salama

chk this out

Kill the Apostate


“Whoever changes his religion (Islam), kill him” (Bukhari)


“The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas (retribution) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Bukhari)

The case of the apostate facing trial in Afghanistan, with the remote prospect of being sentenced to death, has brought swift reaction from the West. It is truly amusing to see the heads of European states reacting to the possible death of one man while they find it easy to aid the murder of thousands of Iraqis. What kind of twisted moral barometer causes such a reaction in one case, but not the other?

This week we learnt that American marines murdered 15 members of an Iraqi family in cold blood, including a three year old child. No problem, say the leaders of Europe, but the trial of the Afghan apostate is too much for them. You can’t kill an apostate, but kill as many Muslims as you need to improve the balance sheet of the party donors! This is the source of their moral barometer, as the apostate case is opposing secular values of freedom of religion, while the occupation and murder of Iraqis is conforming to secular interests of spreading freedom and democracy!

Many individuals in the Secular West find it hard to understand that capital punishment prescribed for changing religion, because religion has no importance in the West, it is reduced to one of personal taste, and the principle of freedom of religion facilitates easy apostasy. Of course this is also rooted in European history, where religious intolerance by the Church was immense.

In Islam, society is supposed to be governed by religion; where apostasy is the secular equivalent of treason not a matter of personal choice for Muslims. Many Christians and Jews have jumped on the anti-Islamic bandwagon, and have joined hands with their secular colleagues, without realising that such penal codes also exists in their religions.

I wish someone would tell these Zionist-Christians and the Muslim moderates that: freedom of religion is not a religious notion, it is a secular notion. Can the God of any religion say to its subject, believe in me as long as you are happy, but if you are not happy then move over to the next religion? In that case the religion is clearly stating that it does not hold the ultimate truth. If a religion does not have conviction in its own values, its followers are certainly not going to have conviction either. Now what kind of religion is that?

As expected, the moderates have responded by giving dubious interpretations to claim that the law of apostasy is not part of Islam, and to look acceptable, they promote the idea that Muslims have freedom of religion. Do they? I thought once you subscribe to Islam you are bound by the laws of Islam, so where is the freedom. The world is divided between the sick moderates and healthy radicals. These sick moderates work hard to make Islam appealing to non-Muslims, in such a manner that it becomes fully compatible with liberal democracy. What is the significance of Islam, if it is interpreted to make it compatible to everything else?

Their (moderates) view is not shaped by Islam but as a result of the media onslaught; for them the problem of negative representation of Islam can only be solved by representing it correctly, which translates to satisfying the hostile critics. So they ‘reinterpret’ the Quran, which in turn is used to remove and/or reinterpret the clear evidences from the Hadiths, hoping they would arrive at a point, when the attack from the West would cease. Not true, the west does not need an excuse to attack Islam and Muslims, as the recent cartoon incident showed, and they need even less of an excuse to murder Muslims, as the murder of the Iraqis continues to demonstrate. In fact the West has been demonising Muslims, for centuries, and it has nothing to do with the conduct of the Muslims or even the values of Islam.

Unable to defend the Islamic penal code, moderates start to deny sound evidences from Hadiths, take selected verses out of context and offer an explanation that negates centuries of scholarship, going back to the companions of the Prophet (SAW). The majority view of the Scholars (Ulemas) is that: apostasy is punishable by death, but there is a minority view which says it is only punishable by death, if the apostate has committed actions of a belligerent nature against the Islamic state and the Muslims.

The moderates raise the Quran, as evidences from the examples (Sunnah) of the Prophet (SAW) are very clear on this issue, as is the early examples of His companions. So let us look at how they provide a false interpretation using the Quran, with a few examples.

They selectively quote the verses and one of the most popular one is from the Chapter of Baqarah: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256, AL-Quran). But if they looked further they would also see the verse: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, he will be the looser in the hereafter” (3:85, Al-Quran). One of the basic rules in interpreting Quranic verses is that you must take into account all the verses on the same theme, so that they synchronise and are consistent, and not contradictory.

If Muslims have freedom of religion to apostasise according to the first verse (2:256), as the moderates argue, but clearly they do not according to the second verse (3:85). This verse clearly states that by apostatising they would be the losers, meaning they will be in hellfire, punished. Hence to apostasise is an illegal act (Haram).So how does Allah (SWT) say in one place you are free to choose any religion and then tells the Muslims if you choose another religion you will be punished, surely that would be a contradiction? You can not be free to choose if the only choice you have is Islam!

Of course many would have deduced that the two verses, are not addressing the same category of people, or addressing the same subject. The first verse (2:256) is in only addressing the non-Muslims as rationally only they have the choice to accept or reject Islam but not the Muslims. But once the non-Muslims accept Islam, they are bound by its rules and the verse 3.85 becomes applicable to them. Just like you are free to join the army but once you join you can’t walk out freely, you are bound by the rules.

The moderates partially cite verses where Allah (SWT) is informing that we are ‘free’ to do what we like on earth, while they omit that we will be held accountable for our actions because our choice is supposed to be exercised in a particular way - well in that case there is no real freedom. In this sense neither Muslims nor non-Muslims are free to choose anything other than Islam. As verse (3:85) clearly states, no choice except Islam. In fact even according to the verse (2:256) the non-Muslims they only have a choice because Allah (SWT) has not compelled them through the Sharia laws to become Muslims, they should enter Islam willingly. As the sentence after “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), states: “truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Taghout and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.” clearly pointing out, if they do not choose Islam they will be accountable and face the consequence in the hereafter.

The moderates in fact make the confusion between freewill and having the freedom to choose legally per the Islamic law, i.e. a legal permit. They selectively cite verses like 2:256 and this: "Say (Muhammad it is) truth from Lord of all. Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." [18:29] to claim that we have freedom of religion as Muslims. Nope, we are not free to choose we have the ability to choose! The idea of freedom in the verse 18:29 is clearly referring to freewill; it is a description of the reality that we have been given the ability to exercise our freewill; this ability to exercise freewill is not a legal permit. Hence, it is not evidence of permission from Allah (SWT), for Muslims to apostasise using the bogus claim that Islam caters for freedom of religion!

If the Muslims had the right to apostasies by making dubious interpretations of selected verses, and proclaiming freedom of religion, then they would have the right to do anything else, by that same argument. Therefore, we can take another example, we as Muslim have the ability to use our sexual organs in anyway we please as Allah (SWT) has given us the ability and free will (not the right) to use it in any way we please and commit fornication. But clearly we do not have the right from Islam to do that, as Allah (SWT) has prohibited adultery.

Apostasy is one thing, trial and execution of the apostate is another matter entirely. This can only be done by a legitimate Islamic State, the Caliphate. The defendant has to be brought and tried by an Islamic court. Clearly in the absence of the Islamic state, this is neither possible, nor permissible. For sure if a genuine Islamic state existed, the Afghani apostate would not have returned as an apostate from Germany, as he would know the consequence.

The whole episode is nothing more than a tragicomical theatre piece!

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)

London, UK

Ansar, i'm a bit confused by your post

You say it's often taken out of context, but then why do soo many scholars have so many disagreements about this, surely Qur'an and Islam is clear, and they should all have come to the same opinion. look at Jamal Badawi's answers here

http://www.islamonline.net/livedialo...GuestID=Gz9HCK

So what is your view on the case in Afghanistan, should he have been tried, is he rebelling and comitting treason?


this is what Sonz posted

now it is quite clear here that it doesn't mention anything about the context, it simply says kill him. It doesn't say if he does it in private, or whether he makes it public. Why is it so unclear? I thought Islam was clear, but yet there are always these different opinions, and these differences too amongst scholars who are supposed to have the most knowledge. why didn't the Prophet PBUH make it clear, and leave it so open

Now come on this is such a biased view, what about the other reason that they simply did not think it was the truth, and honestly thought another way of life was better


Number 1, of course it's going to become public. If they are not seen to be praying, fasting or all this other stuff and instead start going to church, just simply following fundamentals of another religion, then it's bound to become public.
Number 2 Now you're saying if it is to become public, which as i've said above is inevitable, then they'll be reasoned with??? What if their arguments stand firm, and they logically answer everything thrown at them. Just as non-muslims who upon given "proofs" of islam and "refutations" of so so so many misconceptions, and still reject islam, why can't the same be done with muslims? Why can't it simply be said to you is your way, to us is ours, or there is no compulsion in religion.

So what will be their fate then if they still decide to leave islam?

Now i don't the answer for sure but i'm pretty certain that if they still decide to leave islam, despite the "refutations" to the hundreds of misconceptions of a clear religion, then they will be executed. Please correct me if I am wrong

Now what does that mean

1) If someone leaves Islam it is bound to become public
2) If he holds strong to his arguments for reverting, just as non-muslims here do for not becomin muslims, then he'll be executed for not repenting?

Where is the freedom of religion?

salamlikum
lets not forget leaving the american military at war time could result in death penalty or life in prison. But the same country is making a big fuss over a person getting executed for leaving Islam.

1. You can leave the US military without dying

2. We are not at War

3. Can does not mean always does - the whole of WW2 the Americans shot one guy and he not only deserted, he raped a girl too.

4. A religion is not the same as a country

5. Adults join up. Children get born into Islam

But above all 6. If you insist on drawing the analogy with treason, people are going to draw it back. If you do not feel you are a member of a Western community in time that community will decide you are not a member of it. This is the Israeli solution - all the Muslims on one side of a fence, all the rest on the other. Is this what you want?

1 then why do american troops take refuge status in canada after leaving there post?

2 we are not at war excuse me what is Iraq? i thought this is war on terror is it not?

4 ofcourse a religion is not as same as country yet leaving american military is death or life in prison but people and the human rights dont care about that howcome?

5 We cannot execute someone without teaching them islam and after we show islam to any person its impossible for them to still reject but if they still do then we execute them.

I will not compromise Islam becuase the kuffar cannot except it ok and bro lets not forget even the non muslims knowing this islam is still the fastest growing religion on earth today Alhumdillaah Allaahuakbar.

Because they don't want to do their pathetic five months in jail for going AWOL or whatever the military imposes. Mostly they want to live in Canada I think.

We as in the Muslim world and the Kafir world. The Americans are not at war either but that is a different argument. You all divide the world into Muslims and non-Muslims, say that the former are at war with the latter, and then you complain because people behave accordingly?

They execute you in Islam. They don't even bother to come find you, most of the time, in the American Army. How is it more severe?

Big of you. I understand the process.

I would not want you to compromise your religion. Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the world today.

ok bro lets just stop this right now you are not willing to understand you reject the truth And yes islam is the fastest growing religion today alhumdillaah

Jedi has gone from nothing to a statistically significant religion in the last few years. Wicca is growing at a huge rate. 30 years ago Falun Gong did not exist. It now claims 100 million members. Islam is not the fastest growing religion.

I understand. I have no problems understanding. Your arguments are just not very good ones.

First of we are right now off topic and our debate is becoming pointless
o yeah muslims are 1.5 billion alhumdillaah

I've already explained the correct understanding in my last post.

It is the duty of the Islamic state to do what is in the best interests for their country. In this case, the man was already a Non-Muslim before entering the country, he did not publically renounce the faith within the country, and he did not pose a threat to the state. On the contrary, by attempting to try him in court, more harm was done to the Muslims not just in Afghanistan, but across the globe. The Islamic state must always be cognizant of the far-reaching consequences of its actions. We find in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh that their were some people who were known by the Prophet pbuh and the companions to be hypocrties and when they committed an act of treason, the companions suggested that they be executed but the Prophet Muhammad pbuh refused because he knew that the harm of killing them would be far greater than the harm they could cause, as he said, I do not want people to say that Muhammad is killing his own companions. So he was always concious of how others would see the actions taken by the state.

Brother, I already explained this in my post; the other ahadith and historical narrations clarify this for us.
Islam is not unclear, if you read the information I posted you would see that this issue has been clarified by other information.
Brother, in the history of Islam there has not been a single knowledgeable Muslim who has left Islam.
As for praying and fasting, the acts of worship are not an outward aspect - no one is with you all the time to know if you are fasting or praying. As for attending the church or other religious practices, I pointed out the flaw in reasonign when one says, on one hand, that religioin is a private personal affair that should be free of state interference. and then on the other hand suggest that one needs to practice their religion publicly as part of a greater community. You cannot use both arguments at the same time - if you believe that religion is a public and communal affair, then it does fall under state jurisdiction. If you believe it is a private and personal affair, then it does not.

There is not a single attack against Islam which has not been refuted. In my experience of debating, every single allegation I see has already been answered before.

Just because they don't bother finding you doesn't alter the fact that they are supposed to.
Besides remember what the Americans did to John Walker when he 'apostated' from the Americans side? They didn't kill him they tortured him and shamed him publicly by shaving off his beard and so on to set an example to anyone else.
When someone joins the army, they sign a contract in which they are fully aware of the consequences of apostating. By accepting Islam you are making a contract with God. If you accept Islam as the truth you are under obligation to live by its laws. So you see Bro it's the persons own fault and a religious contract is much stronger than a man-made one.

Just because there is a penalty for deserting the US and another for apostacy from Islam doesn't alter the fact that the two are nothing alike.

I am sorry? John Walker was caught fighting, with gun in hand, the American Army after not renouncing his American citizenship. A clear case of treason. And what did they do with him - not execute him that's for sure? He shaved off his beard on orders of his lawyer. What example? Americans do not think of that as a shameful thing and so would not be deterred.

Actually that is not the case. Only in a few places are you obligated to live under Islamic laws. Nor do most Muslims voluntarily sign up for anything. They are born into the faith. They do not make a clear adult decision to join. It is not my fault if I belong to the religion of my parents.

"we show islam to any person its impossible for them to still reject but if they still do then we execute them."

LOL LOL what a concept lol.

Good Grief.

Thanks
Nimrod

Hi Nimrod,
Have you read the explanation (Islam and Apostasy) I've given on apostasy?

I think qadianis are apostates not sure