Apostasy in Islam

[Skywalker]

:sl:

I've been thinking about this subject a lot lately, and done some research as well, and I'd like to take other people's opinions to see what they.

We all know that the Shariah ruling for leaving Islam after being a Muslim is death. The problem is that everybody takes that as a given, and not many people actually think about why it's like that. I did a bit of thinking on this subject, and my personal opinion is that this ruling in the Shariah is wrong. In other words, I feel that the Qur'an and Sunnah have been misinterpreted and this ruling is based on that misinterpretation.

While most big sheikhs are in total agreement that the apostate should be killed, a few others think as I do, that they should not. Here are my reasons:

1) The Qur'an is very specific about capital punishment for various crimes, yet on the subject of apostasy, it does not say anything about how apostates should be punished.

2) The Qur'an mentions in several instances that those who believe and then disbelive, or those who reject their faith, that they would be punished by ALLAH in this life and the next. Therefore, if Allah has reserved the right to punish them for Himself, who are we to take that right away? Allah does not need our help in punishing them.

3) The Qur'an mentions that there is no compulsion in religion. If you tell a Muslim who wants to leave Islam that he will die if he left, wouldn't that be compulsion?

4) If a person leaves Islam and decided 20 years later that he made a mistake and decides to go back to it, he would not be able to do so if he has been executed. Therefore, executing someone who has the potential to become a Muslim again takes away their chance of becoming Muslim again, and takes away their chance of entering paradise. And who are we to deny someone paradise?

In conclusion, the Qur'an and common logic state that the punishment to apostates will come only from Allah, and that men should not have anything to with a person's choice in faith.

As for the many hadiths that say that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered people who left Islam to be killed, I have a partial explanation for that.

During that time, when Islam was nothing more than a group of people living in Medina, people who left Islam usually went to the other side and worked for them to attack the Muslims, thus making them traitors and spies. It's my belief that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered apostates at that time to be killed, not because they've made a personal decision on which religion they want, but a political decision on which side they want to fight.

That's my interpretation anyway. I hope that's a good base for the start of this discussion, which I think is going to be very interesing...

Oh and please provide Qur'an and hadith sources when possible, but common sense and logic is also welcome.

[seeker_of_ilm]

:sl:

This is an excellent post on the subject

http://www.islamicboard.com/20595-post1.html

:w:

[snakelegs]

great thread. look forward to replies. you make some good points.
i have wondered too - sometimes the hadiths seem harsher than the qur'an.
i would think this (death for apostasy) would make some potential reverts pretty hesitant.
anyway, since i'm not a muslim, i will shut up, but i'm glad you've raised this issue.

[Skywalker]

:sl:

This is an excellent post on the subject

http://www.islamicboard.com/20595-post1.html

:w:

Good post indeed. But it looks like the subject still isn't cleared up. What I read there co-incides with what I said in my post, that if someone leaves Islam without presenting a threat to the Islamic nation, then they should be left alone. So if that's the case, then there's still the problem of there being a mutually agreed upon rule in the Shariah that calls for all apostates to be killed, no matter what the situation.

Shouldn't we be working to change that?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Skywalker]

Anybody care to post any comments?

[E'jaazi]

It is what it is:


Punishment of the one who leaves Islaam

Question:

I am currently in a philosophy of religion class and my teacher is an atheist. He claims that under an Islamic state if a born Muslim converts to another religion he is killed. Please tell me if this is true.


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

The punishment for apostasy (riddah) is well-known in Islaamic Sharee’ah. The one who leaves Islaam will be asked to repent by the Sharee’ah judge in an Islaamic country; if he does not repent and come back to the true religion, he will be killed as a kaafir and apostate, because of the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3017).

It is well-known in Sharee’ah that the punishments (hudood) are not carried out on minors, because they have not yet reached the age of responsibility; but in the case of those who have reached the age of responsibility, the punishment (hadd) applies, without a doubt.

The person who knows the truth and believes in it, then turns his back on it, does not deserve to live. The punishment for apostasy is prescribed for the protection of the religion and as a deterrent to anyone who is thinking of leaving Islaam. There is no doubt that such a serious crime must be met with an equally weighty punishment. If the kuffaar do not give people the freedom to cross a red light, how can we give freedom to people to leave Islaam and disbelieve in Allaah when they want to?

It seems that the intention of the teacher mentioned in the question was to shock the students with news of this ruling, in order to mislead them from the way of Allaah. You must respond and explain to him and the other students as much as you can.

May Allaah make you and us bearers of His Message and defenders of His Sharee’ah.




Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

[E'jaazi]

You also have a chance:


Why death is the punishment for Apostasy

Question:


Alslamualik

This question has bees asked several time from non-Muslims and I want to find an answer: Why When the Muslim convert to another religion(Murtad) he/she should be killed?


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Your question may be answered by the following points:

(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

(3) By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

(4) The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

(5) If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

(6) None of those who bleat about personal freedom and freedom of belief would put up with a neighbour’s child hitting their child or justify this as "personal freedom," so how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

We ask Allaah for safety and health. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad .




Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

[Skywalker]

Jazaak Allah khayran for those posts, blackjubba.

I read those same articles when I first started researching this topic. Now, not to say that I don't agree with what's written, there are a few things we can mention about them at least for the sake of discussion:

"Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

Doesn't this also mean that if a Christian changes his religion and becomes a Jew to kill him? Or if a Buddhist becomes a Christian to kill him as well? Obviously not, that's why I think that this hadith needs better understanding than what read at face value, because I'm confident it has a different meaning.

What if the Prophet (pbuh) meant this is a political sense instead of an individual one? What if they were fearing attacks from the kuffar and that the people who left Islam at that time went to join them and fight against Islam? This can easily be looked at as just a war strategy at that time, rather than a rule for all eternity.

The person who knows the truth and believes in it, then turns his back on it, does not deserve to live.

Says who? In the Qur'an it only says that their lives will be frutless and that their punishment in this life and the next (which will both come from Allah) will be severe. I think the sheikh jumped a that conclusion a bit prematurely.

There is no doubt that such a serious crime must be met with an equally weighty punishment.

In a way this doesn't really make sense. How do we know the equal punishment for apostasy if Allah did not say it to us? Only Allah knows how much true belief is worth to Him and how much the one that turns away from it should be punished, that is why He reserved that right for Himself. He clearly tells us in the Qur'an the punishments for theft, adultery, etc., but does not specify what should be done with apostates, save that He will carry out their punishment.

If the kuffaar do not give people the freedom to cross a red light, how can we give freedom to people to leave Islaam and disbelieve in Allaah when they want to?

I see that as a weak arguement because first, they don't kill you for crossing a red light, and second, Allah says that there is no compulsion in religion, therefore he gives everyone the freedom to believe what they want. It's a Muslim's duty to guide a person, but never to enforce a belief on someone.

Surat al Ghashiyah

"21. Then give warning! You are only to warn them;
22. You are not their overseer.
23. But he who turns his back and disbelieves.
24. Allah shall chastise him with the severest chastisement.
25. Surely to Us is their return.
26. Then it will be for Us to bring them to account."

I see that at pretty good evidence to support the fact that Allah will deal with them on His own.

The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

Says who? Did Allah say it in the Qur'an? Where is the evidence to support this? I don't like reading people's own conclusions without giving any kind of evidence.

By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

This is true. But is it a bad thing? A lot of Muslims nowadays are not even real Muslims, and you'd think that if they just said that they were atheists that it would be better for them than the hipocricy that they're living. Some of them don't know anything about Islam and go around talking in ignorance, thus giving Islam a bad name and making it look bad. If Allah didn't ordain for someone to be Muslim, then I say let him leave, because if we can get those people out, we will have a stronger ummah. Either that, or teach them the right path and prove to them that Islam is the light, and the path to follow. Allah knows best anyway, I'm just thinking outloud.

The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

I doubt anybody would actually be willing to be convinced within 3 days. In fact, people rarely are convinced of something when they're put under pressure. Instead, they are more inclined to do it when you leave them be, and figure things out on their own speed.

I don't argue that this could have been effective during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) with the apostates working as spies, but today the situation is different.

Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

Again, only Allah knows the answer to this, but He has already told us that He will carry out the punishment.

how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

This is a fairly limited point of view. All religions view themselves as THE TRUE RELIGION, not only Islam, and that should be put into consideration. I think that until a person knows about other religions and sees Islam as the only one that speaks the truth, he cannot be called a true Muslim or he would be a weak Muslim.

Allah knows best anyway, those are my points of view.

:w:

[mesut1974]

This subject is known wrong.To kill murtad İn the islam is possible only in war and in other places isn,t halal.The decisions in this subject in the period of abubakir,was supposed permanent everytime an everywhere.

[Skywalker]

Agreed, but if that's the case then why are the people over at IslamQA and Islamonline and pretty much all Muslim authorities saying that it's a general rule, war or no war?

[Malaikah]

i would think this (death for apostasy) would make some potential reverts pretty hesitant.

I doubt it- they can only be killed if they live in an Islamic state... and I'm sure most reverts do not... so they have nothing to fear.

In fact I know of a revert who later gave up Islam and still teaches at an Islamic school!:rolleyes:

[Skywalker]

I doubt it- they can only be killed if they live in an Islamic state... and I'm sure most reverts do not... so they have nothing to fear.

I don't think it's so much the fear of death as it is the principle itself of society controlling a person's personal beliefs. Non-Muslims might back away from Islam upon learning this because everything they've been brought up to know has to do with freedom of belief, and believe it or not, it's the same thing that Islam teaches, but people won't see that if there's a law that orders the killing of apostates in Shariah. So yeah, I think it really does push non-Muslims away...why? Because so far to me, it doesn't make sense; and one thing that has always been a constant in Islam is its pure undeniable logic. Therefore, I'm very doubtful that this law is what Allah wanted, and I fear that we Muslims have been doing a very wrong thing for a very long time; but it's not too late to stop.

Some more discussion on this matter would really be helpful and enlightening. Anobody have anything to say?

[Abu Zakariya]

:sl:

The Qur'an is very specific about capital punishment for various crimes, yet on the subject of apostasy, it does not say anything about how apostates should be punished.

Nor does it mention that the adulterers (the one who does zina whilst married) should be stoned, and yet this is something prescribed in the Shari'ah.

The Qur'an mentions in several instances that those who believe and then disbelive, or those who reject their faith, that they would be punished by ALLAH in this life and the next. Therefore, if Allah has reserved the right to punish them for Himself, who are we to take that right away? Allah does not need our help in punishing them.

With this kind of reasoning, there should be no punishment at all in the Islamic state. Why should someone who steels be punished by the state, when Allah will deal with him in the Hearafter?

The Qur'an mentions that there is no compulsion in religion. If you tell a Muslim who wants to leave Islam that he will die if he left, wouldn't that be compulsion?

The âyah refers to entering Islam. No one should be forced to become a Muslim. Once you are a Muslim, however, there are certain laws you have to follow in an Islamic state.

If a person leaves Islam and decided 20 years later that he made a mistake and decides to go back to it, he would not be able to do so if he has been executed. Therefore, executing someone who has the potential to become a Muslim again takes away their chance of becoming Muslim again, and takes away their chance of entering paradise. And who are we to deny someone paradise?

Aren't you aware that they aren't punished right away? They will have a chance to get their doubts out of the way and a chance to repent. If they don't understand something, they will get it explained. There's no need to wait 20 years. By the way, if they keep their apostasy to themselves, they wont be punished and they can revert back 20 years later.

During that time, when Islam was nothing more than a group of people living in Medina, people who left Islam usually went to the other side and worked for them to attack the Muslims, thus making them traitors and spies. It's my belief that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered apostates at that time to be killed, not because they've made a personal decision on which religion they want, but a political decision on which side they want to fight.

Here's the hadith:

“Whoever changes his religion is to be killed.” (Bukhari)

Here it is explained by Jamaludin Zarabozo:

It should be noted that this hadith does not give the “wisdom” behind this law. Thus, the complete reasoning why an apostate should be killed is not explained in the text (other than the specific case in the other hadith of abandoning the community). Hence, any discussion of the reason behind the act can be considered no more than speculation and conjecture. This is a very important point because some people try to “defend” this law by deriving reasons behind it, such as the commonly heard argument that apostasy is a threat to the state and is therefore tantamount to treason; thus the state has the right to kill said individual. This rational argument is sometimes answered simply by saying, “I do not think that an individual’s apostasy is a threat to the state.” The fact is that the complete wisdom behind this ruling is not explained to humans in the texts of the Quran or Sunnah. For example, it could possibly be the case that if someone has grown up and is living in an Islamic state, there is no rational excuse for him to give up the religion of Islam and become an apostate. Perhaps such an act by such a person is so grave that God, his Creator, deems that he is no longer deserving of life. This would definitely be God’s prerogative from an Islamic perspective. Again, this author is not stating that this is the wisdom behind the law of apostasy but is only saying that the real wisdom behind this law is not explained in the text and one must be cautious about stating what the reasoning is.

[Skywalker]

:sl:

Wow, jazaak Allah khayran for that reply bro :)

Nor does it mention that the adulterers (the one who does zina whilst married) should be stoned, and yet this is something prescribed in the Shari'ah.

Are you sure? I've not noticed it myself but people I ask tell me that's it's clearly written in the Qur'an. I'll do a little research and get back to you on that insha-Allah.

With this kind of reasoning, there should be no punishment at all in the Islamic state. Why should someone who steels be punished by the state, when Allah will deal with him in the Hearafter?

Not exactly, I think you missed my point. For the other crimes, Allah says that He will deal with them in there hereafter, but for apostasy, it says that He will deal with them both in this life AND in the hereafter.

The âyah refers to entering Islam. No one should be forced to become a Muslim. Once you are a Muslim, however, there are certain laws you have to follow in an Islamic state.

Are you sure about it referring to only entering Islam? Is there proof of this? And yes, you have to follow rules set by an Islamic state just as you follow the rules of any place to live in, there's no problem there. What I'm trying to state is my opinion that one law in a hypothetical Islamic state could be based on a misinterpretation of the Qur'an.

Aren't you aware that they aren't punished right away? They will have a chance to get their doubts out of the way and a chance to repent. If they don't understand something, they will get it explained. There's no need to wait 20 years.

Yeah I do know this, but I think it'd be pretty hard to convince someone to truly believe something when you tell them that their alternative is death. Unless they're willing to die for their other religion, they will probably just say whatever to avoid the death sentence and be let back into society, but this would introduce an unstable and potentially dangerous element into the ummah. What's worse, a kafir or a corruptor?

By the way, if they keep their apostasy to themselves, they wont be punished and they can revert back 20 years later.

That would be good it it were true, do you have any references about this? Also, just what is meant by "keeping it to themselves"? Does that also mean not notifying the immediate family? If so, what is one supposed to say if they ask him why he doesn't pray, fast, etc.?

Secondly, does this rule apply to those who were born Muslim? There is a big difference between Muslims by birth and those by conversion. All those that lived at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) were Muslims by conversion...in other words they were *convinced* that Islam was the truth out of their own free will. Today, you have people who are born into Muslim families, but do not act like Muslims and in some cases don't even believe what Muslims believe. But they're still called Muslims. I believe that a person is not really a true Muslim until they say the shahaada with true conviction, therefore I see people who are born Muslims as Muslims temporarily until they achieve a logical and spiritual conviction of the existance of God, and the conviction that Islam is the truth and God's chosen path after examining the alternatives.

How would the rule of killing apostates work for a person who was never a Muslim by conviction, but only by birth? Isn't it Allah's place to judge and punish these people accordingly?

Perhaps such an act by such a person is so grave that God, his Creator, deems that he is no longer deserving of life. This would definitely be God’s prerogative from an Islamic perspective. Again, this author is not stating that this is the wisdom behind the law of apostasy but is only saying that the real wisdom behind this law is not explained in the text and one must be cautious about stating what the reasoning is.

In other words the discussion can go both ways since nobody is sure of the reasoning behind the Prophet's words (pbuh)?

Here are a couple of hadiths to consider:

Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Bukhari, volume 9, #37
"Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: 1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) 2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and, 3) a man who fought against Allah and His messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate....

Tell me what you think...

By the way, I'm not denying in any way that I could be wrong, I'm just learning as we go, so don't think for a second that I'm not taking your points seriously. I'm after the truth and God's right path.

PS: is that link in your signature your personal blog? Because I'm very interested in talking to an English-speaking Bosnian Muslim about my recent trip to Bosnia.

:w:

[Abu Zakariya]

Are you sure? I've not noticed it myself but people I ask tell me that's it's clearly written in the Qur'an. I'll do a little research and get back to you on that insha-Allah.

As far as I know, there is now âyah in the mushaf of today which mentions that the person who commited zina whilst married should be stoned. And yet, it is from the Shari'ah.

Not exactly, I think you missed my point. For the other crimes, Allah says that He will deal with them in there hereafter, but for apostasy, it says that He will deal with them both in this life AND in the hereafter.

Which âyah are you refering to?

Are you sure about it referring to only entering Islam? Is there proof of this? And yes, you have to follow rules set by an Islamic state just as you follow the rules of any place to live in, there's no problem there. What I'm trying to state is my opinion that one law in a hypothetical Islamic state could be based on a misinterpretation of the Qur'an.

ibn Kathir explained the âyah:

"Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

Yeah I do know this, but I think it'd be pretty hard to convince someone to truly believe something when you tell them that their alternative is death. Unless they're willing to die for their other religion, they will probably just say whatever to avoid the death sentence and be let back into society, but this would introduce an unstable and potentially dangerous element into the ummah. What's worse, a kafir or a corruptor?

Again, they can just keep it to themselves and the alternative wont be dying for their religion or staying a Muslim.

That would be good it it were true, do you have any references about this? Also, just what is meant by "keeping it to themselves"? Does that also mean not notifying the immediate family? If so, what is one supposed to say if they ask him why he doesn't pray, fast, etc.?

I got the information from Bilal Philips. I don't know the answer to your last questions.

How would the rule of killing apostates work for a person who was never a Muslim by conviction, but only by birth? Isn't it Allah's place to judge and punish these people accordingly?

Allah stated the punishment through the tongue of His prophet (sall Allahu 'aleyhi wa sallam).

In other words the discussion can go both ways since nobody is sure of the reasoning behind the Prophet's words (pbuh)?

No, not really. It means that since the rationale behind the punishment isn't stated, trying to say what it is would be speculation. Therefore, to say that is because of this or that and that it shouldn't be applied unless these conditions are met, would be wrong since that isn't at all mentioned in the hadith. The hadith is clear, and so the punishment is set.

Tell me what you think...

I think that the hadiths on the subject are pretty clear. We shouldn't read things into them that aren't there.

By the way, I'm not denying in any way that I could be wrong, I'm just learning as we go, so don't think for a second that I'm not taking your points seriously. I'm after the truth and God's right path.

May Allah guide both of us.

PS: is that link in your signature your personal blog? Because I'm very interested in talking to an English-speaking Bosnian Muslim about my recent trip to Bosnia.

Yes, it's my blog. I recently changed my kunya (nickname) to Abu Abbas, hehe.

[Skywalker]

:sl:

Sorry for not replying for a while guys, but I'm trying to do a little more research on this subject before proceeding any further in this thread.

Anyways, I sent an e-mail to IslamToday regarding this issue, and I received their reply which I think you guys might find interesting. Here it is:

Answered by Sheikh `Abd al-Rahmân b. Zayd al-Zunaydî, professor at al-Imâm Islamic University, Riyadh

In Islam, religious conviction is seen as a personal decision based upon free choice. There in no value for an outward expression of faith from someone who inwardly is wholly convinced of unbelief. Therefore, there can be no compulsion in religion. This is why the People of the Book living in the Islamic state are not required to embrace Islam. Rather, their rights are guaranteed to them and they are allowed to live in peace and security within the Islamic state and to maintain their distinctiveness from the Muslim majority.

With respect to the issue of apostasy, we must understand that within the context of the Muslim society, Islam is not merely a philosophy of life or a temporary set of policies. It is the choice of the society as a whole to be the social contract underpinning their society. If someone leaves Islam after embracing it, he becomes by his action an aggressor against Islam who publicly discredits it, thereby committing a crime against society as a whole. This is a strategy that is generally employed by the enemies of Islam and by those who wish to bring harm to it.

Allah describes this behaviour in the Qur’an: “And a party of the People of the Scripture say: Believe in that which hath been revealed unto those who believe at the opening of the day, and disbelieve at the end thereof, in order that they may turn back.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 72]

Apostasy is a crime in the context of the Islamic state. It is essentially an aggression against the state and an act of treachery. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6878) and Sâhih Muslim (1676)]

This hadîth establishes the ruling of capital punishment for apostasy. We can see that it also clearly links the crime of abandoning the faith with separation from the community. It is the treasonous aspect of apostasy that makes it warrant such a punishment.

For this reason, a person in the Islamic state who leaves Islam will not be punished unless he publicly proclaims his apostasy and then calls others to do so. The hypocrites of Madinah were well-known. They were unbelievers who did not publicly proclaim their unbelief. They used to live in the company of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions, even though their unbelief was known to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The unbelief of many of the hypocrites was also known by the Companions, on account of the inevitable slips of the tongue the hypocrites would make and many of the stances the hypocrites would take. However, none of these hypocrites was ever punished for such things. Their unbelief was tolerated.

And Allah knows best.

I'll give my response to this email and to Abu Zakariya's post next time insha-Allah.

:w:

[tomtomsmom]

I am in the very early stages of learning so please bear with with if these are dumb questions.
1)In Islam isn't in believed that all people are born muslim and then and then some are taught different. So would this mean that everyone who isn't muslim should be killed?
2)From what I gather from this post
a-if you are muslim and convert to another religion you are to be killed
b-Islam can't be forced it is supposed to be accepted on your own free will.
My question is, isn't saying that you must accept Islam or die being forced to believe?

[Umar001]

:sl:

Wa aleykum Salam Wa Rhametulah,


I would reply to the points but I think first I'd prefer to know your belief, I see, from my angle a contradiction, in that you say;

3) The Qur'an mentions that there is no compulsion in religion. If you tell a Muslim who wants to leave Islam that he will die if he left, wouldn't that be compulsion?

Thus indicating that prescribing the death punishment for someone who leaves islam contradicts the ayah that there is no compulsion, yet at the same time you say;

As for the many hadiths that say that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered people who left Islam to be killed, I have a partial explanation for that.

During that time, when Islam was nothing more than a group of people living in Medina, people who left Islam usually went to the other side and worked for them to attack the Muslims, thus making them traitors and spies. It's my belief that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered apostates at that time to be killed, not because they've made a personal decision on which religion they want, but a political decision on which side they want to fight.

So by the Prophet, peace be upon him, prescribing punishment on those who left the religion, it seems that you feel that that is contradicting the Qu'ran, so please correct me but are you saying that the Prophet, peace be upon him, placed a law which contradicted the Qu'ran?

To break it down.

You claim that prescribing punishment of death is in fact going against the Quranic Ayah that there is no compulsion in religion. At the same time you claim that for one reason or anothr the Prophet prescribed death for people who left Islam, so in reality your saying the Prophet contradicted the Qu'ran?

Your brother Eesa.

[Skywalker]

I'm no sheikh, but I'll try to answer your question logically...

First...

a-if you are muslim and convert to another religion you are to be killed

Well, according to the sheikh's statement from above, if you keep it to yourself, you're free to live.

b-Islam can't be forced it is supposed to be accepted on your own free will

That is indeed true...

My question is, isn't saying that you must accept Islam or die being forced to believe?

Well if you're a non-Muslim, nobody can ever tell you that, but if you're referring to Muslims, well yes, that was one of my initial points that seemed to me that it was contradicting the fact that the Qur'an states that there is no compulsion in religion. However, if you keep in mind that you can change your religion, but only keep it to yourself, then it might not really feel like compulsion.

I'm still analyzing this topic though, so I'm not set on a personal conclusion yet. Me and you are learning together it seems...

[Skywalker]

So by the Prophet, peace be upon him, prescribing punishment on those who left the religion, it seems that you feel that that is contradicting the Qu'ran, so please correct me but are you saying that the Prophet, peace be upon him, placed a law which contradicted the Qu'ran?

That's not what I meant; I meant that the Prophet (pbuh) placed a law that might have been placed for political and military reasons instead of religious reasons.

Islam of course crosses that line because Islam as a religion contains a political aspect, that's why I think it's easy for the Prophet's (pbuh) sayings to be misinterpreted. Part of religion is political, but I think it should be isolated in this case from the personal aspect.

The Prophet (pbuh) did not contradict the Qur'an if you keep in mind what I said.

:w:

[Umar001]

That's not what I meant; I meant that the Prophet (pbuh) placed a law that might have been placed for political and military reasons instead of religious reasons.

Islam of course crosses that line because Islam as a religion contains a political aspect, that's why I think it's easy for the Prophet's (pbuh) sayings to be misinterpreted. Part of religion is political, but I think it should be isolated in this case from the personal aspect.

The Prophet (pbuh) did not contradict the Qur'an if you keep in mind what I said.

:w:

So when the prophet peace be upon him said 'if anyone changes his religion' you mean that he meant political stance and not 'personal' religion.

So the prophet should have said 'if anyone changes his political stance against us?

So wait, because the prophet used the word RELIGION, and the Qu'ran uses the word RELIGIOn then it must be contradicting somewhere. Unless of course your understanding of the Ayah is wrong.

[Skywalker]

Actually like I said before, that hadith can't be taken 100% litereally because it would also mean that anyone that converts from a Buddhist to a Christian must be killed, and anyone the converts from Christianity to a Muslim must be killed, because "anyone who changes his religion must be killed". Right? Of course not.

This proves that we need to know the exact reason and context of that saying of the Prophet (pbuh), otherwise anybody can give it whatever meaning they desire.

:w:

[Abu Zakariya]

1)In Islam isn't in believed that all people are born muslim and then and then some are taught different. So would this mean that everyone who isn't muslim should be killed?

No, because the belief that everyone is born as a Muslim means that everyone is born upon the "Fitrah", which refers to the natural state of submission to God. It doesn't mean that everyone is a Muslim in the sense that you assumed.

2)From what I gather from this post
a-if you are muslim and convert to another religion you are to be killed
b-Islam can't be forced it is supposed to be accepted on your own free will.
My question is, isn't saying that you must accept Islam or die being forced to believe?

Who is saying that you must accept Islam or die? You aren't supposed to be forced to accept Islam. But if you have accept Islam (on your own free will), then you have to follow certain rules in an Islamic state.

[tomtomsmom]

No, because the belief that everyone is born as a Muslim means that everyone is born upon the "Fitrah", which refers to the natural state of submission to God. It doesn't mean that everyone is a Muslim in the sense that you assumed.



Who is saying that you must accept Islam or die? You aren't supposed to be forced to accept Islam. But if you have accept Islam (on your own free will), then you have to follow certain rules in an Islamic state.

Ok so I am dumb and just don't get it. So if you accept Islam the rules say you can't change your mind. If you do you are to be killed. So after you accept it you must always accept or you die. Sounds like the same thing to me.

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah,

Actually like I said before, that hadith can't be taken 100% litereally because it would also mean that anyone that converts from a Buddhist to a Christian must be killed, and anyone the converts from Christianity to a Muslim must be killed, because "anyone who changes his religion must be killed". Right? Of course not.

This proves that we need to know the exact reason and context of that saying of the Prophet (pbuh), otherwise anybody can give it whatever meaning they desire.

:w:

Yes, you can take it literally, but as you said, you need to know the context, so something can be literal but out of context, like that hadith is literal but we need to understand the context, let me give you an example, in understanding the Qu'ran or making a Tafsir, a person explains the Qu'ran ayah with another Qu'ran ayah, that is the highest level.

So an example,

PICKTHAL: Lo! We revealed it on a blessed night - Lo! We are ever warning -
[44:03]

The above is to be taken literal, and what night is that? The Qu'ran explains,

PICKTHAL: Lo! We revealed it on the Night of Predestination
[97:01]

So similarly, as there are Scholars of Quranic meaning, there are scholars of Ahadeeth.

You might feel that hadith should not be taken literally because it says whoever changes his religion, which could mean Christian to Muslim, but rather that hadith has to be taken literally, but in context, and just as one ayah explains another one hadith explains another.

In post 16 you showed us a response and it had this hadith:

This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6878) and Sâhih Muslim (1676)]

So then this hadith explains to us what the other meant, i.e. that a Muslim who leaves his religion is to be killed.

So this view and understanding of the hadith derived from other hadith which shed light in the context show us that it is still about a person who leaves RELIGION.

But this would still contradict the Ayah about no compulsion in religion according to what was said before.

So again do you believe that the Prophet done something against the Qu'ran?

[Umar001]

Ok so I am dumb and just don't get it. So if you accept Islam the rules say you can't change your mind. If you do you are to be killed. So after you accept it you must always accept or you die. Sounds like the same thing to me.

Out of curiosity, if a person enters a contract in which they establish that if they leave the contract they will owe x amount to someone, then they leave would this indicate that they are being forced to go into debt or are they chosing to?

I am not saying Islam does this, its just a question I have.


Eesa.

[Abu Zakariya]

Ok so I am dumb and just don't get it. So if you accept Islam the rules say you can't change your mind. If you do you are to be killed. So after you accept it you must always accept or you die. Sounds like the same thing to me.

Look, you can't force anyone to become a Muslim. However, if you do become a Muslim and you live in an Islamic state then this is what you can't do:

a person in the Islamic state who leaves Islam will not be punished unless he publicly proclaims his apostasy and then calls others to do so. (From the fatwa)

There's a difference between these two things. You say that this is the same thing as compelling people to become Muslim or killing them. Well, if it is, then I could come to your home right now with a gun and demand that you become Muslim. But I can't, and yet you say that the apostasy laws in an Islamic state is the same as this. So, just becaue the punishment for apostasy is death, this means that you can force people to enter Islam?

[tomtomsmom]

Yes if someone enters a contract and backs out of it then they have to pay a penalty fee. That is moneary loss, not the loss of your life which I find completely different.

Let me set up a what if to try and explain.
A man converts to Islam without doing alot of research on it. After 5 years of learning he finds that it is not the religion he thought it was and finds it to be untrue. He then converts to (insert religion here) and as part of that religion (as are most) it is part of his duty to try to bring in others to this new religion. He is then told that he has 3 days to convert back to Islam or face death.

Is this not bullying someone to accept the faith?

I have been told by many people here that I should go ahead and convert becasue it will take a very long time to learn about Islam. I am sorry but that isn't going to happen. If I accept it now without the proper knowledge who is to say that in the years to come I will not agree with it? And if the consequence of that mistake is death then it isn't a risk a I willing to take. At present I do not live in an Islamic country. But things change and I might one day.

[Abu Zakariya]

Well, as you said, you don't live in an Islamic State with Shariah so the punishment wouldn't even be implemented on you.

Hypothetically, though. If you were to convert and then decided to leave Islam, all you would have to do would be to not mention to anyone that you've left Islam and keep living in the Islamic state, or move to a non-Islamic state. You would then be left alone.

As for the part about learning about Islam... If you learn the basics (about Islamis monotheism, worshipping God etc.), then you basically know about the gist of Islam. You know what Islam is. What is left to learn would be the details of how to worship God, like what you say in the prayer etc. There wouldn't really be anything that you don't agree with, if you have accepted the foundations of Islam in the first place. For instance, if you accept Islam based on the foundations like the principle that all worship is to be directed to God alone (not His Prophets, not the Angels, not some "holy man", not anything) and then you find out that in Islam you have to give a sum of your money to a particular category of poor people, then this wouldn't really change your mind, would it? The point is, as long as you know and understand the foundations, it doesn't matter that much that you don't know the finer details.

And you don't only get 3 days to convert back, you get to have your questions answered and doubts cleared by the scholars.

[tomtomsmom]

Well, as you said, you don't live in an Islamic State with Shariah so the punishment wouldn't even be implemented on you.

Hypothetically, though. If you were to convert and then decided to leave Islam, all you would have to do would be to not mention to anyone that you've left Islam and keep living in the Islamic state, or move to a non-Islamic state. You would then be left alone.

As for the part about learning about Islam... If you learn the basics (about Islamis monotheism, worshipping God etc.), then you basically know about the gist of Islam. You know what Islam is. What is left to learn would be the details of how to worship God, like what you say in the prayer etc. There wouldn't really be anything that you don't agree with, if you have accepted the foundations of Islam in the first place. For instance, if you accept Islam based on the foundations like the principle that all worship is to be directed to God alone (not His Prophets, not the Angels, not some "holy man", not anything) and then you find out that in Islam you have to give a sum of your money to a particular category of poor people, then this wouldn't really change your mind, would it? The point is, as long as you know and understand the foundations, it doesn't matter that much that you don't know the finer details.

And you don't only get 3 days to convert back, you get to have your questions answered and doubts cleared by the scholars.

I do believe that God should be worshipped alone and that his prophets should be given respect. And no, it does not change my mind knowing that part of my money should go to the poor. I think if everyone in the world did this then we wouldn't even have the poor. But the finer details do matter to me. The thought of people dying because they no longer believe or have had a change of heart worries me. I don't think that this is something I could believe in.

[Woodrow]

I am not giving an answer I am not knowledgable enough to. But I do have some questions.

Is there a difference between may do something and have to do something?

Does the Ahadith say an apostate must be killed or that an apostate may be killed?

Are there any specific conditions under which it is said an apostate must be killed?

Does anyone commit a sin if an apostate is not killed?

[zaki.aumeerudy]

:sl:

I've been thinking about this subject a lot lately, and done some research as well, and I'd like to take other people's opinions to see what they.

We all know that the Shariah ruling for leaving Islam after being a Muslim is death. The problem is that everybody takes that as a given, and not many people actually think about why it's like that. I did a bit of thinking on this subject, and my personal opinion is that this ruling in the Shariah is wrong. In other words, I feel that the Qur'an and Sunnah have been misinterpreted and this ruling is based on that misinterpretation.

While most big sheikhs are in total agreement that the apostate should be killed, a few others think as I do, that they should not. Here are my reasons:

1) The Qur'an is very specific about capital punishment for various crimes, yet on the subject of apostasy, it does not say anything about how apostates should be punished.

2) The Qur'an mentions in several instances that those who believe and then disbelive, or those who reject their faith, that they would be punished by ALLAH in this life and the next. Therefore, if Allah has reserved the right to punish them for Himself, who are we to take that right away? Allah does not need our help in punishing them.

3) The Qur'an mentions that there is no compulsion in religion. If you tell a Muslim who wants to leave Islam that he will die if he left, wouldn't that be compulsion?

4) If a person leaves Islam and decided 20 years later that he made a mistake and decides to go back to it, he would not be able to do so if he has been executed. Therefore, executing someone who has the potential to become a Muslim again takes away their chance of becoming Muslim again, and takes away their chance of entering paradise. And who are we to deny someone paradise?

In conclusion, the Qur'an and common logic state that the punishment to apostates will come only from Allah, and that men should not have anything to with a person's choice in faith.

As for the many hadiths that say that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered people who left Islam to be killed, I have a partial explanation for that.

During that time, when Islam was nothing more than a group of people living in Medina, people who left Islam usually went to the other side and worked for them to attack the Muslims, thus making them traitors and spies. It's my belief that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered apostates at that time to be killed, not because they've made a personal decision on which religion they want, but a political decision on which side they want to fight.

That's my interpretation anyway. I hope that's a good base for the start of this discussion, which I think is going to be very interesing...

Oh and please provide Qur'an and hadith sources when possible, but common sense and logic is also welcome.

as salaamu alaikum
some questions need to asked to ourselves specially concerning islamic laws
then understanding will come

1: when the ayat for apostasy has been revealed ,date and time and related hadith ,how the sahabah do and acted then

2: Is there ijmaa(consensus) of ulama on the subject ,the one who goes against ijmaa must be a mujtahid mutlaq or 4 imams or ibn taimiyyah or someone of this level
ijmaa means the consensus of true ulamas from the time of the ulamas and up to now on a subject

example : sawlaat is waajib or fard i.e obligatory if someone else says contradicts that then he is considered as a kaafir ,either he repents and presnt excuses or he is to punished to death


now i answer your questions

1: how is he to be punished is not a problem , he would be executed in the fastest way ,the action is important not the means , this will be decided by the qaadwi(judge) but most of them repent

2: even that Allahu azza wa jall saya that ,,several laws has been prescribed for other punishment like theft even like the law of napoleon bonaparte and others
3:no there is no compulsion ,nooen has forced me to accept islaam
a:if u accept a condition u have to abide for it this is a contract and there are clauses in breach of contract
b: any government in the world has to put laws ,what will happen if anyone do what he wants

4; the one who deviates will never come backas is said in in usrah swaff 61:6
WHEN THEY DEVIATED THEN aLLAH DVIATED THEIR HEART
TRULY I AM IN A MULTI RACIAL COUNTRY WILL BLACK,WHITE ,CHRISTIAN,HINDU,MUSLIM,BUDDHIST .i HAVE SEEN PEOPLE LEFT ISLAAM THEY NEVER COME BACK

Truly bro if u need a teacher tell me where u are i will try to give u a teacher
if u do not study a subject how could u give fatwa on that subject whether it is deen , IT, electronics, mechanic.etc

[Skywalker]

:sl:

Al7amdulilah, this thread is finally getting interesting :)

You might feel that hadith should not be taken literally because it says whoever changes his religion, which could mean Christian to Muslim, but rather that hadith has to be taken literally, but in context, and just as one ayah explains another one hadith explains another.

In post 16 you showed us a response and it had this hadith:

This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6878) and Sâhih Muslim (1676)]

So then this hadith explains to us what the other meant, i.e. that a Muslim who leaves his religion is to be killed.

So this view and understanding of the hadith derived from other hadith which shed light in the context show us that it is still about a person who leaves RELIGION.

Well, I'm glad that we agree on the part that sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) need to be taken in context in order to know the "real" meanings behind them. If everyone took these things literally, we would have total chaos in the world now. A deeper level of understanding is required, and it is this level of understanding that should set the unversal standard for everyone.

The hadith I presented may seem very clear to you if you ignore the fine details, but in this case, these fine details are the key in knowing what the prophet (pbuh) REALLY meant when he said what he said. What are ahadeeth after all if not records of what people heard the Prophet (pbuh) say from time to time? Maybe they misunderstood him; maybe the situation at the time required him to say that, but he never meant it as a general rule. We won't know this until we investigate this matter and understand the context.

Now as for the hadith, here's what I mean:
“The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.”

You notice that there are two conditions there? It's like an AND-gate in logic circuits; both conditions need to be met in order for the electric current to pass, thus both conditions need to be met if the hadith is to be taken literally and used as a law. The other hadith I posted has the same condition, and it's even a little more clear:

"Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: 1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) 2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and, 3) a man who fought against Allah and His messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate...."

This hadeeth even has three conditions. Nevertheless, each hadith seems to be shedding light on the idea that changing your religion only is not enough to deem a person eligable for execution.

So far, I haven't even hinted that the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) contradict the Qur'an, but rather that the current law that generalizes the killing of apostates does, in my humble opinion, contradict the Qur'an...and the Sunnah for that matter.

After 5 years of learning he finds that it is not the religion he thought it was and finds it to be untrue. He then converts to (insert religion here) and as part of that religion (as are most) it is part of his duty to try to bring in others to this new religion. He is then told that he has 3 days to convert back to Islam or face death.

It's possible that a person may enter Islam without having too much knowledge of it (it would be pretty irresponsible IMO), afterwhich he could realize that Islam is not the thing for him and change to another religion. According to the fatwa, he can do this without fear of death as long as he keeps it to himself. If the faith that he converts to demands that he spread his faith, he should then leave the Islamic country and preach elsewhere if he wants to avoid punishment. So it's quite possible for him to convert and avoid death. That's according to the fatwa anyway.

Is this not bullying someone to accept the faith?

In the context of what I just said, no.

I have been told by many people here that I should go ahead and convert becasue it will take a very long time to learn about Islam. I am sorry but that isn't going to happen. If I accept it now without the proper knowledge who is to say that in the years to come I will not agree with it? And if the consequence of that mistake is death then it isn't a risk a I willing to take. At present I do not live in an Islamic country. But things change and I might one day.

Each person is different in the level of conviction they need to become a Muslim. Some people can just be told that Islam is the worship of only one God and they'd already be saying their shahaada!...while others feel the need to know every little detail about something before going into it. That's perfectly fine and completely natural. Perhaps the people that encouraged you to "just get it over with" feel that you've reached the level of conviction that you need to become a Muslim. If you want my advice, do all the research you need to be convinced because Islam has nothing to hide, and you need to have complete conviction of the truth of Islam when you say your shahaada. And may Allah guide us all to the truth...

The thought of people dying because they no longer believe or have had a change of heart worries me. I don't think that this is something I could believe in.

Don't be too quick to judge something that we Muslims ourselves are still debating. There are high-profile Muslim scholars who also say that apostates should not be killed, although the majority says that they should.

My opinion thus far in the thread is that unless an apostate presents a threat to the society, they should be left alone. Otherwise, if they are intent in causing havoc in the land and procaim themselves enemies of Allah and his Prophet (pbuh), they should be punished according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. However, I don't think the vast majority of apostates would present any threat to society, and would therefore not fall into that category.

I think we're coming closer to an understanding here, al7amdulilah.

:w:

[Skywalker]

Jazzak Allah khayran for your post, brother zaki.aumeerudi.

if u do not study a subject how could u give fatwa on that subject

I am in no way making any kind of "fatwa", I'm just discussing a topic from a different point of view so that I, myself can be convinced and for us all to learn something new along the way...

[tomtomsmom]

Most people can not simply pick up and move to another country.
And I am not trying to judge, I mean no offence.
That is yet another thing I am confused about. Just because the scholars say it should be a certain way why must it be that way? How are they able to know what God wants us to do any more than you or me? But alas that is offtopic and for another thread. I simply ask all of you to have patience with me as I am still learning and it has always been my nature to question everything. If I have upset any of you because of this I am truly sorry.

[zaki.aumeerudy]

:sl:

Al7amdulilah, this thread is finally getting interesting :)


Well, I'm glad that we agree on the part that sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) need to be taken in context in order to know the "real" meanings behind them. If everyone took these things literally, we would have total chaos in the world now. A deeper level of understanding is required, and it is this level of understanding that should set the unversal standard for everyone.

The hadith I presented may seem very clear to you if you ignore the fine details, but in this case, these fine details are the key in knowing what the prophet (pbuh) REALLY meant when he said what he said. What are ahadeeth after all if not records of what people heard the Prophet (pbuh) say from time to time? Maybe they misunderstood him; maybe the situation at the time required him to say that, but he never meant it as a general rule. We won't know this until we investigate this matter and understand the context.

Now as for the hadith, here's what I mean:
“The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.”

You notice that there are two conditions there? It's like an AND-gate in logic circuits; both conditions need to be met in order for the electric current to pass, thus both conditions need to be met if the hadith is to be taken literally and used as a law. The other hadith I posted has the same condition, and it's even a little more clear:

"Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: 1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) 2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and, 3) a man who fought against Allah and His messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate...."

This hadeeth even has three conditions. Nevertheless, each hadith seems to be shedding light on the idea that changing your religion only is not enough to deem a person eligable for execution.

So far, I haven't even hinted that the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) contradict the Qur'an, but rather that the current law that generalizes the killing of apostates does, in my humble opinion, contradict the Qur'an...and the Sunnah for that matter.


It's possible that a person may enter Islam without having too much knowledge of it (it would be pretty irresponsible IMO), afterwhich he could realize that Islam is not the thing for him and change to another religion. According to the fatwa, he can do this without fear of death as long as he keeps it to himself. If the faith that he converts to demands that he spread his faith, he should then leave the Islamic country and preach elsewhere if he wants to avoid punishment. So it's quite possible for him to convert and avoid death. That's according to the fatwa anyway.


In the context of what I just said, no.


Each person is different in the level of conviction they need to become a Muslim. Some people can just be told that Islam is the worship of only one God and they'd already be saying their shahaada!...while others feel the need to know every little detail about something before going into it. That's perfectly fine and completely natural. Perhaps the people that encouraged you to "just get it over with" feel that you've reached the level of conviction that you need to become a Muslim. If you want my advice, do all the research you need to be convinced because Islam has nothing to hide, and you need to have complete conviction of the truth of Islam when you say your shahaada. And may Allah guide us all to the truth...


Don't be too quick to judge something that we Muslims ourselves are still debating. There are high-profile Muslim scholars who also say that apostates should not be killed, although the majority says that they should.

My opinion thus far in the thread is that unless an apostate presents a threat to the society, they should be left alone. Otherwise, if they are intent in causing havoc in the land and procaim themselves enemies of Allah and his Prophet (pbuh), they should be punished according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. However, I don't think the vast majority of apostates would present any threat to society, and would therefore not fall into that category.

I think we're coming closer to an understanding here, al7amdulilah.

:w:

hAVE U EVER STUDIED ISLAAM WITH A TEACHER
I got the same problem with many people ,tehy try to answer islamic question without a good knowlegde of islaam . I would never try to answer a question on electronics without knowledge on the subject
WHEN U TALK ABOUT?????
What are ahadeeth after all if not records of what people heard the Prophet (pbuh) say from time to time? Maybe they misunderstood him;
Have studied the science of hadith ,the science of quran
i will help u
hadith is wahy (REVELATION)and quran is wahy(REVELATION) because in the quran Allah says that the prophet do not talk by his desire and everything is revealed to him . WE NEVER DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HADITH AND QURAN
a hadith may abrogate a hadith or abrogate an ayatul quran but supported by an ayatul quran also
an ayat quran may abrogate an ayatul quran and thus still remain in the quran
the uqestion becomes difficult to be answered or the answer could not be understood because we are palying on different level playing fields. i would not say i am too knowledgeable but we wont go too far if the basics are not defined and we may go astray and make kufr and shirk in this way
arother trying to help u

[Skywalker]

No need to apologize tomtomsmom...we're all here to ask questions and to learn. Otherwise it would be a very boring life...

As for what you said, yes for some people it might not be easy to move to another country, but all they have to do to stay where they are is to not preach their new religion there. It doesn't seem so hard. If the religion does command them to preach, they have the net now, so they could do it without anybody knowing. Other than that, it would be almost impossible for a person to convert to a religion that requires preaching because who would be there in that country to tell them about that religion in the first place?

Scholars are people who have dedicated their lives to interpretation of God's message, therefore they know a lot more than the average person about most subjects. For example, let's say that you read an ayah in the Qur'an that could be interpreted several ways, and your level of knowledge only allows you understand it one way. A scholar on the other hand has read and memorized the whole Qur'an, and can easily give that ayah an appopriate context in which to understand it properly.

Now I'm not saying that scholars don't make mistakes, they're only human, but they are better sources of the proper understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah than just any person off the street. The best way to really understand something on a personal level is to get the opinions of several scholars on the issue and see what works for you.

Hope that answers your questions...

Is there a difference between may do something and have to do something?

In a general case, yeah, but are you referring to a general case?

Does the Ahadith say an apostate must be killed or that an apostate may be killed?

As far as I know, the apostate must be killed.

Are there any specific conditions under which it is said an apostate must be killed?

That's what I tried to prove in my second-last post. I think there are clear conditions that have to be met before killing an apostate.

Does anyone commit a sin if an apostate is not killed?

I have no idea...maybe we should ask a scholar about this...

[Skywalker]

hAVE U EVER STUDIED ISLAAM WITH A TEACHER
I got the same problem with many people ,tehy try to answer islamic question without a good knowlegde of islaam . I would never try to answer a question on electronics without knowledge on the subject

Brother, I understand your concern and I'm grateful to you for trying to guide me and keep me away from kufr and shirk, but I think you misunderstand my intentions for making this thread. You ask if I ever studied Islam with a teacher, my question is what do you mean by a teacher? If a teacher is someone with a licence to teach Islam then the answer is yes because most of the books and lessons I've read and seen are by people who have those licences. If a teacher is someone who sits next to you and talks to you about Islam, then almost all the people around me can be considered teachers.

The reason why a lot of people with little knowledge of Islam try to answer questions is because a lot of things in Islam are very logical! Therefore, they feel like they have enough knowledge to form a logical conclusion that they feel strongly enough about to share with others. I agree that it's not great, but what if someone with a little bit of knowledge of Islam answers a question of a non-Muslim perfectly and causes them to convert to Islam with that answer? I don't encourage it, but there are special cases where this can be a good thing.

hadith is wahy (REVELATION)and quran is wahy(REVELATION) because in the quran Allah says that the prophet do not talk by his desire and everything is revealed to him . WE NEVER DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HADITH AND QURAN

Well the fact that some ahadeeth are considered sahih and some aren't doesn't help your point out too much. Yes, sahih hadiths are to be considered as God's words through the Messenger (pbuh), but they must also be understood properly in their contexts because the Prophet (pbuh) wasn't just walking around reciting laws, he was living the life of a human being, and he was presented with new situations and new problems all the time. We have to understand his sayings in the light of those situations. So yes, I agree with you to an extent, and YES I do agree with you that I'm not knowledgabe enough to make a fatwa, but that's not why I'm here. I think I am knowledgable enough though to carry out an intelligent discussion. What do you think?

Jazaak Allah khayran brother...

:w:

[zaki.aumeerudy]

Brother, I understand your concern and I'm grateful to you for trying to guide me and keep me away from kufr and shirk, but I think you misunderstand my intentions for making this thread. You ask if I ever studied Islam with a teacher, my question is what do you mean by a teacher? If a teacher is someone with a licence to teach Islam then the answer is yes because most of the books and lessons I've read and seen are by people who have those licences. If a teacher is someone who sits next to you and talks to you about Islam, then almost all the people around me can be considered teachers.

The reason why a lot of people with little knowledge of Islam try to answer questions is because a lot of things in Islam are very logical! Therefore, they feel like they have enough knowledge to form a logical conclusion that they feel strongly enough about to share with others. I agree that it's not great, but what if someone with a little bit of knowledge of Islam answers a question of a non-Muslim perfectly and causes them to convert to Islam with that answer? I don't encourage it, but there are special cases where this can be a good thing.


Well the fact that some ahadeeth are considered sahih and some aren't doesn't help your point out too much. Yes, sahih hadiths are to be considered as God's words through the Messenger (pbuh), but they must also be understood properly in their contexts because the Prophet (pbuh) wasn't just walking around reciting laws, he was living the life of a human being, and he was presented with new situations and new problems all the time. We have to understand his sayings in the light of those situations. So yes, I agree with you to an extent, and YES I do agree with you that I'm not knowledgabe enough to make a fatwa, but that's not why I'm here. I think I am knowledgable enough though to carry out an intelligent discussion. What do you think?

Jazaak Allah khayran brother...

:w:

licenses are not the qualification in islaam .true knowledge is important
today two muslims were talking about logical in islaam . I tested them with logics and they fell deep into thinking that they were forming logical conclusion and went astray to the mazhab of the MU`TAZILAH
I explain deviant sects of islaam deviated because the logic they applied to form conclusion was wrong .Question HOW can a logic be wrong ???

it is logic that if BBC broadcast a news to one thousand people that u may get at least five different version from the people
BUT this is much different from the sahabah where hadith and quran is applied b4 logic
remember there is only one quran memorised by may be more than one million people without a single alteration how is it that the news from the quran has not been altered and how the hadith was clarified i mean true from false
Logic was applied
first law when u disagree between u return to the quran and sunnah
e.g the mu`tazilah do not accept hadith aahad though swahih in their aqeedah bcause there less than five narrations hy so many people learnt from the prophet how is it logic that only four person knew that hadith .in the logic sense hadith aahad cannot be accepted but it was accepted by the sahabah why
1: how many people must watch the moon for beginning and ending of ramadaan answer less than three (take into account this may be for millions of people) ,result this is aahad but from the quran
in many cases in the quran four witnesses are needed ,this is again aahad
due to this error today many people do not believe in the punishment of the grave ,the return of jesus alaihis salaam ,the mahdi ,etc because all these hadith connected to these subject are aahad .
islaam is not logic ,it will be better to say the law of Allah concernign what is best for mankind in his knowledge which may not be logic to us
i do not want to offend u but just warn u to be attentive because many persons have left islaam or turn to innovations on debates
jazaak allah may allah guide all of us

[Skywalker]

licenses are not the qualification in islaam .true knowledge is important

Well that's a problem, isn't it? How do you know who has "true knowledge" and who doesn't?

islaam is not logic ,it will be better to say the law of Allah concernign what is best for mankind in his knowledge which may not be logic to us

I'm not saying that Islam is logic, I'm saying that Islam is logical. Everything in Islam makes sense when understood properly, that's why people take what they know from the Qur'an and Sunnah and sort of fill in the blanks using knowledge.

I think most people do this in their everyday life. By reading the Qur'an, the ahadeeth, the various religious books, they develop a feel for Islam, and this makes it easier to form logical Islamic decision when faced with a problem. I'm not saying that this is better than reading and memorizing, but this is what most people do in reality.

I agree that this can lead to separation and pointless debates when not properly controlled, but as long as we have official sources to turn to, there will always be someone who is "ultimately right" and has the final word on the subject.

Anyways, back to our topic; so far I'm in partial agreement with what the sheikh wrote. My initial argument was that apostates should not be killed just because they changed their religion, but because some of them presented threats to the Muslim society at that time. What the sheikh wrote coincides with what I said on the point of "if they keep it to themselves, they should not be killed." In other words, there are conditions for killing apostates, and it is not a general rule.

Here's a question though, and we can all do research on this together: To what extent can a person keep his apostasy to himself, and who is he allowed to tell about it? Family? Friends? Absolutely no one?

Another question is this: If an apostate does decide to go public with his decision, in what way(s) is this a threat to society?

:w:

[Skywalker]

:sl:
Does anybody want to give one of the questions a shot?
:w:

[MTAFFI]

skywalker

i expected something quite a bit different in this post, about your views on apostates. Having read your posts, I am impressed with your open mind and ability to question, when many just say "He who changes his religion, kill him" and believe that, that still applies today. I believe that you are correct that when that statement was made it was probably a political statement and not meant for just anyone who changes their religion. As far a jihad goes, I am going to take your advice and I will do much more research on it. When I am properly prepared I will start a post and pm you, then we will discuss that further. Also just so you know, I never quote GW, I dont agree with most things he says, and I form my own opinions based on my own knowledge and things that I have witnessed in my own life. May the force be with you skywalker, PEACE

[zaki.aumeerudy]

Well that's a problem, isn't it? How do you know who has "true knowledge" and who doesn't?


I'm not saying that Islam is logic, I'm saying that Islam is logical. Everything in Islam makes sense when understood properly, that's why people take what they know from the Qur'an and Sunnah and sort of fill in the blanks using knowledge.

I think most people do this in their everyday life. By reading the Qur'an, the ahadeeth, the various religious books, they develop a feel for Islam, and this makes it easier to form logical Islamic decision when faced with a problem. I'm not saying that this is better than reading and memorizing, but this is what most people do in reality.

I agree that this can lead to separation and pointless debates when not properly controlled, but as long as we have official sources to turn to, there will always be someone who is "ultimately right" and has the final word on the subject.

Anyways, back to our topic; so far I'm in partial agreement with what the sheikh wrote. My initial argument was that apostates should not be killed just because they changed their religion, but because some of them presented threats to the Muslim society at that time. What the sheikh wrote coincides with what I said on the point of "if they keep it to themselves, they should not be killed." In other words, there are conditions for killing apostates, and it is not a general rule.

Here's a question though, and we can all do research on this together: To what extent can a person keep his apostasy to himself, and who is he allowed to tell about it? Family? Friends? Absolutely no one?

Another question is this: If an apostate does decide to go public with his decision, in what way(s) is this a threat to society?

:w:

qUESTION

What will happen if some muslims converted to christianity secretly and continues their dawah secretly till they become strong and now they got Media BBC News and CNN on their side that now they want to practise their religion openly , construct churches on the lan of Saudi Arabia for example.please ponder on this please

[Woodrow]

qUESTION

What will happen if some muslims converted to christianity secretly and continues their dawah secretly till they become strong and now they got Media BBC News and CNN on their side that now they want to practise their religion openly , construct churches on the lan of Saudi Arabia for example.please ponder on this please

It seems that if they are truly successful at practicing their religion secretly, they would have some difficulty in building up a strong enough backing to interest the media.

Now let us assume that some how they did manage to do that. Who really cares what the media does? Is Saudi Arabia based on Public opinion or popularity? What new information could the media offer that the world does not already know? Don't the majority of Christian organizations already know that Saudi does not permit the building of Churches or allow the open practice of any religion other than Islam?

I don't see where the media has come to the conclusion that those stories would sell advertising space. The media is only interested in stories that increase circulation.

[zaki.aumeerudy]

It seems that if they are truly successful at practicing their religion secretly, they would have some difficulty in building up a strong enough backing to interest the media.

Now let us assume that some how they did manage to do that. Who really cares what the media does? Is Saudi Arabia based on Public opinion or popularity? What new information could the media offer that the world does not already know? Don't the majority of Christian organizations already know that Saudi does not permit the building of Churches or allow the open practice of any religion other than Islam?

I don't see where the media has come to the conclusion that those stories would sell advertising space. The media is only interested in stories that increase circulation.

this is already happening actually in pakistan

[Woodrow]

this is already happening actually in pakistan

I have yet to see where it has been making any national news here in the US.

[snakelegs]

changing your religion and trying to convert others to your new religion are 2 different things.

[Skywalker]

i expected something quite a bit different in this post, about your views on apostates. Having read your posts, I am impressed with your open mind and ability to question, when many just say "He who changes his religion, kill him" and believe that, that still applies today. I believe that you are correct that when that statement was made it was probably a political statement and not meant for just anyone who changes their religion.

Thanks, and the reason why I made this thread is to find out the truth about this subject. I think questioning certain things around you makes you a stronger believer, but as we all know, excessive questioning can be quite harmful. I tried my best in this thread to keep this aspect under control and to the point.

As far a jihad goes, I am going to take your advice and I will do much more research on it. When I am properly prepared I will start a post and pm you, then we will discuss that further. Also just so you know, I never quote GW, I dont agree with most things he says, and I form my own opinions based on my own knowledge and things that I have witnessed in my own life. May the force be with you skywalker, PEACE

Sure thing MTAFFI, I'll do my own research on the subject as well insha-Allah, and I'd be glad to go into another "open-minded" thread :)

What will happen if some muslims converted to christianity secretly and continues their dawah secretly till they become strong and now they got Media BBC News and CNN on their side that now they want to practise their religion openly , construct churches on the lan of Saudi Arabia for example.please ponder on this

Well, according to the fatwa that I posted, there's nothing you can do about secretive apostates, just as the Prophet (pbuh) used to know hypocrites around him and didn't do anything to them.

As for Saudi Arabia, I'm actually surprised that non-Muslims aren't allowed to openly practice their religion there. I mean, is that even Islamic? Doesn't Sharia allow for non-Muslims to practice their religion as long as they pay the jizya?





I think I've come to a logical conclusion in my mind about the apostasy issue. I started this thread saying how apostates should not be killed because of simply changing their religion, and that they were only killed at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) because of political reasons. Well, the fatwa that we got was not far off, in that people who apostate in secret are ok, but those that come out and openly publicize it should be killed.

I started this thread under the false pretense that the fatwa for killing apostates was conditionless, and I think a lot of the people that took part in this thread so far had the same idea.

The thing that we've learned here is that there are conditions for killing apostates, which also means that there are different levels of apostasy. This is something that I think is hard for non-Muslims to understand since they're not used to the idea of a religion being a way of life. To them, apostasy is apostasy whether you make it public or not because religion isn't a way of life; but to us, where religion is the very thing that we live for, anything that jeopardizes that stability is a threat, and anything that seeks to destroy it is an enemy. When an apostate speaks out against Islam within Islamic borders, he's making himself its enemy.

Comments?

Also, any luck in trying to answer the two questions that I posted earlier?

:w:

[wilberhum]

This is something that I think is hard for non-Muslims to understand since they're not used to the idea of a religion being a way of life.

Oh so so wrong. The difference is most non-Muslims live in countries that beleive in freedom of religion.

[Skywalker]

Oh so so wrong. The difference is most non-Muslims live in countries that beleive in freedom of religion.

...as do a lot of Muslims, but that's not the point. Everyone believes in freedom of religion, Muslims and non-Muslims, but the real difference is how much that religion plays a part in your life. For some people, religion is going to church on Sunday and saying a few prayers before bed, while for others it's a lot more encompassing than that. From my experience, the average Muslim lives a lot more religiously than the average non-Muslim. We don't leave our religion at the door of the mosque, but practice it in everything we do, how we do it, what we say, even what we think. That's what non-Muslims and even some Muslims who live away from Muslim countries have a hard time imagining.

[wilberhum]

...as do a lot of Muslims, but that's not the point. Everyone believes in freedom of religion, Muslims and non-Muslims, but the real difference is how much that religion plays a part in your life. For some people, religion is going to church on Sunday and saying a few prayers before bed, while for others it's a lot more encompassing than that. From my experience, the average Muslim lives a lot more religiously than the average non-Muslim. We don't leave our religion at the door of the mosque, but practice it in everything we do, how we do it, what we say, even what we think. That's what non-Muslims and even some Muslims who live away from Muslim countries have a hard time imagining.

So if religion is more important to you than some one else, it is OK to kill them for changeing there religion. I beginning to understand your form of religious freedon. Every one is free to believe in your religion.

[zaki.aumeerudy]

...as do a lot of Muslims, but that's not the point. Everyone believes in freedom of religion, Muslims and non-Muslims, but the real difference is how much that religion plays a part in your life. For some people, religion is going to church on Sunday and saying a few prayers before bed, while for others it's a lot more encompassing than that. From my experience, the average Muslim lives a lot more religiously than the average non-Muslim. We don't leave our religion at the door of the mosque, but practice it in everything we do, how we do it, what we say, even what we think. That's what non-Muslims and even some Muslims who live away from Muslim countries have a hard time imagining.

u have got only one country where islamic law is applied .forget about the others

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Are reverts told that the penalty for leaving Islam is death before they join up?

Peace

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

No way, thats just cruel. Thats why no one should rush into being a Muslim. They should be sure they want too. If you really want too know, try asking some on this forum.

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No way, thats just cruel.

True.

Thats why no one should rush into being a Muslim.

I quite agree.

They should be sure they want too. If you really want too know, try asking some on this forum.

It would be interesting to find out how much some of the reverts here actually knew about Islam before joining up. Since being here I've seen at least one who was clearly unaware of the apostasy ruling.

Peace

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^Myabe u can start another thread continuing from this one. If you would really like to know, that is.

[zaki.aumeerudy]

Greetings,

Are reverts told that the penalty for leaving Islam is death before they join up?

Peace

Dirung the lifetime of the prophet a christian converted to islaam and then reconverted to christianity and then said muhammad knows nothing except what i taught him.the prophet did not kill him but said may the earth not accept his body
when the christian died ,he was buried .the next day his body went out of the earth the christian thught that theprophet and his companions did that so they dig a greater hole a nd buried him again but again his dead body was again out the next day so they thought the same thing againthe next day his body went out of so they dig a whole of immense deepness and buried him again but
the next day his body went out of the earth till they began to realise the words of the prophet and his body was left to rot on the earth a sign for human being like pharaoh ramses 2 is a sign also
i must admit u something i was christian b4

[czgibson]

Greetings,

He puts doubt in (the minds of) those who do not think.

I hate to take issue with Allah here, but surely doubt is only possible through the process of thought? Surely doubt actually indicates that thinking is taking place?

Must be a translation issue...

Peace

[Skywalker]

So if religion is more important to you than some one else, it is OK to kill them for changeing there religion. I beginning to understand your form of religious freedon. Every one is free to believe in your religion.

What??? I don't get what you're trying to say nor what this has to do with what I wrote. Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? Like I said before, you cannot compel someone to become Muslim, nor can you hurt someone who leaves Islam unless his apostasy is accompanied with one of the conditions that we mentioned. In other words, a person can choose to be a Muslim or not, just follow a few simple rules when leaving Islam and that's it.

Are reverts told that the penalty for leaving Islam is death before they join up?

It depends on how much they learn when learning about Islam. Like I said before, different people need different levels of conviction to become Muslims. I think however that most of them know this rule, but I'm not sure.

I think it's also important to repeat this once again because I have a feeling you missed this; apostates are not to be killed just for changing their religion, but for publically announcing their apostasy in an Islamic state. I don't know how many Muslims actually know that, I know I sure didn't when I started this thread.

Emperor, I posted a few verses on the previous few pages that carry a similar message. This further establishes the rule that a person is free to believe what they want, just as long as they don't endanger the people around them by leading society astray.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think it's also important to repeat this once again because I have a feeling you missed this; apostates are not to be killed just for changing their religion, but for publically announcing their apostasy in an Islamic state. I don't know how many Muslims actually know that, I know I sure didn't when I started this thread.

I was aware of that, yes. Apart from extreme personality-cult dictatorships, it's only in an Islamic state that such a law would even be countenanced, isn't it?

Peace

[Skywalker]

I was aware of that, yes. Apart from extreme personality-cult dictatorships, it's only in an Islamic state that such a law would even be countenanced, isn't it?

No not really. If you think about, this law is applied all over the world but in different forms. For example, when someone betrays a country, don't they usually hang or are put in prisons for a very very long time? When someone is found guilty of espionnage, what usually happens to them?

By publically anouncing your apostasy in an Islamic country, you are saying that you openly reject the legitimacy of the government, not only that, but you're also putting doubt into people's minds, thus creating instability. Isn't that treason in a way? That's my logical perspective anyway. Also, during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) some apostates would join the kuffar and work as spies against the Muslims, therefore they were endangering the very security of the whole community.

[wilberhum]

By publically anouncing your apostasy in an Islamic country, you are saying that you openly reject the legitimacy of the government, not only that, but you're also putting doubt into people's minds, thus creating instability. Isn't that treason in a way?

No it isn't anything like treason. In fact it isn't even against the law, at least in the US. Just making another excuse to deney freedom of religion, freedom os speach and freedom of thought.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

How about for once in your life, speak nicer, maybe. If its not too difficult for u.

[Skywalker]

Just making another excuse to deney freedom of religion, freedom os speach and freedom of thought.

Really, how is that?

[wilberhum]

Really, how is that?

You justify one thing by distorting it to look like some thing else. Aposticy is nothing like treason.

[Skywalker]

You justify one thing by distorting it to look like some thing else. Aposticy is nothing like treason.

If you actually took the time to read the rest of the thread, you'd know that there are different types of "apostasy". Not only that, but you just proved my point that you took it upon yourself to dispute, in that non-Muslims will have a hard time understanding this because to them -- you -- apostasy is apostasy.

Ok, here's a scenario: you swear your allegiance to a country, let's say the US, and then go out in public yelling that Russia is better and that everyone should forsake their allegiance to the US and be Russian. How do you regard that?

[wilberhum]

you swear your allegiance to a country, let's say the US, and then go out in public yelling that Russia is better and that everyone should forsake their allegiance to the US and be Russian. How do you regard that?

Freedom of Speach. And it is not against the law.

And I have said that many times about Australia.

[Keltoi]

Freedom of Speach. And it is not against the law.

And I have said that many times about Australia.

If Wilberhum sided with an enemy of the United States and actually gave aid and comfort to those enemies, he would have committed treason. Simply saying Australia is better than the U.S., while nutty, still isn't treason. :D
Just kidding about the nutty part.

[wilberhum]

Still aiding an enemy government in the time of war has no similuarity to saying the Quran is not the word of god.

[Skywalker]

Freedom of Speach. And it is not against the law.

You mean "speech" don't you? Which is also what we have in Islam, but not the reckless Americanized version of it. If something can threaten the stability of the country, not just the government but also it's people, then the government takes the responsibility of shielding the public from it. I agree that critical dialogue can take place at a proper place and time, but not in the irresponisble, reckless manner in which it's done now in the West.

Other than that, some people would consider what you said treason, or if not, they would tell you that it's ok, but then they'd come and kidnap you in the middle of the night and get rid of you. You think your government is "clean"? Come on, give me a break.

At least an Islamic government would be up-front about it.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No not really. If you think about, this law is applied all over the world but in different forms. For example, when someone betrays a country, don't they usually hang or are put in prisons for a very very long time? When someone is found guilty of espionnage, what usually happens to them?

I don't see the similarity between a public declaration of apostasy and espionage at all. In fact, they seem to be almost opposites.

By publically anouncing your apostasy in an Islamic country, you are saying that you openly reject the legitimacy of the government, not only that, but you're also putting doubt into people's minds, thus creating instability. Isn't that treason in a way?

Not at all. Have you ever read a British or American newspaper? People question the legitimacy or rightness of governments and their actions all the time - they don't get put in prison for it. Also, what on earth is wrong with putting doubt into people's minds? All that does is encourage them to question things, to be sceptical. In the area of politics, if you're not sceptical, you will be a victim of misunderstanding or potential mistreatment.

It's also worth remembering that in order to be a patriot, you do not have to agree with everything the government says or does.

That's my logical perspective anyway. Also, during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) some apostates would join the kuffar and work as spies against the Muslims, therefore they were endangering the very security of the whole community.

I think I can understand this ruling being issued under the historical circumstances you mention, but why in a modern day hypothetical Islamic state?

Peace

[Keltoi]

Americans just have a different view of what government is, how it should operate, the role of the citizen in government, and on and on. I don't expect every country out there to accept Jeffersonian democracy, but the kind of state many Muslims seem to desire scares the heck out of me. Not that I'm worried about being put under such tyranny, just the dangerous threat posed by this type of government on basic human rights.

[Skywalker]

Not at all. Have you ever read a British or American newspaper? People question the legitimacy or rightness of governments and their actions all the time - they don't get put in prison for it. Also, what on earth is wrong with putting doubt into people's minds? All that does is encourage them to question things, to be sceptical. In the area of politics, if you're not sceptical, you will be a victim of misunderstanding or potential mistreatment.

There's a difference between a religious government and a secular government. A secular government practices man's law, while a religious one practices law created by God's guidance...in other words, it's based on faith. When you put doubt into people's minds about the very thing they believe in, you're slowly destroying the legitimacy of the government in people's eyes. Plus, why should a person be constatly asked to question his religion over and over? Yes, I agree that you should question things sometimes, it makes you a better believer, but how can you get anywhere in life if all you're doing is just questioning what's already established? When you have faith that something is the truth, you give yourself a base on which to stand and move forward from.

I think I can understand this ruling being issued under the historical circumstances you mention, but why in a modern day hypothetical Islamic state?

If there was a worlwide Islamic nation, then that would be the case, but since there isn't, then it doesn't apply.

I don't expect every country out there to accept Jeffersonian democracy, but the kind of state many Muslims seem to desire scares the heck out of me. Not that I'm worried about being put under such tyranny, just the dangerous threat posed by this type of government on basic human rights.

Like I said before, living in a Sharia country should be by choice, and I know a lot of people that would love to live in one if it was properly established. I think the idea scares you because you've never seen it done properly, and all you hear is the American side of how we should live life. An Islamic government would give each citizen a lot more security than any other government, and it would be a lot more of a pleasant place to live in because of that security.

[wilberhum]

You mean "speech" don't you? Which is also what we have in Islam, but not the reckless Americanized version of it. If something can threaten the stability of the country, not just the government but also it's people, then the government takes the responsibility of shielding the public from it. I agree that critical dialogue can take place at a proper place and time, but not in the irresponisble, reckless manner in which it's done now in the West.

Other than that, some people would consider what you said treason, or if not, they would tell you that it's ok, but then they'd come and kidnap you in the middle of the night and get rid of you. You think your government is "clean"? Come on, give me a break.

At least an Islamic government would be up-front about it.

It is as simple as "I believe in freedom of Speech and you believe in limiting speech".
I live where there is freedom of speech, I like it.
I hope you are fortunate enough to live where there is limmited speech.

[Skywalker]

Complete freedom of speech is great ... if you live under a corrupt government. But if you live under the rule of someone like Salah El-Din, complete freedom of speech can only do damage to the country and to its people.

[wilberhum]

Complete freedom of speech is great ... if you live under a corrupt government. But if you live under the rule of someone like Salah El-Din, complete freedom of speech can only do damage to the country and to its people.

Oh ya, "Once upon a time". Most all fairy tails start live that. Even if your assumptions were correct, the man is dead. Any goverment that can only stand because of one man and can't last past him isn't much of a government.:thumbs_do

[Skywalker]

How about Omar Ibn Abd El-Aziz, Omar Ibn El-Khattab, and most importantly Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who gave those people and us the example to follow to make that kind of "fairy tale" government as you put it? It worked before, people loved it, and it can work again if we can get it right.

[wilberhum]

key Point:

it can work again if we can get it right.

No one else has got it to work in a thousand years? It seams something so perfect would last. Or maybe there was many that did not see it as so perfect.

[aamirsaab]

key Point:

No one else has got it to work in a thousand years? It seams something so perfect would last. Or maybe there was many that did not see it as so perfect.

That was a case of human corruption

[Skywalker]

Or maybe there was many that did not see it as so perfect.

It fell apart after a very long time, and it only did so because of "foreign influences" that led to greed, corruption, Godlessness, and voila!...you have the secular governments of today :D

[wilberhum]

That was a case of human corruption

Of course. Humans corrupt everything. That is why I dismiss your belief that there was a time it was perfect.

[wilberhum]

It fell apart after a very long time, and it only did so because of "foreign influences" that led to greed, corruption, Godlessness, and voila!...you have the secular governments of today :D

Another one of those "It is not our fault", "Some one else caused it".
What you are saying is that it was so weak that it could not withstand "Foreigh Influences".

[Skywalker]

Actually, the start of the fall of the Islamic civilzation was from external forces that overpowered the armies at that time, which were the Mongols. Very soon after, the Crusaders took the advantage of our defeat and started their "holy war". That wasn't the problem though, after we defeated them, and lived peacefully for a time, they started introducing corrupt elements into our societies, which little by little caused our eventual downfall. The reason why it succeeded was because it wan't direct...it was very subtle, usually taking several generations to take effect. You can read more on Islamic history on wikipedia, or you can watch documentaries like "Islam: Empire of Faith" if you're interested in learning more.

[wilberhum]

Actually, the start of the fall of the Islamic civilzation was from external forces that overpowered the armies at that time, which were the Mongols. Very soon after, the Crusaders took the advantage of our defeat and started their "holy war". That wasn't the problem though, after we defeated them, and lived peacefully for a time, they started introducing corrupt elements into our societies, which little by little caused our eventual downfall. The reason why it succeeded was because it wan't direct...it was very subtle, usually taking several generations to take effect. You can read more on Islamic history on wikipedia, or you can watch documentaries like "Islam: Empire of Faith" if you're interested in learning more.

There is lots of accuracy in your post. But the Crusades were a result of Islamic expansion. A bit of taking the war to the enemy. That is not my support of it, because I don't. It is a major stain on Christanity. How it fell would never be a simple or single cause. It would be a multifacited complex cause. The fact is it fell and has never been reestablished.
I have seen "Empire of Faith". Nothing but bigoted propaganda.
The flip side of "Phrophit of Doom".

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Ha, propaganda..sure..

[wilberhum]

Ha, propaganda..sure..

[PIE]propaganda:
1. publicity to promote something: information put out by an organization or government to promote a policy, idea, or cause
2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread[/PIE]
So for sure, it is propaganda.

[Skywalker]

Umm...it's a PBS production...not an Islamic one. Doesn't propaganda usually originate from the side of those who it would serve their best interests? PBS is pretty neutral and not a Muslim organization. Plus all they had was historical facts, nothing more.

As for Prophet of Doom, heh heh, let's just say that twisting the meanings of hadiths to convey a point isn't quite up to my standard for "quality reading". More like a waste of time.

But alas, we have drifted rather far off-topic...might wanna give this a rest.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Ha, propaganda...sure..

[NoName55]

"Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3017).

:sl:
Could you please, tell me, in which of the 93 books of Sahi al-Bukhari books to look for this. I'll be most grateful fo any help anyone can offer (it will save me looking through them all) :w:

[Keltoi]

Islamic expansion had been threatening the Byzantine Empire and the Easter Orthodox Church for a long time. When the Crusaders took Nicea and Antioch, the major factor was in-fighting between Muslim princes, who underestimated the military strength the Europeans were massing together. There comes a time when every empire becomes too complacent, it happened to Rome, Byzantium, the British Empire, etc. It also happened to the Seljuk Turks.

[Skywalker]

:sl:

Here's an interesting article on the topic that shares a lot of my views on the subject.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/c...rticle02.shtml

[NoName55]

Bismillah Rahman Raheem. Al Hamdulilah Rabbil Alameen wa salat wa Salam ala rasool al Kareem. Maa ba'ad, greeting and peace

............
a hadith may abrogate a hadith or abrogate an ayatul quran but supported by an ayatul quran also
an ayat quran may abrogate an ayatul quran and thus still remain in the quran
..............

excuse my ignorance O learned one! I need you to show me which hadith abrogates what ayah and the ayah that abrogates the ayah

Thank You kindly

Is there a difference between may do something and have to do something?

I don't understand this one, so can't look it up

Does the Ahadith say an apostate must be killed or that an apostate may be killed?

2 questions in 1 confuse me: but here goes... to paraphrase Dr. Philips: The death penalty discouraged those who were joining the religion in order to undermine it from within. The apostasy law was first instituted to stop the undermining of the state. Some folk in Madeenah were "converting" to Islaam and apostating shortly thereafter in order to destroy the confidence of newly converted Muslims (Soorah Aal ‘Imraan (3): 72). (So it was case of "spies be aware" infiltrate us at your peril)

Are there any specific conditions under which it is said an apostate must be killed?

changing sides in middle of a battle - wartime - you try to run off with defence secrets at anytime war or peace

Does anyone commit a sin if an apostate is not killed?

may be the Mutaween and the Khalifah (at the very least failing in their duty to catch the spy) Allah Aalim

I pesonally can't even imagine anyone leaving some thing good to go back into darkness (except in cases where spying is involved)
Ma'asalaama

:w:


__________________________________________________ ______________

Home

Difficult Questions

No religious freedom: Those who leave Islam are executed?

Written by Dr. Bilal Philips
Tuesday, 27 June 2006

1. It should be kept in mind that when capital punishment for murder was abolished in the UK in 1965 it was retained for treason and piracy with violence. And it was also the legal punishment for setting fire to Her Majesty’s ships and dockyards until 1971.[1] Most countries have executed its citizens for treason. Treason is an act of rebellion against the state. State secrets are given to other countries which may not be at war with the state.
2. Islaam is not merely a religion but a complete system of life. Its rules not only govern individual conduct but also shape the basic laws and public order in the Muslim state. Apostasy encourages the rejection of law and order of society. It is an act of treason against the state which would encourage rebellion among the weaker citizens.
3. One who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down and assassinated. Nor would one who apostates privately and remains in the Muslim state conforming to the outward rules of the state be tracked down and executed. The practice of setting up inquisition courts to examine people’s faith is not a part of Islaamic legal tradition.
4. There is no compulsion in joining Islaam. Anyone may join the religion, but it should not be taken lightly. Only those who are serious should join. The death penalty discourages those who might think to join the religion in order to undermine it from within. The apostasy law was first instituted to stop the undermining of the state. Jews in Madeenah were converting to Islaam and apostating shortly thereafter in order to destroy the confidence of newly converted Muslims (Soorah Aal ‘Imraan (3): 72).
5. The death penalty is mainly for apostates who cooperate with enemies at war with the Muslim state or those who gather people against Islaam and fight against the state.
6. Western Civilization executes its citizens for giving away state secrets; something material. Islaamic law prescribes the death penalty for something far more serious. Rebellion against God is a far greater crime than rebellion against state secrets.

[1] The 1971 Criminal Damage Act replaced capital punishment with life imprisonment for these offences (Punishment in Islamic Law, p. 87).
< Prev Next >

[zaki.aumeerudy]

[When a long article/post has been posted, and you want to comment on the article/post, do not quote it since it is a waste of space.]

you do not deserve this knowledge by the way u reply
u better no converse with me

[Umm Yoosuf]

:sl:

I am going to close this thread because the topic has already been exhausted here

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...-apostasy.html

I don't see the point of the discussion it is not going any where.

:threadclo