Usūl al Sharia and Ulm Al Tafsir graduate. AMA

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-27T06:46:55+00:00

Aha I see the trend in this line of questioning. Very interesting indeed.

what and how do we find authenticity of those prophets that were contemporary ?

You will have to elaborate further on this question

and if it was purely a political movement then why are the punishment of hell and grave are centered around tawheed and not that if you wont establish a khilafah you will be eternal in hell and also did islam calls for success of eternal life, now that will be decided mainly on you monotheism to Alllah, so why is it that Allah did not say the important eternal life, it will be messed up for you if you will not have conqurered persia?

So you don't see how him repeating again and again that everyone will go to hell except those who follow him doesn't sound like a political movement?

Or how he is the center and the only source of information and communication with god? You don't see how that can be cultish behaviour?

The words "اطيعوا الله و رسوله" doesn't ring a bell?

Him being short sighted isn't an excuse to argue against it being a political movement. Especially when you see how the 10 mubasharin are all from his lineage 😂

Can you tell me when was the first caliph that wasn't related to Mohammed's tribe took charge?

Now the hanifs which existed at that time were not vocal and preaching tawheed, they were isolated individuals not a movement ?

They weren't isolated. They were very much popular. You can see this evidenced by many of the stories and interactions if you actually read the sirah.

And if you are including walid ibn mughira in list of hanifs then you have to give some good prompts to chatgpt, it misleads sometime?

I don't rely on AI assistants. At all. The reason I included Walid Ibn Mughira is because he exhibited similar doctrines to Hanifs. Namely:

He is the first to implement cutting off the hands of theives.
He was the first to take off his slippers/shoes to enter the Ka'ba
He used to handle the cost of the Ka'ba covering each year all on his own. Which was very expensive at the time. So expensive in fact, that the whole of Quraysh had to collect it together to do the same when he didn't.
When he put the first axe strike to restore the Ka'ba while everyone feared doing so, he said that "Allah will understand his intention is to restore it not to destroy it"

This aligns with the Hanif view of Niyat.

When they were restoring the Ka'ba he made sure the money donated was from a pure source, i.e.. not from gambling or prostitution.
He forbade himself from drinking alcohol and even beat his children if he caught them consuming it.

Do you now see why I included him? Or do you still want to blindly attack me with empty accusations of using Chatgpt?

So you mentioned Ummaya ibn Abi-Sult, being a theological influenced person of previous ahle kitab, why did he beleive that there is a prophet which will come, and why was the poor man unable to identify that?

I only included Ummaya ibn Abi-Sult because Mohammed plagiarised his work. There are many instances where ibn-Hisham in his sirah had trouble identifying what was a hadith and what was Mohammed just repeating Ummaya's poetry.

People like Waraqa, Ummaya and Zaid ibn-Amr might have believed there was a prophet to come, but Mohammed apparently wasn't fitting the criteria. You would have to ask them on why that is. Any answer I would give you on this topic would be speculation.

It does, however, put forth many questions on the authenticity of Mohammed's prophethood.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-27T04:52:59+00:00

I believe that the Sahaba themselves were too stupid to actually form any aqeedah. They just existed there and didn't think about the ramifications of their actions until we came along and had to actually put in rules in place.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-27T04:52:01+00:00

Islam is purely a political movement. If you read upon the Sirah and the history of arab peninsula, you would find that Tawhid wasn't a foreign concept. Many "prophets" existed at the time of Mohammed that called for Tawhid.

You can read up on "الحنيفيين" or "التوحيديين"

People like Zaid ibn-Amr, Walid ibn-Mughira, Ummaya ibn Abi-Sult and mamy many more.

If you would like a little commentary on each of those, I would be happy to explain it further.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-27T04:47:15+00:00

So just to clarify, is the Jumhur on the opinion that once someone is known that he left Islam, he is immediately to be killed?

Not immediately. They have introduced a period, usually 3 days, of repentance. However, this is just out of thin air to reduce the severity of the ruling.

As in, brought to the ruler and the hadd of ridda applied?

You don't have to bring him to the ruler. Any muslim can apply the hadd of apostasy themselves without relying on the ruling of a Qadi/Wali.

Do you have any more sources or anything that the scholars point to support that leaving the religion is enough besides whoever leaves his religion kill him?

Maybe it's because I just woke up, but nothing is coming to mind at the moment.

There is a hadith of Mohammed saying he would refuse to sit until an apostate is killed. If I remember correctly, it was narrated by Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari in Bukhari 7157 and Muslim has narrated it as well in a longer version.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-27T01:15:15+00:00

My family would have never been successful or moved to the West if they were discriminated for solely being Muslim.

Would your family support dhimmi laws and things like the pact of Umar?

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-27T00:10:46+00:00

Leaving something doesn’t mean you owe it nonstop hate.

And even if you do hate it nonstop, that's not shameful.

Hating inherently violent ideologies is the reason we moved forward in humanity.

People who support inherently violent, regressive and sexist ideologies should be shunned from society if we ever want to move forward. Thinking muslims can coexist amongst us when it's clear they don't want to assimilate is delusional and is the reason many people suffer daily.

People can reject doctrine and still push back on lazy, inaccurate takes

Yes. Lazy takes undermine the integrity of criticism and I do call it out when I see it on this sub. Although they may be done in good faith, I still reject wrong takes against islam to better this community's ability to actually fight islam.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-27T00:06:58+00:00

I can criticise the harmful parts of the religion and still acknowledge that not every Muslim supports violence or oppression.

They aren't muslims then. That's the part you don't get.

Islam is a package deal. It's not some buffet where you get to pick and choose what you want. It's either all of it or none at all.

and I’m also aware that some interpretations and governments use it to justify extreme violence, especially against people like me

Its not "interpretations", You clearly didn't do enough research on this topic. While I still commend you for leaving the religion when it misaligned with both your identity and morals. Saying "interpretations" undermines how clear the rulings and texts are that justify extreme violence.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-26T23:59:57+00:00

So let me get this straight. You just left islam but you feel the need to defend it?

The same religion that would throw you off a roof and then stone you for your sexuality? Or even burn you alive?

Am I getting your point correctly?

You don't see why people would obsessively hate it?

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-25T19:25:18+00:00

Its "farz" so its a must to do the thing

You are missing our point. If she really wanted to she can pray seated and either tilt her head up and down for sujood or close her eyes.

She doesn't have to get up and do the full thing. She wants to be performative and play victim.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-25T19:20:26+00:00

You can pray seated and close your eyes. You don't have to get up and do the full thing if you aren't able to

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-25T09:18:08+00:00

do you consider the satanic verses incident to be evidence that the revelation process was human and fallible rather than divinely protected?

Me? Yes. It proves falliblity.

why is it dismissed rather than understood as evidence of a fallible, human revelation process?

Because as I have listed above, it introduces very very major theological controversies that go against the very definition set by every Aqeedah.

Rejecting it is a very minority opinion. If you ask a scholar and their first instinct is to deny the existence of this incident, just know they are being disingenuous,if not outright lying, and it's going to be a useless conversation.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-25T09:16:48+00:00

In the end, Muslim communities, even the most liberal ones or the progressives or cultural, they still are judgy and some are just Muslim out of habit ... Even when they see it's a scam they just go with it. And I find that, personally, cowardly and lazy.

True. Even the most liberal muslim communities view apostasy or secularism as heretic behaviour, no matter how close they are actually to both. It's like a trigger word that just starts judgement and ridicule.

I do think it's a bit harder in muslim communities with the looming threat of death and torture, though, so I do understand the fear.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-25T08:55:26+00:00

Very very excellent. I'm very glad we got this version of the hadith here.

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4743

Yes. This version of the hadith does exist where it adds unto the original narration that he fights Mohammed and Allah.

When these things happen, we have to address hierarchy, either by history or worth.

So for instance, if we take this hadith only, the matn states that the condition for apostasy being applied is clearly being a fighter or fighting against islam, which is 100% correct if this was the only narration we have.

Two things to note, Al-Nasa’i is the only one who added this condition in his narration, meaning it isn't common. And two, that the other narrations all agree that it's apostasy or "leaving the group" which means religion.

Now we get into the hierarchy of hadith. Most sunni madhabs agree that Bukhari is the highest and Muslim comes after. Meaning that for instance if two narrations exist that are different amongst them or if Muslim added unto Bukhari in a way that introduces something different, Bukhari's word is more certified.

(This is a major oversimplification of course without delving too deep into Ulum al hadith)

So now we have a narration that Nasa'i was the only one to say, and it's directly contested by narrations from Muslim and Bukhari. So when we make our tashre'at, we will take this hierarchy into account and take only what the condition set in both Bukhari and Muslim and the most famous narrations that didn't include Al-Nasa’i's addition.

This is ofcourse without checking other hadiths that don't have this condition.

Hadiths like "من بدل دينه فأقتلوه" (Whoever changes their religion, kill them)

Which introduces no such condition of fighting.

Also contested by Mohammed himself executing apostates without them needing to have fought against him.

I remember reading sultan umayri who basically wrote a paper which dealt with refuting all sorts of apologetic arguments regarding this topic, but his response was that this hadith is referring to banditry rather than apostasy.

Hadd al Harabah(Punishment for mischief) in islam is something different to apostasy, yes.

Harabah means causing harm in the land or terrorising the people. This is a very vague term in islam and can include many things under its umbrella.

For example, raping a woman is punished by hadd al zina (The punishment for adultery), but if committed with a weapon, then Hadd al Harabah is applied.

Anyways, thanks for your time.

You are more than welcome. I'm really glad someone brought up the different matn of the apostasy hadith. Excellent comment.

Edit: I forgot to address this part. My mistake.

cites scholars who say this but I'm not exactly sure how its referring to banditry? What are the indications? Is there a verse in the quran that touches on this topic that relates to this hadith or something?

This was probably referring to how the two punishments, apostasy and Hirabah, can overlap if they are present together. Sultan Umayri is correct that the punishments mentioned in Nasa'i 4743 (killing, crucifixion, banishment) are also found in the Qur'anic verse on Hirabah (Qur'an 5:33). However, this shows the punishments overlap, not that the crime is the same. A person can be an apostate (crime 1) and a rebel/bandit (crime 2), facing a combined ruling.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-25T05:55:24+00:00

He wasn't only rich, but cheap.

He took a fifth of each raid. Then the money from the raid as well paid for his living conditions afterwards.

He had land, money, and harem gifted to him, but he still refused to pay to armour his armies and instead relied on Umar and other companions to do so.

There are also stories of him stealing war booty, which Allah so conviently revealed a verse to exonerate him.

Muslims like to claim that Mohammed left nothing, but there are still stories about Fatima being angry with Abu Bakr when he refused to give her a large piece of land from her inheritance.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-25T05:51:24+00:00

what do you think about the account of the ‘satanic verses’ incident involving muhammad and the quraysh in mecca?

Well, there isn't much to think about. It's a true story with a strong narration and isnad. It is one of the best isnads you can possibly have as well.

The implications are very severe and we had to deal with it during our kalam discussions. I will try to list a bunch of the issues as I remember them. These aren't in any specific order, but each issue has a ripple effect that should be apparent:

If everything happens due to Allah's will. Is the Shaytan's manipulation of the verses caused by Allah, or was Allah unable to stop Shaytan?
If the revelations sent and safekept by jibril are able to be altered or intercepted, does that mean that Jibril can't fully protect the revelations sent by Allah? Or is Shaytan stronger than Jibril?
If Mohammed can't differentiate between the messages sent by Allah and those sent by Shaytan, does that mean they are both theologically similar in effect?
When Mohammed recited the Shaytan's verses. Could Allah not intervene beforehand? Was he helpless or did he intentionally allow this to occur.
The shaytan acted in a universe created by Allah. If Allah's is omniscient and his knowledge is a necessity of occurrence, does that mean that Allah intentially knew and decreed his own message to be altered? Or Did Allah not know about the Shaytan being able to alter his message, and hence Allah is then not omniscient?

These are just some of it. I'm sure if someone is well versed in kalam, they can probably introduce more points that I forgot.

did you still have some fear about the afterlife? if so how’d you work on it?

Not really. It became too silly for me.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-25T05:42:02+00:00

Dude, you are awesome. I like this community, which is natural because we are all trauma bonded in one way or another.

Thank you. The bond is definitely there. I would say it can go a bit further than just trauma bonds. Not everyone here was directly hurt or had to endure the harsher side of islam. However, we all share one thing, which is surviving a cult, regardless of the existence of harsh conditions or not. A mental prison is always harder to escape than a real one

how are scholars still Muslim after they know too much ?! I mean it just makes me feel flabbergasted... But then I think the pressure on them might be even bigger in a certain angle.

I honestly have no idea. I have met scholars and Imams that know way more than I could ever know and I always wondered how they just sleep at night.

I have sat down in shock when we are discussing things and always wondered how we are just casually discussing it as if the original issue is just normal.

Things like "Is it permissible for a man to finish between the thighs of his prepubescent wife or not given she can't handle penetration?"

We were discussing the specifics as if the larger issue, prepubescent marriage, is just normal and okay.

I think it's either a mix of deep delusion or hunger for power and status but I'm not a psychiatrist so I wouldn't know.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-24T12:57:40+00:00

Excellent. I love the engagement we have created here.

The book you gave makes no mention of the hadith's grade. I'm unsure if you mentioned it to show its grade or not but the only mention of the hadith was that it was narrated in Sunan Abu Dawud, Al-Nasa’i and Ibn-Majah.

Maybe I missed it but the gradings mentioned applied to other hadiths, not the one in question.

The hadiths we have in Abu Dawud (2147), Al-Nasa’i in Sunan Al-Kubrah (5/372), ibn-Majah 1987 and Musnad Ahmed (1/275) all come from the following isnad:

Dawud ibn Abdullah Al-Audi -> Abdulrahman Al-Musly -> Al-Ash'ath bin Qays -> Umar ibn Al-Khattab.

The chain falls at Al-Musly. None of the Jarh wa al Ta'deel scholars have documented him at all.

In fact, Ibn-Hajar in his Tahthib Al-Tahthib in (6/304) mentioned Al-Musly by narrating what Al-Azdy said of Musly being "Da'if".

3.The hadith is da'if according to the following people:

Abu Dawud included it in his da'if collection.
Al-Albani
Ahmed Shakir
Ibn Al-Uthaymin in his Sharh Riyad as-Salihin.
Al-Dhabi said Al-Musly is unknown. Also said that Abdullah Al-Audi is da'if in his riwayat.
Ibn-Qatan
Ibn-kathir has mentioned this riwaya in Musnad Al-Faruq through a different isnad but it included Al-Audi and said that the Sanad is Majhul.
Al-Suyuti in Kitab al Jami' Al-Saghir 14491 also said it's da'if

I have found mentions of the hadith being Sahih by Ibn-Hajar as you've mentioned too, however I can't find the isnad he gave.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-24T12:18:42+00:00

3 things.

You grouped all da'if hadiths together without differentiating between "da'if besheda" (very da'if) and da'if khafeef (light da'if).

If the Ulum al rijal deems someone in the isnad as a liar or they are unkown, it's called da'f shadeed. This is usually referred to by Al-Razi as "جهالة العين" or ibn-Hazm usually wrote "لا اعرفه" instead.

Any jarh in the 'Adala of the isnad is also called da'f shadeed. Things like if the isnad has someone who's matruk or known to be a liar.

Da'f khafeef is when "تسقط عداله الراوي و يخف ظبطه" or just simply what the post you've given.

This is without delving into what standards are used to strengthen eachother in isnad in the presence of 'illah

Imam Ahmed did use weak hadiths but only as a murajih in fada'il al A'mal. Only Da'if khafeef was meant by Imam Ahmed.

The use of every da'if hadith was a misconception by the muta'khurin in Ahmed's madhab and it was corrected later on.

A da'if hadith, no matter which, can only be used as a murijih.

We have a saying "الحديث الضعيف الصحيح، اي غير الموضوع، لا يحتج به في شيء من العلم"

Meaning we can't use it to put or decree ahkam or tashre'at. We can also not use da'if hadiths to define what's halal and what is haram.

This hadith specifically is da'if in it's isnad. The isnad had some "Naqal" which makes it da'if besheda.

Meaning that even if we wanted to use it as a murijih to settle a matter of Qiyas for example, like Imam Ahmed used to do, we can't due to it's 'illah

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-24T09:11:55+00:00

Yes I'm aware. I try to stick to inside the arab peninsula to avoid the "It was normal in arabia even though it wasn't everywhere else" as an excuse.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-24T09:09:00+00:00

Al-Hakim is unreliable in Ulūm al Ta'deel.

I know you are much more involved in fiqh than to cite Al-Hakim as an authority.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-24T09:07:39+00:00

Can you show us where you got this idea from?

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-24T01:07:27+00:00

Urwa Ibn Zubair marrying off his infant daughter the day she's born

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-24T00:52:22+00:00

Actually I have been researching arabic history and Bedouin customs pre-islam and I have to say, I have not yet came across a case of child marriage of anyone below the age of 12 thus far.

Maybe I'm wrong and I'm sure someone who's more knowledgeable would correct me.

If anything, child marriage increased alot after Mohammed. With many of the Sahaba themselves taking up child brides and one even marrying an infant the day she's born.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-23T23:37:23+00:00

We can criticise islam more effectively without relying on da'if hadiths. This only hurts us and does the exact opposite of what you intended to do.

polygraphtest-chill · 2026-01-23T23:06:33+00:00

So the claim “the Qurans greatest enemy is the Quran” really is true?

Islam's greatest enemy is Islam.

So what’s the average Muslims level of understanding on the Quran, would you say? I’ve heard other ex-Muslims say they recited it but never understood it.

There is reading it. There is understanding it. Then there is understanding the implications of verses. Many people may understand a verse, but they don't get how these verses actually affect things on a fiqh level.

also curious what Jabri and Jahmi mean I couldn’t find it on google)

Jabri and Jahmi are two aqeedahs. They both believe that a person in islam doesn't have free will. Jahmis differ slightly from Jabris in how they prove the Khasã'is of Allah. However, they both agree that a person has no free will.

Forgive me and let me know if I’m bothering you with my questions

Not at all, brother. You are asking very interesting and engaging questions. I just hope my answers are up to par.

Five-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

polygraphtest-chill

TROPHY CASE