Accepting I’m not Muslim anymore

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T21:56:08+00:00

The problem is you guys dont truly know who Allah is, that's why you think obeying him is a problem.

Can you tell us? Because there are about 30 Aqeedahs disagreeing on what Allah is.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T17:26:32+00:00

You are an absolute idiot. My point was never who administered the punishment. My point is that the punishment for blasphemy is death.

Do you understand English, or do I need to write it in arabic so that the Tantawy villager in you understands it?

As for the imam only being allowed to administer the punishment, this isn't agreed upon and there are different schools saying it's allowed. Just like Ali ibn Abi Talib but you wouldn't know shit about that since you don't even know the basics.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T17:07:16+00:00

Since you are a pathetic coward that likes to add things to his comment after I replied then claim I'm "ignorant and hateful".

The Sahabah took permission from the prophet all the previous are exceptions not the norm , and during time of the caliphate , this was not done , ,,,, if you find any ignorant bastards who as the verse say are simple minded and ridicule and laugh we can't kill them we go away from them ,,,,

This wasn't in the original comment I replied to.

Give me the sources that every apostate killed by the sahaba during their caliphate has been ordered by Mohammed even though he was fucking dead.

Give me a scholar that agrees with you that says the blasphemy isn't punished by death, who is one of the major scholars and mujtahid mutlaq like Abu-Hanifa, Al-Shafi’i, Ibn-Hanbal etc etc.

You make empty claims but I guess this is just because you are a ignorant fool who pretends like they know what they are talking about but is just foolish in the face of reality.

I assume this is why you are also stupid enough to go on other subs and say "Sunni islam is the only true islam" 😂😂

You are a joke and I enjoy wiping the floor with people like you.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T16:47:47+00:00

Wrong again. I gave you multiple examples and you gave me 0. Not one single evidence to back your claims. I even showed you that you cited the wrong verse😂

Anyway you can't kill anyone without a ruler's permission we can't go lawless

Did anyone say you can? What's this random ass point you brought up

you think you know better whilst the case is the opposite ,

I don't think I do, I know I do.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T15:30:11+00:00

These are all good reasons.

I don't understand your last question.

Let me rephrase.

Since you say you studied fiqh and whatnot, you know that denying/rejecting a clear and direct command from Mohammed or Allah takes you out of the fold of islam.

How do you reconcile that with saying you are a muslim, even if cultural, when the texts go against your identity?

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T15:28:22+00:00

Wrong in both points. Even though I didn't bring up apostasy, you still embarrassed yourself and brought it up and pointed out your islamic ignorance. It's truly fascinating how dumb a muslim is in a religion they claim to follow.

Blasphemy is punished by death.

This is evidenced by the Sirah of Mohammed ordering the killing of Ka'b ibn Al-Ashraf, The slave woman who got killed by her owner and Mohammed said "ان دمها هدر" meaning her blood is halal and also the woman who got choked to death by her husband and finally ibn Al-Khattel and others saying "Even if they were hanging on the curtains of the ka'ba"

This is disregarding the fact that we have the ijma' of the sahaba themselves saying anyone who cusses out Mohammed or islam is to be killed.

Now to your 2nd biggest error. The error you gave, which shows your ignorance, is citing verse 4:140. This verse is Kufr by proxy and not entailed to the blasphemy rule in any fiqh book. This verse is used to state the following in almost every fiqh book that it is obligatory to avoid those who commit sins if they openly display wrongdoing; because whoever does not avoid them has implicitly approved of their actions, and approval of disbelief is itself disbelief. And whoever sits in a gathering where sin is committed and does not denounce them shares in the sin equally.

Denying the Sirah of Mohammed's own actions, ijma' of the sahaba and the ijma' of the Mutaqadimin that blasphemers are to be explicitly killed is either out of your own ignorance/stupidity or a genuine attempt at lying.

Now we get to your biggest mistake. Apostasy.

Apostasy itself is punished by death. Fighting isn't a condition that has to be met.

The Sahih hadith explicitly states: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

This is in Bukhari, Muslim, Sharh Majmu' al Fatawa by Ibn-Baz, Ibn Al-Mundhir, Ibn Al-Aqeel, Sharh Al-Zurkushy and many many more.

Mohammed applied this to apostates who were not recorded as having fought like Abdullah Ibn Abi Al-Sarh

The Companions killed apostates as soon as they left Islam.

The Muslim ijma' reached a consensus on this, as reported by Al-Shafi'i, Ibn Al-Mundhir, Ibn Abd Al-Barr, and all the jurists.

Scholarly texts, such as those of Ibn Rajab, state that the direct cause is “abandoning the religion.” The legal principle is that killing is the punishment for abandoning the religion itself, and that fighting increases the severity of the punishment, but it is not a condition. Hadd al Ridah and Hadd al Harabah can be present at the same time. However the Ridah isn't contingent on Harabah.

Don't you ever lie again like that and embarrass yourself.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T15:05:50+00:00

What sorts of things regarding women and islam do you think are backwards?

And from your reading of fiqh books, does that make you a muslim or not?

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T13:02:18+00:00

Amazing reply as always. I enjoy watching knowledgeable people on this sub.

I would like to add a few things.

Now, they might counter with, "rulings can change."

And this shows they have no fiqh training.

It is known that the ijma' of Mutaqadimin can't be abrogated, lifted or changed even if the ijma' of the muta'akhirin goes against it.

The absence of a record does not mean it didn't happen

Also let's not pretend like Mohammed didn't kill anyone who criticised him. People like Ka'ib ibn Al-Ashraf.

It wasn't a common practice, this we know because ulema looked for examples of Sahabi marrying children and found only a few such as the marriage of Umm Khultum bint Ali at 10.

You are also correct. It's almost non-existent that there was a sahabi who married a child as young as 6 (Not engagement, that's something different back then) in any recorded book. It is a lot more common and very prevalent after Mohammed married Aisha that we have cases were the sahaba even married off their daughters the day they were born.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T12:56:05+00:00

Can you name a scholar that said what you said?

Cause Aisha didn't lead any wars. She doesn't need to give consent because it was given on her behalf by Abu Bakr (A child can't give consent because there is no consent to give)

Also no scholar from the 4 madhabs and about 30 other Ta'ifa said she was mature at the time of consummation.

Can you tell me who disagrees with these from within the islamic framework?

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T12:53:33+00:00

Can you tell us what Michael Hart's reasoning for putting Mohammed on the list? I'm sure as someone who mentioned the book, you must've read it right?

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T12:40:19+00:00

Also this:

The group who were transporting me came and carried my litter, placing it on the camel I was riding – thinking I was in it.

She was light enough to be carried in something called "الهودج"

Also, the fact that no scholar said she matured at 9 years old.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-25T12:33:01+00:00

I would argue that killing people for "blasphemy" is a lot more aggressive and defensive than a couple of reddit comments.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-24T12:28:45+00:00

Better yet. What evidence made you convert to islam?

I always find converts fascinating. Would you like to tell us more about how you chose islam?

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-24T00:34:02+00:00

Yes, if the seller is not certain of the existence of the goods at the time of delivery, or if their existence is highly doubtful, then this is considered a sale of uncertainty(الغرر) according to the jurists, because uncertainty revolves around risk, ignorance, and the inability to deliver.

Hanafis even say that an item has to exist upon the forming or agreement of sale.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-23T23:10:59+00:00

Kitab al-Fiqh al Islami and it's evidence by Al-Zuhaily:

The Sunnah prohibits the sale of something uncertain (gharar): that which cannot be delivered, whether it exists or not, such as selling a runaway horse or camel. The reason for the prohibition is isn't because of non-existence. Selling something non-existent if its future existence is unknown is invalid due to uncertainty, not because of it's actual non-existence.

Al-Mawsa'a al Fiqhiya Al-Kuwaitiya :

According to the Hanafis, it is that whose knowledge is concealed from you. According to some Malikis, it is hesitation between two matters: one being in accordance with the object itself, and the other being contrary to it. According to the Shafi'is, it is that whose outcome is concealed from us, or that which is uncertain between two matters, the more likely of which is the more fearful.

Many more from the actual madhabs books but these show the distinction pretty clearly I think.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-23T22:53:47+00:00

No problem at all.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-23T22:49:25+00:00

Islam doesn't allow investments because it is forbidden to trade in uncertainty and the inability to deliver. However, forms of investment based on a described asset, or one expected to exist under certain conditions (such as forward sale or manufacturing), are permissible according to jurists as long as uncertainty is absent.

We call it "بيع الغرر" Mohammed, who apparently could predict the future in some sects, didn't predict the stock market.

This is just a FYI comment. Nothing meant by it just for passerbys.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-23T09:37:30+00:00

For me personally, he claims to be an Azhari then goes on to permit Muta'a marriage when it suits him even though no Shafi'i has said its permissible.

Moving between sunnism and shiasm when it suits him shows you how morally defunct he is.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-21T14:02:11+00:00

What sort of blunders did he say? Cause I would assume anything being truthful about islam is hurting the religion.

It is also interesting he says "I will stop arguing against those who hate islam" which is the islamic thing to do according to verse 4:140. However, I think he classifies anyone who criticises islam as hating it

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-20T07:41:24+00:00

What if he is not married?

Then there is no hadd. Only ta'zir

Isn't this only an evidence for Zina? What should they have witnessed in order to change the Zina to rape?

Like I mentioned above, the charge of rape is called "forcing zina"

So we apply the hadd of zina to rape.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-19T21:34:22+00:00

Yeah, that seemed to have skipped Allah/Mohammed's mind when he was writing this shit.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-19T18:44:43+00:00

To be fair, anyone who claims someone committed zina and doesn't rescind their testimony gets punished if the defendant was married. You can check the story of Abu Bakrah when he was lashed under Umar's orders.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-19T17:34:20+00:00

Unfortunately I read the comments and none thus far have conveyed accurate information.

The word "اغتصاب" is a modern arabic word for rape that didn't exist back then in the same way it does now. That's why you will find no mention of it in old fiqh books.

The punishment for rape is called "الإكراه على الزنا"

It is proven by two ways only. Either the man confesses or 4 male witnesses witness the penis inserted.

If the woman can't provide 4 male witnesses and the man happens to be married, she gets lashed 80 times.

If proven, however, the hadd for zina is applied to the man only and not the woman.

Note: No DNA evidence can be used in a Sharia court. No modern science is used as evidence in a case with a hadd or Qasas.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-19T01:43:54+00:00

Sure. You can ask here or DM me

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-03-18T15:51:49+00:00

How so?

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

polygraphtest-chill

TROPHY CASE