He is a guy with functioning brain and understanding of Islam. Islam had the law in the early days for those who were in Muslim camps in time of war, if you were in one military in time of war and you suddenly wanted to defect you had only one fate if your ex team caught you.
I am pretty sure most Orthodox scholars from the different sects of Islam whether it be Ashari, Sufi, Salafi or even the Shias have denounced this heresy. Deviating from the tenets of Islam and making hasty judgments to please your Kuffar overlords is not a deep understanding of fiqh. It's called فقه المنهزمينI agree with him. the pseudo salafis with little understanding of the deen who have never studied in depth will say otherwise, the people who have studied fiqh and history of Islam will see there is always room for flexibility.
but let these Muslims backbite and make fun of yaasir, they are only exposing their true nature, I bet you 99% of these guys have studied an advanced but in arabic grammer, or fiqh, in their entire life.
the guy is not "refuting him". at the very beginning, the interviewer states that he will be playing "devil's advocate" and arguing for positions he does not necessarily hold.
This is actually the Sunni path that we can't determinate what is the fate of who dies. Unlike the Mu'tizzila where they were on the certainty side of this issue.
how is he deviating?Deviating from the tenets of Islam
You don't know what you are talking aboutHe is a guy with functioning brain and understanding of Islam. Islam had the law in the early days for those who were in Muslim camps in time of war, if you were in one military in time of war and you suddenly wanted to defect you had only one fate if your ex team caught you.
That law had a purpose at that time, but now it doesn't. There are many verses of the Quran give the right of freedom of faith, and we should not throw them out of the window for a law that was put for for a certain specific reason.
Who dies on what?This is actually the Sunni path that we can't determinate what is the fate of who dies. Unlike the Mu'tizzila where they were on the certainty side of this issue.
it depends if the person was given dawah or not
still, sunni islam or more like the scholars were clear about this, you can't put yourself in the position of god and determinate the fate of who died.Who dies on what?
Who died on what state?still, sunni islam or more like the scholars were clear about this, you can't put yourself in the position of god and determinate the fate of who died.
my reply comments were on those individuals who weren't known to be Muslims and died, scholars in that regard said it is uncertain if that person was a Muslim or not. But if someone died as kaffir and we knew he was a kafirr then yes he'll have a long time having BBQs.Who died on what state?
Although I usually agree with this take, the topic he is specifically talking about is a sensible law to reform.
How can we know Umar ra suspended the implementation of Hudud in the year of famine? I asked you this question before and you deflected from it. Proof the Athar are rightfully attributed to Umar ra?@Hamzza what do you think about Umar ibnul khattab removing the had punishment for stealing due to the poverty of his people, was he changing the hudood of Allah?
Although I usually agree with this take, the topic he is specifically talking about is a sensible law to reform.
The context of the apostasy law was that being a Muslim was akin to being a state citizen privy to sensitive information and militaristic strategies and logistical data.
People outside the Ummah legitimately wanted the Muslim dead in the time of the prophet. So the apostates were looked at like traitors or potential spies that were a threat.
That context doesn't really exist in the modern era anymore. And without that context, the rule itself would contradict the law in Quran that says that there is no compulsion in religion.