What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

  • Thread starter Thread starter August
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 105
  • Views Views 20K
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is very difficult to prove apostasy unless a person is doing some very overt anti-Islamic acts.

Or just saying I'm going to church now.:D

To remain predictable, I'm going to rant against "Apostacy as a crime"

Firstly, I fully understand that , currently the forcable conversion of kaffir is rare. Death for not converting isnt a big issue,(except for those Iraqi christians).

Muslims are born muslims. in this they have no choice. A catholic is born a catholic. A catholic who renounces the faith...even for another Christian sect...is excommunicated. That means theyre going to hell. Fair enough for the convert, they ditched catholicism because they diddnt beleive in it anymore, so the old pope waving his arms about and promising the lakes of fire wont worry them. They are happy to take that chance knowing that in their new religion or in their agnosticism/ athieism, they will find whatever spiritual path beckons.
The Spanish inquisition hgwever had a problem. The Catholics were leaving in droves and hell after death diddnt have the same deterence that it used to.
Simple to solve. They would hasten Gods judgement by burning the apostates of Catholosism alive. Puritanical England did the same.

So these medieval insitutions practiced exactly what Islam practices now.
The Torture rack of the inquisition saved many sinners before their deaths from the eternal flame by illiciting confessions from them that they might go straight up to heaven rather than hell.

A child is unaware of religion at birth. They cant make the choice until they develop the cognative skills to think independantly. (I wont go into religions built in aversion and coercion against independent thought). However, when a choice has to be made through personal conviction of the individual, what does their religion have to say on the matter?

Well a Muslim growing up, lets say he is a teenager, he has attended the mosque every day brought by his family. He has listened to thousands of sermons. he is fully aware of the penalty for apostacy. he is finally ready and mature enough to make his own Decision. But he cant.

He may live in the west. He risks a honour killing (unlikely) or beating ( likely). He risks being shunned by not only his family, but by his community. He would be surely better off just plodding along, going through the motions. What if he wanted to show his new found faith in another religion...heck...even worse in none at all?

He may live in the Sudan. Spiritually he may totally disagree with what he has been taught and have the courage to stand up for this. Courage or stupidity? He has just bought himself what the dissenters to the spanish Inquisition bought. Death for disbeleif.

Apostacy makes a mockery of the words there is no compulsion in religion. Theres no compulsion to join, at the moment, mainly, (unless you read Bin-liner and Ahmadinerjads pleas to the west to convert to Islam in order to be safe). But if your in the club, your not getting out easily. you are compelled to stay.

Treason against God? Yup, thats exactly what the Inquisition said. What the Crusaders said. And its part of Islamic law.
 
Woodrow said:
In an Islamic Country, such as Afghanistan it must be remembered that Islam is part of every aspect of life. It is not just your religion it is your citizenship. To convert from Islam is treason to your country and can/will be treated as treason. It goes beyond the simple leaving a religion. Those laws do not apply to non-Muslims living in those countries.
Redefining killing someone for leaving a religion to treason does not justify the act. Apostates of Islam merely change their view on a religion and a more reasonable example would be to equate it to giving up citizenship of a certain nation. In no state I can think of is that equatable for death and if it was it would not be morally right.

islarima said:
Leaving Islam is not only treason to the country but Islam and God. We know christianity came to replace Judaism and Islam came to replace christianity as the next message to the people. A Muslim knows and believes and tesitify that there is only One God with no partners and Muhammad is the last Messenger. Based on this testimony, he is a muslim. So when he goes against his own testimony and turns away from what is the truth then he has error. We humans have treasons laws that are punishable by death, be it the west or the east. So what about the Creator of this world? It is His earth you are living on and when you do treason against Him, what right do you have to live on His land?
That is an invalid example in justifying death or punishment for apostasy because Non-Muslims do not accept your idea that God (or, at least your conception) is the creator of the universe. This is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Is it also relevant that people back away from their own testimonies? Do you advocate killing apostates from Judaism or Christianity?

Anyways, the punishment is administered by the Islamic state. And before it is done, the person is given 3 days to return to Islam. In that time frame he has access to Muslim scholars or people of knowledge to clear any misunderstandings he may have developed. After 3 days, if he is still defiant then the proper punishment is administered for his treason.
Prohibition of independent thought on the basis of a religious doctrine which you believe grants you the authority to issue such power over an individual's life. This is why no religion should be under any method of authority over people's lives in a state.

There is no compulsion in Islam, and this is true. No one is forced to convert to islam, if one is forced then their acceptance is not valid and they are free to go.
And you think forcing someone under pain of punishment/death to revert back to Islam is going to be a valid re-acceptance?

Woodrow said:
To leave Islam in an Islamic country is the same thing as an American citizen denouncing his citizenship and embracing communism. that would not be seen and being very favorable, the punishments and or condemnation would depend on the severity of what a persons actions are.
Would that person in the USA get punished for embracing Communism? I doubt it.

I see more of a possibility in America for Islamic communities to pass local Sharia ordinances. Very similar to the way some housing divisions today have a community board that enforces the standards upon the resident land owners. It would be acceptable to all Muslim residents, but I doubt many Non-Muslims would choose to move in.
What is this implying? A microstate within a state?

Fi_Sabillah said:
Isn't that saying that i can change my religion because i have 'more authority than God'? That's like saying 'i can throw my scripture behind my back since it doesnt fit in with the society i live in today.'
That is precisely what religious freedom is. You could revert to a religion where flying pixies control the Sun. It is the freedom of belief.

Is that really how a religion should be? When you can give it up just because societies changed?
A religion can be what it will. If it inflicts on a society in a negative way and endangers those with other beliefs then it becomes a problem.

Or do you remain firm upon your morals since you know that society without Divine Guidance is in the times of ignorance, no matter how advanced it may be technologically etc. Because Divine Guidance from God should be for all times, no matter how secular the people are.
What is this paragraph implying?

hemoo said:
what do you think about someone who is blaspheming the creator ?

will you say thay we should leave him do it because he is not causing any harm to the society !!!!
No society should be based on the rule of a particular religion. What you have typed above is a testament to this.

IbnAbdulHakim said:
no, they chose what they felt like and fed their lust.
Evidence?

If your staunch on your disbelief now then without a doubt there was a day when you pondered if there really was a God but your sins grew and grew so now to you logic states that the existence of God is as likely as flyingspeggetiblah
So you assert that pondering about philosophy is sinful?

but theres others who have always been trying their best to control their desires holding back on wordly pleasures, doing things for the sake of God and to those people whos hearts God has allowed to remain pure, logic clearly states that there is a God and to say otherwise is foolish.
Rhetoric. People are perfectly capable of changing belief systems on the basis that they simply cannot assert a certain ideology any longer. I could pretend that I believe in a God but it wouldn't be true. I would have to convince myself.

The lack of empathy for many apostates from Islam on here is quite sad considering the fact that any apostasy from any belief system is likely to be very troublesome for the apostate.

Fi_Sabillah said:
Besides - the person who leaves Islaam does so either out of ignorance, or out of rebellion. The person has the right to ask any questions which he/she is unsure about, and they will be clarified and answered in detail for them. And the praise is for God/Allaah that Islaam makes total sense and is logical. Also - the punishment can only be applied within an Islamic State and no-one can apply the punishment except as a last resort, and this is done by the judge.
Why is it necessary to be applied at all? You cannot force a belief out of an individual. This is compulsion within Islam whether you accept it or not. You can assert that there is no compulsion in coming to Islam, but in an Islamic State according to many on here - there is compulsion in staying within the faith.

Skavau
 
Oh and just adding, in victorian Britain, we used to chuck people who went against the churches teachings, say for having a child out of wedlock, into mental hospitals. Going against God must be madness, so right up to the 1930's we stuffed them full of drugs and gave them electroconvuslsive shock "treatment"
 
Jim Jones justified killing people that tried to leave. Not a new concept, is it?
As with any thing, there are reasons and there are excuses. Now that we have heard the excuses, I think everyone not wearing "Faith-Blinders" can see the reason. [MAD]Intolerance. [/MAD]
There is no compulsion to religion but I will kill you if you change your mind. :skeleton:
 
:sl:
Summarised apostacy ruling = it only applies in CERTAIN circumstances e.g. in times of war, to prevent spies - not all apostates at the time of the Prophet were subject to the executions, only the one that were, on the evidence, judged to be spies. This is how the rule was ORIGINALLY used. Unfortunately, it is no longer used in this way and now we have oppression of religion in muslim countries.

I gave a summarised version because I've stated it many times on LI.
 


:sl:

In order to understand this issue, we need to examine the Islamic law on apostasy. Since religion is looked on as a personal affair in western society, the notion of state intervention in one's personal choice would naturally seem excessive. However, from the Islamic perspective, a number of points must be observed with regard to apostasy:
1. Islam has never compelled anyone to accept the religion. Anyone who becomes a Muslim does so purely through objective study of the religion. As Allah has informed us in the Qur'an:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.
10:99 So would you (O Muhammad) then compel people to become believers?


Likewise, Islam encourages its followers to reflect and contemplate upon the universe around us and to ponder over the beauty of the Qur'anic message:

47:24 Do they not ponder over the Qur'an or are their hearts locked up?

51:20-21. And on earth are signs for those endowed with inner-certainty; and [likewise there are signs] in yourselves, do you not observe?

29:20 Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.


Thus, Islam requires that one's faith be constructed upon logical investigation and study of the universe in which we live. Through logical contemplation, one realizes the supreme authority of the Creator and the veracity of Muhammad's (saws) claim to prophethood. Thus we find that, in the history of Islam, no knowledgeable Muslim has ever left Islam. The only cases we find of former Muslims are people who were never practicing Muslims in the first place, nor did they ever have a good understanding of Islam. Yet on the other hand, the list of educated converts to Islam is immense, and it includes educated leaders such as priests, rabbis and atheists.

2. Those who have left Islam have historically fallen under three categories: those who left having never properly understood the religion often due to social circumstances, those who faked a conversion into Islam in order to undermine the Islamic community from within, and those who left to support opposing forces in battle against the Muslims. Because of the first category, Islam requires that the person who has chosen to forsake the religion be consulted with in order that his doubts may be clarified to him if there is any specific issue of confusion, or so that he may learn the proper Islamic teachings that he may otherwise have not been exposed to. As for the second and third category, this was the original reason behind the Prophet's statement on apostasy. The Qur'an records (3:72) that the Jews of Madinah decided to initiate the practice of pretending to accept Islam and then publicly declare their rejection of it, so as to destroy the confidence of the newly-converted Muslims. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh ruled that a punishment should be announced so that those who decide to accept Islam do so because of a firm conviction not in order to harm the Muslim community from within.

3. Coming to the actual law of apostasy, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did say, in the above historical context, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him" (Bukhari, Abu Dawud) but how exactly do we understand this statement and does it conflict with the principles of freedom? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself clarified this statement in another hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim where he mentioned that the one who was to be fought against was the one who "abandons his religion and the Muslim community". It should be noted that every country has maintained punishments, including execution, for treason and rebellion against the state (See Mozley and Whitley's Law Dictionary, under "Treason and Treason Felony," pp. 368-369). Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it is a complete system of life which includes a Muslim's allegiance to the Islamic state. Thus, a rejection against that would be akin to treason. Rebellion against God is more serious than rebellion against one's country. However, one who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down and assassinated, nor would one who remains inside the state conforming to outward laws be tracked down and executed. The notion of establishing inquisition courts to determine peoples' faith, as done in the Spanish Inquisition, is something contrary to Islamic law. As illustrated by the historical context in which it was mandated, the death penalty is mainly for those who collaborate with enemy forces in order to aid them in their attacks against the Islamic state or for those who seek to promote civil unrest and rebellion from within the Islamic state. When someone publicly announces their rejection of Islam within an Islamic state it is basically a challenge to the Islamic government, since such an individual can keep it to themselves like the personal affair it is made out to be.

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.​
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.

From another of my posts:
Ansar Al-'Adl said:
If a predominantly Christian country were going to execute a former Christian who converted to another religion (in this hypothetical case, Islam) would you be ok with that?
As a side note, this has already happened, examples include the spanish inquisition. But on to your question...

First of all, the law on apostasy has been explained here and here. It is commonly taken out of context, but the point to note is that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) clarified that the one to be punished was the one who rebelled against the community. This is quite similar to state laws on treason. A state is justified in taking action against those who pose a significant threat. But the idea of setting up an inquisition to examine the beliefs of the people is against Islamic teachings, so someone who personally changes their religious convictions will be insignificant in the eyes of the state. It is the one who publically announces his rebellion, stirring civil unrest, who must be opposed. While the Christian inquisitions were bent on examining (through the use of torture) the beliefs of those Muslims and Jews who outwardly professed conversion to Christianity, in an Islamic state, someone who even outwardly professes acceptane of Islam is left alone because they cause no harm to society, and the Islamic state is only interested in the security of its society.

If someone poses a threat to a state's security, then they are justified in taking action against them. But if someone changes their personal religious views, then it is quite extreme for the state to attempt to pry into the hearts of its citizens to determine their faith and punish them.

:w:

_______

Material from this post has been added to this article:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_d...ection=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions#28

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top