CIRA International accuse Muslim history; Islam and slavery?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

As shown in the previous video, Islam arrived on the scene when slavery was already a deeply rooted social habit. Islam addresses this issue by first and foremost never placing the acquisition of slaves as a demand of religion. This means that when the institution of slavery is absent altogether from Muslim society, the divine law remains complete. Secondly it limits the acquisition of slaves by confining it to the war prisoners in the defensive war campaigns, specifically those that could not be ransomed, thus forbidding the enslavement of a free person. This is how God gives mastery to those who fight in His ways, over those that seek to extinguish the light of truth. 

As ordained by Islam and as will be seen in details later on, it is but the most logical and humane manner of dealing with the enemy in war; they could obviously not free them at once and re-ignite the war, nor execute them all, nor set up a camp for them in which they would overburden state treasury and demand inefficient logistical organization with poor spiritual and psychosocial impact, but instead were sent among the Muslims themselves who were to treat them as quasi-members of the household. 

These former enemies could see and experience first hand the values and morals of Islam, after which they could eventually be freed. From all the ways that provided an avenue for slave acquisition, the Quran kept only one, as already said because of it being a logistical necessity, and more importantly, helped protect the captives’ lives as well as offer them a possibility of reform. Possession of slaves in Islam is therefore unrelated to financial wealth. When slaves were bought, it was for the purpose of emancipating them immediately as a righteous benevolent action or to atone for a sin. They only could be acquired as collateral war prisoners, together with their belongings brought at the battlefield such as horses, camels, useful weapons. If they weren't ransomed in exchange of Muslim war prisoners at the hands of the enemy, they were then distributed in Muslim households in which the Islamic label of a "slave" would make the best western modern system of social care pale in comparison 

"Narrated Anas: I served the Prophet for ten years, and he never said to me, "Uf" (a minor harsh word denoting impatience) and never blamed me by saying, "Why did you do so or why didn't you do so?" 

That is why the prophet in a reported case advised against the freeing of a particular slave, although he and the Quran repeatedly encouraged and freed slaves indiscriminately. Some people are better off living and benefitting from that Islamic system than to be left in society to fend for themselves

"Narrated Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet that she manumitted her slave-girl and the Prophet said to her, "You would have got more reward if you had given the slave-girl to one of your maternal uncles".

To further corroborate that principle, the prophet said about the one 

"who has a beautiful slave girl, so he teaches her good manners, then he frees her, then he married her seeking the Face of Allah by that; then he will be given his reward twice".

Wars, past and present, justified or not, result in death, destruction and misery. The defeated party is always the one bearing the brunt of suffering. Among the consequences of wars, oppression, economic blockades, geopolitical bullying, post colonial damage and the like, that we see till this day are asylum seekers and refugees fleeing their homeland. Many of them die in the process, never see their families again or simply dont succeed and go back home without a solution. Looking realistically at the situation, one has to determine what would be the best course of action for the victor, ethically, spiritually and economically. Whether they retreat with the loot, in addition instauring a system that keeps drawing upon the local wealth, turning their backs and "closing their borders" or deal with the collateral damages. Once a party is defeated, its resources, including human are at the mercy of the victor. Families lose their pillars of support, leaving women and children helpless. Male refugees die by the hundreds till this day, seeking to feed their families back home, as stated earlier due to all types of oppression. Most of the time for these women, returning to their families adds more misery to an already impoverished community whose resources are lost or to be shared with the victorious party. That is not to speak of the general state of confusion in a community following defeat in war, adding burden upon burden for those left behind. The inevitable result is exile and more misery, or joining the victor whose increased wealth can afford extending the household to war captives and their children. This is the most pragmatic scenario in a war situation.

Muslims are warned however that even in a context of legitimate war, they can never be motivated by the perspective of capturing prisoners or acquiring any type of material gains over the main objective, the complete and entire defeat of their enemies and oppressors 8:67-71. The Quran relates in 8:5-8 how Allah tested the believers' motives in battle in order to purge them from their greed; if they would run after the booty or stand firm with the prophet to defend Islam. When the acquisition of slaves became restricted to battles after which they had to be freed either voluntarily or as a ransom, God warned the Muslims that during battle the motive must be the attainment of the military objectives before any consideration for war gains, and once the objective is fully accomplished, only then the taking of war prisoners and seizing of other spoils is allowed 47:4. In a later verse following the battle of Badr, God admonished those among the Muslims who had shown weakness in their general outlook on life, who had succumbed to their greed and begun capturing soldiers while the battle was still raging and the enemy threat hadnt been entirely contained

 8:67"you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise". 

But because God had already permitted the ransoming of war prisoners 47:4 that wealth gathered, although not in accordance with the spirit of the law, was considered lawful 

8:68-9"Were it not for an ordinance from Allah that had already gone forth, surely there would have befallen you a great chastisement for what you had taken to. Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 

The believers are warned not to repeat this behavior and submit to their greed. They must keep in mind the higher objectives for going to war. They must first entirely subdue the enemy until the threat of war is over, and only then begin taking prisoners.

So the type of slavery allowed in the Quran, up to this day if the conditions are met, isnt the one where free innocent human beings are captured and sold like a merchandise. In fact the Quran emphatically condemns this type of human trafficking through the story of prophet Yusuf, as will be shown below.

The Quran gives 2 clear options towards war prisoners, either of the 2 can be applied from the moment of their capture following their defeat at the battlefield, until the threat of war has subsided 47:4. They can be given an unspecified favor, such as being taken care off within a Muslim household or even unconditionally freed 2:177. The second option is to be ransomed for benefits of any kind, including monetary compensation as happens when a prisoner is bailed out, or in specific services as would be the case with prisoners doing community works, or in mutual prisoners. When a female captive gives birth to her owner's child, her status and conditions change 

"The Messenger of Allah forbade the sale of the (slave) mothers of one's children (umm al walad), they can not be sold, nor gifted, nor inherited. The master will make use of her while he is alive and when he dies she shall be free". 

It is possible that some companions werent aware of the prohibition, and sold these categories of servants. A practice that happened even under Abu Bakr. Nothing indicates the prophet or close companions seeing and allowing the practice, as denoted with the "we" 

“We used to sell our slave women and the mothers of our children (Umahat Awaldina) when the Prophet was still living among us, and WE did not see anything wrong with that”. 

Umar, when he saw people doing it, forbade it in accordance with the prophet's command. 

Should the threat of war cease while there still are prisoners who havent benefited from the above 2 methods, then they can be employed as servants in a Muslim household where they must be treated on an almost equal level as other members of the household 4:36. At that point, if a slave who can offer any good contribution to society decides to be set free can enter into a written agreement with his guardian stipulating the terms and conditions of his manumition 24:33 which would more often than not be a term of service, i.e. you work for me for this many more months in my fields so I can recover my investment. This basically burdens the owner with only those right hand possessions that are of no value to society, after those that were capable of fending for themselves requested and eventually received their freedom. What this essentially means is that the burden of slavery in the end ultimately fell on the owners. Any capable slave that wanted to go into society, earn a living and get married would, and in addition the owner actually must offer financial assistance for the achievement of that objective. 

In fact some of the spendings of zakat are aimed at helping those masters who have entered into a manumition contract (mukataba) with their slaves 9:60. In one narration Anas b. Malik refuses to write a mukataba for a slave, so the caliph ʿUmar orders him to do it, paraphrasing the verse 24:33 ‘Write [a contract] with them if you see good in them!’, and making him swear an oath that he would do so. The majority opinion as attributed to Umar, Uthman, Aisha, and Ibn Umar, as well as the prophet is that the mukatab remains a slave until the last dirham is paid. Ibn Abbas reportedly stated that the slave is freed upon making the contract and merely owes the amount as a debt. Somewhere else we read, including in an alternative view from Umar that the slave is freed and the remainder converted to a debt upon paying half. Ibn Masud said that this occurs after one third or one quarter. The caliph Ali reportedly said that the mukatab attains freedom in proportion to what he has paid off. This seems to match a number of Prophetic hadith that discuss the rights and responsibilities of the mukatab becoming more like a free person the more they have paid off in certain numerically specified juristic matters. All this shows the flexibility of the issue of manumition.

CIRA international get racial; Islam against blacks?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

Slavery wasnt invented by Islam or Christianity, it existed long before. In ancient times almost all nations from the Romans to the Greeks regarded slavery as something natural. Aristotle thought that

"..some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

The elites throughout India, Persia, Rome, the Arabian Peninsula, Romania and Greece regarded them as some commodity not worthier than cattle and had the power of life or death over them. The Judeo-christian scriptures hardly improved the status of slaves, as human traficking was allowed even if it involved one's own children. Severly scourging the slave was permissible so long as the beating did not immidiately bring about the slave's death Ex21:20-1.

The mosaic law, which Jesus abided by to the letter and instructed his followers to do the same, still allows purchasing them like any other commodity, detaining them and passing them down against their will Lev25:44-46,Deut15:16-17. Slaves can be forcefully seperated from their wives married under slavery, and from their children who are to stay with the master should the slave request and gain his freedom Ex21:2-4. By keeping his family as hostages, the master is almost sure to keep his slave permanently. For hard labor purposes, the only restriction to slave acquisition is that it was forbidden for Jews to enslave one another for hard labor. 

However, throughout history they could, and did, sell one another to slavery for a different purpose than their non-Jewish slaves, they were employed for works that did not involve physical toil Lev25:40-46. Solomon, during the building of the Temple and his own palace made ample use of non-Jewish slaves during 20 years of hard labor.

Slaves had to lookup to their masters as equals of God Col3:22-24, respect and fear them in servitude as they would serve Jesus Ephes6:5, submit to even harsh masters 1Pet2:18. So inconceivable is it that a slave may one day rise above his cursed status and gain responsibilities that the earth is pictured as quacking at the thought of it Prov30:21. The subjugation of a slave is an essential part of religion

1Tim6:1-4"so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered..These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing".

As stated earlier, being nothing more than an ISraelite prophet in a long line of prophets, Jesus himself never banned slavery and in fact even endorsed unquestioned submission of slaves to their masters Lk17:7-10. Slave trafficking became an organized business through the Christian nations of Europe and America who captured slaves by thousands from their colonies.
They packed them like sardines in ships according to a precise mathematical calculation to maximize profit and many died on the way. Before leaving, the ships were blessed by priests. Christian priests themselves participated in the trade, especially in Angola, and justified it by saying they were baptizing them. Towards the end of the 18th century, some Arab nations participated in the slave trade too.

The end of slavery in the christian world did not come by the hand of the church. It was a handful of moralists who rose slowly against it. Their cries werent heard in britain until 1807 when it was no longer profitable to the economy and the governement wanted to cut expenses especially in the sugar plantations after they lost their global monopoly.

In pre-Islamic Arab society, slavery was also an established institution. Slave men and women were found in almost every house, their number was a symbol of status. They were mainly prisonners of wars, or even debtors who were enslaved, then distributed among the armies or sold in the market places like animals. They were a source of cheap labor and livelihood for thousands.

Acts17apologetics assault Islam but expose Jesus; Judeo-Christian mysoginy?

In answer to the video "Jordan Peterson Destroys Islam in 15 Seconds"

As discussed previously, If what the Quran meant was that a man's testimony is equal to 2 women's, the Quran in other instances ie when a woman is accused of adultery, would be saying that one woman's testimony is equal to 4 men's because if 4 men are not brought forth then their testimony will not be valid and they will be lashed for lying 24:4. Also, in the case a husband accuses his wife of adultery without bringing forth eyewitnesses, her testimony has the same value as her husband's, contrary to the Bible where the accused wife is immediately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. 

Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law. 

The famous hadith, gladly picked up by the critics if Islam, where the prophet reportedly admonishes a group of women for their "deficiencies" isnt speaking of mental IQ, that notion is bellied by the description of the inquisitive woman as jazlah/wise,intelligent. The second part of the hadith, with the word ghalaba which means to overcome, plainly states that women might outsmart "dhi lubbin”—a very intelligent, or wise, or resolute man. How can an intellectually inferior individual outwit one of superior intellect? The word 'aql does not always equate with general mental capacities. That is why the prophet corroborated his statement "'aql deficiency" with the verse 2:282 spoken of earlier which deals with the issue of 2 women witnesses replacing one male witness. And neither does naqs necessarily equate with deficiency but also "to reduce". This is like telling them that though they have been reduced in their worldly and religious duties, this does not mean in any way that they are of lesser mental/spiritual capacities since they can overcome the smartest of men. 

The statement within the hadith that most of hell dwellers will be women is not due to an inherent spiritual flaw but because of them cursing more and being more ungrateful. In another hadith and using the same wording it says that most of the dwellers of Paradise will be women too. Imam Muslim quotes ibn Sireen as sayong that there was discussion between men and women as to which gender will be the majority in Heaven. Abu Hurayra answered, based on the prophet's statement that women will be more (Fath al Baari 6/325). 

By applying the same misunderstanding one would interpret this latter hadith as saying that women are spiritually superior to men. A woman is commanded by Allah not to pray or fast during her menses, which are the 2 examples the prophet gives of how they are reduced in religion. And though they are exempted from these rituals, by obeying these commands they will still receive their rewards. Seeing that a woman on her way to perform was sad, Aisha asked 

"What is wrong with you?' I replied, ' I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).' He said, ' It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that."

Men do not receive rewards for not praying or fasting and although the divine law stipulates different rights and obligations to men and women their ultimate reward is the same.

Anyone who knows the character and eloquence of the prophet with which he was able to effectively change the hearts and minds of his addressees, knows that he would never utter such hurtful, insulting speech, much less on a festive day of Eid. He would never put anyone down, especially due to gender, race, class or any other matter, and this is something the Quran forbids anyone to do.

Furthermore had the prophet been a proponent of such notion of women being mentally and spiritually inferior then he would never have entrusted his wives with safeguarding, transmitting and teaching the most sacred knowledge to both men and women. He is also reported as giving precedence to his wife Umm Salama's opinion in a very crucial matter, during the treaty of Hudaybiya over that of his closest male companions. The caliphs would later emulate the prophet in this behavior, on certain occasions. Aisha would even issue fatwas.

Acts17apologetics defend women rights; Quran says ratio men/women is 2 to 1?

In answer to the video "Jordan Peterson Destroys Islam in 15 Seconds"

The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentionned in 2:282 is a general advice

"so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her".

It is a conditional statement, which makes the second female a passive witness unless the primary witness is forgetful. Therefore if a women is sound and competent, then she would need no other woman to remind her of something she knew but forgot. Her single testimony becomes equal in value to that of the man. The testimony is not gender based as one expert is not sufficient for a transaction to be binding; it requires 2 men as is clear from the verse's beginning

"get two witnesses out of your men".

The verse actually favors a woman witness who wouldnt automatically be dismissed for incompetence but would be supported in case of error while the single male witness would be replaced in the same case. The verse addresses the issue of financial matters and the fact is that on average, women are much less qualified than men in financial expertise, even in western societies. As well, women are almost all affected, sometimes completely debilitated by PMS symptoms during and around the times of their menstrual cycles, in their emotional-intellectual and physical capacities, all of which might potentially compromise female testimony in such a situation. To dismiss that condition as potentially affecting every single woman simply for the sake of preserving a facade of progressive thinking, is a denial of an objective reality.

The Quran doesnt deny human nature and instead approaches everyday matters realisticly and pragmaticly. It only accepts the testimony of a person affected by a psycho-emotional condition that could potentially influence the objectivity of a case, when it is a woman -hence the 2nd woman to remind her. It is clearly referring to a condition not to the presumed intellectual capacities of a woman, hence the 2nd woman's role to remind her of something she knows but was mislead into forgetting.

Apostate prophet denounces Christian abuse; Jesus punishes apostates?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

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 is general to all situations. When the Israelite prophets executed apostates and idolaters from among their own, it wasnt in war times where the apostate risked joining enemy ranks or spying on their or refusing to contribute economically as a full fledged member of a community with his rights and obligations.

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, or their life circumstances, 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 through God's suicide..

Apostate prophet seeks historical proof; Abu Bakr kills apostates?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

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".

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 is abandonned; seperating with apostates?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

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 searches for his lucky number; how many times can one apostise?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishement or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishement for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentence 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 discourages leaving Islam; remain Muslims or die?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

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.

Apostate prophet tries using hadith; tradition supports stoning the adulterers?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

The Quran does therefore mention the death penalty for certain transgressions. The question then arises as to why would it omit doing likewise in the context of adultery, which is spoken of in greater length than murder and fasad fil ard?

There are 2 ways to reconcile the ahadith of stoning in the times of the prophet and the caliphs, with the Quran. It is highly possible that the prophet imposed it prior to the revelation of sura nur, as some among the companions wondered 

"Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, "The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam," I asked, "Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?" He replied, "I do not know".

As no other case of fornication requiring punishment was brought to the prophet until the prophet died, the caliphs afterwards kept practicing stoning based on ijtihad. The cases of stoning in the prophet's lifetime involved married persons and thus the caliphs restricted the words in sura nur to non-married fornicators, who would then be lashed.

Another possibility is that the cases of zina brought to the prophet, and whose details are not completely known, were judged as crimes of widespread corruption/fasad fil ard. The same applies to those cases brought to the caliphs.

The goal of punishments in Islam is to avoid spreading sins and protecting the society as a whole. For example after mentioning the law of retaliation in case of murder, the Quran says that such law is meant to "give life", ie to securize society because it is a powerful deterrent and another means of remaining God-conscious (taqwa) 2:178-9.

Zina in Islam is among the worst sins, due to its vicious ramifications, especially when made public as in the case spoken of in sura 24, hence the 100 lashes. The severity of the punishment for the sin is at the level of its seriousness, and given that severity, a false accusation or an accusation not supported by 4 truthful eyewitnesses results in 80 lashes for the accuser. The woman's testimony in that case has the same value as her accuser's. Both are made to solemnly swear, several times calling God to witness of their truthfulness and ultimately calling for God's curse on oneself in case of lie. 

The Bible in contrast gives no benefit of the doubt to the accused wife, who is immediately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law. 

In the Quran the accuser who cannot bring forth the evidence required will be considered untrustworthy in court 24:4,33:58. Exception is made for the one who sincerely repents, ie publicly withdraws his false accusation, and mends his ways 24:5. Repentance by the false witness however will not exempt him from physical punishment, which is the victim's legal right and which in addition discourages false testimonies as well as mere circumstantial evidence. The Quran clearly gives the benefit of the doubt to the one on the receiving end of an accusation. The aim is to put a stop to false accusations, slander and gossip. This mechanism makes sure that similar repercussions are returned upon the false accuser, physically and in his/her reputation. When a society allows its members to freely slander one another with no or very little preemptive measures, it potentially causes its own disintegration starting from the nucleus of the family. And none is safe from harm, from the regular citizen to the most respected authority. The Quran, to illustrate, has crystallized an incident involving one of the prophet's wives, falsely slandered to such an extent that it brought turmoil within the prophet's household for a full month, interrupting the normal course of affairs at the level of the state.

Of course, in case one's accusation is true despite the lack of evidence, one is free to divorce the partner, but as basic common sense requires, one is not free to accuse another publicly without strong evidence. 

As can be seen the Quran in matters of chastity goes to great extents to protect the integrity of the righteous members of the community and the spread of sexual misbehaviour; first, in the case of real, proven cases, by providing a strong deterrent, ie the 100 lashes (or half in special cases). Second, in the case of calumnies, by providing a mechanism through which the potential accuser can hardly succeed in his/her scheme, risking bigger repercussions on the accuser than the accused. As a linguistic observation, it is worthwhile noting the Quran's eloquent choice of words as it speaks of slander with yarmuna, picturing one being pelted and injured, it omits the accusation altogether. The burden of proof demanded by the Quran in cases of adultery is set at a nearly impossible threshold and as is clarified in the sharia, based on the prophetic guidance, the burden upon Muslim judges in cases of zina is not to seek conviction, but getting the individual to withdraw their confession, since practically speaking, due to the high standard of the testimony required, only confession leads one to be convicted. The Judge then encourages the accused to repent and live righteously, meaning What Jesus did in the NT. When a person came to the prophet confessing his adultery, he was repeatedly ignored so as to  to repent and mend his ways 

"A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet and confessed that he had committed an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet turned his face away from him till the man bore witness against himself four times. The Prophet said to him, "Are you mad?" He said "No." He said, "Are you married?" He said, "Yes." Then the Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death, and he was stoned to death at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but he was caught and was stoned till he died. The Prophet spoke well of him and offered his funeral prayer". 

Prior to delivering the sentence, the prophet tried to mitigate the self conviction so as to find him way out 

"Probably you have only kissed (the lady), or winked, or looked at her?" He said, "No, O Allah's Messenger!" The Prophet said, using no euphemism, "Did you have sexual intercourse with her?" The narrator added: At that, (i.e. after his confession) the Prophet ordered that he be stoned (to death)". 

The noble prophet is here trying to make him retract his statement so that his judgement is deferred to the hereafter 

"and whoever commits something of such sins and Allah screens him, it is up to Allah whether to excuse or punish him".

In a similar case the prophet kept postponing the verdict of an adulteress for 3 years 

"There the Ghamidi woman came and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, I have committed zina (adultery), purify me’ but he turned her away. The next day she said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, why are you turning me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned Ma’iz away. By Allah, I am pregnant.’ He said: ‘Then no (not now), go away until you give birth.’ When she gave birth, she brought the child to him wrapped in a cloth, and said: ‘Here he is, I have given birth.’ He said: ‘Go away and breastfeed him until he is weaned.’ When she had weaned him, she brought the boy to him, with a piece of bread in his hand and said: ‘Here, O Prophet of Allah, I have weaned him, and he is eating food.’ He handed the boy over to one of the Muslim men, then he ordered that a pit be dug for her, up to her chest and he ordered the people to stoned her".

This was the way of the prophet, he prioritized repentance and reform instead of retribution 

"While I was with the Prophet a man came and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the legal punishment on me'.' The Prophet did not ask him what he had done. Then the time for the prayer became due and the man offered prayer along with the Prophet , and when the Prophet had finished his prayer, the man again got up and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the punishment on me according to Allah's Laws." The Prophet said, "Haven't you prayed with us?' He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Allah has forgiven your sin." or said, "....your legally punishable sin".

Because four people would have to be eyewitnesses to the adultrous/fornication act, then how could four people possibly see the act unless they were either commiting their lewdness with the intention of being seen by others (pornography, orgies, etc.) or so headless that they were not concerned with whether or not someone sees them. Neither of these two things occur except in societies that have become extremely corrupt in regards to sexual morality. It is to be noted however, that the act of fornication, like all sins, remains unlawful even if hidden from the public 

6:120"And abandon outward sin and the inward one; verily those who commit sin soon shall be recompensed with what they used to commit".

As a side note, zina/sex outside the legal bonds, is included as a fahisha but not all fahisha are zina. Fahisha is a broader term that includes anything that is abominable, morally reprehensible, in words or deeds. In 4:15-16 we read of what is to be done in cases of fahisha in general. A woman convicted of fahisha through the testimony of 4 witnesses must be restrained. The Arabic does not entail confinement or imprisonment. She must by all means be prevented from continuing down her course 

"until death takes them or Allah makes a path for them". 

The "path" being, as said in the following verse, forgiveness and freedom in case of sincere repentance and reform. This is in contrast to the prophet-king David's alleged perpetual and unconditional imprisonment of his unfaithful concubines 2Sam20:3. Should the woman not show any signs of reform and insists in her will to misbehave even during the period of restrainement, then she is to undergo an unspecified physical punishment. That particular point is to be determined according to the judge's discretion, depending on the crime. For example if the fahisha is adultery/zina then the type of punishment is specified in sura 24. In all cases, that punishment is to be interrupted as soon as repentance and a clear will to mend her ways are expressed. Should the punishment not deter her or awaken her conscience, then she is to remain in a life of confinement and occasional physical punishment until she decides to stop, repent and mend her ways. The man who is convicted and his crime testified by 4 witnesses must immediately undergo physical punishment, in contrast to women who are allowed a time of reflexion prior, to be interrupted if sincere repentance and will to reform are expressed.

Among all misdeeds included in "fahisha", only adultery requires public punishment. Adultery, when it is committed in such a way that 4 witnesses are able to testify to it, is an evil with far reaching damaging effects within the society. The guilty is made to face the most pious elements of the community during his punishment. The Quran describes these public witnesses as 

"a part of those who have believed". 

This symbolically shows the guilty that he or her act is one that threatens all uprightness, goodness in a community. It is interesting to not here the Quran's stress on the righteousness of the witnesses, those who are the least prone to such transgressions, which bellies the idea that the public nature of the punishment is meant as a deterrent to other potential sinners witnessing the culprit being punished. Rather, the idea of undergoing a severe physical punishment coupled with the humiliation of being exposed to the known pious members of the community is the deterrent. The eyewitnesses to the punishment also serve as a lever to control both the judge and the executer. No abusive punishment can this way be inflicted.

The 4 witnesses testimony is speaking of cases of consensual, non-marital sex. Rape is an aggression which isnt subject to the 4 witnesses rule. A woman is fully within her rights to go to the police and expect them to look for evidence such as DNA, finger prints, and other evidence to catch her rapists. Even the scholars that wrongly treat rape as fornication, have moved beyond the 4 witnesses requirements and have accepted these other factors as valid evidences. It is the verse 5:33 which applies to such a case, regardless of whether the aggressor has his way with the victim 

"Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr: When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Messenger of Allah. When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them". 

The Bible speaks of rape cases, and their consequences. For example if a virgin pledged to another man is raped within city gates, but fails shouting out for help, then both are to be pelted to death. If the aggression occurs out in the field, where nobody would be able to hear her cries regardless, then she is cleared of "tacit consent" and only the rapist is executed Deut22:23-27. As to the case of a single girl, not pledged to any man, then the harsh punishment for the rapist is to pay a sum to the girl's father, marry the girl and never divorce her v27-28! The words in that verse denote coercion by the man, who is now free to keep raping his legitimate wife for the rest of her life. In short, although the Bible clearly mentions rape cases, it fails to prescribe a punishment for the rapist of a single woman who is not pledged to another man.