Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

[Infidel144]

I never misconstrued what Sharia is,...

Really?
"You could very well have a Sharia law that doesn't dictate apostates to be killed. Ottoman Sharia laws didn't for example."

[Sir Adrian]

You shouldn't hide behind what others say to deflect from your own failed arguments. Can you provide a few examples of other people that ware killed for apostasy by a Muslim from 2021? Can you provide some source on what the police agrees on?

I was referring to my and common soldier's posts. But I see you're going full monty "with shouting lalala I can't hear you". I did provide you a source on the killings and you pretended it wasn't there. I can provide you a source on the police but what is the point. You will ignore that as well and substitute reality for your own.

I never misconstrued what Sharia is, merely pointed out your misconception about it as if it was a singular set of laws.

Another lie. Apostates were executed in the Ottoman Empire until in 1844, when death was replaced with deportation or long prison sentences. Incidentally it coincides with the period when Sharia was dropped and replaced with a mix of unofficial islamic customs and a civil and penal code.

[PointOfViewGun]

I was referring to my and common soldier's posts. But I see you're going full monty "with shouting lalala I can't hear you". I did provide you a source on the killings and you pretended it wasn't there. I can provide you a source on the police but what is the point. You will ignore that as well and substitute reality for your own.

You only provided one link and that was about apostasy in Islam in general and that didn't contain such information. Where did you provide this source you speak of?

Another lie. Apostates were executed in the Ottoman Empire until in 1844, when death was replaced with deportation or long prison sentences. Incidentally it coincides with the period when Sharia was dropped and replaced with a mix of unofficial islamic customs and a civil and penal code.

My comments on the Ottomans doesn't relate to what Sharia is. Saying I was wrong about Ottomans Sharia laws not prescribing death for apostates is one thing, saying I was wrong about what Sharia is an other thing. Sharia laws in its entirety was never dropped in the Ottoman empire. It was the Republic of Turkey that abolished Sharia courts.

[Axalon]

I’ll start with a general remark on Islam and the misleading “no compulsion in religion” passage, which I think was referenced here somewhere. This is of course the famous sura 2:256 - which is frequently used to serve as an example of Islams enormous religious tolerance… I quote…

“There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.” (Translation by Mohsin Khan)

Now, to understand what all that really means one must also look at the next passage - sura 2:257… And, once we bother to do that the “no compulsion”-illusion falls apart real quick, as everything becomes a lot clearer, and the usual intolerance pops up yet again. I will use all seven official translations to really get the gist of this… Sura 2:257, I quote…

“Sahih International: Allah is the ally of those who believe. He brings them out from darknesses into the light. And those who disbelieve - their allies are Taghut. They take them out of the light into darknesses. Those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.

Pickthall: Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

Yusuf Ali: Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

Shakir: Allah is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans who take them out of the light into the darkness; they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide.

Muhammad Sarwar: God is the Guardian of the believers and it is He who takes them out of darkness into light. The Devil is the guardian of those who deny the Truth and he leads them from light to darkness. These are the dwellers of hell wherein they will live forever.

Mohsin Khan: Allah is the Wali (Protector or Guardian) of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness into light. But as for those who disbelieve, their Auliya (supporters and helpers) are Taghut [false deities and false leaders, etc.], they bring them out from light into darkness. Those are the dwellers of the Fire, and they will abide therein forever.

Arberry: God is the Protector of the believers; He brings them forth from the shadows into the light. And the unbelievers -- their protectors are idols, that bring them forth from the light into the shadows; those are the inhabitants of the Fire, therein dwelling forever.”

In short, if we believe in and submit to Allah then everything will be honky dory! However, if we do not - we shall/should be doomed to dwell in hellfire for all eternity. We are basically regarded as evil if we don’t go for Allah… So much for “no compulsion”… Burn in hell forever (deservedly!) or submit to Allah and get honky dory – those are our choices here (according to the Korans)! No compulsion, folks! None at all!

Anyways…


***

Facts are facts, and the fact is that the [vast] majority of Muslims accept the authority of the authentic hadith like Sahih al-Bukhari and reject your Quran only view of Islam.

This, a thousand times this! ...If our views are in open conflict with the vast majority’s dominant views in any movement – it will naturally become impossible to also claim that our views are still somehow representative or relevant for that movement in general or its majority. As a result, the obvious question here is if any such person can ever be regarded as representative for, or even viewed as a part of that movement in the first place? As long as we insist upon our own anomalous/deviant minority conviction – as clearly have been done - the answer to that question will always be “no” on general terms. After all, we can not (rationally) be considered a part of a movement, if we fundamentally disagree with it, or fail to acknowledge its very framework and the things that actually defines it in the first place. Obviously, this applies in full to the “Korans only”-heresy and traditional Islam as well…

… Lets keep it on point. …

Yes, lets… So with that in mind folks, who agrees or disagrees with the outlined points 1-4 in OP?!? Again, my stance/take on this event still is...

1. The act was deliberate and planned. As anything else strike me as highly unlikely, on general terms. The other alternative is simply not credible (to me) – given the place, target and context.
2. The motive is obviously related to Islam somehow. It makes clear sense, adds up all over, and it corresponds well with most ideas and doctrines in the Islamic sources. After all, Islam does not tolerate criticism or apostates very well (see hadiths and Korans).
3. The attack has (probably) deliberate symbolical dimensions that go beyond the obvious target (Hatun Tash). After all, it happened in Speakers Corner and thus should probably be read as an attack upon freedom of speech in general, as well. In addition, it is also a deliberate attempt to silence further criticism of Islam at the Speaker’s Corner and elsewhere in general – goes without saying. Again, familiar tools such as violence, attacks, death threats and intimidation are deployed whenever Islam is targeted or threatened somehow. There are many examples of this in the past, related to Islam. There is no reason what so ever to believe this instance was/is any different.
4. There is a permanent and fundamental conflict between core Islamic ideals and doctrines (see Korans and hadiths) and the western secular world and its freedoms that defines it. This entire event can be seen in light of that - as yet another expression and bloody example of that very conflict. I would argue that this event will probably only underline and escalate that conflict, and making it ever harder to ignore (on general terms).

If people here disagree with any of point 1-4 - kindly explain why and aim for clarity. Also, provide plenty of basis to support your case – try to make it as solid and credible as possible. That way, more people will have reason to take it seriously, and possibly change their minds.

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

The sentence "the motive is obviously related to Islam somehow" quite nicely encapsulates the thread.

[Axalon]

Here are some additional (public) perspectives on this event...


The first clip is from GBN...


The second clip is from RT (Russia Today)...


Any comments on these clips?


- A
---------------------------
Hopefully they are not explicit/graphic enough to trigger activity from the TWC-moderation team.
I have certainly tried to avoid all that this time around, and that in turn have limited the possible
suitable clips here...

[Infidel144]

Reliance of the Traveller (Shafi'i):
Chapter O8.0: Apostasy from Islam (Ridda)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, “Trim your nails, it is sunna, '' and he replies, “I would not do it even if it were, '' as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.)
O8.1
When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
O8.2
In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
O8.3
If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
O8.4
There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).
O8.5
If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: o8.7 (12)) ) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).
O8.6
(A: If a spouse in a consummated marriage apostatizes from Islam, the couple are separated for a waiting period consisting of three intervals between menstruations. If the spouse returns to Islam before the waiting period ends, the marriage is not annulled but is considered to have continued the whole time (dis: m7.4).)
If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: o8.7 (12)) ) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).
O8.6
(A: If a spouse in a consummated marriage apostatizes from Islam, the couple are separated for a waiting period consisting of three intervals between menstruations. If the spouse returns to Islam before the waiting period ends, the marriage is not annulled but is considered to have continued the whole time (dis: m7.4).)
O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:
-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;
-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;
-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three, '' or “I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1 (O: ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
-8- to mockingly say, “I don't know what faith is'';
-9- to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allah''; “Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc, ' won't save you from hunger'';
-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah, '' to reply, “I act without the decree of Allah'';
-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafir'');
-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah)), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;
-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);
-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);
-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;
(n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following:
-16- to revile the religion of Islam;
-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;
-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;
-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24).)
There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

The Risala (Maliki):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Chapter 32: On marriage, divorce, remarriage, 'Dhihar'-
repudiation, vows of celibacy within marriage, mutual cursing
(li'an), 'Khul'-'divorce, and suckling
32.11 Effects of Change of Religion
32.11a. If one of them leaves Islam
If either one of a married couple leaves Islam, their marriage is invalidated and they automatically become divorced,
[This is by a statement of disbelief or entering another religion. It becomes immediately invalid and there is a final divorce in the famous position, i.e. it is invalid by divorce. If the apostate becomes Muslim, then the marriage remains and there is no need for a contract nor taking back because the tie
still exists. If he is killed while an apostate, the spouse does not inherit. If someone who is not an adult apostasies, they agree that he is only killed after becoming adult and being asked to repent. Because one takes note of his apostasy, his slaughtered animal is not eaten and the prayer is not said over
him.]
37.19 CRIMES AGAINST ISLAM
A freethinker (zindiq) must be put to death and his repentance is rejected. A freethinker is one who conceals his unbelief and pretends to follow Islam. A magician also is to be put to death, and his repentance also is to be rejected. A apostate is also killed unless he repents. He is allowed three days grace; if he fails to utilise the chance to repent, the execution takes place. This same also applies to women apostates.

If a Muslim should abandon the performance of prayer because he disputes its being obligatory, then such a person shall be treated as an apostate - he should be given three days within which to repent. If the three days lapse without his repenting, he is then executed.

Whoever abuses the Messenger of God - peace and blessing of God be upon him - is to be executed, and his repentance is not accepted.

If any dhimmi (by 'dhimmi' is meant a non-Muslim subject living in a Muslim country) curses the Prophet - peace be upon him - or abuses him by saying something other than what already makes him an unbeliever, or abuses God Most High by saying something other than what already makes him an unbeliever, he is to be executed unless at that juncture he accepts Islam. The property of an apostate after his execution is to be shared by the Muslim community.

40.18 TAKING A MUSLIM'S LIFE OR PROPERTY
God, Glorified be He, has prohibited the shedding of the blood of Muslims; so also has he prohibited assault on their property except for a lawful cause.
It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except when he commits apostasy, or when he commits adultery, or when he kills a person and this is not in retaliation, or when he becomes an outlaw, or when he renounces the faith.

The Mukhtasar al-Quduri (Hanafi):
On Apostates (Murtadds)
When a Muslim reneges on Islam, Islam is presented to him. If he has any doubt [about Islam], it is explained to him. He is imprisoned for three days.1425 If he accepts Islam [it is better for him], otherwise, he is executed. If someone kills him prior to presenting Islam to him that is abhorrent, but there is nothing [as liability] against the killer.

As for women who renege [on Islam], they are not killed but are
imprisoned until they become Muslims.

The Hedaya (Hanafi, which was the primary Ottoman school):
Chapter IX
Of the Laws concerning Apostates

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Brill Encyclopaedia of Islam:
3. a. In Fikh, there is unanimity that the male
apostate must be put to death, but only if he is grown
up (baligh) and compos mentis ('akil) and has not acted
under compulsion (mukhtar). A woman, on the other
hand, is imprisoned, according to Hanafi and Shi'i
teaching, until she again adopts Islam, while according
to al-Awza'i, Ibn Hanbal (al-Tirmidhi, Hudud,
bdb 25), the Malikis and Shafi'is (cf. Umm, i, 131,
where al-Shafi'i vigorously attacks Abu Yusuf who is
not mentioned by name) she also is put to death.


Fuller section on Murtadd/Apostasy:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

MURTADD (A.), ''one who turns back",
especially from Islam, an apostate. Apostasy is
called irtidad or ridda; it may be committed verbally by
denying a principle of belief or by an action, for example
treating a copy of the Kur'an with disrespect.
1. In the Kur'an, the apostate is threatened with
punishment in the next world only; the "wrath of
God" will fall upon him according to a sura of the
latest Meccan period (XVI, 108-9) and severe punishment
(^adhdb) "except he did it under compulsion and
his heart is steadfast in belief. Similarly, it is written
in the Medinan sura III, 80 ff., "... This is the
punishment for them, that the curse of Allah, the
Angels and of men is upon them for all time (82); the
punishment shall not be lightened for them and they
shall not be granted alleviation, (83) except for those
who later repent and make good their fault, for Allah
is forgiving and merciful. (84) Those who disbelieve
after believing and increase in unbelief, shall not have
their repentance accepted; they are the erring ones.
(85) Those who are unbelievers and die as
unbelievers, from none of them shall be accepted the
earth-full of gold, even if he should wish to ransom
himself with it; this is a painful punishment for them
and there will be no helpers for them" (cf. also IV,
136; V, 59; IX, 67). Sura II, 214, is to be interpreted
in the same way, although it is adduced by al-Shafi'i
as the main evidence for the death penalty, "... He
among you who falls away from his belief and dies an
unbeliever—these, their works are fruitless in this
world and the next, and they are the companions of
the fire for ever".
2. There is little echo of these punishments in the
next world in the Traditions (cf. Ibn Madja, Hudud,
bab 2; Ibn Hanbal, i, 409, 430, 464-5; v, 4, 5).
Instead, we have in many traditions a new element,
the death penalty. Thus Ibn 'Abbas transmits an
utterance of the Prophet, "Slay him, who changes his
religion" or "behead him" (Ibn Madja, Hudud, bab 2;
al-Nasa'i, Tahrim al-dam, bab 14; al-Tayalisi, no.
2689; Malik, Akdiya, tr. 15; cf. also al-Bukhari,
Istitabat al-murtaddin, bab 2; al-Tirmidhi, Hudud, bab
25; Abu Dawud, Hudud, bab 1; Ibn Hanbal, i, 217,
282, 322). According to another tradition of Ibn
'Abbas and 'A'isha, the Prophet is said to have permitted
the blood to be shed of him "who abandons his
religion and separates himself from the community
(djama'a)" (al-Bukhari, Diyat, bab 6; Muslim, Kasama,
tr. 25, 26; al-Nasa'i, Tahrim al-dam, bab 5, 14; Kasama,
bab 6; Ibn Madja, Hudud, bab 1; Abu Dawud, Hudud,
bab 1; al-Tirmidhl, Diyat, bab 10; Fitan, bab 1; Ibn
Hanbal, i, 382, 444). But there was no agreement
from the first on the nature of the death penalty; thus
'Ikrima (d. 106/724) and Anas b. Malik (d. 91/710)
criticise 'Ali for having burned apostates (al-Bukhari,
Istitabat al-murtaddm, bab 2; al-Tirmidhi, Hudud, bab
25; Abu Dawud, Hudud, bab 1; Ibn Hanbal, i, 217;
according to a variant the reference is to Zindiks or
Zutt, who served idols; al-Nasa'i, Tahrim al-dam, bab
14; Ibn Hanbal, i, 282, 322). According to a tradition
of 'A'isha's, apostates are to be slain, crucified or
banished (al-Nasa°I, Tahrim al-dam, bab 11; Kasdma,
bdb 13; Abu Dawud, Hudud, bab 1).
On the question whether the apostate should be
given an opportunity to repent, traditions differ.
According to one tradition of Abu Burda (d.
104/722), Mu'adh b. Djabal refused to sit down until
an apostate brought before him had been slain "in
accordance with the decision of God and of his apostle"
(al-Bukhan, Maghdzi, bab 60; Istitabat almurtaddin,
bab 2; Ahkam, bab 12; Muslim, Imdra, tr. 15;
Abu Dawud, Hudud, bab 1; Ibn Hanbal, v, 231). In
the same tradition in Abu Dawud, however, it is
added that they had tried in vain for 20 nights to convert
the apostate. The caliph Umar is also represented
as disapproving of this proceeding with the
words: "Did you then not shut him up for three days
and give him a round loaf (raghif) daily and try to
induce him to repent. Perhaps he would have
repented and returned to obedience to God. O God!
I was not there, I did not order it and I do not
approve; see, it was thus reported to me" (Malik,
Akdiya, tr. 15). There are also traditions according to
which God does not accept the repentance of an
apostate (Ibn Hanbal, v, 2) and others according to
which even the Prophet forgave apostates (al-Nasa'i,
Tahrim al-dam, babs 14, 15; Abu Dawud, Hudud, bdb 1;
Ibn Hanbal, i, 247; al-Tabari, Tafsir, iii, 223).
3. a. In Fikh, there is unanimity that the male
apostate must be put to death, but only if he is grown
up (baligh) and compos mentis ('akil) and has not acted
under compulsion (mukhtar). A woman, on the other
hand, is imprisoned, according to Hanafi and Shi'i
teaching, until she again adopts Islam, while according
to al-Awza'i, Ibn Hanbal (al-Tirmidhi, Hudud,
bdb 25), the Malikis and Shafi'is (cf. Umm, i, 131,
where al-Shafi'i vigorously attacks Abu Yusuf who is
not mentioned by name) she also is put to death.
Although this punishment is not properly hadd (cf.
thereon, al-Shafii', Umm, vii, 330, 11. 20-2) it is
regarded as such by some jurists, as it is a question of
a hakk Allah (cf. e.g. al-Sarakhsi, Siyar, iv, 162); therefore
the execution of the punishment lies with the
imam; in the case of a slave, however, the mawla can
carry it out, as with any other hadd punishment.
Execution should be by the sword. According to the
above traditions, apostates must sometimes have been
tortured to death. The caliph 'Umar II had them tied
to a post and a lance thrust into their hearts (Abu
Yusuf, Kharadl, 112). Al-Badjuri expressly forbids any
form of torture, like burning, drowning, strangling,
impaling or flaying; according to him, Sultan Baybars
II (708-9/1308-9) was the first to introduce torture
(Snouck Hurgronje, Verspr. Geschriften, ii, 198). Lane
(Manners and customs, ch. iii, near the end) records the
case of a woman who had apostatised and was led
through the streets of Cairo on an ass, then strangled
in a boat in the middle of the Nile and thrown into the
river. (The throwing of a corpse into the Nile was
already usual in Cairo in the Fatimid period; cf. Mez,
Renaissance des Islams, 29.) In quite recent times,
followers of the Kadiyam or Ahmadiyya [q. v. ] sect in
Afghanistan were stoned to death (OM, v [1925],
138). In the former Turkish territory and Egypt, as
well as in Muslim lands under European rule, since
the middle of the 19th century, under European influence,
the execution of an apostate on a kadi's sentence
has been abolished, but we still have imprisonment
and deportation (cf. Isabel Burton, The inner Life of
Syria, London 1875, i, 180 ff.); but nevertheless,
renegades are not sure of their lives, as their Muslim
relatives endeavour secretly to dispose of them by
poison or otherwise. Occasionally modern Islamic
writers (such as those of the Ahmadiyya movement)
endeavour to prove that Islam knows of no death
penalty for apostasy; the Indian apologist Muhammad
'Ali lays great stress on the fact there is not once
an indication of the death penalty in the Ku'ran
(Zwemer, The law of apostasy in Islam, 17, 37-8, London
1924; OM, v [1925], 262).
One should here call attention to an agreement
which is probably not accidental. Since in Islam, in
addition to apostasy, unchastity and unnatural vice
are punished by death, even by stoning, according to
both Shafi'is and Maliki's, as well as blaspheming God
or a prophet, and magic, we find in Islam all crimes
punished by death which in the Mishna (Sanhednn, vii,
4) are threatened with stoning.
b. Whether attempts at conversion must be made is
a question of ikhtilaf. A number of jurists of the 1st-
2nd/7th-8th centuries deny this (as do the Zahiris) or
like 'Ata3 (d. 115/733) make a distinction between the
apostate born in Islam and one converted to Islam;
the former is to be put to death at once (so also the
Sh^is). Others insist on three attempts at conversion
(relying on sura IV, 136; cf. al-Tabari, Tafsir, v, 193-
4) or have him in the first place imprisoned for three
days (cf. above, 2). According to others again, one
should await the cycle of the five times of prayer and
ask him to perform the salat at each; only when he has
refused at each is the death punishment to be
enforced. If, however, he repents and professes Islam
once more, he is released (cf. thereon, al-Shafi'i,
Umm, i, 228; Abu Yusuf, Kharadj., 109). In later
times, istitdba was always applied.
c. Apart from the fact that apostasy deprives the
murtadd of burial with Muslim rites, it has certain civil
consequences. The property of the murtadd is fay'
according to al-Shafi'i and the Malikis; if the fugitive
murtadd returns penitent, he is given back what
remains (cf. Umm, i, 231, where al-Shafi'i opposes the
contrary Hanafi view). Others, especially later
Shaficis, regard the rights of ownership of the apostate
as suspended (mawkuj) and regard him as one who is
under guardianship (mahdjur); only if the fugitive
apostate dies in the dar al-harb does his property
become fay' (al-Shirazi, Muhadhdhab, Cairo 1343, ii,
240; cf. al-Shafi'i, Umm, vii, 355). Among the
Hanafis and Shafi'is, the estate is allotted by the kadi
to the legal heirs (cf. also the traditions in al-Darimi,
Fara^id, bob 40), the mudabbar and umm walad are set
free, even when the apostate escapes into the dar alharb,
for this is equivalent to his death. If he comes
back penitent, however, he receives of his property
what still exists; the heirs however are not liable for
compensation.—The marriage of the murtadd is void
(batil). Of his legal undertakings, the istilad is effective
(nafidh), i.e. the umm walad becomes free; the kitdba
also continues. Other legal activities, like manumission,
endowment, testament and sale are suspended
(mawkuf), according to Abu Hanifa; according to Abu
Yusuf, they are effective as in the case of a person in
good health; according to Muhammad al-Shaybani,
however, only as in the case of an invalid, i.e. they
cannot deal with more than one-third of the estate. In
the case of the female apostate, however, they are
always effective. If the apostate makes such legal
arrangements after his flight into the dar al-harb, they
are invalid (al-Sarakhsi, Siyar, iv, 152; cf. also Abu
Yusuf, Kharadj, 111). But since according to Shafi'i
and Malik, his whole estate becomes fay', such legal
arrangements are invalid; only the manumission of a
slave remains suspended until his possible return
penitent; in the case of his death also this slave
mawkuj), according to Abu Hanifa; according to Abu
Yusuf, they are effective as in the case of a person in
good health; according to Muhammad al-Shaybani,
however, only as in the case of an invalid, i.e. they
cannot deal with more than one-third of the estate. In
the case of the female apostate, however, they are
always effective. If the apostate makes such legal
arrangements after his flight into the dar al-harb, they
are invalid (al-Sarakhsi, Siyar, iv, 152; cf. also Abu
Yusuf, Kharadj, 111). But since according to Shafi'i
and Malik, his whole estate becomes fay', such legal
arrangements are invalid; only the manumission of a
slave remains suspended until his possible return
penitent; in the case of his death also this slave
becomes fay' (cf. above, however, the view of later
Shafi'is).
He is punished for crimes committed before
apostasy, if he returns penitent; for crimes committed
during ridda, no notice is taken of the hukuk Allah (i.e.
no hadd) but only of the hukuk al-'ibad, and he must for
example pay the diya (al-Sarakhsi, Siyar, iv, 163, 208-
9; cf. al-Shafi'i, Umm, i, 231).
Bibliography: In addition to the books on Tradition
and Fikh, see especially Shafi'i, Kitab al-Umm,
Cairo 1321, i, 227-34; v, 51; vii, 330 ff., 355; Abu
Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharadj_, Cairo 1302, 109-12;
Sarakhsi, Sharh al-Siyar al-kabir, Haydarabad 1336,
iv, 146-219; Dabusi, Ta'sis al-nazar, Cairo n.d., 22;
Goldziher, Muh. Studien, Halle 1889-90, ii, 215-16;
Santillana, Istituzioni di diritto musulmano malichita,
Rome 1926, i, 131-4; S.M. Zwemer, The law of
apostasy in Islam, London 1924, German tr.
Giitlersloh 1926; C.F. Pijper, Echtscheiding en
Apostasie, in Fragmenta islamica, Leiden 1934; see also
KATL. (W. HEFFENING)

Partial section on Katl/Killing:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Section i 5 of the KATL entry:
(5). A statement of the prevailing Hanafi views
on killing. Katl in the fikh is the act of a man
whereby the life of a fellow-man is brought to a close
(the death need not immediately follow the act). It
may be qualified by any of the five "legal categories":
duty or necessity (wadjib), e.g. the killing
of the murtadd; recommended (mandub), e.g.
when the ghazl kills his unbelieving kinsmen if they
insult Allah or his Prophet;


Section ii 5 of the KATL entry:
(5). The murtadd, that is the renegade from Islam,
is liable to the death-penalty if his apostasy is proved.
If we leave out the passages dealing with the munafiks
[q.v.] who are separately dealt with—their execution
is, however, described under certain conditions
in Kur'an, IV, 91—there is no such law in the
Kur'an referring specially to the murtadd, although
XVI, 108 (third Meccan period), II, 214 (of the year
2), III, 80-4 (Medina; placed by Grimme shortly
before or after the battle of Uljud), 102 (soon after the
battle of Uhud), IV, 136 (of the same period) threaten
the eternal punishment of hell for all those who
apostasise from Islam and do not repent, as well as for
all unbelievers, and in III, 95 f., 142, and IX, 67,
a warning against apostasy is uttered. Among the
traditions we find in various forms the story that
Muhammad, contrary to the rules of the Shari'a,
cruelly mutilated and killed some murtadds, who had
killed one or more of his herdsmen and driven away
the camels, but the tradition is probably correct just
for this reason. This contradiction was felt and an
endeavour was made in the hadiths to justify the
cruelty of the punishment, and even the text was
altered. Of 'Ali also a cruel act, of another kind,
however, is recorded in a similar case, but Ibn 'Abbas
is said to have protested against it. Two murtadds,
each of whom had killed a Muslim, were executed
by Muhammad's orders after the capture of Mecca;
a third man, against whom there was nothing but his
apostasy, was also placed on the list of the proscribed;
his foster-brother 'Uthman, however, obtained
security (amdri) for him although Muhammad would
gladly have seen someone kill him before immunity
was granted; he later became a Muslim again. There
is also a saying of Muhammad's: "Slay anyone who
changes his religion" or "He who secedes from you
shall die", and others similar, e.g. that the blood
of a Muslim could only be shed for apostasy, zind
and fcatl camd; there is also a story that Mu'adh b.
Djabal killed a murtadd because Allah and His
Prophet had so ordained; Muhammad is also said to
have ordered that conversion should first of all be
attempted and a period of three days allowed for this;
but all this can hardly be genuine. There are also the
traditions regarding the Ahl al-Ridda [see RIDDA] who
refused the zakdt and were treated as apostates by
Abu Bakr. The tradition "He who is a good Muslim
will not be punished for his sins from the pagan
period, but he who is a bad Muslim will have them
counted against him" does not refer to the murtadd,
as it is usually said to do.
The punishment of death laid down by the Shari'a
for the murtadd is sometimes described as hadd,
sometimes not; in the latter view he is simply killed
as an unbeliever (kafir) and the punishment need not
be carried out in every individual case. Only an adult
in full possession of his faculties and not acting under
compulsion can become an apostate from Islam;
opinions are divided regarding a man who apostasises
while intoxicated or a minor (on the verge of his majority)
capable of discernment (murahik, mumayyiz).
There is also difference of opinion regarding the
attempt at conversion and the granting of a period,
usually fixed at three days, for reflection. If the
murtadd does not repent, he is to be beheaded with
the sword; torture and cruel methods of execution are
forbidden. According to al-Shafi'i his punishment is
left to his owner, if he is a slave. Abu IHanifa and
his school limit the punishment of death to male
apostates and the consensus of opinion excludes the
minor; a woman (and also a minor) is imprisoned and
beaten every three days till she repents; according to
Abu Hanifa (contrary to Abu Yusuf and al-Shaybani)
she may also be made a slave and this is recognised as
right by the school. Anyone who puts to death a
murtadd of whatever kind without powers granted by
the authority, is generally liable not to kisas, but only
to ta'zir. The same rules generally hold for repeated
apostasy.
Similar to the punishment of the murtadd is that
of the zindik, i.e. anyone who, professing to be a
Muslim, is really an unbeliever or anyone who belongs
to no religion (cf. Massignon, Al-Halladj, i, i86ff.).
The conversion of a non-Muslim to another non-
Muslim religion is similarly dealt with, although such
a one is not called murtadd. He can only escape
punishment by adopting Islam; on the whole of this
cf. Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, ii, 215 f.,
Eng. tr. ii, 199 ff.
How exactly one becomes an unbeliever and therefore
a murtadd is disputed in particulars, especially
the question how far this is the case with irreverent
utterances regarding Allah or one of His prophets;
there are various special enactments regarding the
latter, which threaten the death penalty to non-
Muslims and in part allow a Muslim no remission of
punishment if he recalls the words.
For further information, see MURTADD.

[Heathen Hammer]

I have to say "Shariah law wasn't real because for a brief period in time in Ottoman Empire it was secular" is pretty much the most ridiculous take I've seen from Islamism apologists.

[Axalon]

I offer some free and unsorted comments to infidel144’s heavy-weight post on
Sunni jurisprudence doctrines, regarding apostasy - just to make various details
sink in here (for me as well)…

***

“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” (This is from the sunni Shafi-school btw. See post: 47).

Some of this stuff is just wow! “deserves to be killed.” Leave Islam and you deserve to be killed – “no compulsion in religion”! None at all! You *just* deserve to be killed if you don’t play ball! No compulsion in religion! Nah!

”There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).” (This is passage from the sunni Shafi-school btw. See post: 47).

So folks, if we don’t choose Allah and his sorry prophet we deserve to die! And, it’s ok to kill someone who (apparently) deserves it… Yup! Islam-logics and doctrines strike again! Remember that 1.000.000.000+ people actually profess themselves to this kind of BS. But hey, it gets even better as the “progressive” PC-crowd of the secular west are actively protecting and supporting those who do! Useful idiots, much?

”If any dhimmi …curses the Prophet …or abuses him by saying something other than what already makes him an unbeliever, or abuses God Most High by saying something other than what already makes him an unbeliever, he is to be executed…” (This passage is from the sunni Maliki-school btw. See post: 47).

In short, if we non-believers/kafirs (supposedly “the worst of creatures” btw - according to the Korans 98:6) - talk ill about, mock or otherwise express our disapproval or dislike of precious ‘ol Mohammed - we are to be (rightfully!) executed by the Muslims (supposedly “the best of creatures” - according to the Korans 98:7)! We shall die because we choose to not venerate that contemptible man as some damned prophet or his butthurt cult in general. In short, it is comply or die… You have the choice of Islam or Islam - or we (the faithful of Islam) will execute you, if you dare say something we don’t like! Again, “no compulsion in religion” folks! None at all!

““A female apostate” is to be compelled to return to the faith, … It is elsewhere mentioned that a female apostate must be daily beaten with severity until she return to the faith.” (This is taken from the sunni Hanafi-school btw. See post: 47).

Again, just wow! This doctrine declares that any female apostate are to be imprisoned, then beaten (severely) - this daily - until she submits and returns/reverts to Islam. “no compulsion in religion”, folks! None at all! ...Now, if I understand all this correctly - the sunni Hanbali-school on the other hand (not Hanafi), deviates from that stance and prescribes death-penalty for female apostates as well. Thus it seemingly stands between permanent imprisonment with daily (severe) beatings, or death by execution. Neither strikes me as acceptable or excusable actions in any western secular country (or elsewhere for that matter) for merely abandoning Islam. Then again, without fear and such extreme actions, how many females (including child-brides) would remain loyal to this cult - if given an actual free choice?

***


There are probably lots more of this kind of “medieval” stuff - but that’s enough
Islamic doctrines and ideas for one post, I think. Naturally, all this junk applies
in full to Hatun Tash as well, goes without saying…

- A

[Axalon]

An update...

One month have now passed and Scotland Yard (who is investigating this particular event - despite it is formally not recognized as a terrorist attack - supposedly) have still failed to arrest or catch the person responsible for the Speakers Corner “stab and slash”-attack on Hatun Tash. This despite the fact that police were already on the scene and in pursuit in less then 10 seconds after the act was committed. Yet they (officially) failed to catch the assailant. All the same, the Scotland Yard was eager - from the very beginning - to state that the public should refrain from any speculation in regards to motive for this act – “until all facts has been established” or something along those lines.

Usually, that kind of stance would make sense. That is, if there were multiple (credible) possibilities in play - but - I would argue that in this case there really is only one movement (and its faithfuls) that actually have ANY sort of credible motive/reason for doing such an attack in the first place - and that on the relevant target in question, Hatun Tash. However, the Scotland Yard still insists that we effectively pretend - yet again - that this movement is supposedly innocent and misunderstood - and have absolutely nothing to do with this, at all. Despite, what has already been forwarded, outlined and explained in this thread (the Islamic sources themselves, relevant passages). It is beyond question that in terms of ideas and doctrines - this movement and its primary sources - sanctions and supports such actions that was staged in 25th of July at Speakers Corner, and especially on a target like Hatun Tash (an apostate, and a vocal critic of Islam)... And still, we are expected - by Scotland Yard - to still pretend that this has nothing to do with Islam, all the same... Why? And whom and what do we actually serve by pretending that?!?

Regardless, most of the leftist media-establishment in Britain has openly tried to silence/ignore this entire event from day one – obviously because it fails to fit in their “progressive” narratives of the world. Their silence on this very matter is nothing short deafening and revolting – this to anybody who actually cares for and see the value freedom of speech, or so I would argue. Personally, I find it outright shameful, much in the same way as the attack itself was shameful, which they (the leftist media houses) implicitly denies with their calculated silence on all this.




***

BTW, here is another clip with a (very) different perspective on this matter, this time by Ali Dawah - a UK-based Dawahist (Muslim missionary) and YouTuber. As I understand it, his whole point is to suggest to the world that it was NOT a Muslim who did it - and how embarrassing it would be if this turned out to be true. It’s hard to escape that he (at least) lies about Islam on several occasions in this video, and it is also striking that he thinks this is all about "Islamophobia" and not freedom of speech. Anyways enjoy...




Personally, I find him and his whole supposed point embarrassing, all things considered. Any other
comments on this clip? Or the actual event that triggered it?

- A

[Heathen Hammer]

British police is disgusting and pathetic. Imagine going all guns blazing against someone for simply saying controversial things, but turning blind eye on violent crime, only because these coppers are predominantly careerist cowards who will gladly allow crime to happen as long they themselves aren't somehow accused of being "racist" or something for actually doing their ing jobs. No wonder Britons hate the current state of things so much.

[PointOfViewGun]

Could very well be the cops' own setup as Tash previously sued the police department for their earlier conduct.

[Prodromos]

God's Firebrand: An Interview With Hatun Tash

I'd never heard of her before. She seems like an interesting person.

[antaeus]

No wonder Britons hate the current state of things so much.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/...easured-weekly

Actually, it seems to me that 46% of Britons consider themselves happy at the moment, higher than any other adjective (stressed comes in a close second). Although almost a quarter of people describe themselves as bored or apathetic.

[Heathen Hammer]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/...easured-weekly

Actually, it seems to me that 46% of Britons consider themselves happy at the moment, higher than any other adjective (stressed comes in a close second). Although almost a quarter of people describe themselves as bored or apathetic.

Ah yes, Blackrock-owned corporation said that people love UK government, my argument has been debunked.

[antaeus]

Ah yes, Blackrock-owned corporation said that people love UK government, my argument has been debunked.

Blackrock own just over 6% of YouGov by shares - YouGov are publicly listed. Not that it matters, Blackrock owning shares in something doesn't render that thing bad. You'd have to establish why Blackrock are bad for your statement to make sense. And "self-evident" is not an argument.

Be better Heathen. Be better.

[Heathen Hammer]

Corporate oligarchy is good and benevolent, as corporate oligarchy found out upon reviewing itself. Nothing to see here, peasantcitizen!

[Axalon]

British police is disgusting and pathetic. ... ...

Personally, I wouldn’t go that far, but it certainly is suspicious and it is without a doubt piss poor performance on their part. After all, it’s their job to catch morons like this and they can’t do it when it counts - despite being on the scene and in full pursuit in less then 10 seconds after the fact… It is suspiciously incompetent. Another thing that irritates me is that this is investigated by the Scotland Yard and not the regular police – yet British authorities don’t have the spine to recognize this attack as a terrorist attack which is probably what this essentially is. “Nah, that’s too sensitive to do” – it don’t fit the desired narrative of the PC-nuts. All the same we can (supposedly) not get enough of glorious moronic mass immigration, imported Islamization and endless multi-culti junk that we didn’t asked for or need. …“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” as Hamlet would have it.


-----------------------------------------

Could very well be the cops' own setup as Tash previously sued the police department for their earlier conduct.

It could be Marsians too - just as long as it is not a Muslim involved - you are seemingly fine with it, no matter how ridiculous and incredible your scenarios get here. It *must* not be a Muslim, priority one, got it… In the unlikely event that it is not a Muslim responsible for this attack - I will then start taking your various “Muslim-free” scenarios more seriously from that point onwards, but until then I’ll stick to things that (credibly) makes sense, adds up or reality in general.


-----------------------------------------

God's Firebrand: An Interview With Hatun Tash

Thanks for sharing. She certainly fights for what she believes in – I’ll give her that…


-----------------------------------------

Actually, it seems to me that 46% of Britons consider themselves happy at the moment, higher than any other adjective (stressed comes in a close second). ...

You are using that chart like a politician… All we know is that 46% of those folks who bothered to answer that survey currently feel “happy” - whatever that means… As for all the others who didn’t bother or were not asked to begin with - we don’t have a clue. BTW, more interesting and telling parameters on society would be if people are “content” (29%) or feel “optimistic” (20%) - and neither of these two are suggesting any glorious numbers, now do they? Considering that 71% does not feel “content” and 80% does not feel “optimistic”, right? At least according to this survey anyways…

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

It could be Marsians too - just as long as it is not a Muslim involved - you are seemingly fine with it, no matter how ridiculous and incredible your scenarios get here. It *must* not be a Muslim, priority one, got it… In the unlikely event that it is not a Muslim responsible for this attack - I will then start taking your various “Muslim-free” scenarios more seriously from that point onwards, but until then I’ll stick to things that (credibly) makes sense, adds up or reality in general.

It continues to be the fact that you have as much evidence for either version.

[Axalon]

It continues to be the fact that you have as much evidence for either version.

This is true... There are not much evidence to support your suggested police-scenario, and there are not much evidence to support the unserious Marsian-scenario either, absolutely correct. If you meant anything else, beyond that – then the claim is false. I take it you already know this....

- A