Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Livius

Apostasy In Islam

Recommended Posts

What do you believe the law of Adam and Noah was? or the Injil, what laws should have been in this? I can't see how you would have better answers.

 

I don't know what the laws given to Adam and Noah(pbut) were like. The Injil laws were probably like the Torah laws, minus things which were forbidden in the Torah. It doesn't make a difference to me what their laws were.

 

God is all loving and doesn't want people to become corrupt like the Pharisees with all of their laws. Is this a faulty image of God in Christianity? That He wanted the laws summarized and corrected for all of mankind under the Messiah?

 

Do you believe in eternal Hell? If so, does God love those who dwell in there forever? I mean, the God of israel doesn't love his ennemies, but all that changes when Jesus(pbuh) comes in the picture?

 

First of all, I agree that Jesus(pbuh) came to correct the Pharisees' made up laws and their false interpretations of the Law. Jesus(pbuh) didn't come to correct God's Law, he changed it, but not as drastically as the NT Jesus.

 

Is it a faulty image of God in Chrisitianity? Yes, because it is not the Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

So, anyway, disregarding the side-track about Christianity, is the OP entirely incorrect? Or is it open to individuals to decide for themselves?

 

(To non-Muslims - I've seen Muslims justify killing apostates - and others - on the grounds that the quicker they face god the fewer sins they will commit, so killing them is doing them a favour. Very scary.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To non-Muslims - I've seen Muslims justify killing apostates - and others - on the grounds that the quicker they face god the fewer sins they will commit, so killing them is doing them a favour.

 

It's more about doing the rest of the Muslim society a favour rather than him.

Edited by xXxXMuslima-4-LifeXxXx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more about doing the rest of the Muslim society a favour rather than him.

 

If you want to know the truth, I think it shows an insecurity. If Islam is the true faith than there should be no fear of other religions. It seems to me as if the apostasy laws are designed to kill people's interest in questioning their faith or exploring other faiths. Christians are unafraid of Christians converting to other religions, because religion is a personal issue. How can man control how another man has his relationship with God? How can you punish someone for a personal choice like that? That to a Westerner is "oppression" and "human rights violation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JCBeliever, do you also think the Laws of the Bible show insecurity? It seems to me that I treat the Old Testament more as a Revelation from God than you do.

 

What about the part of the Bible that is so full of opression and violation of human rights?

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more about doing the rest of the Muslim society a favour rather than him.

and so you justify genocide~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JCBeliever, do you also think the Laws of the Bible show insecurity? It seems to me that I treat the Old Testament more as a Revelation from God than you do.

 

What about the part of the Bible that is so full of opression and violation of human rights?

 

As I've said before, very specific short-lived period of time were things like that, yes because there was concern and insecurity that the Jews maight convert to Baalism or whatever, which they did quite often during the time of corrupted israelite kings. Just look at how many Jews worshipped the golden calf, that they forced Aaron to make for them.

 

The Christians never had apostasy laws, never needed them. Why should Muslims need them? Why does Islam take old out-dated OT laws, and skip over Christianity all-together? That does't play well to Christians, that apparently nothing in our faith is any good. The whole showing mercy and love message I guess went out of favor quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I've said before, very specific short-lived period of time were things like that, yes because there was concern and insecurity that the Jews maight convert to Baalism or whatever, which they did quite often during the time of corrupted israelite kings. Just look at how many Jews worshipped the golden calf, that they forced Aaron to make for them.

 

Short-lived period of time? From the time of Moses(pbuh) to the time of Jesus(pbuh) is not a short period of time in my opinion, but to you it might be.

 

Insecurity? Are you speaking of God Laws here or somebody else's? I think you ought to choise your words more carefully if you're talking about God's Law.

 

It's also funny that you mention the large period of time when israel was nothing but an idolatreous nation. I wonder how could the true Torah survive in those awful, unmonotheistic, sinful conditions.

 

The Christians never had apostasy laws, never needed them. Why should Muslims need them? Why does Islam take old out-dated OT laws, and skip over Christianity all-together? That does't play well to Christians, that apparently nothing in our faith is any good. The whole showing mercy and love message I guess went out of favor quickly.

 

Christianity basicly doesn't have any laws. I don't even know why Christians followed laws like "Thou shall not suffer to see a witch live"...

 

Muslims don't necessarily need them, we apply or should apply them because they're God's Law.

 

Islam is not built on Judaism or Christianity . I don't care if the Jews even had apostasy laws, I just showed you the OT passage so you can realize that it is nothing new in terms of God's Law.

 

Showing mercy to people on an individual level is a meritable deed indeed, but you have to remember that Muhammed(pbuh) was running a State, he can't just arbitraly decide not to excecute some of God's Laws. The State can't just decide to arbitraly show mercy to others and punish others. The Prophet(Pbuh) said that if his daughter(ra) was caught stealing, he'd execute the Islamic punishment for theft. That's how a State is supposed to be run. If you were to judge a rapist, would you send him to prison or let him go to show him mercy and love?

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

I think sister Muslima4life highlighted that it depends on the nature of the apostasy and the effect it has on the state. There is no one-size-fits-all ruling. Apostasy can amount do death or it might not. Also I believe the death penalty can only be carried out by the state. We havn't had an Islamic state for so long, but when we do ijtihaad will determine how and when the death penalty is used.

 

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wake up, it's a political tool, affirming the fact that there is absolute compulsion in Islam, and revulsion at everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh wake up, it's a political tool, affirming the fact that there is absolute compulsion in Islam, and revulsion at everything else.

 

Seeing that you're a Christian, you just called the Bible a political tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians, you have to remember that apostasy is the worst sin. Plus, it isn't like Jesus(pbuh) never punished people, if memory serves me correct, the NT account of his life tells us that he chased people with a whip in a place of worship, and that's even when he was not in charge of a religious state.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
more muslims justifying genocide~

 

If you don't like the country's laws, leave.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl: brothers and sisters in Islam

 

I'm sure if he used to be a muslim you'd just cut straight to the business and kill him wouldn't you ?

 

I hope you get hit by a bus.

and so you justify genocide~

 

more muslims justifying genocide~

 

Is this all you can contribute to the thread? No one's forcing you, or indeed, expecting you to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont apostacy laws contradict the Qur'an law that Islam must not be forced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont apostacy laws contradict the Qur'an law that Islam must not be forced

 

No, Islam cannot be forced to convert people. As for people who have been practicing Muslims in adulthood and commit apostasy, they are killed. But if you have been raised in a Muslim family and when you reach adulthood and you say that you never believed, you won't be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Islam cannot be forced to convert people. As for people who have been practicing Muslims in adulthood and commit apostasy, they are killed.
I find the sheer irony in the above quote to be both hilarious and depressing. Your logic is essentially that Islam does not force people into believing, it just forces them into staying Muslim, therefore there is no compulsion in religion. Having a punishment for not accepting a belief system is the very definition of compulsion, plain and simple.

 

 

As for people who have been practicing Muslims in adulthood and commit apostasy, they are killed. But if you have been raised in a Muslim family and when you reach adulthood and you say that you never believed, you won't be killed.

 

Whats the difference between the two?

How do you prove that the individual never believed?

If this is the case, wouldn't any apostate just say they never believed just to avoid death, considering its impossible to prove otherwise?

Don't you think this system would invariably lend itself to abuse?

Edited by MajidM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find the sheer irony in the above quote to be both hilarious and depressing. Your logic is essentially that Islam does not force people into believing, it just forces them into staying Muslim, therefore there is no compulsion in religion.

 

What is there too hard to understand that you can not convert non-Muslim by force and that you can take the life of an apostate Muslim because he forfeits his chance to enter Paradise, has rendered his deeds null and void and has to be punished by what God has ordered?

 

 

No, it it forces them to think twice about their actions just like the punishment for theft is there to make you think twice before you steal. You can become an apostate but that means that you'll be punished after having had a three discussion with scholars or that you have to leave the Islamic State. Those are your two choices. Do you think that the worst sin will be tolorated?

 

 

 

 

Having a punishment for not accepting a belief system is the very definition of compulsion, plain and simple.

Whats the difference between the two?

 

How do you prove that the individual never believed?

 

He never uttered the testification of faith and was never found practicing Islam.

 

 

If this is the case, wouldn't any apostate just say they never believed just to avoid death, considering its impossible to prove otherwise?

 

The obvious choice for the apostate is to leave the State, if he doesn't like its laws. He puts up or shuts up. If somebody is found to have practiced Islam then he will be punished or has uttered the testification of faith in public.

 

Don't you think this system would invariably lend itself to abuse?

 

No. It is there to prevent the worst sin, rejection of God. It is treated with uttermost concern, you get to have a three day discussion with scholars to get all your questions answered etc. You can also leave the State, that is the obvious choice, even Muslims have to leave a country if they are forbidden to pray there for example.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is there too hard to understand that you can not convert non-Muslim by force and that you can take the life of an apostate Muslim because he forfeits his chance to enter Paradise, has rendered his deeds null and void and has to be punished by what God has ordered?
No I understand it perfectly, what your asking for is a clear-cut example of imposing religion by force a.k.a compulsion in religion. You just have a nice sugar coated way of wording it. A non-muslim who refuses to accept Islam also forfiets their "chance to enter paradise." There is no difference between this and apostacy. It is simply a personal choice in belief that an individual has made for whatever reason. To put anyone in a position where they must choose between death or accepting a state religion is compulsion.

 

No, it it forces them to think twice about their actions just like the punishment for theft is there to make you think twice before you steal. You can become an apostate but that means that you'll be punished after having had a three discussion with scholars or that you have to leave the Islamic State. Those are your two choices. Do you think that the worst sin will be tolorated?

 

There is a big difference between theft and a personal belief system. A belief is a personal choice that affects noone but you, theft involves imposing your own will on someone else unjustly.

 

He never uttered the testification of faith and was never found practicing Islam.
That implies that belief only exists through action and that there is no intention behind it. What if someone was born into a Muslim household and never believed in Islam, but was forced into practicing its tenants via parental/societal pressure? How would you go about proving that this individual never truly believed in Islam? You would have to prove his inner most thoughts/beliefs which he/she would not confess too easily if death was the consequence.

 

The obvious choice for the apostate is to leave the State, if he doesn't like its laws. He puts up or shuts up. If somebody is found to have practiced Islam then he will be punished or has uttered the testification of faith in public.

 

Right, the "love it or leave it" argument. This argument is essentially one of the main tenants of fascism but I'll humor you anyways; This choice still qualifies as compulsion though. If one must either accept faith or be exiled from the state they are still put in a position where they have to choose between declaring faith in something or some state punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fascist state indeed. One of the reasons I'm not sympathetic towards the hardships of many muslims is that their belief system is bent on oppressing non believers. It's hard to sympathize with people who'd approve of killing those that left.

Edited by Duffman_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I understand it perfectly, what your asking for is a clear-cut example of imposing religion by force a.k.a compulsion in religion. You just have a nice sugar coated way of wording it. A non-muslim who refuses to accept Islam also forfiets their "chance to enter paradise." There is no difference between this and apostacy. It is simply a personal choice in belief that an individual has made for whatever reason. To put anyone in a position where they must choose between death or accepting a state religion is compulsion.

 

This doesn't apply to non-Muslims who haven't accepted Islam. It is the Islamic Law.

 

There is a big difference between theft and a personal belief system. A belief is a personal choice that affects noone but you, theft involves imposing your own will on someone else unjustly.

 

To you there might be a big difference but to somebody who sees apostasy as the greatest crime there is none. Plus, it's Islamic Law.

 

That implies that belief only exists through action and that there is no intention behind it. What if someone was born into a Muslim household and never believed in Islam, but was forced into practicing its tenants via parental/societal pressure? How would you go about proving that this individual never truly believed in Islam? You would have to prove his inner most thoughts/beliefs which he/she would not confess too easily if death was the consequence.

 

Belief system in the Islamic State exists through actions and words. You can't prove that someone is a Munafiq, therefore religion exists through actions and words. I'm totally fine with somebody getting executed if he practiced Islam because of peer pressure, just as stealing because of peer pressure would get punished as a sin and a crime. I can't prove that he never truely believed in Islam and it doesn't matter. What I have to prove is if he is a Muslim in the present or not. As I said he'll either put or shut up. If Muslims would be punished for not rejecting Islam, they would either have to leave the country, or die as martyrs or become disbelievers.

 

Right, the "love it or leave it" argument. This argument is essentially one of the main tenants of fascism but I'll humor you anyways; This choice still qualifies as compulsion though. If one must either accept faith or be exiled from the state they are still put in a position where they have to choose between declaring faith in something or some state punishment.

 

No, it isn't really. A lot of people use it, people here in the West say that if girls in mini-skirts bother you too much, leave. What you are over-looking is the fact that it is Islamic Law, if it is Islamic Law you don't have to look at the content of the command, you must look at by Whom it was ordered. Satan also thought that he didn't need to bow to Adam(pbuh) because he didn't like the content of the command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To you there might be a big difference but to somebody who sees apostasy as the greatest crime there is none. Plus, it's Islamic Law.
The difference is quite clear and objective. You can prove someone stole, and their fault is inherent in the victim's grievance towards the act. You can't, on the other hand, prove an individual's thoughts or belief system unless they declare it to the world. The problem is, why would anyone do this if it automatically equaled death.

 

Belief system in the Islamic State exists through actions and words. You can't prove that someone is a Munafiq, therefore religion exists through actions and words. I'm totally fine with somebody getting executed if he practiced Islam because of peer pressure, just as stealing because of peer pressure would get punished as a sin and a crime. I can't prove that he never truely believed in Islam and it doesn't matter. What I have to prove is if he is a Muslim in the present or not. As I said he'll either put or shut up.

 

A person's actions are a demonstration of the faith that already exists. But the initial belief is a conclusion that the individual reached on his own accord, the reasons for which are known to the individual and only him. This part is unprovable. Hence, it is impossible, from a legal stand point to prove that a person is an apostate if he claims he never believed. His actions may or may not have spoken otherwise, but this is a grey area as he may have been led by his guardians/community leaders to do these things while he did not really believe, was not in a position where he could protest or was simply at an age where he was not yet old enough to choose for himself.

 

If Muslims would be punished for not rejecting Islam, they would either have to leave the country, or die as martyrs or become disbelievers.
Are you saying that you would have no objection to another country rejecting a Muslim's right to practice? You would simply accept defeat and qhave a very uietly pack up and leave without a word? This is honestly acceptable to you?

 

No, it isn't really. A lot of people use it, people here in the West say that if girls in mini-skirts bother you too much, leave. What you are over-looking is the fact that it is Islamic Law, if it is Islamic Law you don't have to look at the content of the command, you must look at by Whom it was ordered. Satan also thought that he didn't need to bow to Adam(pbuh) because he didn't like the content of the command.

 

By your own account you live in the West I take it. So am I to gather from your own logic that the fact that you still live here means that you have no objection to any of the Wests values or policies or anything thats going on in Iraq, Afghanistan. By your own logic the Democratic party should either agree with Bush or pack up and move North. By your own logic the people of Iraq should either accept the War or move away. If you do have a problem, why don't you just leave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is quite clear and objective. You can prove someone stole, and their fault is inherent in the victim's grievance towards the act. You can't, on the other hand, prove an individual's thoughts or belief system unless they declare it to the world. The problem is, why would anyone do this if it automatically equaled death.

 

I would, God-willing, remain Muslim even if it meant getting punished by death. I trust you'd do the same.

 

A person's actions are a demonstration of the faith that already exists. But the initial belief is a conclusion that the individual reached on his own accord, the reasons for which are known to the individual and only him. This part is unprovable. Hence, it is impossible, from a legal stand point to prove that a person is an apostate if he claims he never believed. His actions may or may not have spoken otherwise, but this is a grey area as he may have been led by his guardians/community leaders to do these things while he did not really believe, was not in a position where he could protest or was simply at an age where he was not yet old enough to choose for himself.

 

As I already said, a person who practiced as a Muslim would get the death penalty, it doesn't matter if it was due to peer pressure.

 

Are you saying that you would have no objection to another country rejecting a Muslim's right to practice? You would simply accept defeat and qhave a very uietly pack up and leave without a word? This is honestly acceptable to you?

 

I didn't say that I wouldn't object another country rejecting Muslim's right to practice. Leaving is one of the choices, yes.

 

By your own account you live in the West I take it. So am I to gather from your own logic that the fact that you still live here means that you have no objection to any of the Wests values or policies or anything thats going on in Iraq, Afghanistan. By your own logic the Democratic party should either agree with Bush or pack up and move North. By your own logic the people of Iraq should either accept the War or move away. If you do have a problem, why don't you just leave?

 

Yes, I live in "the West". I object to the Western values and policies but they don't bother me to the point that it would constitute disbelief to live under their rule, but I won't stay here forever, it's only that at this point I'm incapable of leaving.

 

The people of Iraq should fight, since it is their Land.

 

I don't know why we are even debating this, it is Islamic Law, God's command, case closed.

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


×