FQP22 Fiqh of Penalties :: Continuation from Ruling of the Apostate ::

A Commentary on a primary text of Hanbali Fiqh manual written by the great Hanbali jurist, Imām al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudāmah, 'Umdat al-Fiqh (The Reliable Source).

[@ahmedw5]

Barak Allahu feek sheikh. I have really enjoyed this series and i look forward to listening to the remaining lectures. However, im curious why this is even a discussion when the evidence in Bukhari was explicit. The counter-evidences were not as explicit and were more implicit in nature and can be understood in light of the explicit evidence as you yourself mentioned in this video. Also, in whos interest is it to forgo this ruling in our modern day and age? I can only see it being beneficial for a muslim country if it wanted to cooperate with the secular western countries and join hands with them in the international community. In other words, cater to the non-muslims. That is hardly a legitimate reason in the Eyes of Allah. Umars decision to *temporarily* forgo the ruling of cutting the hands of the thiefs in the year of drought was not because of pressure from the non-muslim nations, but rather for the benefit of the poor muslims in this year of drought. Also suspending a ruling for a year is not as vague as suspending it in "our day and age".