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.
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
Another one of those "It is not our fault", "Some one else caused it".
What you are saying is that it was so weak that it could not withstand "Foreigh Influences".
Actually, the start of the fall of the Islamic civilzation was from external forces that overpowered the armies at that time, which were the Mongols. Very soon after, the Crusaders took the advantage of our defeat and started their "holy war". That wasn't the problem though, after we defeated them, and lived peacefully for a time, they started introducing corrupt elements into our societies, which little by little caused our eventual downfall. The reason why it succeeded was because it wan't direct...it was very subtle, usually taking several generations to take effect. You can read more on Islamic history on wikipedia, or you can watch documentaries like "Islam: Empire of Faith" if you're interested in learning more.
Actually, the start of the fall of the Islamic civilzation was from external forces that overpowered the armies at that time, which were the Mongols. Very soon after, the Crusaders took the advantage of our defeat and started their "holy war". That wasn't the problem though, after we defeated them, and lived peacefully for a time, they started introducing corrupt elements into our societies, which little by little caused our eventual downfall. The reason why it succeeded was because it wan't direct...it was very subtle, usually taking several generations to take effect. You can read more on Islamic history on wikipedia, or you can watch documentaries like "Islam: Empire of Faith" if you're interested in learning more.
There is lots of accuracy in your post. But the Crusades were a result of Islamic expansion. A bit of taking the war to the enemy. That is not my support of it, because I don't. It is a major stain on Christanity. How it fell would never be a simple or single cause. It would be a multifacited complex cause. The fact is it fell and has never been reestablished.
I have seen "Empire of Faith". Nothing but bigoted propaganda.
The flip side of "Phrophit of Doom".
[PIE]propaganda:
1. publicity to promote something: information put out by an organization or government to promote a policy, idea, or cause
2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread[/PIE]
So for sure, it is propaganda.
Umm...it's a PBS production...not an Islamic one. Doesn't propaganda usually originate from the side of those who it would serve their best interests? PBS is pretty neutral and not a Muslim organization. Plus all they had was historical facts, nothing more.
As for Prophet of Doom, heh heh, let's just say that twisting the meanings of hadiths to convey a point isn't quite up to my standard for "quality reading". More like a waste of time.
But alas, we have drifted rather far off-topic...might wanna give this a rest.
"Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3017).
Could you please, tell me, in which of the 93 books of Sahi al-Bukhari books to look for this. I'll be most grateful fo any help anyone can offer (it will save me looking through them all)
Islamic expansion had been threatening the Byzantine Empire and the Easter Orthodox Church for a long time. When the Crusaders took Nicea and Antioch, the major factor was in-fighting between Muslim princes, who underestimated the military strength the Europeans were massing together. There comes a time when every empire becomes too complacent, it happened to Rome, Byzantium, the British Empire, etc. It also happened to the Seljuk Turks.
"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."
Bismillah Rahman Raheem. Al Hamdulilah Rabbil Alameen wa salat wa Salam ala rasool al Kareem. Maa ba'ad, greeting and peace
format_quote Originally Posted by zaki.aumeerudy
............
a hadith may abrogate a hadith or abrogate an ayatul quran but supported by an ayatul quran also
an ayat quran may abrogate an ayatul quran and thus still remain in the quran
..............
excuse my ignorance O learned one! I need you to show me which hadith abrogates what ayah and the ayah that abrogates the ayah
Thank You kindly
Is there a difference between may do something and have to do something?
I don't understand this one, so can't look it up
Does the Ahadith say an apostate must be killed or that an apostate may be killed?
2 questions in 1 confuse me: but here goes... to paraphrase Dr. Philips: The death penalty discouraged those who were joining the religion in order to undermine it from within. The apostasy law was first instituted to stop the undermining of the state. Some folk in Madeenah were "converting" to Islaam and apostating shortly thereafter in order to destroy the confidence of newly converted Muslims (Soorah Aal ‘Imraan (3): 72). (So it was case of "spies be aware" infiltrate us at your peril)
Are there any specific conditions under which it is said an apostate must be killed?
changing sides in middle of a battle - wartime - you try to run off with defence secrets at anytime war or peace
Does anyone commit a sin if an apostate is not killed?
may be the Mutaween and the Khalifah (at the very least failing in their duty to catch the spy) Allah Aalim
I pesonally can't even imagine anyone leaving some thing good to go back into darkness (except in cases where spying is involved)
Ma'asalaama
Written by Dr. Bilal Philips
Tuesday, 27 June 2006
It should be kept in mind that when capital punishment for murder was abolished in the UK in 1965 it was retained for treason and piracy with violence. And it was also the legal punishment for setting fire to Her Majesty’s ships and dockyards until 1971.[1] Most countries have executed its citizens for treason. Treason is an act of rebellion against the state. State secrets are given to other countries which may not be at war with the state.
Islaam is not merely a religion but a complete system of life. Its rules not only govern individual conduct but also shape the basic laws and public order in the Muslim state. Apostasy encourages the rejection of law and order of society. It is an act of treason against the state which would encourage rebellion among the weaker citizens.
One who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down and assassinated. Nor would one who apostates privately and remains in the Muslim state conforming to the outward rules of the state be tracked down and executed. The practice of setting up inquisition courts to examine people’s faith is not a part of Islaamic legal tradition.
There is no compulsion in joining Islaam. Anyone may join the religion, but it should not be taken lightly. Only those who are serious should join. The death penalty discourages those who might think to join the religion in order to undermine it from within. The apostasy law was first instituted to stop the undermining of the state. Jews in Madeenah were converting to Islaam and apostating shortly thereafter in order to destroy the confidence of newly converted Muslims (Soorah Aal ‘Imraan (3): 72).
The death penalty is mainly for apostates who cooperate with enemies at war with the Muslim state or those who gather people against Islaam and fight against the state.
Western Civilization executes its citizens for giving away state secrets; something material. Islaamic law prescribes the death penalty for something far more serious. Rebellion against God is a far greater crime than rebellion against state secrets.
[1] The 1971 Criminal Damage Act replaced capital punishment with life imprisonment for these offences (Punishment in Islamic Law, p. 87). < PrevNext >
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