I've been thinking about this subject a lot lately, and done some research as well, and I'd like to take other people's opinions to see what they.
We all know that the Shariah ruling for leaving Islam after being a Muslim is death. The problem is that everybody takes that as a given, and not many people actually think about why it's like that. I did a bit of thinking on this subject, and my personal opinion is that this ruling in the Shariah is wrong. In other words, I feel that the Qur'an and Sunnah have been misinterpreted and this ruling is based on that misinterpretation.
While most big sheikhs are in total agreement that the apostate should be killed, a few others think as I do, that they should not. Here are my reasons:
1) The Qur'an is very specific about capital punishment for various crimes, yet on the subject of apostasy, it does not say anything about how apostates should be punished.
2) The Qur'an mentions in several instances that those who believe and then disbelive, or those who reject their faith, that they would be punished by ALLAH in this life and the next. Therefore, if Allah has reserved the right to punish them for Himself, who are we to take that right away? Allah does not need our help in punishing them.
3) The Qur'an mentions that there is no compulsion in religion. If you tell a Muslim who wants to leave Islam that he will die if he left, wouldn't that be compulsion?
4) If a person leaves Islam and decided 20 years later that he made a mistake and decides to go back to it, he would not be able to do so if he has been executed. Therefore, executing someone who has the potential to become a Muslim again takes away their chance of becoming Muslim again, and takes away their chance of entering paradise. And who are we to deny someone paradise?
In conclusion, the Qur'an and common logic state that the punishment to apostates will come only from Allah, and that men should not have anything to with a person's choice in faith.
As for the many hadiths that say that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered people who left Islam to be killed, I have a partial explanation for that.
During that time, when Islam was nothing more than a group of people living in Medina, people who left Islam usually went to the other side and worked for them to attack the Muslims, thus making them traitors and spies. It's my belief that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered apostates at that time to be killed, not because they've made a personal decision on which religion they want, but a political decision on which side they want to fight.
That's my interpretation anyway. I hope that's a good base for the start of this discussion, which I think is going to be very interesing...
Oh and please provide Qur'an and hadith sources when possible, but common sense and logic is also welcome.
I was aware of that, yes. Apart from extreme personality-cult dictatorships, it's only in an Islamic state that such a law would even be countenanced, isn't it?
No not really. If you think about, this law is applied all over the world but in different forms. For example, when someone betrays a country, don't they usually hang or are put in prisons for a very very long time? When someone is found guilty of espionnage, what usually happens to them?
By publically anouncing your apostasy in an Islamic country, you are saying that you openly reject the legitimacy of the government, not only that, but you're also putting doubt into people's minds, thus creating instability. Isn't that treason in a way? That's my logical perspective anyway. Also, during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) some apostates would join the kuffar and work as spies against the Muslims, therefore they were endangering the very security of the whole community.
By publically anouncing your apostasy in an Islamic country, you are saying that you openly reject the legitimacy of the government, not only that, but you're also putting doubt into people's minds, thus creating instability. Isn't that treason in a way?
No it isn't anything like treason. In fact it isn't even against the law, at least in the US. Just making another excuse to deney freedom of religion, freedom os speach and freedom of thought.
You justify one thing by distorting it to look like some thing else. Aposticy is nothing like treason.
If you actually took the time to read the rest of the thread, you'd know that there are different types of "apostasy". Not only that, but you just proved my point that you took it upon yourself to dispute, in that non-Muslims will have a hard time understanding this because to them -- you -- apostasy is apostasy.
Ok, here's a scenario: you swear your allegiance to a country, let's say the US, and then go out in public yelling that Russia is better and that everyone should forsake their allegiance to the US and be Russian. How do you regard that?
you swear your allegiance to a country, let's say the US, and then go out in public yelling that Russia is better and that everyone should forsake their allegiance to the US and be Russian. How do you regard that?
If Wilberhum sided with an enemy of the United States and actually gave aid and comfort to those enemies, he would have committed treason. Simply saying Australia is better than the U.S., while nutty, still isn't treason.
Just kidding about the nutty part.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
You mean "speech" don't you? Which is also what we have in Islam, but not the reckless Americanized version of it. If something can threaten the stability of the country, not just the government but also it's people, then the government takes the responsibility of shielding the public from it. I agree that critical dialogue can take place at a proper place and time, but not in the irresponisble, reckless manner in which it's done now in the West.
Other than that, some people would consider what you said treason, or if not, they would tell you that it's ok, but then they'd come and kidnap you in the middle of the night and get rid of you. You think your government is "clean"? Come on, give me a break.
At least an Islamic government would be up-front about it.
No not really. If you think about, this law is applied all over the world but in different forms. For example, when someone betrays a country, don't they usually hang or are put in prisons for a very very long time? When someone is found guilty of espionnage, what usually happens to them?
I don't see the similarity between a public declaration of apostasy and espionage at all. In fact, they seem to be almost opposites.
By publically anouncing your apostasy in an Islamic country, you are saying that you openly reject the legitimacy of the government, not only that, but you're also putting doubt into people's minds, thus creating instability. Isn't that treason in a way?
Not at all. Have you ever read a British or American newspaper? People question the legitimacy or rightness of governments and their actions all the time - they don't get put in prison for it. Also, what on earth is wrong with putting doubt into people's minds? All that does is encourage them to question things, to be sceptical. In the area of politics, if you're not sceptical, you will be a victim of misunderstanding or potential mistreatment.
It's also worth remembering that in order to be a patriot, you do not have to agree with everything the government says or does.
That's my logical perspective anyway. Also, during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) some apostates would join the kuffar and work as spies against the Muslims, therefore they were endangering the very security of the whole community.
I think I can understand this ruling being issued under the historical circumstances you mention, but why in a modern day hypothetical Islamic state?
Americans just have a different view of what government is, how it should operate, the role of the citizen in government, and on and on. I don't expect every country out there to accept Jeffersonian democracy, but the kind of state many Muslims seem to desire scares the heck out of me. Not that I'm worried about being put under such tyranny, just the dangerous threat posed by this type of government on basic human rights.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Not at all. Have you ever read a British or American newspaper? People question the legitimacy or rightness of governments and their actions all the time - they don't get put in prison for it. Also, what on earth is wrong with putting doubt into people's minds? All that does is encourage them to question things, to be sceptical. In the area of politics, if you're not sceptical, you will be a victim of misunderstanding or potential mistreatment.
There's a difference between a religious government and a secular government. A secular government practices man's law, while a religious one practices law created by God's guidance...in other words, it's based on faith. When you put doubt into people's minds about the very thing they believe in, you're slowly destroying the legitimacy of the government in people's eyes. Plus, why should a person be constatly asked to question his religion over and over? Yes, I agree that you should question things sometimes, it makes you a better believer, but how can you get anywhere in life if all you're doing is just questioning what's already established? When you have faith that something is the truth, you give yourself a base on which to stand and move forward from.
I think I can understand this ruling being issued under the historical circumstances you mention, but why in a modern day hypothetical Islamic state?
If there was a worlwide Islamic nation, then that would be the case, but since there isn't, then it doesn't apply.
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I don't expect every country out there to accept Jeffersonian democracy, but the kind of state many Muslims seem to desire scares the heck out of me. Not that I'm worried about being put under such tyranny, just the dangerous threat posed by this type of government on basic human rights.
Like I said before, living in a Sharia country should be by choice, and I know a lot of people that would love to live in one if it was properly established. I think the idea scares you because you've never seen it done properly, and all you hear is the American side of how we should live life. An Islamic government would give each citizen a lot more security than any other government, and it would be a lot more of a pleasant place to live in because of that security.
You mean "speech" don't you? Which is also what we have in Islam, but not the reckless Americanized version of it. If something can threaten the stability of the country, not just the government but also it's people, then the government takes the responsibility of shielding the public from it. I agree that critical dialogue can take place at a proper place and time, but not in the irresponisble, reckless manner in which it's done now in the West.
Other than that, some people would consider what you said treason, or if not, they would tell you that it's ok, but then they'd come and kidnap you in the middle of the night and get rid of you. You think your government is "clean"? Come on, give me a break.
At least an Islamic government would be up-front about it.
It is as simple as "I believe in freedom of Speech and you believe in limiting speech".
I live where there is freedom of speech, I like it.
I hope you are fortunate enough to live where there is limmited speech.
Complete freedom of speech is great ... if you live under a corrupt government. But if you live under the rule of someone like Salah El-Din, complete freedom of speech can only do damage to the country and to its people.
Complete freedom of speech is great ... if you live under a corrupt government. But if you live under the rule of someone like Salah El-Din, complete freedom of speech can only do damage to the country and to its people.
Oh ya, "Once upon a time". Most all fairy tails start live that. Even if your assumptions were correct, the man is dead. Any goverment that can only stand because of one man and can't last past him isn't much of a government.
How about Omar Ibn Abd El-Aziz, Omar Ibn El-Khattab, and most importantly Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who gave those people and us the example to follow to make that kind of "fairy tale" government as you put it? It worked before, people loved it, and it can work again if we can get it right.
No one else has got it to work in a thousand years? It seams something so perfect would last. Or maybe there was many that did not see it as so perfect.
No one else has got it to work in a thousand years? It seams something so perfect would last. Or maybe there was many that did not see it as so perfect.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Or maybe there was many that did not see it as so perfect.
It fell apart after a very long time, and it only did so because of "foreign influences" that led to greed, corruption, Godlessness, and voila!...you have the secular governments of today
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Apostasy in Islam (OP)
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks