Jump to content
Islamic Forum
rustykaks

Apostasy in Islam

Recommended Posts

Salaam,

 

the point of this thread is that it poses a fundamental problem. Many Muslims wish Islam to be seen as a peaceful and tolerant religion and give examples, both practical and theological, to support this view. In two actions (the sentancing and then your support) this completely undermines the work of these others. the death sentance for converting to another rleigion is clearly neither peaceful nor tolerant.

 

Secondly, and correct me if my theology is wrong, but I believe nowhere in the Quran does it say the penalty for changing one's religion is death. The death sentance is based on a hadith. As is it accepted that many of the hadith are for a particular time and a particular place, why is this one held onto as not being in this catagory? Is it because it excuses intolerance and beligerance? Surely such an importance thing (because, let's be honest, this is something that is important) would have been mentioned in the Quran as I get the impression it is the higher theological authority.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Salaam,

 

the point of this thread is that it poses a fundamental problem. Many Muslims wish Islam to be seen as a peaceful and tolerant religion and give examples, both practical and theological, to support this view. In two actions (the sentancing and then your support) this completely undermines the work of these others. the death sentance for converting to another rleigion is clearly neither peaceful nor tolerant.

 

Secondly, and correct me if my theology is wrong, but I believe nowhere in the Quran does it say the penalty for changing one's religion is death. The death sentance is based on a hadith. As is it accepted that many of the hadith are for a particular time and a particular place, why is this one held onto as not being in this catagory? Is it because it excuses intolerance and beligerance? Surely such an importance thing (because, let's be honest, this is something that is important) would have been mentioned in the Quran as I get the impression it is the higher theological authority.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

 

Hello Darla,

 

You see Darla, there is a fundamental problem here. Muslims have different definitions for words. To you "Tolerance" means to not kill the Apostate, but to Muslims it does not. To Westerners stoning adulterers is cruel and unusual. You have to realize Darla, that we have different definitions, and we won't always agree. Also, I will not stop my support for Islamic practices so Non-Muslims can know that Islam is tolerant and peaceful, because that would be wrong.

 

As for your other questions, Islam is based on the Quran and the Sunnah (what the Prophet said, did, or approved of). These are two sources of Islam. I suggest you look at the link I gave. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

You are certainly right about our very different ideas of what is right and wrong. I feel that it is probably something to do with the different status of forgiveness in each of our religions.

 

I looked at the link before I posted. If I may ask again, how do we know that the hadith quoted is not for a particular time and place? Surely for such an important issue there would have been mention in the Quran if it was an 'eternal' ruling.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

one other thing:

 

there is obviously lots of legislation/rulings regarding the rights of Christians and Jews in Muslim lands. All of those that I have seen give the right to freely worship, don't stone the church etc (I'm sure you know what I mean, if not I'll go back to a post which has it and find it). Given that Christians under Muslim rule are extended tolerance. And given that this is mentioned in many different sources. How does execution for conversion to this protected religion make logical sense? If the intention was for no one to leave Islam, Christianity should be banned for it is a religion of conversion. As it is not banned, not ignore but actively protected under Islamic law there seems, to me, to be a contradiction.

 

On the one hand we have the single hadith you pointed out.

 

On the other we have a significant body of literature protecting Christians.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Note to Darla: I've requested this topic be merged with the ongoing discussion of this article in the thread (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?act=ST&f=142&t=27533"]Explain this to me[/url], where Fusillat has made an attempt to answer your objection as phrased by myself.)

 

Peace, friends,

 

The Islam Q&A link includes the following argument. "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 would like to point out to any non-western muslims who are confused by this, that no court of law in a western society will execute a driver for running a red light. It's not even a criminal offense. It is a civil offense and punishable by a fine, or if part of a pattern of moving violations, by revocation of the privilege of driving.

 

In short, the above analogy is suspect.

 

"The punishment for apostasy is prescribed for the protection of the religion and as a deterrent to anyone who is thinking of leaving Islaam."

 

When news of this punishment casts Islam in an unfavorable light, it is arguable how this serves to protect the religion. Nor, even were the death penalty to serve as a deterrent, (which it does not), can I harmonize this view with (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256"]al Baqara 2:256[/url].

 

I do not see why a muslim should on the one hand trust Allah to bring humans to Islam, but distrust Allah to maintain submission. Should a muslim lose his faith through doubt, fear of this punishment can only serve to keep him from addressing these doubts, and encourage him to live a lie. Or so it seems to me.

 

As ever, Jesse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

I add to your objections that only God knows what is in our hearts and minds. Human can judge things they can see and measure and which harm them as humans, for example, theft, murder, rape etc. But to judge someone's religion is to say you can look into his soul. Even if some person says 'oh, I am so-and-so religion' whether or not that is a crime is up to God to judge as only He can see man's intentions. Basically, we (as humans) are far to limited to pass such judgements.

 

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

 

PS: I think the topic is deserving in its own right. If it is merged then as this is a big news article then people will start a new one on this topic anyway. Sometimes having two simlar but not identical thread running is beneficial as they can lead in different directions. At the time that the cartoons were big news there were 3 threads active on the same topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace, Darla,

 

I think the title on this thread is more accurate, but both threads are addressing the same issue. It's simple enough for a mod to retitle the thread.

 

As I concluded on the other thead, though, "Whatever benefit might accrue from censorship by execution needs to be measured against the damage that accrues when word of this ultimate censorship is spread."

 

As ever, Jesse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

Taoist, I think you and I are very similar in our feelings on this issue. I agree to a merge where the title was changed. The topic is more detailed in the other thread but as you observed, the title is not as clear.

 

The man has been a Christian for 16 years...do we know why its now they suddenly wish to punish him?

 

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is Google's first definition of "tolerance":

 

"The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."

 

It will be interesting to learn the how others may define the word. In my view, it is normal for there to be behaviors which will not be tolerated. It does matter a good deal what types of behaviors are deemed to be intolerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is Google's first definition of "tolerance":

 

"The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."

 

It will be interesting to learn the how others may define the word. In my view, it is normal for there to be behaviors which will not be tolerated. It does matter a good deal what types of behaviors are deemed to be intolerable.

 

 

 

O brother .........I on't think you know what you meant there Gill .

 

I think this thread's topic is a good example to "learn how others define the word "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, Daral,

 

Here's my read.

 

Okay, if I understand what the stories are saying, we've got an Afghan man who converted to christianity in Pakistan while working with refugees 16 years ago. Fast forward, and now he's back in Afghanistan and battling his parents in a custody case involving his two daughters. These things can be quite ugly, and apparently this one's no exception.

 

I'm betting the parents knew they couldn't win the custody case on the merits and decided to go after him for converting. I doubt they'd be able to find someone willing to arrest the guy most places in the country. People are too reasonable for that. But it just so happens they managed to find a prosecutor with plenty of religious fervor and very little, if any, political savvy. Kinda reminds me of some of our tiny southern towns with a hayseed sheriff and a brother-in-law working as judge.

 

And so the story's going to make a fine splash around the world because everybody's well-primed for hearing muslim and thinking atrocity. Distance lends focus, and with nothing else to compare it with, what are they supposed to think? Now what was that again about this practice protecting the religion? This story says loud and clear that we'd better not convert to Islam until we can answer any possible doubt that might arise for the rest of our lives first! And we'd better make sure everyone we know who's thinking of converting knows this too!

 

My muslim friends, it would be very useful if you found a way to understand why this is just plain horrifying to non-muslims. Comparing this to punishing people who run red lights just adds to the problem. This is a real issue, and it's not going to go away. The rest of us aren't going to be satisfied with reasons that don't make sense.

 

But I've got a bright shiny new and crisp $50 bill sitting in my hand right now that says this guy will never get executed. Heck, I'll make it a Franklin and give odds. It would have to approved by Karzai, after all, and that just ain't gonna happen. Any takers?

 

As ever, Jesse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

not sure you'll get many takers...last time I read Islam bans gambling :D

 

I agree with nearly everything except your view of the outcome. Unfortunately, I think the poor man will be killed. Afghanistan's pretty backwards- a lot of the local imans etc can't read arabic so they are teaching on hearsay and we can imagine what pleasantries that leads to...

 

In my innocent state until I read this I was thinking that the idea of Christian martyrdom was no longer relevant to today's world...it seems intolerant people are determined to prove me wrong.

 

The village might decide to take 'justice' into its own hands and bypass any formal legal system, look at the Muhktar Mai case...

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

 

ps: what's a franklin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a franklin is a term used to describe a 100 US Dollar bill.

 

And Darla, if the afghan imams cant read arabic, the man would be in luck because if they actually read arabic they could plainly see that the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death.

 

Good luck to him, its his choice why should others care. I hope he doesnt get killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ps: what's a franklin?

 

A Franklin is a $100 bill. It has a picture of Benjamin Franklin.

 

 

It's this view of apostacy which makes me not even consider ever converting to Islam. It's wrong on so many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

 

I don't know how many of you have studied economics but there are 'barriers to entry'. These are things which stop a new firm starting up. One barrier to entry is sunk costs, ie: the ease with which someone can leave if they wanted to. It's always struck me as slighlt y ironic that one of the biggest obsticles to entry is you analysis of whether you can leave.

 

Ultimately in religion we are answerable to God, not man. It's just sometimes 'man' likes to dress up and play God with other men's lives/

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace, Darla,

 

What's a Franklin?! Oh, I see, you're a brit.

 

new100.gif

 

But in any case, anybody taking me up on it wouldn't be gambling, more like making a donation. Constitutionally, all death penalty cases have to be reviewed by Karzai. If it's already made it into the judicial system, the chances of lynch law are pretty well reduced already. Honestly, I think it's a custody case that's gone dirty, and I doubt if that'll be lost on the villagers.

 

I feel a certain amount of pity for the guy, but it's hard for an atheist living in the US bible belt to escape a feeling of vindication. What comes around, goes around. Bush's dad once said my kind of people shouldn't be allowed to vote. To be fair, Bush himself has said otherwise. And it's not like any of these Islamic rulings of tolerance apply to me, just to their fellow Abrahamists.

 

Off in the UK, it's easy to lose track of the religious extremism in the US, but it's not like we haven't had any number of recent court cases where the religious right has been trying to force us to accept a privileged position for their religious laws. Even to the extent of trying to force their interpretation of genesis into our biology classes. Have you heard of (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_SchooDistrict"]Kitzmiller v. the Dover Area School District[/url]?

 

Anyway, so long as people think dying or killing for a religion is better than living for your fellow humans, this sort of story will always be with us. It's the law of karma.

 

As ever, Jesse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any Muslims can explain to me how it is defendable to kill a man for converting from Islam, but for another nation to attempt to contain Islam is considered bad.

 

How can this not be considered a double standard?

 

How can one say that it is the duty of a Muslim to kill someone who converts to Christianity, but that non-Muslims should all be allowed to convert to Islam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if any Muslims can explain to me how it is defendable to kill a man for converting from Islam, but for another nation to attempt to contain Islam is considered bad.

 

How can this not be considered a double standard?

i will tell you the facts..but i dont think u will accept

.

Islam is the truth and the rest of the ideologies are falsehood .Truth is not equal to falsehood . and equating truth with falsehood is in itself double standard

 

How can one say that it is the duty of a Muslim to kill someone who converts to Christianity, but that non-Muslims should all be allowed to convert to Islam?

Its not the "duty of a muslim" to kill the apostate ...It can only be done by the leader of the state or province or whatever .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to "real" christianity -part of it as exists in the bible today and not according to those who

call themselves christians,the punishment for apostacy is death .

Romans 1:20-32 (from the New Testament) "20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

29. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

31. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

 

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and Finally this is the law in Islam ..we are not looking for you to give us your stamps of approval before acting according to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

we will ignore deutronomy-I believe it also allows my father to sell me into slvaery :D. As Christians we say Jesus fulfilled parts of the OT and as such 'superceded' them. We are clearly taught not to throw the first stone, to forgive out enemies and that judgement is a priviliege of God.

 

Regarding Romans, you will surely accept that suggesting the penalty should be death is very different from commanding it to be so (a la the hadith in this case). The next bit of what you quoted goes onto to say that men cannot jusdge these as they have no doubt done them themselves (the 'throwing the first stone' rule):

 

2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.

2:2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.

2:3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

2:4 Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? "

 

 

The key thing here isn't who has the harshest theory, its the fact that, quite simply, we aren't wandering around putting people to death for conversion or even suggesting they should be put to death. We ('the West') are protecting people's right to change religion by law, we are providing funding for other religions, we are legislating to allow people to practice their religion freely both publically and privately. On the issue of Hijab, cartoons, halal meat and Miss Begum's jilbab there were protests in the streets about the intolerance of the west. They are about to kill someone and that is apparently acceptable intolerance?!

 

Respectfully, its called a double standard and its being practiced to the max.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My original question elsewhere, (not meaning to derail here), was why I should read this as anything other than a reference to dietary laws. I have to say the explanation I was given was somewhat incoherent, but as well as I can remember it was some combination of the idea that this was the final ayah added to the Qur'an and that it was common linguistic practice at the time to address multiple subjects simultaneously.

 

 

 

right. i would like to ask the kuffar here to refrain from putting more of your opinions. you have stated them we have noted them so lets all move on in the discussion.

 

muslims think death penalty for apostates is just.

kuffar think its a horrible crime.

 

wonder why this and that doesnt help.

 

now to mr taoist wa alayk,

 

in the name of Allah the most High,

All praise belongs to Allah Alone. No equal does He have nor Partener. May the Peace and Blessings be upon His Rasul salallahu alahi wa sallam his companions his household and the believers until the day of judgement.

 

 

why I should read this as anything other than a reference to dietary laws.

 

I like your questions they are very thoughtful. This is the type of thinking that makes for great muslims.

 

ok first i need to say that i am not an expert of Qur'an or the arabic language. so therefore you take my comments about this ayah in that light.

 

In Qur'an we have what is specific and what is general. So you might have an ayah that talks about one event at a paticular time and a very broad ayah which states something in a far reaching way. and this ofcourse would be very reconizable to any scholar of Qur'an and arabic. and would be nearly impossible to say with any degree of acuracy in the english language.

 

back to 5:3,

 

Forbidden to you (for food) are: Al-Maytah (the dead animals), blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for other than Allah, and that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by the goring of horns Ãœand that which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal Ãœunless you are able to slaughter it (before its death) - and that which is sacrificed (slaughtered) on An-Nusub (stone altars). (Forbidden) also is to make decisions with Al-Azlam (arrows) (all) that is Fisq (disobedience and sin). This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But as for him who is forced by severe hunger, with no inclination to sin (such can eat these above mentioned animals), then surely, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

 

.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here we see that there are infact four diffrent subjects are being discussed.

 

dietary laws

making decisions with arrows

that the kuffar have given up hope to convert you

and Islam's perfection.

 

this is to show that not only dietary laws are being discussed.

 

.............................

 

It is clear from the sunnah that this ayah is talking about all of Islam.

 

 

Ibn Jarir recorded that Harun bin `Antarah said that his father said, "When the Ayah,

(This day, I have perfected your religion for you...) was revealed, during the great day of Hajj (the Day of `Arafah, the ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah) `Umar cried. The Prophet said, `What makes you cry' He said, `What made me cry is that our religion is being perfected for us. Now it is perfect, nothing is perfect, but it is bound to deteriorate.' The Prophet said, (You have said the truth.)''

 

also,

 

Imam Ahmad recorded that Tariq bin Shihab said, "A Jewish man said to `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `O Leader of the Believers! There is a verse in your Book, which is read by all of you (Muslims), and had it been revealed to us, we would have taken that day (on which it was revealed) as a day of celebration.' `Umar bin Al-Khattab asked, `Which is that verse' The Jew replied, (This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you...) `Umar replied, `By Allah! I know when and where this verse was revealed to Allah's Messenger . It was the evening on the Day of `Arafah on a Friday.'''

 

Futhermore, there has never been a disagreement at any time or place or by any sect of its meaning.

 

I say that the part of the ayah we are talking about is general in nature, it is inclusive of the entire din including dietary laws.

 

To argue over its meaning would be like how some kuffar argue over the meaning of Allah. If you can not accept that we regard our religion to be perfect and therefore free of the need to change, then im afraid you have sealed you heart and the need to discuss futher is gone. I am not asking you to accept Islam as perfect but to accept that we muslims regard it as perfect. and the question does a prophet need a prophet? the answer is clearly no because we have seen that the companions understood what its meaning was perfectly and had no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So taoist,

 

and for the moment i am only discussing with you.

 

Based on the evidences i provided, we must come to an agreement that Islamic laws can not be changed. so the idea that this is outdated with regards to Islam is wrong. you may well consider it to be outdated but that would be your opinion and nothing to do with Islam. or do you have an objections to that? im sure you dont as you have shown to be intelligent, so i will continue with our discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest amani
Greetings, sister amani,

 

 

 

The death penalty is on the decline (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.infoplease(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ipa/A0777460.html"]worldwide[/url], and this is a reflection of a changing world. It is somewhat embarassing to find my own country is the only industrialized country to have given up the death penalty only to reinstate it. The above article is disturbing because it denies the most fundamental of religious freedoms, the freedom to change one's beliefs.

 

 

sorry just noticed your post.

 

my answer-just because death penalty is on decline does not mean Islam should change with the times..we are here to please our Lord the One and Only. if it comes back in 10 years are we supposed to follow suit? no. just because somethings a common trend in the world doesnt mean we have to follow. take homosexuality being accepted for example. we will never accept because it will never be accepted..

 

... they're killing someone for changing his mind. And it's a command straight from the Quran. I dare say that killing people is not peaceful -- it doesn't mean the whole religion is violent, of course, but this part definitely is.

 

you need to understand the main fundamentals of Islam before judging this part. even then, you cant judge through a newspaper article....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×