Would like to understand you people..

[simonpeter]

Ok I also have a question- Is this the truth? http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=09dd6c4a67c686f5bc692572bb8082f0
Al-Irtidaad (to renegade from Islam)

The religion of Islam is the most perfect and complete religion. The laws of Islam are flawlessly designed by Allah. These laws of Islam are for the benefit and of mankind.

Islam induces unity and always condemns division and sects.

Once a person accepts Islam, he sees its beauty and perfection. If after seeing the beauty of Islam, a Muslim turns away from it, it means he turned away from perfection towards imperfection, disassociating himself from the unity of the Muslims ummah towards a way that is unacceptable by Allah.

Allah always wishes good for His servants. By one accepting Islam, he will be Insha Allah entitled to paradise. However, after accepting Islam, one turns renegade, it means he has become entitled to Jahannam (Hell). This is not what Allah wishes for His servants. To prevent more people from becoming true candidates of the fire of Hell, Allah legislated a deterrent for it, i.e. the law of execution.

This law of executing the renegade is a unanimously accepted rule according to all Muslims.

Al-Hadith

Sayyiduna Ibn Abbaas radhi allahu anhuma says: Nabi sallalahu alayhi wasallam said "Execute the one who renegades from his Deen." (Sahih al-Bukhariy Hadith6299, Sunan al-Nasaa’iy Hadith4059 edited by Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah)

Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan radhiyallahu anhu narrates hearing Nabi Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam as saying "……The one who changes his religion after accepting Islam must be executed." (Sunan al-Nasaa’iy Hadith4057 edited by Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah)

Sayyiduna Abdullah radhiallahu anhu narrates Nabi Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam as saying "It is not Halaal to kill a Muslim except for 3 reason: …no.3.The one that turns away from his Deen, thereby disassociating himself from the group of Muslims."(Sahih Muslim Hadith4351 edited by Shaikh Khalil ma’moon Sheeha)

Ijma’

The one who renegades from Islam must be executed is the unanimous verdict of the sahaaba, none of them rejected it.

The unanimity of the Sahaaba on an issue is conclusive evidence of the same.

The Fuqaha (Jurists)

All the 4 Mazhabs are unanimous that a renegade must be executed if he does not revert to Islam. Hereunder are classical texts from each of the 4 Mazhabs:

Al-Hanafiyyah

Imam al-Marghinaaniy says: "If a Muslim, may Allah forbid turns away from Islam, the religion of Islam should be presented to him. If he has any doubts they should be cleared…and he should be kept under supervision for 3 days. If he reverts to Islam, he must be set free, otherwise he should be executed. (Al-Hidaya) Allamah Ibn ‘Aabideen says: "Note well! It is unanimous that a renegade from Islam must be executed" (Rasaa’il Ibn Aabideen)

Al-Maalikiyyah

Imam Maalik says: "The one who renegades from Islam to another religion and exposes it will be asked to repent from his action. If he does not repent, he must be executed." (Al-Mu’atta lil Imam Maalik)

Al-shaafi’iyyah

Imam al-Shaafi’iy says: "One who renegades from Islam will not be left alone, either he reverts to Islam or he will be executed." (Kitab al-Umm)



Al-Hanaabilah

Allamah Ibn Qudaama al-Hanbaliy says: "All the scholars are unanimous that a renegade must be executed." (Al-Mughniy with Sharh al-Kabir Vol.10 Pg.74 Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah Beirut)

From the above it is explicitly clear that there is no leeway in the religion of Islam regarding executing a renegade from Islam.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

 

[aadil77]

yep^ but it in this age it rarely happens and in only certain muslim countries and you also have to be dumb enough to announce that you've left islam

 

[Grace Seeker]

yep^ but it in this age it rarely happens and in only certain muslim countries and you also have to be dumb enough to announce that you've left islam

Your answer acknowledges that, even if it isn't practiced today, it is still a part of the codified understanding of Islam as an appropriate response to those who leave Islam.

How does this EVER happening, at any time and place or for any reason, fit what I am constantly hearing about there being "no compulsion in religion"? This seems very much to be a form of compulsion.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

How does this EVER happening, at any time and place or for any reason, fit what I am constantly hearing about there being "no compulsion in religion"? This seems very much to be a form of compulsion.

It's an obvious contradiction, but look on the bright side - it must be pretty effective as a way of controlling the populace.

Peace

 

[aadil77]

Theres no compulsion in you becoming muslim, but its kind of like once you join theres no turning back.

note this:

"The one who renegades from Islam to another religion and exposes it will be asked to repent from his action. If he does not repent, he must be executed." (Al-Mu’atta lil Imam Maalik)

I'm not knowledgable on the subject but I think the emphasis in on preventing that apostate from creating a trial in society, by him leaving islam and exposing it he is potentially putting doubts in new and existing muslims, he is potentially putting off people from accepting islam.

Thats my view

 

[Insaanah]

Your answer acknowledges that, even if it isn't practiced today, it is still a part of the codified understanding of Islam as an appropriate response to those who leave Islam.

Peace, Grace Seeker,

Not just Islam, I believe?

Leviticus
24.16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. As well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Deuteronomy
12.6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,’ which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers

12.7 (namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth),

12.8 thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;

12.9 but thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Peace.

 

[Woodrow]

Your answer acknowledges that, even if it isn't practiced today, it is still a part of the codified understanding of Islam as an appropriate response to those who leave Islam.

How does this EVER happening, at any time and place or for any reason, fit what I am constantly hearing about there being "no compulsion in religion"? This seems very much to be a form of compulsion.

Peace Gene,

Just my opinion here. I see "no compulsion in religion" as applying to non-Muslims and not to Muslims. We are forbidden to force any non-Muslim into accepting Islam. Being non-Muslim does not mean the person is an enemy or should be treated as an enemy unless they act as an enemy with attacks intended to destroy us.

As to it's application regarding Muslims, as a Muslim I can not comprehend how or why a Muslim, would even consider leaving Islam, unless he/she is a very serious sinner who has no love for Allaah(swt). for me this is why I see an Apostate as being an enemy. For us Muslims there is compulsion to remain Muslim, this compulsion being Love of Allaah(swt). I see it as inconceivable for a Muslim to leave Islam unless they have become an enemy of Allaah(swt)

 

[Muslim Woman]

Theres no compulsion in you becoming muslim, but its kind of like once you join theres no turning back.

Dr. Jamal Badawi, Member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and the Fiqh Council of North America, states the following:

There are scholars who distinguish between apostasy on a personal level, which is not punishable by death, and apostasy that is accompanied by what we call today high treason, in which case the punishment is for high treason, not for apostasy.

Allah Almighty knows best.


http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547720​

 

[S_87]

Your answer acknowledges that, even if it isn't practiced today, it is still a part of the codified understanding of Islam as an appropriate response to those who leave Islam.

.

it still is practised and valid today, however like any other crime must be under shariah court and law. individuals cannot take matters into their own hands

 

[titus]

Just my opinion here. I see "no compulsion in religion" as applying to non-Muslims and not to Muslims. We are forbidden to force any non-Muslim into accepting Islam.

You deleted some posts on another thread concerning what I am about to post because it was off topic. I hope it is more appropriate here.

A member has posted that one of the reasons that a Muslim country can attack a non-Muslim country is if that country does not allow its citizens to convert to Islam. Yet Islam does not allow it's members to change from Islam.

Isn't this a double standard?

 

[aamirsaab]

The ruling on apostacy only applies to those who FIGHT against the state (or Islam). If it applied to any and all apostates, there wouldn't be any apostates shouting their mouths off about how Islam treats apostates because they'd all be dead!

 

[Woodrow]

You deleted some posts on another thread concerning what I am about to post because it was off topic. I hope it is more appropriate here.

A member has posted that one of the reasons that a Muslim country can attack a non-Muslim country is if that country does not allow its citizens to convert to Islam. Yet Islam does not allow it's members to change from Islam.

Isn't this a double standard?

This is an appropriate thread for that question.

Yes, it is a double standard. the rules applying to us as Muslims are much stricter than what we would apply to non-Muslims. Double standard yes, unfair or unacceptable to Muslims? NO.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace, Grace Seeker,

Not just Islam, I believe?


Leviticus
24.16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. As well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Deuteronomy
12.6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,’ which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers

12.7 (namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth),

12.8 thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;

12.9 but thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Peace.

Granted. But here you don't see the claim that there is no complusion in ancient Judaism that Islam makes for itself.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The ruling on apostacy only applies to those who FIGHT against the state (or Islam). If it applied to any and all apostates, there wouldn't be any apostates shouting their mouths off about how Islam treats apostates because they'd all be dead!

But the website which posted the fatwa seemed to indicate that one of the problems of Islam was that this WAS NOT being applied across the board and that it should be. I got the distinct impression that they would indeed be more happy with "they'd all be dead" than to allow a person to become an apostate Muslim. And the best I've seen anyone here say is that the ruling isn't always carried out, not that they disagreed with the ruling itself.

 

[Uthman]

The no compulsion vs. apostasy punishment issue was explained by brother islamiclife in this thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/aqeedah/134287278-compulsion-religion.html

Basically, the verse has a certain context which is understood by examining it's sabab an-nuzool or it's cause of revelation. Once it's meaning is understood in in context, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Gene,

Just my opinion here. I see "no compulsion in religion" as applying to non-Muslims and not to Muslims. We are forbidden to force any non-Muslim into accepting Islam. Being non-Muslim does not mean the person is an enemy or should be treated as an enemy unless they act as an enemy with attacks intended to destroy us.

As to it's application regarding Muslims, as a Muslim I can not comprehend how or why a Muslim, would even consider leaving Islam, unless he/she is a very serious sinner who has no love for Allaah(swt). for me this is why I see an Apostate as being an enemy. For us Muslims there is compulsion to remain Muslim, this compulsion being Love of Allaah(swt). I see it as inconceivable for a Muslim to leave Islam unless they have become an enemy of Allaah(swt)

The problem that I have with what you have said, Woodrow, is that when this is taken alongside the predominate view that those who are raised by Muslim parents in Muslim countries must also surely be Muslims, that you are saying that such individuals don't actually have freedom to choose, for it is already chosen for them. If the law, as you interpret it, was to be fully enforced, the only way for a person raised in Saudi Arabia to chose anything other than Islam would be to leave one's homeland. And, taking it to the next level, since Islam also argues that all persons are born Muslims and then fall away, it seems that some fundamentalist cleric could use that understanding as the perfect excuse to start terrorizing any who didn't conform to Islamic rule as having become apostates since birth and by not submitting to the authorities over him to be guilty of treasonous activity and thereby worthy of death.

 

[جوري]

who didn't conform to Islamic rule as having become apostates since birth and by not submitting to the authorities over him to be guilty of treasonous activity and thereby worthy of death.

The majority of Islamic rituals are carried out in the privacy of ones homes, if one didn't openly declare him/herself an apostate and an enemy of the state, I don't see how any 'extremist cleric' could possibly find out?
unless you are talking about regular breaking of the law as occurs in any country of the world and subject to punishment in whatever form is constituted?

all the best

 

[aamirsaab]

But the website which posted the fatwa seemed to indicate that one of the problems of Islam was that this WAS NOT being applied across the board and that it should be. I got the distinct impression that they would indeed be more happy with "they'd all be dead" than to allow a person to become an apostate Muslim. And the best I've seen anyone here say is that the ruling isn't always carried out, not that they disagreed with the ruling itself.

This is one of the major problems with using online q and a's - they don't always go into sufficient detail on what they mean or fully explain their terminology (case in point: what constitutes a renegade? How is an apostate actually proven to be an apostate etc)

Mere utterance of apostacy is not enough grounds for the apostacy punishment in Islam - I don't think one can be arrested on that front, much less take it to court on that basis!

It's the same with all laws in Islam; unless there is actual evidence of the crime (or a confession from the person in question), there can be no punishment adminstered.

You have to keep in mind the practicalities of this ruling; there has to be a significant line where the punishment begins and ends, otherwise any muslim whoever expressed the slightest amount of doubt in Islam (which I'm sure many of us have done at one moment in our life since we're human beings!) would be put to death!

p.s; I'm not denying the acual punishment by the way - I agree with that part.

 

[Woodrow]

The problem that I have with what you have said, Woodrow, is that when this is taken alongside the predominate view that those who are raised by Muslim parents in Muslim countries must also surely be Muslims, that you are saying that such individuals don't actually have freedom to choose, for it is already chosen for them. If the law, as you interpret it, was to be fully enforced, the only way for a person raised in Saudi Arabia to chose anything other than Islam would be to leave one's homeland. And, taking it to the next level, since Islam also argues that all persons are born Muslims and then fall away, it seems that some fundamentalist cleric could use that understanding as the perfect excuse to start terrorizing any who didn't conform to Islamic rule as having become apostates since birth and by not submitting to the authorities over him to be guilty of treasonous activity and thereby worthy of death.

Peace Gene,

I see where you are coming from and my view was basically in terms of an ideal situation in which all the people were sincere Muslims and would act as Muslims if a person became an Apostate. Sadly, I have to admit this does happen or has happened:

it seems that some fundamentalist cleric could use that understanding as the perfect excuse to start terrorizing any who didn't conform to Islamic rule as having become apostates since birth and by not submitting to the authorities over him to be guilty of treasonous activity and thereby worthy of death

I will avoid the common reply and try to address this in my own words.

While it would be difficult for an apostate to continue living in an Islamic Country, they should not be treated unjustly and should only be prosecuted if their actions are proven to be treason. I am aware this will not be the case in some countries that call themselves Islamic, but for the majority of the world's Muslims there is no fear of persecution and there are apostates living peacefully in a number of Islamic countries. Although I am certain family and friends will try to convince them to return to Islam.

 

[Eliphaz]

Regardless of the context, do you all honestly think that killing someone for leaving Islam is right under any circumstances?

You say that a 'sincere Muslim' would act 'as Muslms' but I personally think that the average Muslim would have nothing to do with it. All it would take is one scholar and a mass of blind anger. Do you think that these laws should have been laid out a bit more clearly?