Freedom of Religion & The Death Penalty? [Good Refutation on Apostasy]

**- Qatada -** · 12-19-2009

Freedom of Religion & The Death Penalty?

Many people criticize Islamic law for punishing the apostate from the religion with the death penalty. They argue that this is not freedom to practise a religion you desire.

According to the USA, a person is allowed to follow whatever religion you choose, and switch to another religion at any time - without any consequences from the government.

Does this mean that USA has given more rights to the individual than Islam has?

Not really. Why? Because The US, or UK don't punish for rejecting God because their system of secularism isn't based on the foundation belief in One God. Rather, its about believing their secularism or democracy is superior over other forms of beliefs. They will punish people (in many cases with the Death Penalty for this treason), and they will even punish other nations for rejecting democracy as the superior ideology (i.e. didn't the USA fight the Russians for their Communism, and the Muslims now for their Islamic state?).

So why then can't Muslims - whose basis and foundation is the Tawheed [Oneness] of Allah, have punishments for someone who willingly rejected Islam (hence disloyalty to the Muslims as a whole), based on their own methodologies? If Muslims believe that disloyalty to Allah, and the believers is treason - then why can't they punish for it in their own way?

Now someone may go ahead and say that a Muslim leaving his religion is not disloyalty to his people?

But by apostating, this person has left his people and disunited them, and most likely even caused corruption amongst the people. The significance of this is that it could make others doubt Islam, as was done by the hypocrites - purposelly - during the life of Allah's Messenger.

So Allah revealed the verse;

A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back;

[Quran 3:72]

Ibn Kathir comments on this verse and mentions;

This is a wicked plan from the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) to deceive Muslims who are weak in the religion. They decided that they would pretend to be believers in the beginning of the day, by attending the dawn prayer with the Muslims. However, when the day ended, they would revert to their old religion so that the ignorant people would say, "They reverted to their old religion because they uncovered some shortcomings in the Islamic religion.'' This is why they said next.

[لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ]

(so that they may turn back.) Ibn Abi Najih said that Mujahid commented about this Ayah, which refers to the Jews, "They attended the dawn prayer with the Prophet and disbelieved in the end of the day in order to misguide the people. This way, people would think that they have uncovered shortcomings in the religion that they briefly followed.''

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

A Matter of Loyalty?

Now imagine in the USA, someone came and tried to cause disorder amongst the people. Saying to them that we should leave our loyalty to the state, and make our own form of loyalty superior.

What would happen? The media would be after that community, arguing that they are not loyal to the state, and anyone caught promoting their ideology over the ideology of secularism and democracy, they would be - imprisoned right? [This is what alot of Muslims are being accused of.] If they persisted in this - they would most likely get literal life imprisonment (which is synonymous to death because you can't meet anyone you love, and don't have freedom in life), or the actual death penalty.

If you are not arguing against this, then you are infact in favour of it. Do you find it okay for someone to be punished with life imprisonment, or death - if they are trying to overthrow your values?

Then don't be surprised if Islam does the same for the protection of its people.

A Judge Applies the Law, not the Local Guy in the street

An Islamic judge, in an Islamic state will apply the Islamic law for that apostasy.

The person by leaving Islam has 3 days, within which any of his doubts can be cleared. The whole reason he left Islam is because something didn't convince him or he was in doubt. Its about anything he has doubts about which can be clarified. And the Islamic scholars and people who excel in different secular fields (i.e. scientists etc.) should help him as much as they possibly can in this.

Hiding disbelief [=disallegiance] in the heart is not punishable in this life unless accompanied with action

If someone was to argue that having loyalty to another state or regime [opposing democracy] in your heart/mind is not punishable, then this is also the case in islam.

Someone who apostates and hides their disbelief in their heart or even in private, will not be killed according to Islamic law. He'll simply be a hypocrite.

Whereas according to other regimes; The only way someone can avoid being punished after being convicted is to PROVE that he has left his allegiance to the other regime, and he will most likely be blackmailed to do something in order to deny any form of allegiance to his previous belief. Compare this to Islam, where once someone has his doubts cleared - if he says the shahadah [declaration of faith], we accept his belief as being Muslim on the spot, and we can't doubt his Islam, even if he is a hypocrite [someone who claims to believe but is infact a disbeliever] in his heart after this. Unless he does something which proves disloyalty, such as fighting against the Muslim state etc.

also see;

Freedom of Thought, Speech and Action? Not Really.
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/i...ch-action-2369

**Uthman** · 12-27-2009

Skavau,

I'm not sure whether you know this already, but the Islamic punishment for apostasy only applies in a country ruled by Islamic law (i.e. an Islamic state). Of course, this doesn't address your argument regarding the morality behind it but I'm just mentioning this in case you didn't realise it already.

**جوري** · 12-27-2009

Originally Posted by Skavau

Right, so don't interact with me then. I am not going to respond to someone who has no interest in engaging with me sincerely on the topic of the thread.

I never write on any thread with an atheist in mind. As for sincerity, well I think anyone who has been following this thread can recognize who is sincere in their approach and who isn't!

all the best

**Skavau** · 12-27-2009

Originally Posted by Uthmān

Skavau,

I'm not sure whether you know this already, but the Islamic punishment for apostasy only applies in a country ruled by Islamic law (i.e. an Islamic state). Of course, this doesn't address your argument regarding the morality behind it but I'm just mentioning this in case you didn't realise it already.

I am indeed aware of this, yes.

**Uthman** · 12-27-2009

Originally Posted by Skavau

I am indeed aware of this, yes.

Then do you understand, from reading the article to which I linked, the following two points?:

The death penalty is not applied to a person who merely changes their beliefs because they no longer believe in Islam.
The death penalty is applied to a person who betrays the Islamic state by abandoning it in order to support enemy forces in battle against it.

Note that I'm not asking whether you agree with these laws but whether you understand that the above is the case.

Regards

**Skavau** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Uthmān

Then do you understand, from reading the article to which I linked, the following two points?:

The death penalty is not applied to a person who merely changes their beliefs because they no longer believe in Islam.
The death penalty is applied to a person who betrays the Islamic state by abandoning it in order to support enemy forces in battle against it.

Note that I'm not asking whether you agree with these laws but whether you understand that the above is the case.

Regards

Yes. I have very little moral disagreement with this argument or state of affairs. Keep in mind however, that from my experience not all Muslims claim this. The original poster in this article does not claim this.

I should like to comment on the article in your original post, but by its structure I am sure years by that I have actually responded to it. If it says nothing more than what you claim then I have no qualm.

EDIT: I should like to ask you about this paragraph at the end of the original post of the thread you linked me to. It might be slightly out of context, but I'd like to know what your take on this is.

So an Islamic state is certainly justified in punishing those who betray the state, committing treason and support enemy forces. As for anyone else, if they do not publicly declare their rejection of Islam, the state has no interest in pursuing them; if their case does become public, however, then they should be reasoned with and educated concerning the religion so that they have the opportunity to learn the concepts they may not have understood properly and they can be encouraged to repent.

What does the part in bold specifically mean? It implies that perhaps there are consequences for declaration of apostasy from Islam under Islamic Law?

**GuestFellow** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Skavau

What does the part in bold specifically mean? It implies that perhaps there are consequences for declaration of apostasy from Islam under Islamic Law?

I think that is where once someone does publicly declare their rejection of Islam, they will be educated and reasoned with. After 3 days they fail to accept Islam, they shall be executed.

Though I'm not entirely sure.

**Skavau** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Guestfellow

I think that is where once someone does publicly declare their rejection of Islam, they will be educated and reasoned with. After 3 days they fail to accept Islam, they shall be executed.

Though I'm not entirely sure.

Yes, indeed. This is the most frequent claim. I have addressed it in length in response to original post on this thread. But then, indeed (if this is 100% true) - it does despite some people's assurances become outright illegal to apostate from Islam under an Islamic state.

Stating that well, it is fine as long as you don't reveal yourself is like me telling a thief "oh don't worry, you're perfectly fine - just don't get caught".

**GuestFellow** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Skavau

Stating that well, it is fine as long as you don't reveal yourself is like me telling a thief "oh don't worry, you're perfectly fine - just don't get caught".

Not really, from an Islamic point of view, you will be judged in the next life. No escape.

**جوري** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Skavau

Yes, indeed. This is the most frequent claim. I have addressed it in length in response to original post on this thread. But then, indeed (if this is 100% true) - it does despite some people's assurances become outright illegal to apostate from Islam under an Islamic state.

Stating that well, it is fine as long as you don't reveal yourself is like me telling a thief "oh don't worry, you're perfectly fine - just don't get caught".

No one said it is 'fine' that is something you've concocted to cement another non-point .. but if you have a sense of survival either don't commit a crime or have enough sense not to get caught.. obviously many apostates were granted reprieve by the messenger himself .. law abiding citizens who don't wish to cause mutiny shouldn't really be punished for what their hearts can't accept. However, if you are declaring your apostasy in such a fashion to usurp the govt. then again be prepared come what may..

There is a consequence to crime.. whether you believe that something is a crime or not, isn't the issue, the law (whatever it maybe) isn't subject to people's opinion. We don't for instance punish or release thieves because you or joe or max have a strong feeling about the matter!

all the best

**GuestFellow** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

No one said it is 'fine' that is something you've concocted to cement another non-point .. but if you have a sense of survival either don't commit a crime or have enough sense not to get caught.. obviously many apostates were granted reprieve by the messenger himself ..

Can you please elaborate what I highlighted in bold? Were there Muslims who left Islam during the Prophet's time?

**Skavau** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

No one said it is 'fine' that is something you've concocted to cement another non-point ..

Yes they have. It is a tactic used directly by other Muslims apologists. I appreciate your honesty regarding it though.

but if you have a sense of survival either don't commit a crime or have enough sense not to get caught.. obviously many apostates were granted reprieve by the messenger himself .. law abiding citizens who don't wish to cause mutiny shouldn't really be punished for what their hearts can't accept. However, if you are declaring your apostasy in such a fashion to usurp the govt. then again be prepared come what may..

Okay.

There is a consequence to crime.. whether you believe that something is a crime or not, isn't the issue, the law (whatever it maybe) isn't subject to people's opinion. We don't for instance punish or release thieves because you or joe or max have a strong feeling about the matter!

?

I don't also, for instance recognise that Islam has any divine right to govern large portions of the planet purely because its adherents really believe that it represents something divine. But this is neither here nor there.

You realise that it is a foundation of free expression to be able to question all laws?

**جوري** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Guestfellow

Can you please elaborate what I highlighted in bold? Were there Muslims who left Islam during the Prophet's time?

4. From Islamic history, we can gain a better understanding of how this law has been implemented. Although the Prophet Muhammad pbuh threatened the death penalty in response to the attempts against the Muslim community, no such executions took place in his time (Imam Shawkani, Nayl Al-Awtar, vol. 7, p. 192) even though there is a report that a Bedouin renounced Islam and left Madinah unharmed in his time (Fath Al-Bari vol. 4, p.77 and vol. 13 p. 170; Sahih Muslim biSharh An-Nawawi, vol. 9, p. 391). Thus, we find that context plays an important role in determining how to deal with apostates. The case of one who enlists nations to fight against the Islamic state is more serious, for example. That is why the scholars of the Hanafi school of thought felt that the punishment only applies to the male apostate and not the female apostate because the latter is unable to wage war against the Islamic state. If someone simply has some doubts concerning Islam, then those doubts can be clarified.

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

I have written on the matter before but the search feature is making it impossible to find..

by the way reprieve doesn't mean condoning, rather not imposing the punishment imposed on apostates for political reasons!

and Allah swt knows best

**جوري** · 12-28-2009

Originally Posted by Skavau

Yes they have. It is a tactic used directly by other Muslims apologists. I appreciate your honesty regarding it though.

That is your own rendition!

I don't also, for instance recognise that Islam has any divine right to govern large portions of the planet purely because its adherents really believe that it represents something divine. But this is neither here nor there.

You realise that it is a foundation of free expression to be able to question all laws?

Questioning laws is fine and well, it doesn't give you the right to usurp it!

I can be unhappy with the current govt. of the U.S, but it shall remain as such whether I recognize it or not!

all the best