legislated for the threat to be cut off from its onset, before it becomes a movement. The apostate on the other hand is free to leave the land and reside outside Islamic jurisdiction, or remain in it without making his apostasy public. But if he makes the apostasy and rejection of the system public, remains in Muslim land, he becomes de facto an outlaw and a destabilising factor within society. Even if it is for the sake of converting to one of the non-Muslim groups of the Islamic land, the apostate still is guilty of rejecting the legislative authority. The non-Muslim groups on the other hand, pre-existed the Islamic state until it expanded to their lands. They never at any point rejected the legislative authority, but instead embraced it, along with the freedom of religion it grants them.

To further corroborate, under Uthman's caliphate, a man named Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers deeply resented Uthman, favoring Ali instead whom they saw as a semi divine figure more eligible to be caliph. Their over exaltation of Ali took them outside the fold of Islam, making them apostates. Their true aim by feinting conversion was to spread political and social discord to destabilize the caliphate. They planned on capturing and killing Uthman should he refuse stepping down, and Uthman was eventually murdered. Ali eventually arrested them, exiled some of them and executed others. The fact some were exiled shows that although they were all considered apostates, they did not all qualify for the death penalty. The executions were not motivated by choice of creed, which isnt an endorsed practice by the Quran, but rather for the capital offense of fasad fil ard, which per the Quran warrants the death penalty.

Although the brief and most authentic reports do not clearly say how this was done, some say that they were first burned then thrown into a ditch while others say they were first beheaded then had their lifeless bodies burnt.
In both possible cases, Ali had done something which the prophet forbade;
- the first potential misdeed was execution by fire. It is reported

"When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them".

In another report

"We were with the Prophet and we passed by a colony of ants which had been burned, and the Prophet became angry and said, ‘It is not fitting for any man to punish with the punishment of Allah.” 

- the second potential misdeed was mutilation of lifeless bodies. It is reported

"The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.”

The traditions explain that this instruction is rooted in a Quranic verse

16:126"And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient".

This verse is said to have been revealed after the prophet had seen the violent manner in which his uncle Hamza's dead body had been ripped open and then threatened

"Never yet have i felt more anger than now i feel; and when next time God gives me victory over Quraysh, i will mutilate thirty of their dead".

This emotional, on the spot declaration was never fulfilled, and the prophet in addition forbade mutilation as shown above, in obedience to the Quranic directive. Even in warfare, killing must be swift, without recourse to inefficient weapons that cause unnecessary suffering 

"The Prophet forbade the throwing of stones (with the thumb and the index or middle finger), and said "It neither hunts a game nor kills (or hurts) an enemy, but it gouges out an eye or breaks a tooth".

When ibn Abbas learned of what Ali had done (either burning or mutilating), he publicly rebuked him by appealing to the prophetic sunna mentioned above, which embarrassed Ali, hence his first reaction

"Wayh Ibn Abbas!".

Ali either knew about the prophet's commands but let his emotions overcome him in the execution of the right course, or had forgotten them. So he admitted his error and praised ibn Abbas for speaking the truth

"When ‘Ali was informed about it he said: How truly ibn Abbas said!"

Apostate prophet warns ex-Muslims; leaving Islam is a death sentence

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing" 

When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion

"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".

The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.

Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained

"the right way has become clearly distinct from error".

This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.

Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishment or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishment for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentance if it is sincere 3:86-89 and not followed by constant periods of disbelief then belief 4:137. 

As reported by ibn Abbas 

"A man from among the Ansar accepted Islam, then he apostatized and went back to Shirk. Then he regretted that, and sent word to his people (saying): 'Ask the Messenger of Allah [SAW], is there any repentance for me?' His people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and said: 'So and so regrets (what he did), and he has told us to ask you if there is any repentance for him?' Then the Verses: 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief up to His saying: Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful' was revealed. So he sent word to him, and he accepted Islam."

Nowhere does the Quran say a person must be punished or killed solely for the act of apostasy and all it mentions is that apostates shall face a terrible punishment in the Hereafter. This of course excludes those who apostize unwillingly, who are

3:86-91,16:106"compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith".

Such a person is compelled to renounce faith with his lips due to imminent danger on his life while he remains a firm believer in his heart. This is what is often referred to as taqiya. The Quran doesnt condone lying, rather commands to uphold one's pledges, to judge with equity, to speak justly, kindly, with integrity, without corruption, with the outward locution corresponding to the intent 

4:5-9,135,6:152,2:83,235,3:32,70"O you who believe! Reverence God and speak justly". 

It is further to be noted here, that although martyrdom in the cause of faith is highly meritorious, still the Quran absolves those who sincerely, not out of lack of faith, cannot go to such an extent because

2:233"no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity". 

Saving life takes precedence over following the law. That is why a Muslim may eat pork if facing starvation. Exactly what Jesus taught in the Gospels when he transgressed the sabbath by citing David's example.

Punishment in the hereafter for the sin of apostasy is therefore solely the lot of the one who willingly, without any compulsion renounces Faith and:

"opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement".

Apostate prophet seeks the fair judge; why did the prophet Muhammad punish people?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"

The Prophet never punished out of mere retaliation for a personal slight or injury. All his punishments, of believers and unbelievers alike, were for crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law; and even here his life contains acts of clemency in which he put mercy above justice. In 4:140 it says

"And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell".

This is a Medinan verse in which the prophet isnt told to forcefully silence the critics, even those mockers of the religion. He is simply to gracefully turn away from them and leave them to their own shamefull talk. A similar verse was revealed in Mecca 6:68.
The Muslims entered Mecca but the keys to the Kaaba were with Uthman Bin Talha, a non-believer who locked the door of the holy sanctuary upon learning of the Muslims' entrance in Mecca. He hid, refusing to hand over the keys, until Ali found him and snatched the keys from him, openned the Kaaba and the Prophet entered, prayed in it, after which revelation came down

4:58"indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are belong to..".

The prophet understood that the Shaybah family had to be returned their possession; he thus ordered Ali to return the key to Uthman Bin Talha and excuse themselves. Ali then went to Uthman and gave back the key and presented their apologies for the wrong he had done to him by forcibly taking the key. Uthman b. Talha was shocked, he could not believe Ali was giving back the key to him as instructed by the Prophet Muhammad, the conqueror of Mecca, who could have done as he wished with anyone and anything within the city. Ever since, the guardianship of the Kaaba remained with Bani Shaybah, which is bestowed upon the elders of the family until today.

The soldiers and men of Quraysh who once levelled armies seeking to exterminate the Muslims by all means, persecuted and starved the Prophet and his powerless followers in the early days of his Call, brutalised and killed Muslim prisonners, war criminals in every sense of the word, came to the Prophet submissively. They thought they would most certainly be slain, just as they would have executed the Muslims had their tirelessly repeated plans worked. They knew very well that within their own customs retaliation and hatred were the rule of the game within the fabrics of the society and its order. Hatred and hostilities were passed down from one generation to the next and unwillingness to perpetrate revenge was considered a defect.

While attributing the promised victory to Allah alone, the Messenger, in the manner of the great men of God who show magnanimity once they are at the climax of their power and glory, contented himself with uttering what a previous Prophet, noble as him had uttered in similar circumstances. The prophet Joseph before him told his brothers who came to him in submission, seeking forgiveness for their faults against him

12:92"There shall be no reproof against you this day; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful".

The prophet continued

"Let every wealth (wrongfully seized), every blood (wrongfully shed), and every revenge to be exacted belonging to the days of jahiliyyah be trampled under my foot, except the guardianship of the Kaaba and the bearing of water at the time of the pilgrimage; they shall be returned to their people (the Quraysh)".

The noble prophet finally recited the Quran verse which constitutes the epitome of divine justice

49:13"We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

With these words, Muhammad was giving a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Meccans. To realize the degree of generosity from the Prophet, one must recall the life threatening hardships which these people imposed on him and now that they were completely subdued by him, instead of thinking of vengeance, or at the very least demanding apologies and reparations, which was certainly his due, he forgave them.

This way he was displaying his function of "rasul", the embodiement of God's mercy to mankind.