Apostasy in Islam: LondonSpirit vs. Ibn Kammuna

Wonderful article, Ibn! How many muslims would tolerate if their brethren switched over to another faith?

Thank you brother Ibn Kammuna for a superb write up following your previous article. I was one of the readers who doubted the Quranic verses you quoted thinking it was directed towards the Meccans and not the apostates. After reading the verses before and after verse 89 in this article I have no doubt remaining that the death penalty has been sanctioned for the apostates in the Quran. When one understands the meaning of the word hippocrate (apostate) everything falls into place. Now bring in the hadith , No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “(Bukhari 4.260). There is no further room for doubt. Well done!

Excellent analysis Kammuna! I was the person who had doubted that Quran might not have prescribed death penalty to apostates. Now, after reading the verses before and after 89, it is definitely clear that Muhammad was referring to those people who had converted to his rosy religion, then doubted, and left Islam. Yup, Quran advocates death penalty to apostates!! Good job Ibn

Could someone come up with supporting hadiths for 4.88 to 4.90? What was the occasion when Muhammad uttered these verses? Ibn Kammuna, you could have included this in your article.

I think Ibn Kammuna has done an original and ground breaking piece of research, Infact Mawlana Mawdudi, who enforced that Quran prescribes the death penalty for apostates was also a bit hazy with regards to the scriptural basis in the Quran.
However Ibn Kammuna has done a fanatastic job by giving us a better insight into the Quran and the verdict on the fate of Apostates.
Sounds funny, cos I would be liable to the death penalty if I happen to expose myself. Gives me the jitters sometimes.

What you say is no more than a cop out. You are trying to save Islam, and so reject the Hadith. Now, take the Qur’an to a people living in remote Island, and ask them to be Muslims and practice Islam. Do you think they can do it just relying on the Qur’an? Off course not.
Hmm hadiths are hot potatoes?
For Koran only muslims

Bored...bored...bored.... Another muslim trying to make islam looks good. Big mouth can't change anything.

@JAH,
and when do you think was Quran compiled? Any idea?

IBNKAMMUNA until you make me give you a full historical lesson you wont be satisfied with my answer. Your comment

Ibn Kammuna’s Notes:Please note that verse 89 is a natural continuation of 88. It is talking about hypocrites, which we already found out that those are the apostates

WRONG

YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

Lets just say for arguments sake that this verse relates to the killing of apostasy. Because whatever i say you wont belive any way.

But now lets move on to the next verse

YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

Now why would the next verse allow muslims to have peace with these apostasies. Remember according to you all apostacies should be killed. Now the verse is saying Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Surely even if they offer peace muslims should kill them, and there should be no peace between muslims and the apostacies. IBN KAMMUNA you can clearly see this is a war between the makkans and the muslim, thats why the verse after 4:89 talks about peace treaty and not to harm those who seek peace.

If you relate 4:89 to apostacy and that we should kill all people who leave islam than 4:90 contradicts 4:89, because now its saying if they refrain from fighting we should have peace.

ANSWER ME PLEASE.

now moving to next comments:

Ibn Kammuna’s Response:

I wish you would read my article more carefully. Go back to my article. The above verse is mentioned because Al Shafi’i (major figure in Islam, and founder of Sunni Islamic law) interprets the above verse as prescribing the death penalty for apostates.

Now i ask you IBNKAMMUNA everyone has different interpretation which is of their own. If you ask one muslim about smoking he might say that smoking is makruh. But if you ask another muslimhe might say its haram. Same question different answer. Just cause one guy said it refers to killing an apostate does that mean he is right. look at the verse yourself and distinguish, where does it say death to apostates. you can clearly see from the verse as follows

Now 002.217
YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can

its talking about a stage of war. And it is saying as you can see that these people wont leave you alone, i.e wont stop fighting you until they persuade you from leaving islam. Can you see it clearly IBNKAMMUNA. Clearly written in understandable english. We know the verse relates to war because of the line before it which says

they ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month.

Now the matter that concerns you

And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Where does it say from this section KILL. it clearly says if you die as an unbeliever than your punishment will be in the hereafter. nowhere does it say kill the unbeliver. Please tell me where it says to kill. Please dont always listen to others. Research yourself.

IBNKAMMUNA: believe I did produce a single verse. I also showed that many pious knowledgeable Islamic scholars use multiple verses to deduce that the Qur’an does indeed prescribe the killing of apostates. I leave a final decision on the issue to the readers of this debate.

Like i said before you failed to produce a single verse which relates to killing apostacies.

And i aint trying to reject the hadith. I am pretty sure if you read the hadiths you will find verese which say not to kill people who leave the faith. Take some time and look. All i said to you that there is no scientific way to prove hadiths right.

londonspirit writes -------In regards to hadith these are all narrations. as you can see from the hadiths the prophet never ever said kill those who leave islam, these are actions of other people. Any way the hadiths can never be scientifically proven correct, therefore it is the quran that it is to be followed. Not the hadith

Dear londonspirit, would you please elaborate on the scientific proof of the quran, which is just a narration compiled decades after muhammad died and layed in a grave in medina. Quran lacks chronology and is bereft of continiuty, the chapters are arranged as per lenght of the verses without giving importance to events and history. take the example of the chapter under discussion Sura AN-NISA 4 : 81 to 83 I will quote from PICKTHAL

4 : 81 And they say: (It is) obedience; but when they have gone forth from thee a party of them spend the night in planning other than what thou sayest. Allah recordeth what they plan by night. So oppose them and put thy trust in Allah. Allah is sufficient as Trustee.

4 : 82 Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity

4 : 83 And if any tidings, whether of safety or fear, come unto them, they noise it abroad, whereas if they had referred it to the messenger and to such of them as are in authority, those among them who are able to think out the matter would have known it. If it had not been for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy ye would have followed Satan, save a few (of you).

It would be observed verse 82 has no significance to both preceding and latter verse.

Dear LondonSpirit, thanks for you comment.
You have not offered anything new. You are repeating the old Jargon.
By the way, look at the verse that starts with "Except" above. It indicates that a general rule is offered before it (Killing apostates) and making an exception for some people (what comes after except). The exception is really forced on Muhammad here. He will be in big trouble if he attempts to go after someone who belonged to a strong tribe.
Just as an addition. I mentioned to you before that all four schools of Jurisprudence in Islam prescribe killing apostates, so what I am doing here is just repeating what those schools are saying.
I have clarified my points above and did the analysis of all involved verses. It is up to the readers to tell you and me who is more likely to be on the right understanding. Looking at the comments above, You don't seem to be doing too hot Londonspirit.
One thing I want to make clear to you brother: I am not debating here for the sake of debate. I have changed my views about things many times in the past, and am willing to do that again. However, I think you are the one in the wrong when it comes to Islamic judgement toward apostates.
I have nothing more to say. My analysis is complete in the debate, and I leave it to the readers to let us know who is right. Take care brother.

IBNKAMMUNA. you cant just say you leaving it. You opened a discussion and your saying you proved your point after only two messages. I wasnt reapeating myself i went over the verse bit by bit.

I just want to ask one thing. This verse you mention 4:89 could you tell me the history behind it and why it was revealed. And could you also find me references. I want to read where you got your info from

londonspirit wrote:

YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

Now why would the next verse allow muslims to have peace with these apostasies. Remember according to you all apostacies should be killed.

That is because the apostates Muhammed referred to belonged to much stronger tribes that could have crushed Muhammed's army.

IBN KAMMUNA you can clearly see this is a war between the makkans and the muslim, thats why the verse after 4:89 talks about peace treaty and not to harm those who seek peace.

Didn't you saw in a previous posts those verses were revealed while in Median? londonspirit the only meccans who followed Muhammed to Medina were his followers. The Meccan army did not go after Muhammed while in Medina as they did not view him as much of a threat. Therefore Muhammed was not talking about warfare with the Meccans because there was no fighting between them and Muhammed while in Medina.

its talking about a stage of war. And it is saying as you can see that these people wont leave you alone, i.e wont stop fighting you until they persuade you from leaving islam. Can you see it clearly IBNKAMMUNA. Clearly written in understandable english. We know the verse relates to war because of the line before it which says

The verse does not talk about warfare, it talks about what happened to Muhammed and his followers being harassed by the meccans after they could not tolerate Muhammed's presence in Mecca any longer.

Maybe this is a draw between 2 titans.

Ibn Kammuna has on his side the 4 Islamic Schools, Maulana Mawdudi, Al Shafi. But I could see LondonSpirits logic. He established reasonable doubt for me, if I were a juror. It could be that under the circumstances that these texts were written and read first it was about a particular situation of that time and maybe the Meccans were meant with "Hypocrites", and the fact that they fell back in disbelief was just mentioned, but this was not meant for all apostates. I just don't know.

But I do feel that the Quran and Hadith belong to all mankind, that everybody can study them and everybodies opinion should be weighed in the same way, regardless of whether a student is Muslim of follower of other faith or no faith.

Maybe the Islamic scholars, that Ibn Kammuna mentioned have been interpreting the Quran wrong. At least one smart Muslim now thinks so. In a way this is good news for us too. Maybe in the future we can use this interpretation of no apostate-killing against Iran, Yemen and other Islamic states etc who definitely do have anti-apostacy-laws. Maybe modern thinking Muslims could protest against them. When South-Africa still had apartheid many Christians protested, arguing it was not in accordance with the Bible.

I also can't resist saying that these texts at best look like documents that any government could have issued to its armies. If our enemies do this, we do that, but if they do something else, we react different. They do NOT look much like Holy Revelation to me.

London Spirit, you say:
"
IBNKAMMUNA. you cant just say you leaving it. You opened a discussion and your saying you proved your point after only two messages. I wasnt reapeating myself i went over the verse bit by bit.

I just want to ask one thing. This verse you mention 4:89 could you tell me the history behind it and why it was revealed. And could you also find me references. I want to read where you got your info from
"
Actually brother, I did not say I proved my point. That is up to the readers to decide. All I said is that I have nothing else to say. You seem to be stuck on verse 89. There are verses that we need detailed info from history to see why Muhammad said them. The above don't really need much historical investigation. Verses 88 talks about apostates (hypocrites), and it explains that those folks are the ones who became Muslim at one time, then left Islam, and left the group. Verse 89 tells that Muhammad wanted them killed. Then in the verse after that he makes some exceptions because some of those people belonged to stronger tribes, so if he goes after them, he'll be in deep "Water"(for lack of a better term). Then the verse after that he goes back to wanting to kill those who left, but did not have tribal support. This is typical Muhammad personality, when he has power, he is mad killing machine. When he doesn't have the power, he curses but comes up with easier routes.
The verses come from Surat Al=Nisaa' (The Women). This is a Medinan Sura. So the verses Muhammad gave were when he was in a transition state. His power if building. But his Marauding band of thieves and criminals have not had total control yet. At that stage, Muhammad has some stronger tribes he had to "negotiate" his vengeful desires against them depending on when the incidents happened in Medina. Muhammad only negotiated when he had to. Note that his Hudaybiya treaty was supposed to last 10 years. Muhammad broke it in the second year and took over Mecca. he felt he was strong enough to do that.
As for the background of the verses 88 to 91 it is not that important to know as the verses are clear, but let me give that info too. Those verses came after the battle of Uhud. The Muslims lost that battle because of their economic greed (I have published an article on this matter). After the battle, a group of Muslims just left Muhammad and the Muslims and went back to their old places (tribe, town..). This is when Muhammad said those verses instructing the Muslims to kill those apostates (verses 88-89), But Muhammad was not strong enough to go after those apostates who belonged to stronger tribes because that would put Muhammad and his pirates in jeopardy, so he made an exception for that (verse 90) [by the way, verse 90 was abrogated later on. You probably know that..I hope]. Then Muhammad goes back to his killing spree threat (verse 91)

Please note that the historical background is not that important for us in this case. We understood the verses without this whole history. But at some other times, it is very useful to know the historical background (Like the verse about the Nakhla raid which gave you a link to my article in the debate).
Brother LondonSpirit, i really do not have anything else to say on this matter. i am not running away. I just said what i wanted to say in the debate. And you had your chance too.
I hope this discussion was useful to both of us as well as to FFI readers.
Take care brother.

Demsci wrote:

Ibn Kammuna has on his side the 4 Islamic Schools, Maulana Mawdudi, Al Shafi. But I could see LondonSpirits logic. He established reasonable doubt for me, if I were a juror. It could be that under the circumstances that these texts were written and read first it was about a particular situation of that time and maybe the Meccans were meant with “Hypocrites”, and the fact that they fell back in disbelief was just mentioned, but this was not meant for all apostates. I just don’t know.

Demsci to my understanding the meccans never believed in Muhammed's prophetship.

Here's the meaning of the word hypocrite:

A. A person who puts on an appearance of false virtue or religion.

B. A person who acts in contradiction of his or her stated beliefs/feelings.

How could the meccans be hypocrites when they never believed in Muhammed?

As I said before Ibn Kammuna is correct in stating that Quran indeed awards death penalty to apostates. I also agree with Demsci's views that it is essential to know as to during which battle those verses were concocted by Muhammad. THIS ASPECT IS MISSING IN THE WHOLE ARTICLE AND DEBATE. Perhaps Ali Sena or any other Islamic scholar could shed some light on this. This will definitely put a full-stop to the whole debate.

Oh, yes, Marie, I see; you are right, I was wrong in this. So the Hypocrites were the Apostates then, NOT Meccans. I feel stupid now, but still am glad with this outcome. But was it meant for all apostates of all time, or just for the particular ones of that time?

But verse 90? There are these exceptions and these IF's. Here I still am pretty confused.

Dear Rationalist,
Please see my last comment. It supplies you with your request. It does not change anything, but it gives you the background
thanks for your comment brother

Oh, I read Ibn Kammuna about that it was after the lost battle of Uhud. So, there were deserters then. Verses 88, 89 (and 91 too) are pretty clear. But oh, why did Mohammed have to give such complicated conditions in verse 90?! it makes conclusions unsure. Unless Ibn K. is right in saying it was because of the relative strenght of parties involved. But it does not say that and could possibly be meant more noble. Oh, real difficult, text-explaining.

Demsci wrote:

But verse 90? There are these exceptions and these IF’s. Here I still am pretty confused.

I think Muhammed made that verse up to cover his own ass not going after some apostates. It's possible the verse refers to tribes where Muhammed made treaties with to protect his own rear end and he did not want to jeoperdize himself by going after apostates who belonged to those tribes for fear they would crush him.

Yes Marie
verse 90 was to cover his "A". Later on, when he became stronger, he abrogated verse 90 and no exceptions left (the verse of the sword ended all those nicer verses in the Qur'an). many Muslims don't know that.
In any case, the verses are really clear on thier own. No history is needed. The apostasy punishment is death. But there are few exceptions (the ones who may endanger Muhammad and his pirates if the kill such apostates). The word EXCEPT at the beginning of verse 90 makes the distinction clear before and after that word. You is good to know the historical background, but its nor really necessary for us in this specific case as the verses speak for themselves.
Thank Marie for your comment. Good to see you around again.

19. Demsci Says:

June 14th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Oh, yes, Marie, I see; you are right, I was wrong in this. So the Hypocrites were the Apostates then, NOT Meccans. I feel stupid now, but still am glad with this outcome. But was it meant for all apostates of all time, or just for the particular ones of that time?

The Quran is meant to be the unchanged word of God relevant for all time. What was supposedly revealed in connection to the hippocrites(apostates) in the 7th century is very much relevant even today.

So there was abrogation of verse 90 later and yes, I remember that the Quran was revealed for all time. Sorry to be slow, I am with you now.

Here is some useful info about the verse of the sword and how it abrogated verse 90 (readers also can see verse 90 above in Jalalyn Tafsir. Jalalyn says specifically that the verse was abrogated. But what is below is about the general overall influence of the verse of the sword. It pretty much everything decent that was practiced in early Islam and before Muhammad became the sole tyrant of Arabia:

"Quran 9:5 says,

But when the forbidden months (i.e., 4-month grace-period given in verse 9:2) are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

On the significance of verse 9:5, the verse of the sword, Ibn Kathir writes:

(Caliph) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs (hadiths), it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

I meant to say "It pretty much abrogated everything decent..." in my previous comment

Cant muslims see that Quran was revealed in a dubious situational fashion to suite or help mr Mo. who just said it to his band of thugs, he wanted to loot, raid and enjoy.
Also his life was cut short by poison which was dully given by a helpless raped girl whose father and husband this criminal has killed.

The others like bokhari etc later on collected and written it. They have written both quran and his hadiths as told by Mr Mo and what he has done. Now if you want to reject even one verse then reject this whole garbage of verses and move on in life. Become a human and help others to get out of this evil.

Even now some germans think nazism is good, but this cult has been widely condemned, shamed and not allowed to revived. If hitler would have been successful then whole humankind and middle east in particular would have been barking ' Hail Hitler' instead of another equally evil slogan 'alahu akbar'.

After the internet revolution, many muslims are again re-reading the Quran and hadiths etc and they are coming to many conclusions:
Reaction 1: Oh my god, we were following a rapist, brutal, criminal thug and so better leave this. They feel a genuine guilt feeling. Many muslims who had a rosy picture of this cult and have indirectly helped in propagation of it quit it immediately.

Reaction 2: No all verses are not bad, some thing should be done and lets interpret in another way and come up with a new personalized version or a reformed version. They call themselves moderate muslims but make a absolute fool of them. Thousands of people are getting killed in muslim and other places for apostasy, why these people like londonsprit email to some prominent mullahs and they in-turn declare that apostasy is allowed. Millions will immediately come out of this cult.

Reaction 3: Make some excuse like 'Its jewish conspiracy', 'Quran cant be wrong' . ' Allah is great', ' We should have more faith', ' islam is true faith and we wont listen to any other thing'. They stop there critical and logical reasoning and remain same fanatic.

If Londonspirit and Mr.Jah Jah are indeed decent, honest people, they must be doubting Muhammad and His Islam at this point. They must be aware of the fact that Muhammad was nothing more than a very effective cult leader who added some 'good traditions' (largely borrowed) to 'his religion' in order to gain followers. Mojo was clearly an very sick 'man' who suffered from severe mental illness.

Many Muslims 'embrace' Islam (LOL) because they want to understand spirituality/God, do what is right in this life, and desire personal identity. Too bad that Islam cannot deliver such things. Islam in totality is an evil ideology. Muhammad ranks among the lowest of all human beings to have ever lived.

At bottom Muslims fear death. They remain Muslims due to their fear of Muhammads threats of an eternity spent in a torturous hell being burned alive. Laughable. Muslims do not really love and respect the 'Islamic God' and Muhammad (a.k.a. Allah). Essentially they fear leaveing Islam and being honest with themselves because they fear hell. Pathetic but understandable. I went through this same process myself. Damb am i ever glad that i got out of it...

to Mr LondonSpirit

sir, you are fighting a loosing battle against ibnu kammuna in this issue of apostasy. all the 4 islamic schools of thought plus the shias unanimously agreed on the death punishment of apostate. muhammad boldly declared that apostate should be killed. please refrain from behaving hypocritically. islam has gone to such an extreme that even those who do not pray the 5 daily prayers of namaaz or salaat are punishable by death, let alone apostasy. ahmad ibnu hanbal went as far as declaring those who deliberately miss their daily prayers are apostate and should be killed then buried outside islamic cemetary.

if we go by this standard, so many muslims are already on death gallow. the new and recent westenized moderate muslims( London Spirit is one of them) are well aware of these brutal teachings in the islamic literatures and seek ways to conceal them from western audience. are you not ashamed of doing this Mr London Spirit? for the sake of humanity, stop pal.

Humanity is but one family. :)

- Pathfinder

You write Muhammad was killed with poison by one of his wives, meaning one of his rape victims! Please go on explain! Im interested!
He did die suddenly in terrible pain!

Regards

message of the "book" is clear - submit whether you like it or not, or else !

Recalling the discussion between LondonSpirit and Kenmirzz earlier in which LS asserted Apostate-killing was not in Quran, not part of Islamic doctrine and perpetrated by followers of others faith as well.

Now if someone apostasizes from whatever religion and for that reason is killed or assaulted or shunned etc. that reaction to it is just criminal or maybe insane But Muslims should now, I feel, take extra care to distance themselves from anti-apostate-behavior everywhere or indeed admit that that is a part of their doctrine. Let them decide which they prefer and act accordingly.

What about the Qur'ãnic verses?

One of our brothers on the Ahul Bayt Discussion Group, had presented some Qur'ãnic verses which might give the impression to some that the punishment prescribed for the murtad contradicts the teachings of the Qur'ãn. It is important to remember that while the Qur'ãn has generally mentioned the punishment of apostates in the hereafter, it is the sunnah that describes the punishment of apostates in this world. And as we have mentioned earlier, the Islamic laws, the shari`ah, is based primarily on the Qur'ãn as well as the Sunnah.

We shall look at some of those verses.

Verse 3:86-91

"How can Allãh guide those who have disbelieved after their belief, and (after) they bore witness that the Messenger is true and (after) clear arguments had come to them! Allãh does not guide the unjust people. "The punishment of such people is that upon them is the curse of Allãh, of the angels and of men all together—they will remain under the curse for ever nor shall they be respited. (This is the punishment of such people) except those among them who repent after this and amend (their life-style), then Allãh is Forgiving, Merciful. "Those who disbelieve after their belief and then sink more and more into disbelief, their repentance will never be accepted and they are the ones who have gone astray. "Those who disbelieve and die while they (still) are unbelievers, (even) the earth full of gold shall not be accepted from them if they (try to) offer it in compensation. They shall have a painful chastisement and they shall have no helpers."[23]

When one studies the context and the occasion when this passage was revealed, it becomes clear that these verses were about some former idol-worshippers or Ahlul Kitãb who had become Muslim, and later on they renounced Islam and fled to Mecca. Some of them (e.g., al-Hãrith bin Suwayd bin as-Sãmit) regretted their apostasy and asked for forgiveness. They were forgiven, and they were allowed to return back to Medina.[24]

As you see, these verses were revealed about the case of one or more murtad milli who had fled from the control of Muslims. As we have explained above, in case of murtad milli, he is given the chance to repent; and if he repents, then he is not to be killed. This example actually proves that shar`iah law is in accordance with the holy Qur'ãn.

A murtad milli who does not repent may flee from the control of the Muslims, but, as the last verse says, he can never flee from the curse of Allãh, the angels and all men together in this world as well as the hereafter.

Verse 3:105-107

"Do not be like those who became divided and disagreed after clear proofs had come to them, and for them is a grievous chastisement on the day (of resurrection) when some faces shall turn `white' and some faces shall turn `black'. (It will be said to those whose faces turn `black',) `Did you disbelieve after your faith? Then taste the chastisement because of your disbelieving.'"

This verse is talking about the chastisement of murtad in the hereafter. It does not automatically follow that there is no punishment for them in this world. Affirmation of one does not automatically deny the other. For example, if verse 4:93 says "Whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell, in it he shall dwell forever. Allãh will send His wrath on him, curse him and prepare a painful chastisement for him" -- this does not mean that there is no worldly punishment for a murderer. The worldly punishment for murder could be found in other verses of the Qur'ãn or the sunna.

Verse 3:176-178

"(O Muhammad!) Do not be grieved by those who sink into disbelief hastily--they can never do any harm to Allãh. Allãh (has given them respite in this world as He) intends that He should not give them any share of the (blessings of the) hereafter and they shall have a grievous chastisement. Those who have bought disbelief at the price of faith shall never do any harm to Allãh and they shall have a painful chastisement."

Firstly, these two verses were revealed with the verses before them in connection with the Battle of Uhud. The verses refer to the idol-worshippers and infidels of Mecca who had come to fight the Muslims; it has no connection with apostasy. Probably the brother looked at the words in N.J. Dawood's translation "quickly renounce their faith" and assumed that it refers to Muslims becoming kãfirs. No, not at all.

Secondly, the brother has deduced from this verse that "the apostates should live". This is also an incorrect understanding. "God intends to give them no share in the Hereafter" does not mean that Allãh desires that such people should live longer in this world. It just means that their prolonged life should not be taken as an indicator by them that they are okay in the eyes of Allãh. This concept is further clarified in the next verse: "The unbelievers should not think that We are granting them respite for their own good, rather We grant them respite so that they may (eventually) increase in sins and (accordingly) they shall have a disgraceful chastisement." (3:178) For example, Saddam should be killed by anyone who has the opportunity to do so; but, if he escapes punishment at the hands of the believers, then he should not think that God is on his side--no; the more he lives, the more his sins will increase, and he will deserve even more chastisement in the hereafter.[25] So "giving respite" does not mean suspending the punishment or leaving the judgement to the hereafter.

Verse 4:136

What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allãh has degenerated them because of what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allãh has abandoned in error? And whomsoever Allãh abandones in error, you shall by no means find for him a way (out of error). They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved so that you might be all alike, therefore do not take friends from among them until they (truly believe and) emigrate in the way of Allãh. But if they turn back (from belief and migration), then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from them any as a friend or a helper. (Seize and kill such people) except those (among them) who reach a tribe with whom you are joined in an alliance, or who come to you with hearts constricted from fighting you or fighting their own people...Therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and (instead) offer you peace, then (know that) Allãh has not given you permission (to fight) against them. (4:89-90)

First of all, these verses are about the polytheists of Mecca in general--the kuffãr as well as those who became murtad. They do not talk about individuals and their punishment.

Secondly, even if we concentrate on the Meccans who had come to Medina, accepted Islam as their faith, and then returned back to Mecca and became kãfir--we see that this is the case of murtad milli. And the verses clearly state that if they return back to Islam, then you can take them as friends. But if they do not return to Islam, then "seize them and kill them wherever you find them".

Thirdly, later part of the passage talks about a situation where such groups or individuals form an alliance with tribes (or countries) with whom you also have a peace treaty, then that peace agreement would now cover them also; and, therefore, you should not do anything to them. This is seen in the views of the jurists who say that if a murtad flees from dãru 'l-Islãm, then it is not obligatory to pursue him and kill him.[26]

These are just some examples of how to study the Qur'ãnic verses: in their proper historical context and not just in isolation. Other similar verses can be understood in the same light.

Full Explaination from www.al-islam.org

A pdf format can be downloaded from here
--

Its better that Mr. LondonSpirit should fight with the islamist rathar than Mr. Ibn Kammuna

IBNKAMMUNA said: Actually brother, I did not say I proved my point. That is up to the readers to decide.

You want readers here to decide. Why dont you use a bit of logic. Here the readers have hate against islam so obviously they would agree with you. Likewise if you put this staetment in a muslim forum the readers would agree with me. You cannot say I will let the readers decide after two statements.

IBNKAMMUNA said there are verses that we need detailed info from history to see why Muhammad said them. The above don’t really need much historical investigation.

Without invistigating the historical context how are you supposed to understand the verse. The verse relates a fight between the makkans and medinas. Cant you see that or do you turn a blind eye to it.

MARIE wrote: How could the meccans be hypocrites when they never believed in Muhammed? its not talking about the makkans. 4:88 is talking about hyporcites:
This verse pertains only to hypocrites pretending to be Muslims and deserting the army again before a battle, like any traitor, and has nothing to do with either non-Muslims or apostates. which than in 4:89 is giving permission to kill those who fight you. And the verse 4:90 is talking about giving peace to those who seek peace.

How can you relate these 3 verses to apostasies. Answer these questions IBNKAMMUNA.

IBNKAMMUNA write: then in the verse after that he makes some exceptions because some of those people belonged to stronger tribes, so if he goes after them, he’ll be in deep “Water”(for lack of a better term).

Please tell me IBNKAMMUNA where did you get this information from. Did you just make it up or something. you can clearly see from the verse it says

Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty

do you see the word treaty. What does that indicate to you. It means those that signed a peace agreement you must not touch them. How can you possibly say this has got to do with apostatsies. And even you answer is further stupid. Because if what you say that muahmmed said to kill all apostasies and than not to kill them because they are stronger tribes dont you think he is contradicting himself. And how can there be stronger tribes it is the makkans, they are not fighting any other sects apart from the makkans. Get your facts straight.

IBNKAMMUNA wrote: This is a Medinan Sura. So the verses Muhammad gave were when he was in a transition state. His power if building. But his Marauding band of thieves and criminals have not had total control yet. At that stage, Muhammad has some stronger tribes he had to “negotiate” his vengeful desires against them depending on when the incidents happened in Medina. Muhammad only negotiated when he had to.

Where di you get this info from, is it from ali sina or something. You maybe able to fool others here by saying that but i no your lying. I will get back to this at a later time

Londonspirit, to the best of my knowledge the word hypocrite used in the verse amounts to the same as a defector or an apostate, meaning one you had rejected the faith. Muhammad had raised an army of the faithful of which he was the commander in chief. The deserters were ordained to be killed by a divine command. The hypocrites were not the Meccans but once followers of Muhammad who later on gave up the faith and deserted. Is it not the same thing as being an apostate? I went to the links given in the article and this is what I have understood. I like many readers have followed this debate with a neutral mindset and you are wrong to say that we are biased. I feel you have debated well but have not been convincing enough. Even a layman can now understand the background and context in which these verses were `revealed`.

RAJIV12 do you know the meaning of pretending. Because thats what these people did. They pretended to be followers. You got a lot of PRETENDERS in those days to try and get information of th opponent.

You guys are contradicting youself. you cant have one verse i.e 4:89 saying to slay all the apostates and than you cant have the following verse 4:90 saying make peace to those apostates who make treaty. I foolish is that. can you see what is wrong here. Plus if it was in relation to apostates, lets say a few left islam or even hundreds left islam, dont you think it would hve been easy to kill of these so called apostates when islam was in their thousands.

I ask one question why would muhammed give a peace treaty to apostates if he clearly says to slay them and kill them. It makes no sense.

can you see the error here.

Dear Ibn Kammuna,
thanks for your wonder explaination and espicially those verses on apostasy in its proper perspective. The verses 4:88,89 clearly imply that hypocrites referred to are infact the apostates and the punishment prescribed as such is death. There is no doubt, muhammad was running a military industrial complex with a tinge of Allah added to it so as to fool the gullible masses, a defecting soldier is a potential threat to the movement so the might Allah relies on his mortal foot soldiers to do the killings for him.

londondonspirit somehow indulges in twisted logic, earlier when I pointed to the inconsistencies pertaining to creation verses in quran, where one verse says mankind is made of clay and at some other places sperm, water,blood clot and also out of nothing. His reply was equally weird when he explained saying that it is like a tea cup where you have milk, sugar and water added to it, yet you dont call it by its added constituents but you call it tea. Brother Kammuna you are debating with a believer who has surrendered his brain to a wild ass of a man.

Of course Ibn Kammuna can say "let the readers decide", there are # 10.000 visitors here every day and that number must include Muslims. Any Islamic site or newspaper or book can use it.

And it is too easy to say "Where did you get that information?' Implying that it is untrue, or plain saying "I know you are lying". It could just as well be vice versa.

That verse 90 baffled me too, with its exceptions, and conditions (Ifs) but it was abrogated by the verse of the sword, mentioned above. Which you, LondonSpirit, already discussed with kikl in another thread. But it is a straw man argument when you say Ibn Kammuna said that the prophet said "Kill all apostates'. It is much more complicated what Ibn Kammuna said that the prophet said, and meant.

You seem disingenious when you ask for the umptieth time "what has that got to do with apostates? or saying "It has nothing to do with apostates". But we can see that in the context people, first pretending to believe, than becoming "deserters, traitors", can be seen as present-day apostates by other Muslims + followers of other faiths or no faits. It is perfectly OK if you respectfully agree to disagree with these other people but saying "It clearly says that ..." goes to far.

And with all this arguing it seems to me that these texts indeed reflect a particular situation in the distant past, in Arabia. And then there is this injunction in the Quran, that it is the unalterable word from God, applicable and authoritative for all time or so, not to be changed. When we know that now the circumstances are completely different and this book is only interesting, a bit wise, but predictably obsolete. Relying on this book is no way for a God to operate still now, or for humans to base laws or rules of conduct on it, without a lot of modernization.

Dear LondonSpirit,
Please read my comments to the end. I gave you the historical background to those verses. What I told you about history is that sometimes the historical background is needed (like the Nakhla raid verses). Sometimes knowing the history is good, but we can understand what is going on without that. However, I provided you with the historical background above. Please read my comments to the very last word. You keep giving me the impression that you are not very careful in reading the meaning of What I say.
Have a good day brother.

IBNKAMMUNA i have read all your comments. Let me just ask you one question which i feel you should be obliged to answer since you set up this post.If you answer this suffiecintly i will admit to the fact that islam says kill apostasy, because no one here can seem to grasp on to the contradiction. Now there will be some repeating because i want to get a few things straight and i will quote what you wrote in the introduction. Now i will show you that i read every word of your post and this will be long.

you have given the 4:88 translation. and your comment was

Ibn Kammuna’s Notes: Please note that verse 88 above tells you who the meant hypocrites are. They are people who became Muslims at one time, then left the faith. Now isn’t that what an apostate is. An apostate is what is meant by hypocrite in the above verse. I have underlined and bolded parts of the above verse to show the reader that this is in fact the case.

wrong. these are not people who were muslims at one time and left the faith. These were people who pretended to be muslim. yes your right in the fact that an apostate is one who leaves the faith but that is not a hypocrite. A hyporcrite is defined

Hypocrite: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

i.e pretending. This is what the verses is referring to, pretenders. Now defining apostate

apostate: deserter: a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend

can you see the difference between the two definintions. One is betrayal and one is concelling real motives. Now when the quran refers to hyporcites look at the definition. so how can you say this refers to apostates. Both words have a completely different meaning.

THIS IS ONE OF THE QUESTION I WANT YOU TO ANSWER IBNKAMMUNA, WHICH IS HOW DID YOU COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THIS VERSE MEANT FOR APOSTASIES WHEN CLEARLY THE DEFINITION OF THE TWO WORDS ARE DIFFERENT?.

Lets now assume that it does mean apostasies. we look at 4:89. a section says

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks

OK MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHY WOULD A SMALL AMOUNT OF APOSTATSIES TURN RENEGADE ON THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS IF THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOOSE?. Assuming that these are apostates we can make assumption that about 10% left the faith.

So now assuming what you say that according to the two verses people left the faith and the apostasies in ther small numbers turn renegades on muslims and the muslims were given permission to kill them.

Lets look at the section of verse 4:90

Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people.

Now i made assumption that 10% left the faith OUT OF WHICH PROBABLY 8% WERE KILLED due to the law in the previous verse which basically said kill the apostates.

Now my question
WHY WOULD MUHAMMED NOW CONTRADICT HIMSELF AND ALLOW A MEASLY 2% OF APOSTATES LIVE AND SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE MUSLIMS?

These are my three questions to you IBNKAMMUNA in regards to the verse. My final question is

THIS VERSE WAS GIVEN TO GIVE PERMISSION FOR THE MUSLIMS IN MEDINA TO FIGHT THE MAKKANS WHO CONSTANTLY BOMARDED THEM, WHY WOULD ALLAH REVEAL A VERSE TO GIVE PERMISSION FOR MUHAMMED TO KILL THE APOSTATES BUT NOT THE MAKKANS ATTACKING THEM?.

Dont you think if this verse was soley for the apostates the muslims would have been dead due to the makkans killing them, because rememeber it has been proved by historians that muhammed only fought in self defense an waited for commandments to fight. So no commandments were given to kill the makkans so islam shouldnt exist today because muslims should have been killing apostates and the makkans in their larger numbers should have been killing the muslims.

If you think i am pulling a fast one than watch documentary islam by history channel.

Answer my questions and if it is sufficient than i will belive that quran allows the killing of apostates.

londonspirit wrote:

MARIE wrote: How could the meccans be hypocrites when they never believed in Muhammed? its not talking about the makkans. 4:88 is talking about hyporcites:
This verse pertains only to hypocrites pretending to be Muslims and deserting the army again before a battle, like any traitor, and has nothing to do with either non-Muslims or apostates. which than in 4:89 is giving permission to kill those who fight you. And the verse 4:90 is talking about giving peace to those who seek peace.

How can you relate these 3 verses to apostasies. Answer these questions IBNKAMMUNA.

4:90

They should have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may all be alike.

It is clear that this verse talks about unbelievers.

Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes in the cause of God.

Now what the hell does this verse mean?

If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them

This verse means kill the disbelievers.

Now here is the tip of the iceberg

Sura 4:92

It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer

Now if those verses mentioned talk about warfare then what's verse 4:92 have to do with warfare?

There is also there is this verse:

Sura 4:93

He that kills a believer by design should burn in hell forever.

What's this got to do with warfare?

londonspirit do you believe in Jesus as a prophet? Well if you believe in Jesus ( peace be upon him ) then you should now that Jesus was a pacifist and did not preach about killing in times of warfare. Jesus taught his followers to turn our cheeks to our enemies. Now if Jesus taught peace then Muhammed should have taught something much better then Jesus besides giving permission to kill people in times of warfare.

I ask one question why would muhammed give a peace treaty to apostates if he clearly says to slay them and kill them. It makes no sense.

Muhammed did not make peace treaties with the apostates themselves only with the tribes they belonged to.

londonspirit wrote:

apostate: deserter: a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend

Sura 4:90

If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them

Now when the quran refers to hyporcites look at the definition.

londonspirit I have at least two Qurans, one by Dawood and another by Yusuf Ali, neither of them use the word hypocrite. The verses I mentioned in my previous posts were from Dawood's version.

Here is sura 4:89 from Yusuf Ali's version

They but wish you should reject the faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing ( as they )

The word hypocrite has been added by other Quranic translators as a way to mislead the reader.

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks

OK MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHY WOULD A SMALL AMOUNT OF APOSTATSIES TURN RENEGADE ON THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS IF THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOOSE?. Assuming that these are apostates we can make assumption that about 10% left the faith.

Dawood uses deserter in the same verse.

Now my question
WHY WOULD MUHAMMED NOW CONTRADICT HIMSELF AND ALLOW A MEASLY 2% OF APOSTATES LIVE AND SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE MUSLIMS?

The peace treaty was already made beforehand, that is before people apostacized and left Muhammed. The peace treaties were already in place.

MARIE wrote

4:90 They should have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may all be alike.

It is clear that this verse talks about unbelievers.

ANSWER: Yes it is clear that it is talking about the disbelivers. but you forgot to add the second bit which clearly also says that they which to make the muslims disbelive as they disbelive. Again no sign that it is talking about apostatses

MARIE: Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes in the cause of God.

Now what the hell does this verse mean?

ANSWER: I cannot give a direct answer to that because i myself dont no. But gathering from the verse i can roughly say it means dont be friends with these hypocrites until they turn there path to the right path.

MARIE: If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them

This verse means kill the disbelievers.

Yes it does mean kill them. But if you read the full verse it you can tell that it means kill those who rage war agains you. i..e same continuation in the verse says
If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war

MARIE: Now here is the tip of the iceberg

Sura 4:92

It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer
Now if those verses mentioned talk about warfare then what’s verse 4:92 have to do with warfare?

The full verse states:

[4:92] No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident. If one kills a believer by accident, he shall atone by freeing a believing slave, and paying a compensation to the victim's family, unless they forfeit such a compensation as a charity. If the victim belonged to people who are at war with you, though he was a believer, you shall atone by freeing a believing slave. If he belonged to people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, you shall pay the compensation in addition to freeing a believing slave. If you cannot find a slave to free, you shall atone by fasting two consecutive months, in order to be redeemed by GOD. GOD is Knower, Most Wise.

Its got nothing to do with warfare, its a different opening to another related matter, which is the law in accidently killing. and like wise so is verse 4:93. These verses got no relation to the war.
But now that you have brought these verse up look at the consequences of killing a treaty which has been signed.

compensation should be paid to the people in addtion to freeing a slave. no slave than the person who accidently killed must fast for two months. Find a powerful law like this in the bible MARIE.

MARIE if you knew translations of the quran you would know alot of them have slight diffrences because every translation is to his own. The arabic language as IBNKAMMUNA may know is very sensitive and one word can literally mean many words. So dont look into the diffrences in translations between two or three editors to deeply. If you want to know yourself learn arabic. But refering to the matter lets look at different translations:

Yusuf Ali: Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites?

Pickthal What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites

Arberry How is it with you, that you are two parties touching the hypocrites

Shakir What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites

Sarwar Why are you divided into two different parties concerning the hypocrites,

Khalifa Why should you divide yourselves into two groups regarding hypocrites

All of them says hyporcites. And you can find more translations from different editors by typing into google quran 4:88 translations.

Now you have brought the bible up. may i say the bible clearly says to kill unbelivers and i have mentioned this in the first post of ibnkammuna. just read that . If this was a forum on bible you would see how much i can pull out which well make you doubt, whereby you wont be able to even respond to it and you would be like raisinhead making up nonsense like a circle has four corners.

Hello londonspirit read brother kammuna's article carefully, in verse 4:88 it is Allah himself who leads some of the believers astray (Apostates) and causes them to err, so it is clear Allah is the responsible party.

Your assumption as to ----WHY WOULD MUHAMMED NOW CONTRADICT HIMSELF AND ALLOW A MEASLY 2% OF APOSTATES LIVE AND SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE MUSLIMS? Well Sir there is safety in numbers and muhammad will not risk to antagonise an equally powerful opposition by killing some of its members.

londonspirit wrote:

MARIE if you knew translations of the quran you would know alot of them have slight diffrences because every translation is to his own. The arabic language as IBNKAMMUNA may know is very sensitive and one word can literally mean many words. So dont look into the diffrences in translations between two or three editors to deeply. If you want to know yourself learn arabic. But refering to the matter lets look at different translations:

londonspirit hypocrite means someone who professes to believe in something and then act contradictory to their professed belief. Disbeliever is someone who does not believe in something, renegade is someone who turnes on their own people and attacks them, and deserter means someone abandons their people. They all have radically different meanings. When several individuals translate a book into their native language they give the best translation possible of each word and in many cases these translations are either the same or similar, depending on the person's expertise of the language.

Now you have brought the bible up. may i say the bible clearly says to kill unbelivers and i have mentioned this in the first post of ibnkammuna. just read that . If this was a forum on bible you would see how much i can pull out which well make you doubt, whereby you wont be able to even respond to it and you would be like raisinhead making up nonsense like a circle has four corners.

Jesus never preached violence period.The violence in the old testament was abolished in the new testament. You can keep up bringing up violence in the old testament until the cow sings.

In the meanwhile I challenge you to answer my statement: Jesus was a pacifist and preached nonviolence in the new testament, including how to treat ones enemies. Jesus said in regards to a person's enemy to turn the other cheek. That means that Muhammed who is the prophet who came after Jesus should have preached something better or higher then Jesus. Then why is he telling others to kill their enemies in times of war or preaching warfare?

DAJJAL wrote: it is Allah himself who leads some of the believers astray (Apostates) and causes them to err, so it is clear Allah is the responsible party.

I think you dajjal should have another look at the verses. This is what it says

YUSUFALI: For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.

PIKHTAL: He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O MUhammad) canst not find a road.

i dont know where you got the above interpretation of and i have no clue why you have intereted belivers into apostates. Just shows hows you lots try to modify the quran to suit your needs.

The end of verse 4:88 is not talking about belivers. its talking in general saying the one that have already gone astray than you cannot show them the right path.

DAJJAL: Well Sir there is safety in numbers and muhammad will not risk to antagonise an equally powerful opposition by killing some of its members.

you cant say safety in numbers because once you say that you are reffering to the makkans tribe who went all out for a war with the muslims and that will contradict your claim that the muslims were told to slay the apostates. These so called apstates were small in number so there would be no reason to sign a peace treaty with them, they would have been dead before a treaty would have been signed rather none would exist because remeber according to you apostates should be killed.

MARIE you say jesus never treated bible in the new testament. Let me just clarify one thing for you. Jesus clearly says:

Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Jesus came to fulfill the law sent down by the previous prophets. From this powerful statement alone you can see that the laws of the old testament still stands.

I will let you dwell on an answer for that. But i will also include this from the new testament

Mathhew 10: 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Answer please. i got a few more but you already know of the laws in the old testament. you will find this hard to answer.

londonspirit wrote:

Answer please. i got a few more but you already know of the laws in the old testament. you will find this hard to answer.

I will answer your question on one condition: You answer my challenge in post 48.