salamfromrom
Active member
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 4
Salam
I have read all ther opinions about apostasy and I do agree that if someone has researched and come to the conclusion of la Illaha Illa Allah, and later he denies and converts to another religion he should be killed. I am aware that this is the position of the madhabs and it seems reasonable. I mean if a sane adult embraces Islam knowing full well what the punishment for apostasy is and that There is only One God and Muhammad(pbuh) is his messenger, it would be stupid to disbelieve in it.
However I would like to ask about something which I do not understand. It is my understanding that the majority share the following view:
So this is the only thing which I find that goes against any logic or reasoning..
How can a child be killed once he grows up if once attaining the age of being able to think for himself he chooses to not be muslim. This seems to go against the very essence of freedom to choose your own religion. Am I wrong? Isn't Allah(swt) the only one who can guide? What if He(swt) decides not to guide a specific child born to muslim parents..... how can we kill him.
I should also mention that according to wikipedia, Ibn Taymyiah held the view that only apostasy when coupled with treason or slander or active work against islam should be worthy of the death penalty... Did he actually hold this view or is this just lies against him?
Salam a leikum
I have read all ther opinions about apostasy and I do agree that if someone has researched and come to the conclusion of la Illaha Illa Allah, and later he denies and converts to another religion he should be killed. I am aware that this is the position of the madhabs and it seems reasonable. I mean if a sane adult embraces Islam knowing full well what the punishment for apostasy is and that There is only One God and Muhammad(pbuh) is his messenger, it would be stupid to disbelieve in it.
However I would like to ask about something which I do not understand. It is my understanding that the majority share the following view:
(source: Wikipedia, Apostasy in Islam)Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi declares:
Whatever objections the critics pose regarding the punishment of the apostate, they make them bearing in mind only a single "religion" (madhhab). In contrast, when we present our arguments to demonstrate the validity of this punishment, we have in view no mere "religion" but a state which is constructed on a religion (din) and the authority of its principles rather than on the authority of a family, clan or people.
And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason. He then discusses the difference between a kafir, a dhimmi, and the appropriateness of death for them if they apostatize after conversion, and for those born of Muslim parents he states:
In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah.
Maududi considers the threat of execution as not forcing someone to stay within the fold of Islam, but as a way of keeping those who are not truly committed out of the community of Islam. Maududi rejects the third criticism because unlike other religions which are free to exchange believers, Islam is "on whose ideas and actions society and state are constructed" cannot allow "to keep open its door that would spell its own ruin, the scattering of its own structure's parts, the stripping away of the bonds of its own existence", and he compares this to the treason penalty on the books of the U.S. and Britain. Maududi also rejects the charge of contradiction. In his words:
"There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an [Qur'an 2:256]) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.
So this is the only thing which I find that goes against any logic or reasoning..
How can a child be killed once he grows up if once attaining the age of being able to think for himself he chooses to not be muslim. This seems to go against the very essence of freedom to choose your own religion. Am I wrong? Isn't Allah(swt) the only one who can guide? What if He(swt) decides not to guide a specific child born to muslim parents..... how can we kill him.
I should also mention that according to wikipedia, Ibn Taymyiah held the view that only apostasy when coupled with treason or slander or active work against islam should be worthy of the death penalty... Did he actually hold this view or is this just lies against him?
Salam a leikum