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

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


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/...rn-thought/freedom-thought-speech-action-2369

 

[Skavau]

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.

Yes. This is according to every single secular democratic state. Freedom of belief is an important part of life. The moment you are prohibited from exhibiting your character is the moment that life becomes meaningless.

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?).

First of all, there is no death penalty for 'treason' in the UK or the USA. The references for these claims I see made are wholly outdated and almost always unsourced. Irrespectively, no-one is punished for 'rejecting democracy' or 'rejecting secularism' in the UK or USA. You can create a party called United Fascists and despite ideological contempt, you'd probably be able to (with enough support) roll in an election.

Second of all, the Cold War was a drawn-out ideological face-off between two diametrically opposed economic ideals in two nations indeed - but this was of a specific ideological incompatibility inflamed by their importance in the world. This does not represent the complaints concerning the punishment for apostasy in Islam nor does it refute them. It is, a non-sequitor. We are talking about the prohibition of freedom of belief based on 'divine' direction, not the interaction of two superpowers.

Third of all, no-one is at war with Islam. This is just a repetition by those who want to believe that. Indeed though, Secularists in general (such as myself) do condemn all totalitarian, theocratic, fascist and tyrannical regimes across the world.

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?

This is an epic slippery slope. By your logic, why can't any group desiring to prohibit expression and contempt towards their project have it legislated that anyone who slips free is terminated? What if the Sci-fi cult of Scientology declares that their fair game policy ought to be law, because gosh darn it is a part of their foundation (Hubbard formulated it). Why can't say any religious minority outright make claims for control over their flock? We would descend into a plural-theocratic tyranny where freedom of expression is all but annihilated.

The real answer is that because human rights matter. No group, no matter how convinced or convicted in their actions ought to have control over others. It is a direct assault on the liberty of others - possibly the most cherished and integral right ever conceived: the right to live according to your own creed. The right to your own beliefs, your own lifestyle and a right to have your own voice. Why would anyone who holds these values as you hold your deen ever consider your argument as valid? I suspect you and others would with equal veracity complain if a Christian converted to a Muslim, and had his former community call for his end.

Why is this any different?

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.

This does not matter. Freedom of Belief trumps this. You might not value such a thing, but it is more important to you and everyone else than you realise.

I will skip the scriptural justification and speculation concerning the alleged motives by others considered for 'disunity' amongst muslims.

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 does this even mean? "make our own form of loyalty superior"? Just so you know, in the secular world and in the USA - no loyalty whatsoever is required to the United States. Any citizen can choose to leave and reside in another nation for the rest of their life whilst spending that time criticising it from that nation. It doesn't matter and wouldn't matter.

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?

Wrong.

Christian fascists (Operation Christian Vote) are a legal political party in the United Kingdom. Many Muslim groups exist in the United States that would very much rather the end of secularism. Many more nationalistic and racist groups exist in the USA legally complete with their own expansive websites and forums for interaction. The most famous of course is the Stormfront group.

[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.

Ignoring the fact that none of the above is actually true of the USA or any secular democratic state - this is a ridiculous analogy. In your analogy, you are talking about a group of people that deliberately attempt to (with no means specified) undermine the state's validity. Apostasy of Islam is simply renouncing your previous beliefs. It is an entirely personal matter where you feel you can no longer sincerely hold the tenets of Islam to be valid. The two have nothing in common. One is an action by a group to undermine a state, the other is a personal renouncement of a set of beliefs you once had.

One is an act motivated by choice, one is not even a choice (belief and non-belief are not choices).

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?

That depends.

What do you mean by "trying to overthrow your values"? Irrespectively, what does this have to do with apostasy?

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.

This is problematic for many reasons.

First of all, there is a passive concession that apostates perhaps could have come to their position through contemplation or, rather without choice or insincerity. This matters because it almost singlehandedly refutes all other issues concerning this.

Apostasy is not a choice. You do not choose your beliefs. If I come out tomorrow and it happens to be raining - I cannot say with sincerity that I believe it to be sunny. I simply have too much evidence to state that such is the case. I would be in a position of denial or insincerity to contend otherwise. The same is with apostasy. An apostate has come to the position that he can no longer believe that Islam is the true religion. He has no choice in this matter. By setting up harsh punishments (the penalty of death) for conceding this - you are ironically encouraging hypocrisy (which I understand is something Muslims in particular hold as reprehensible). You are encouraging a system of secrecy amongst apostates where they conceal their position. And, honestly - could you blame them?

Second of all, why do you imagine that at death's door (3 day waiting period) that an apostate of Islam won't just lie and pretend to have reconverted back to Islam in order to save his own skin? Surely given what is at stake it could be incredibly likely - and indeed, he or she might be rather good at it.

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

What?!

Okay, so essentially you are conceding that in some instances, dishonesty is preferable to honesty. That is tragic.

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

You and no-one should ever be punished for what you or they believe or say.

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.

And this article has shown me that hypocrisy is passively encouraged by such law.

 

[Uthman]

At this point, I would like to do the customary thing which is to chip in and post a link to the following thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/4738-islam-apostasy.html

 

[جوري]

First of all, there is no death penalty for 'treason' in the UK or the USA. The references for these claims I see made are wholly outdated and almost always unsourced. .

There you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

I couldn't be bothered with the rest of the drivel!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

There you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

I couldn't be bothered with the rest of the drivel!

all the best

"Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were American communists who were executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage. "

As I said, and you actually quoted:

First of all, there is no death penalty for 'treason' in the UK or the USA. The references for these claims I see made are wholly outdated and almost always unsourced. .

 

[جوري]

"Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were American communists who were executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage. "

you wrote and please allow me:

Originally Posted by Skavau

First of all, there is no death penalty for 'treason' in the UK or the USA. The references for these claims I see made are wholly outdated and almost always unsourced. .

I believe the above link should take care of all that-- the whole point of a public execution is that other treasonists would learn a painful lesson. Either they stop committing treason or simply got really good at not being caught!

As I said, and you actually quoted

see above!


all the best!

 

[Skavau]

Why did you ignore the fact that I also included "wholly outdated"?

The incident you refer to now is outdated. It is no longer a part of USA law to execute people like that.

 

[جوري]

Why did you ignore the fact that I also included "wholly outdated"?

The incident you refer to now is outdated. It is no longer a part of USA law to execute people like that.

because two of your inane expressions outweigh one life buoy .. as for why they are no longer executed (see previous comment)

all the best

 

[Skavau]

because two of your inane expressions outweigh one life buoy .. as for why they are no longer executed (see previous comment)

all the best

I'll make my point as apt as possible then.

Treason is not comparable with apostasy from Islam. They have nothing to do with each other. One is an action against a state, essentially deliberately sabotaging it for the objectives for another nation (or a group). Apostasy from Islam is changing your belief from Islam to something else.

 

[جوري]

I'll make my point as apt as possible then.

Treason is not comparable with apostasy from Islam. They have nothing to do with each other. One is an action against a state, essentially deliberately sabotaging it for the objectives for another nation (or a group). Apostasy from Islam is changing your belief from Islam to something else.

Your opinion really doesn't matter. What the state considers 'treason' isn't subject to your personal interpretation. Especially when Islam isn't simply a religion but state law!

all the best!

 

[Uthman]

Skavau, please check out the thread to which I posted the link earlier. From reading your posts, it looks like you have some misconceptions about the Islamic position on apostasy. The reality will hopefully become clear to you after you read the first post in the other thread.

Regards

 

[جوري]

Skavau, please check out the thread to which I posted the link earlier. From reading your posts, it looks like you have some misconceptions about the Islamic position on apostasy. The reality will hopefully become clear to you after you read the first post in the other thread.

Regards

He prefers to keep his misconceptions and argue on empty!

 

[Skavau]

Your opinion really doesn't matter. What the state considers 'treason' isn't subject to your personal interpretation. Especially when Islam isn't simply a religion but state law!

all the best!

Islam is a state according to the beliefs of many Muslims. Just as Scientology is a religion according to the beliefs of many Scientologists.

Irrespectively, the thread starter established this thread with the obvious intention of trying to convince Non-Muslims that apostasy was justifiable. He did this by the method of analogy of treason and misrepresenting secular democracies to match with the reasoning of termination for leaving Islam. In essence, the thread starter is deliberately trying to reach out to Non-Muslims. If you are uninterested in doing that, then why are you here?

 

[Skavau]

Skavau, please check out the thread to which I posted the link earlier. From reading your posts, it looks like you have some misconceptions about the Islamic position on apostasy. The reality will hopefully become clear to you after you read the first post in the other thread.

Regards

I apologise, I did not see your post. I will have a look.

Keep in mind that I am aware of differences amongst Muslims concerning apostasy and Islamic Law. I am responding to the article that the original poster set up. If I do read and feel the need to respond to what you posted, with your permission I should like to IM you with your permission, or perhaps post it in this thread to further this discussion? Keep in mind that I have very specific problems and troubles with the concept of 'thought-crime' and it underpins almost all of my argumentation.

 

[جوري]

Islam is a state according to the beliefs of many Muslims. Just as Scientology is a religion according to the beliefs of many Scientologists.

I don't understand what this contrast has to do with the thread? This topic is about Apostasy in Islam not Scientology, do you think you can concentrate on the topic at hand?

furthermore, whether you acknowledge it or not, just like your founding fathers wrote a constitution down with laws therein (that folks follow), so did Islam come with a complete law. So whether you acknowledge that exists or not doesn't actually change the fact of the matter.

Irrespectively, the thread starter established this thread with the obvious intention of trying to convince Non-Muslims that apostasy was justifiable. He did this by the method of analogy of treason and misrepresenting secular democracies to match with the reasoning of termination for leaving Islam. In essence, the thread starter is deliberately trying to reach out to Non-Muslims. If you are uninterested in doing that, then why are you here?

Actually it is your reasoning that is completely fallible, I'd recommend before you actually gauge the topic in such a fashion that can only tighten the noose around your neck, that you acquaint yourself with the thread that Br. Uthman linked!

and try to make that a habit in general, to be read on a topic before you engage it!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

I don't understand what this contrast has to do with the thread? This topic is about Apostasy in Islam not Scientology, do you think you can concentrate on the topic at hand?

I was making a point that something is only what its adherents claim it is. It does not make it become it. I and indeed the original poster have referenced and many connections to other things in life in order to further points related directly to apostasy in Islam.

furthermore, whether you acknowledge it or not, just like your founding fathers wrote a constitution down with laws therein (that folks follow), so did Islam come with a complete law. So whether you acknowledge that exists or not doesn't actually change the fact of the matter.

Well, I'm English. But that is neither here nor there.

Islam came with many claims for itself. I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that others take these claims that it makes very seriously and believe them to be divine.

Actually it is your reasoning that is completely fallible, I'd recommend before you actually gauge the topic in such a fashion that can only tighten the noose around your neck, that you acquaint yourself with the thread that Br. Uthman linked!

You sole contribution to this thread was to remind me of the age-old incident of the execution of two communists in the USA in 1953. You have not commented on any of my complaints towards apostasy (rather you have dismissed them) and instead remarked that you don't care about my opinion. Everything else that you have said has consisted wholly of passive aggression and complaints towards me.

 

[جوري]

I was making a point that something is only what its adherents claim it is. It does not make it become it. I and indeed the original poster have referenced and many connections to other things in life in order to further points related directly to apostasy in Islam.

Your point is a non-point when the law of the land is steeped in a religion. In other words, if I live in the U.S I'll have to abide by the law written in its constitution, and likewise if I am in an Islamic state, I'll have to abide by the law revealed in its revelation. Your refusal to believe that it is a revelation or not really has no bearing on the matter that it is the law!

Well, I'm English. But that is neither here nor there.

What does this gibberish mean?

Islam came with many claims for itself. I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that others take these claims that it makes very seriously and believe them to be divine.

Your point being? If you acknowledge that, then don't pull Scientology out of your hat, I fear then your irony will fall on blind eyes, since there is no semblance to what we are discussing to what you are diverting us to!

You sole contribution to this thread was to remind me of the age-old incident of the execution of two communists in the USA in 1953. You have not commented on any of my complaints towards apostasy (rather you have dismissed them) and instead remarked that you don't care about my opinion. Everything else that you have said has consisted wholly of passive aggression and complaints towards me.

I have dismissed them because I recognized straight off that you know nothing about said law. I know that you didn't read the thread that Br. Uthman provided you and your only claim to fame is to take us to a ride in florid word city and in the end none of us has enjoyed the ride and as you started you end having learned nothing!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

Your point is a non-point when the law of the land is steeped in a religion. In other words, if I live in the U.S I'll have to abide by the law written in its constitution, and likewise if I am in an Islamic state, I'll have to abide by the law revealed in its revelation. Your refusal to believe that it is a revelation or not really has no bearing on the matter that it is the law!

Right.

I never disagreed otherwise. I am criticising the morality behind executing someone for changing their belief. We are not talking about whether you have to obey the laws of the land that you are in.

Your point being? If you acknowledge that, then don't pull Scientology out of your hat, I fear then your irony will fall on blind eyes, since there is no semblance to what we are discussing to what you are diverting us to!

????

Diverting? You have had me spend the last 5 or 6 posts or so explaining why I'm here and what I'm doing posting here. I mentioned Scientology in a side-note and you keep bringing it up. This is irony overload. Do you want to discuss this topic or not?

I have dismissed them because I recognized straight off that you know nothing about said law. I know that you didn't read the thread that Br. Uthman provided you and your only claim to fame is to take us to a ride in florid word city and in the end none of us has enjoyed the ride and as you started you end having learned nothing!

Did you not see my post where I acknowledged his link? I have actually responded to the article in the opening post of the linked thread anyway before in the past.

 

[جوري]

Right.

I never disagreed otherwise. I am criticising the morality behind executing someone for changing their belief. We are not talking about whether you have to obey the laws of the land that you are in.

I think you like to draw satisfaction out of overly simplistic conclusions, I am not going to work with crap distillate!

????

Diverting? You have had me spend the last 5 or 6 posts or so explaining why I'm here and what I'm doing posting here. I mentioned Scientology in a side-note and you keep bringing it up. This is irony overload. Do you want to discuss this topic or not?

I don't discuss topics with folks who are un-read-- it is a frank waste of my time. And you've been unread from the beginning, given the very first comment you've made which i replied to with a refutation. It wasn't really an invitation for conversation, it was to highlight that as you err in a small fashion you err in a big fashion!

Did you not see my post where I acknowledged his link? I have actually responded to the article in the opening post of the linked thread anyway before in the past.

Acknowledgment doesn't equate with action, until such a time you take your acknowledgment to the next level can you gauge this topic!

all the best

 

[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.