The Truth about the Alleged Punishment for Apostasy in Islam — Page 20
20 Should the ulema's rejoinder to this be that because in the earlier times there was no false prophet in existence the erstwhile definition could not possibly have found any reference to a false prophet, then there could not be a more blatant lie than this. Because, Musailamah Kadhdh a b, the impostor claimant to prophethood, who advanced his claim as a rival to the Holy Prophet sa was a contemporary of the latter. Despite the presence of this false claimant to prophethood, the Holy Prophet sa , did not modify the definition of a Muslim, nor did his successor Caliphs change the definition of a Muslim, nor did the t a bi‘ i n [the generation of the followers of the companions of the Holy Prophet sa ], nor even the taba‘ t a bi ‘ i n [the generation of the latter’s followers] brought about any such modification, nor did the generations that followed thereafter changed the definition of Islam. Was it so because it just did not occur to the Holy Prophet sa that until he incorporated the clause about the denial of an impostor prophet, his definition of a Muslim would not become complete? Now what is your reply to this? Search the entire world of Islam and show us a single instance of an application of this criterion—prior to 1974—according to which a Muslim cannot be considered a Muslim at all until and unless the denial of a false prophet is inevitably introduced as part of the definition governing his being a Muslim.