Apostasy in Islam

This is an excellent post on the subject

http://www.islamicboard.com/20595-post1.html

format_quote Originally Posted by seeker_of_ilm

This is an excellent post on the subject

http://www.islamicboard.com/20595-post1.html

Good post indeed. But it looks like the subject still isn't cleared up. What I read there co-incides with what I said in my post, that if someone leaves Islam without presenting a threat to the Islamic nation, then they should be left alone. So if that's the case, then there's still the problem of there being a mutually agreed upon rule in the Shariah that calls for all apostates to be killed, no matter what the situation.

Shouldn't we be working to change that?

Anybody care to post any comments?

Jazaak Allah khayran for those posts, blackjubba.

I read those same articles when I first started researching this topic. Now, not to say that I don't agree with what's written, there are a few things we can mention about them at least for the sake of discussion:

"Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

Doesn't this also mean that if a Christian changes his religion and becomes a Jew to kill him? Or if a Buddhist becomes a Christian to kill him as well? Obviously not, that's why I think that this hadith needs better understanding than what read at face value, because I'm confident it has a different meaning.

What if the Prophet (pbuh) meant this is a political sense instead of an individual one? What if they were fearing attacks from the kuffar and that the people who left Islam at that time went to join them and fight against Islam? This can easily be looked at as just a war strategy at that time, rather than a rule for all eternity.

The person who knows the truth and believes in it, then turns his back on it, does not deserve to live.

Says who? In the Qur'an it only says that their lives will be frutless and that their punishment in this life and the next (which will both come from Allah) will be severe. I think the sheikh jumped a that conclusion a bit prematurely.

There is no doubt that such a serious crime must be met with an equally weighty punishment.

In a way this doesn't really make sense. How do we know the equal punishment for apostasy if Allah did not say it to us? Only Allah knows how much true belief is worth to Him and how much the one that turns away from it should be punished, that is why He reserved that right for Himself. He clearly tells us in the Qur'an the punishments for theft, adultery, etc., but does not specify what should be done with apostates, save that He will carry out their punishment.

If the kuffaar do not give people the freedom to cross a red light, how can we give freedom to people to leave Islaam and disbelieve in Allaah when they want to?

I see that as a weak arguement because first, they don't kill you for crossing a red light, and second, Allah says that there is no compulsion in religion, therefore he gives everyone the freedom to believe what they want. It's a Muslim's duty to guide a person, but never to enforce a belief on someone.

Surat al Ghashiyah

"21. Then give warning! You are only to warn them;
22. You are not their overseer.
23. But he who turns his back and disbelieves.
24. Allah shall chastise him with the severest chastisement.
25. Surely to Us is their return.
26. Then it will be for Us to bring them to account."

I see that at pretty good evidence to support the fact that Allah will deal with them on His own.

The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

Says who? Did Allah say it in the Qur'an? Where is the evidence to support this? I don't like reading people's own conclusions without giving any kind of evidence.

By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

This is true. But is it a bad thing? A lot of Muslims nowadays are not even real Muslims, and you'd think that if they just said that they were atheists that it would be better for them than the hipocricy that they're living. Some of them don't know anything about Islam and go around talking in ignorance, thus giving Islam a bad name and making it look bad. If Allah didn't ordain for someone to be Muslim, then I say let him leave, because if we can get those people out, we will have a stronger ummah. Either that, or teach them the right path and prove to them that Islam is the light, and the path to follow. Allah knows best anyway, I'm just thinking outloud.

The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

I doubt anybody would actually be willing to be convinced within 3 days. In fact, people rarely are convinced of something when they're put under pressure. Instead, they are more inclined to do it when you leave them be, and figure things out on their own speed.

I don't argue that this could have been effective during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) with the apostates working as spies, but today the situation is different.

Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

Again, only Allah knows the answer to this, but He has already told us that He will carry out the punishment.

how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

This is a fairly limited point of view. All religions view themselves as THE TRUE RELIGION, not only Islam, and that should be put into consideration. I think that until a person knows about other religions and sees Islam as the only one that speaks the truth, he cannot be called a true Muslim or he would be a weak Muslim.

Allah knows best anyway, those are my points of view.

This subject is known wrong.To kill murtad İn the islam is possible only in war and in other places isn,t halal.The decisions in this subject in the period of abubakir,was supposed permanent everytime an everywhere.

Agreed, but if that's the case then why are the people over at IslamQA and Islamonline and pretty much all Muslim authorities saying that it's a general rule, war or no war?

format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah

I doubt it- they can only be killed if they live in an Islamic state... and I'm sure most reverts do not... so they have nothing to fear.

I don't think it's so much the fear of death as it is the principle itself of society controlling a person's personal beliefs. Non-Muslims might back away from Islam upon learning this because everything they've been brought up to know has to do with freedom of belief, and believe it or not, it's the same thing that Islam teaches, but people won't see that if there's a law that orders the killing of apostates in Shariah. So yeah, I think it really does push non-Muslims away...why? Because so far to me, it doesn't make sense; and one thing that has always been a constant in Islam is its pure undeniable logic. Therefore, I'm very doubtful that this law is what Allah wanted, and I fear that we Muslims have been doing a very wrong thing for a very long time; but it's not too late to stop.

Some more discussion on this matter would really be helpful and enlightening. Anobody have anything to say?

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.

Nor does it mention that the adulterers (the one who does zina whilst married) should be stoned, and yet this is something prescribed in the Shari'ah.

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.

With this kind of reasoning, there should be no punishment at all in the Islamic state. Why should someone who steels be punished by the state, when Allah will deal with him in the Hearafter?

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?

The âyah refers to entering Islam. No one should be forced to become a Muslim. Once you are a Muslim, however, there are certain laws you have to follow in an Islamic state.

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?

Aren't you aware that they aren't punished right away? They will have a chance to get their doubts out of the way and a chance to repent. If they don't understand something, they will get it explained. There's no need to wait 20 years. By the way, if they keep their apostasy to themselves, they wont be punished and they can revert back 20 years later.

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.

Here's the hadith:

“Whoever changes his religion is to be killed.” (Bukhari)

Here it is explained by Jamaludin Zarabozo:

It should be noted that this hadith does not give the “wisdom” behind this law. Thus, the complete reasoning why an apostate should be killed is not explained in the text (other than the specific case in the other hadith of abandoning the community). Hence, any discussion of the reason behind the act can be considered no more than speculation and conjecture. This is a very important point because some people try to “defend” this law by deriving reasons behind it, such as the commonly heard argument that apostasy is a threat to the state and is therefore tantamount to treason; thus the state has the right to kill said individual. This rational argument is sometimes answered simply by saying, “I do not think that an individual’s apostasy is a threat to the state.” The fact is that the complete wisdom behind this ruling is not explained to humans in the texts of the Quran or Sunnah. For example, it could possibly be the case that if someone has grown up and is living in an Islamic state, there is no rational excuse for him to give up the religion of Islam and become an apostate. Perhaps such an act by such a person is so grave that God, his Creator, deems that he is no longer deserving of life. This would definitely be God’s prerogative from an Islamic perspective. Again, this author is not stating that this is the wisdom behind the law of apostasy but is only saying that the real wisdom behind this law is not explained in the text and one must be cautious about stating what the reasoning is.

Wow, jazaak Allah khayran for that reply bro

Nor does it mention that the adulterers (the one who does zina whilst married) should be stoned, and yet this is something prescribed in the Shari'ah.

Are you sure? I've not noticed it myself but people I ask tell me that's it's clearly written in the Qur'an. I'll do a little research and get back to you on that insha-Allah.

With this kind of reasoning, there should be no punishment at all in the Islamic state. Why should someone who steels be punished by the state, when Allah will deal with him in the Hearafter?

Not exactly, I think you missed my point. For the other crimes, Allah says that He will deal with them in there hereafter, but for apostasy, it says that He will deal with them both in this life AND in the hereafter.

The âyah refers to entering Islam. No one should be forced to become a Muslim. Once you are a Muslim, however, there are certain laws you have to follow in an Islamic state.

Are you sure about it referring to only entering Islam? Is there proof of this? And yes, you have to follow rules set by an Islamic state just as you follow the rules of any place to live in, there's no problem there. What I'm trying to state is my opinion that one law in a hypothetical Islamic state could be based on a misinterpretation of the Qur'an.

Aren't you aware that they aren't punished right away? They will have a chance to get their doubts out of the way and a chance to repent. If they don't understand something, they will get it explained. There's no need to wait 20 years.

Yeah I do know this, but I think it'd be pretty hard to convince someone to truly believe something when you tell them that their alternative is death. Unless they're willing to die for their other religion, they will probably just say whatever to avoid the death sentence and be let back into society, but this would introduce an unstable and potentially dangerous element into the ummah. What's worse, a kafir or a corruptor?

By the way, if they keep their apostasy to themselves, they wont be punished and they can revert back 20 years later.

That would be good it it were true, do you have any references about this? Also, just what is meant by "keeping it to themselves"? Does that also mean not notifying the immediate family? If so, what is one supposed to say if they ask him why he doesn't pray, fast, etc.?

Secondly, does this rule apply to those who were born Muslim? There is a big difference between Muslims by birth and those by conversion. All those that lived at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) were Muslims by conversion...in other words they were *convinced* that Islam was the truth out of their own free will. Today, you have people who are born into Muslim families, but do not act like Muslims and in some cases don't even believe what Muslims believe. But they're still called Muslims. I believe that a person is not really a true Muslim until they say the shahaada with true conviction, therefore I see people who are born Muslims as Muslims temporarily until they achieve a logical and spiritual conviction of the existance of God, and the conviction that Islam is the truth and God's chosen path after examining the alternatives.

How would the rule of killing apostates work for a person who was never a Muslim by conviction, but only by birth? Isn't it Allah's place to judge and punish these people accordingly?

Perhaps such an act by such a person is so grave that God, his Creator, deems that he is no longer deserving of life. This would definitely be God’s prerogative from an Islamic perspective. Again, this author is not stating that this is the wisdom behind the law of apostasy but is only saying that the real wisdom behind this law is not explained in the text and one must be cautious about stating what the reasoning is.

In other words the discussion can go both ways since nobody is sure of the reasoning behind the Prophet's words (pbuh)?

Here are a couple of hadiths to consider:

Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Bukhari, volume 9, #37
"Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: 1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) 2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and, 3) a man who fought against Allah and His messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate....

Tell me what you think...

By the way, I'm not denying in any way that I could be wrong, I'm just learning as we go, so don't think for a second that I'm not taking your points seriously. I'm after the truth and God's right path.

PS: is that link in your signature your personal blog? Because I'm very interested in talking to an English-speaking Bosnian Muslim about my recent trip to Bosnia.

Are you sure? I've not noticed it myself but people I ask tell me that's it's clearly written in the Qur'an. I'll do a little research and get back to you on that insha-Allah.

As far as I know, there is now âyah in the mushaf of today which mentions that the person who commited zina whilst married should be stoned. And yet, it is from the Shari'ah.

Not exactly, I think you missed my point. For the other crimes, Allah says that He will deal with them in there hereafter, but for apostasy, it says that He will deal with them both in this life AND in the hereafter.

Which âyah are you refering to?

Are you sure about it referring to only entering Islam? Is there proof of this? And yes, you have to follow rules set by an Islamic state just as you follow the rules of any place to live in, there's no problem there. What I'm trying to state is my opinion that one law in a hypothetical Islamic state could be based on a misinterpretation of the Qur'an.

ibn Kathir explained the âyah:

"Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

Yeah I do know this, but I think it'd be pretty hard to convince someone to truly believe something when you tell them that their alternative is death. Unless they're willing to die for their other religion, they will probably just say whatever to avoid the death sentence and be let back into society, but this would introduce an unstable and potentially dangerous element into the ummah. What's worse, a kafir or a corruptor?

Again, they can just keep it to themselves and the alternative wont be dying for their religion or staying a Muslim.

That would be good it it were true, do you have any references about this? Also, just what is meant by "keeping it to themselves"? Does that also mean not notifying the immediate family? If so, what is one supposed to say if they ask him why he doesn't pray, fast, etc.?

I got the information from Bilal Philips. I don't know the answer to your last questions.

How would the rule of killing apostates work for a person who was never a Muslim by conviction, but only by birth? Isn't it Allah's place to judge and punish these people accordingly?

Allah stated the punishment through the tongue of His prophet (sall Allahu 'aleyhi wa sallam).

In other words the discussion can go both ways since nobody is sure of the reasoning behind the Prophet's words (pbuh)?

No, not really. It means that since the rationale behind the punishment isn't stated, trying to say what it is would be speculation. Therefore, to say that is because of this or that and that it shouldn't be applied unless these conditions are met, would be wrong since that isn't at all mentioned in the hadith. The hadith is clear, and so the punishment is set.

Tell me what you think...

I think that the hadiths on the subject are pretty clear. We shouldn't read things into them that aren't there.

By the way, I'm not denying in any way that I could be wrong, I'm just learning as we go, so don't think for a second that I'm not taking your points seriously. I'm after the truth and God's right path.

May Allah guide both of us.

PS: is that link in your signature your personal blog? Because I'm very interested in talking to an English-speaking Bosnian Muslim about my recent trip to Bosnia.

Yes, it's my blog. I recently changed my kunya (nickname) to Abu Abbas, hehe.

Sorry for not replying for a while guys, but I'm trying to do a little more research on this subject before proceeding any further in this thread.

Anyways, I sent an e-mail to IslamToday regarding this issue, and I received their reply which I think you guys might find interesting. Here it is:

Answered by Sheikh `Abd al-Rahmân b. Zayd al-Zunaydî, professor at al-Imâm Islamic University, Riyadh

In Islam, religious conviction is seen as a personal decision based upon free choice. There in no value for an outward expression of faith from someone who inwardly is wholly convinced of unbelief. Therefore, there can be no compulsion in religion. This is why the People of the Book living in the Islamic state are not required to embrace Islam. Rather, their rights are guaranteed to them and they are allowed to live in peace and security within the Islamic state and to maintain their distinctiveness from the Muslim majority.

With respect to the issue of apostasy, we must understand that within the context of the Muslim society, Islam is not merely a philosophy of life or a temporary set of policies. It is the choice of the society as a whole to be the social contract underpinning their society. If someone leaves Islam after embracing it, he becomes by his action an aggressor against Islam who publicly discredits it, thereby committing a crime against society as a whole. This is a strategy that is generally employed by the enemies of Islam and by those who wish to bring harm to it.

Allah describes this behaviour in the Qur’an: “And a party of the People of the Scripture say: Believe in that which hath been revealed unto those who believe at the opening of the day, and disbelieve at the end thereof, in order that they may turn back.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 72]

Apostasy is a crime in the context of the Islamic state. It is essentially an aggression against the state and an act of treachery. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The blood of a Muslim is not made lawful except for one of three things: retribution for murder, adultery, and the one who abandons his faith and separates from the community.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6878) and Sâhih Muslim (1676)]

This hadîth establishes the ruling of capital punishment for apostasy. We can see that it also clearly links the crime of abandoning the faith with separation from the community. It is the treasonous aspect of apostasy that makes it warrant such a punishment.

For this reason, a person in the Islamic state who leaves Islam will not be punished unless he publicly proclaims his apostasy and then calls others to do so. The hypocrites of Madinah were well-known. They were unbelievers who did not publicly proclaim their unbelief. They used to live in the company of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions, even though their unbelief was known to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The unbelief of many of the hypocrites was also known by the Companions, on account of the inevitable slips of the tongue the hypocrites would make and many of the stances the hypocrites would take. However, none of these hypocrites was ever punished for such things. Their unbelief was tolerated.

And Allah knows best.

I'll give my response to this email and to Abu Zakariya's post next time insha-Allah.

I am in the very early stages of learning so please bear with with if these are dumb questions.
1)In Islam isn't in believed that all people are born muslim and then and then some are taught different. So would this mean that everyone who isn't muslim should be killed?
2)From what I gather from this post
a-if you are muslim and convert to another religion you are to be killed
b-Islam can't be forced it is supposed to be accepted on your own free will.
My question is, isn't saying that you must accept Islam or die being forced to believe?

I'm no sheikh, but I'll try to answer your question logically...

First...

a-if you are muslim and convert to another religion you are to be killed

Well, according to the sheikh's statement from above, if you keep it to yourself, you're free to live.

b-Islam can't be forced it is supposed to be accepted on your own free will

That is indeed true...

My question is, isn't saying that you must accept Islam or die being forced to believe?

Well if you're a non-Muslim, nobody can ever tell you that, but if you're referring to Muslims, well yes, that was one of my initial points that seemed to me that it was contradicting the fact that the Qur'an states that there is no compulsion in religion. However, if you keep in mind that you can change your religion, but only keep it to yourself, then it might not really feel like compulsion.

I'm still analyzing this topic though, so I'm not set on a personal conclusion yet. Me and you are learning together it seems...

So by the Prophet, peace be upon him, prescribing punishment on those who left the religion, it seems that you feel that that is contradicting the Qu'ran, so please correct me but are you saying that the Prophet, peace be upon him, placed a law which contradicted the Qu'ran?

That's not what I meant; I meant that the Prophet (pbuh) placed a law that might have been placed for political and military reasons instead of religious reasons.

Islam of course crosses that line because Islam as a religion contains a political aspect, that's why I think it's easy for the Prophet's (pbuh) sayings to be misinterpreted. Part of religion is political, but I think it should be isolated in this case from the personal aspect.

The Prophet (pbuh) did not contradict the Qur'an if you keep in mind what I said.