Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
This provides additional material and evidence for the view that the death penalty for apostasy is, indeed, rooted (in some sense) in the Quranic&hadith; traditions.
Perhaps I should better highlight my stance. I despise religion. All religions. Probably Islam the most. I am ex-Christian, currently fiercely atheist. Been that way for 12 years now. arildno calls me a ‘mussie’, which I can only assume is a condescending/derogatory reference to a Muslim. Way off target buddy. Not even in the general ballpark.
Sure, play whatever identity games you like on the Internet.
Who am I to gainsay you?
Do you honestly believe, in your little head that, as a supposed Muslim (or ‘mussie’, if you prefer), I’d speak like this against Islam, from within an Islamic state no less, and invite incarceration, possibly amounting to a death penalty, just to play some childish Internet identity game with you? It’s a pity text cannot transmit the level of scorn on my face. I’m curious - how does one climb such a high pedestal? What’s the view like?
Coming back to the point, thank you (sincerely) for your efforts in elaborating on your original statement. It emerges, undoubtedly, that the 4 Sunni schools prescribe the death penalty for apostasy. Considering the overwhelming majority of Muslims today are Sunni and follow their teachings religiously, for all practical purposes, the statement, “Islam recommends the death penalty for apostates”, is true. I’m convinced.
History describes the apostasy wars following the death of Muhammad, wherein his successor Abu Bakr, solely as a means to crush the rebellion, incorporated the death penalty for apostates. It worked and they haven’t looked back since, which is unfortunate for Muslims everywhere. If they’d just bother to look back to the Qur’an and Muhammad’s leniency with apostates, maybe they’d want to incorporate some kind of sense into the existing law. We’ll all probably die wishing before this happens.
GAD, I’m not really trying to ‘reach out’. I genuinely appreciate your concern though. Thanks! I’ve only been in this country a few years. My country of origin is not Islamic and I was free to be an atheist and speak out with passion against religion without fear of incarceration over there. I think (as an atheist) it is natural to want to fight the religion you were brought up in, and only until recently all my efforts were focused on making Christianity look bad. Making Islam look bad is a challenge on a different level altogether. The key is not getting lynched in the process, I’d suppose. My interest in Islam has been growing with its unfortunate global rise and I really do believe that this is the religion that needs to go (as in get out) first before any other. I’m glad to have found this place and have people like arildno (personal hostility notwithstanding) answer my questions.
It’s one thing coming in here and venting against Islam with like-minded people. I’m more interested in trying to make some kind of tangible change and I don’t know if you’ve experienced this, but trying to bash sense into a Muslim is a massive waste of time. As soon as there’s a contradiction they cannot account for, they end the discussion and you are now the enemy.
And these aren’t even fundamentalists I’m talking about. I have Muslim friends here who are “progressive”. Unfortunately, “progressive”, in their minds, is not praying, sleeping around and drinking on the sly (men and women). Challenge Islam? “Dude, you can’t talk about that.” There is the rare breakaway who has the courage to speak out against it, but in a place like this, with extreme media censorship, getting an inflammatory message across is nigh impossible, and even if you somehow do, expect to cool your heels in prison for a while, followed by permanent deportation (if expatriate).
Do you honestly believe, in your little head that, as a supposed Muslim (or ‘mussie’, if you prefer), I’d speak like this against Islam, from within an Islamic state no less, and invite incarceration, possibly amounting to a death penalty, just to play some childish Internet identity game with you? It’s a pity text cannot transmit the level of scorn on my face.
The object of scorn has fully deserved it. Mea culpa, in toto.
Since i wish, for myself, to analyze Dr. Shafaat’s analysis of the hadiths at my leisure, but my home computer somehow breaks down when I try to access eikonoklastes’ link, I post his analysis on the strongest point in evidence for the hadd quality of the death punishment on apostasy:
“WHOEVER CHANGED HIS RELIGION, KILL HIM”
As should become clear in the sequel, the only hadith that legislates or prescribes as a law the death penalty for apostasy is found, with some variations, in Bukhari 2794, 6411, Abu Da`ud 3787, Tirmidhi 1378, Nasa`i 3991-7, Ibn Majah 2526, Ahmad 1776, 2420, 2813 (cf. Ahmad 1802). All these narrations are identical or similar to one of the following five narrations:
Abu al-Nu‘man Muhammad ibn al-Fadl related to us: Hammad ibn Zayd related to us from Ayyub from ‘‘Ikrimah who said: “Some Zanadiqah were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. This reached Ibn ‘Abbas and he said: I would not have burnt them because of the prohibition by the Messenger of God: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of God.’ I would have killed them in accordance with the word of the Messenger of God: ‘Whoever changed his religion kill him’.” (Bukhari 9/57=6411)
Narrations similar to the above are also found in Bukhari 2794, Nasa`i 3992, Abu Da`ud 3787, and Ahmad 1775, 2420.
Ahmad ibn Muhammad bin Hanbal related to us: Isma‘il bin Ibrahim related to us: Ayyub informed us from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali, peace be upon him, burned some people who abandoned Islam. This reached Ibn ‘Abbas and he said: I would not have burnt them with fire. Indeed, the Messenger of God said: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of God.’ I would have killed them in accordance with the word of the Messenger of God. For, surely the Messenger of God said: ‘Whoever changed his religion kill him’.” This reached ‘Ali, peace be upon him, and he said: ‘Woe to Ibn ‘Abbas’. (Abu Da`ud 3787)
A-III)
Ahmad ibn ‘Abdah al-Dabbi al-Basri related to us: ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Thaqafi related to us: Ayyub related to us from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali burned some people who abandoned Islam. This reached Ibn ‘Abbas and he said: I would have killed them in accordance with the word of the Messenger of God: ‘Whoever changed his religion kill him’. I would not have burnt them in view of the word of the Messenger of God: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of God.’ This reached ‘Ali and he said: Ibn ‘Abbas has spoken the truth” (Tirmidhi 1378)
A-IV)
Muhammad bin Muthanna informed us saying: ‘Abd al-Samad related to us saying: Hisham related to us from Qatadah from Anas that ‘Ali was brought with people from al-Zatt who worshipped idols and he burnt them. Ibn ‘Abbas said: The Messenger of God said exactly: Whoever changed his religion kill him. (Nasa`i 3997)
A narration similar to the above is also found in Ahmad 2813.
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd bin Aslam that the Messenger of God said: “Whoever changed his religion strike his neck” (Muwatta 1219)
Narrations similar to the above, quoting only the words “Whoever changed his religion …” are also found in Nasa`i 3991, 3993-6, and Ibn Majah 2526.
At first sight the hadith seems to be strong. It is considered sahih by Bukhari and by Tirmidhi. And Nasa`i and Abu Da`ud also find no fault with it. But despite this, the hadith is not as reliable as a hadith prescribing death penalty should be, since as we shall see it is called into question by another, better attested, hadith. Moreover, it also has the following weaknesses:
First, if we examine the chains of transmission of the hadith we find that in Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Abu Da`ud and Ibn Majah the hadith is narrated only by Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani (d. 131) in the third generation, only by ‘Ikrimah (d. 104) in the second generation, and only by Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68) in the first generation. Nasa`i 3994, 3996, 3997 and Ahmad 2813 are related from Qatadah (d. 117) from Anas (d. 91) [or ‘Ikrimah] from Ibn ‘Abbas. In addition, we have two mursal narrations, having no Companion in their asanid: Nasa`i 3995, which is from Qatadah from al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110) and Muwatta 1219, which is from Malik from Zayd bin Aslam (d. 136). This means that very few people narrated the hadith in the third and second generations and in the first generation either no Companion is quoted or only one Companion – Ibn ‘Abbas – is quoted. Ibn ‘Abbas was a boy of 13 when the Holy Prophet died. It is not conceivable that the Holy Prophet will give a law prescribing death penalty in a way that only a boy of less than 13 will transmit it to the future generations.
Second, if we examine the reliability of the various narrators we find that at least one of them, ‘Ikrimah, the slave of Ibn ‘Abbas, has received mixed reviews from the scholars of hadith. Some scholars such as Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma‘in, Bukhari, Nasa`i, ‘Ijli, and Abu Hatim al-Razi considered or are reported to consider him reasonably trustworthy while others considered him a liar or at least untrustworthy.
Abu ‘Amr ‘Uthman ibn al-Salah (d. 643) in his book ‘Ulum al-Hadith, commonly know as Muqaddimah of Ibn al-Salah, says that Bukhari has reported from narrators who were not trusted by others. He mentions ‘Ikrimah as one of the narrators not trusted by others. Muhammad bin Sa’d in al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Abu Ja‘far al-‘Aqili in Kitab al-Du‘afa` al-Kabir, al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I‘tidal, and Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani in Fath al-Bari quote several early scholars who considered ‘Ikrimah as untrustworthy.
Ibn Sa‘d says: “His reports were not authentic and people had doubts about him”. Ibn Sirin said concerning him: “He used to lie” and Ibn Abi Dhi`b said: “I met ‘Ikrimah; he was not trustworthy”. Sa‘id bin Jubayr said: “You relate from ‘Ikrimah some traditions that he would not have dared to relate if I had been with him.” Sa‘id bin al-Musayyib said: “The slave of Ibn Abbas will not desist until a rope is tied around his neck and then taken around”. Sa‘id also used to advise his slave: “Do not report any lies and attribute them to me as the slave of Ibn ‘Abbas did to him”. A similar advice is attributed to Ibn ‘Umar for his slave, Nafi‘.
‘Abd Allah bin al-Harith says that when he visited ‘Ali, son of Ibn ‘Abbas, he was shocked to find ‘Ikrimah bound to a post outside the door of ‘Ali’s house. He asked ‘Ali if he had no fear of God in him. ‘Ali explained by saying: “This wicked man attributes false traditions to my (late) father (Ibn ‘Abbas)”
Malik and Muslim also did not trust ‘Ikrimah. Mutarrif said: “I heard Malik saying that he disliked mentioning ‘Ikrimah (as a narrator), and I do not think that he reported on his authority”. Ibn Hanbal said: “Malik reported one tradition on the authority of ‘Ikrimah”. Indeed, when we search for ahadith in Muwatta from ‘Ikrimah we find only one hadith (# 765) and even that is supported by Malik by a second narrator. Muslim also hardly relates any ahadith from ‘Ikrimah, except in a small number of cases when he finds his hadith supported by another chain. No wonder the hadith in question is absent from Muslim.
Third, there are several differences in the various narrations of the hadith, some of which are important.
1. The words attributed to the Prophet are different in Muwatta 1219, although the meaning is the same: Instead of “kill him” we have “strike his neck” and the word for changed is ghayyara instead of baddala.
2. More importantly, in narrations I – III Ibn ‘Abbas objects to the burning of people by ‘Ali while in narration IV he does not and in fact seems to be approving it. Also, in narration I we are not told whether ‘Ali came to know Ibn ‘Abbas’ objection. But in narration II ‘Ali learns about Ibn ‘Abbas’ objection and says in response:
“Woe to Ibn ‘Abbas” (wayha Ibn ‘Abbas).
In some manuscripts of Abu Da`ud the words attributed to ‘Ali are:
“Woe to the mother of Ibn ‘Abbas” (wayha umm Ibn ‘Abbas)
In narration III also a response by ‘Ali is mentioned but is very different:
“Ibn ‘Abbas said the truth.” (sadaqa Ibn ‘Abbas).
Thus either in narration I the response from ‘Ali has been removed or it has been invented and added in narrations II and III. Moreover, someone changed ‘Ali’s response from wayha (umm) Ibn ‘Abbas to sadaqa Ibn ‘Abbas or vice versa. Hadith commentators try to harmonize the two responses by saying that wayha is an expression of praise and wonder but in their natural meaning they are irreconcilable. In any case, even if the meaning of the two responses is the same, the wording has changed in a significant way.
3. The people whom ‘Ali is said to burn to death are described variously as follows:
Narration I: Zanadiqah, a word of Persian origin translated by Muhsin Khan as “atheists”;
Narrations II and III: “those who abandoned Islam”.
Narration IV: “people from al-Zatt who worshipped idols”.
People who worship idols are not atheists and neither atheists nor idol worshippers are necessarily apostates, since they may have never accepted Islam.
Some of the variations noted above are probably unconscious but others are clearly conscious and deliberate. Hence we see that the hadith has suffered some tahrif. Therefore we cannot put sufficient trust in it to institute on its basis a law requiring the killing of a human being.
Fourth, the hadith requires us to believe that either Sayyidna ‘Ali did not know the prohibition by the Messenger of God against burning people or he knowingly acted contrary to it. Both possibilities are extremely remote. If Ibn ‘Abbas knew something prohibited by the Prophet, then it is highly unlikely that ‘Ali was ignorant about it. ‘Ali, who is said to be the door of the city of knowledge, was among the first people to accept Islam and therefore had almost 23 years to learn from the Prophet. Ibn ‘Abbas, on the other hand, was converted to Islam as a boy of about 10 years old when his father ‘Abbas accepted Islam in 7 H, only three years before the departure of the Prophet from this world.
And even if for some reason ‘Ali was ignorant about the hadith against burning, some of the many other senior Companions alive at the time would have known about it. We expect them to bring the Prophet’s words to ‘Ali’s notice when he was deciding to burn people or after he had done so.
Quite apart from the hadith prohibiting the burning of people, there is no report of burning of a human being by the Prophet, or Abu Bakr, or ‘Umar, or ‘Uthman. So why would ‘Ali depart from the practice of his illustrious predecessors? Perhaps he became very angry at those people and wanted to punish them in the severest way. But it was not the style of the khulafa` rashidun to act in anger in this way. ‘Ali’s character was closer to the one depicted in the tradition in which he was about to kill a disbeliever during a battle when the man spat on him. ‘Ali withdrew his sword and let the man go. When asked about why he withdrew his sword, ‘Ali replied in effect that the man’s spitting on him might have tainted the purity of his intention of fighting only for the sake of God. Hence killing people because of excessive anger is not expected from ‘Ali. It was something that came after the time of al-khulafa` al-rashidun when the rulers became power-loving, dictatorial and unjust.
Furthermore, had ‘Ali burned some people many Muslims would have come to know about it, not least because of the unprecedented nature of the punishment. Consequently, reports about the burning would have found their way in many books of history. But we do not seem to have any independent report about it in any reputed source.
Thus we must conclude that at least one part of the hadith is unreliable: the prohibition of burning by the Prophet or the act of burning by ‘Ali. And if one part of a hadith is not reliable, reasonable doubts arise about the whole hadith.
Fifth, laws should be sufficiently precise to provide useful guidance. But the law “whoever changed his religion, kill him” is too general and imprecise. If taken literally it would oblige us to kill, for example, a Christian who became a Jew, since he is changing his religion. Some Shafi‘i scholars have in fact interpreted the hadith in this general way, an interpretation mentioned and criticized by al-Shawkani in his Nayl al-Awtar: Sharh Muntaqa al-Akhbar.
The generality and imprecision in the law “whoever changed his religion, kill him” is further enhanced by the fact that no context is known in which the law was prescribed. Usually laws were given in some contexts, which in important cases were preserved and which helped make the law more precise. But in the case of this particular law no context is given to clarify its scope.
And even apart from the context, the Qur`an and the Hadith often start with general laws and then provide sufficient details elsewhere. Even their general formulations of laws are carefully worded. But the law “whoever changed his religion, kill him” appears almost careless in its formulation and is not further clarified and elaborated in other ahadith. It is difficult to accept that it is coming from the Holy Prophet.
The above considerations are sufficient to show that the hadith under consideration is not authentic. We now present some further analysis of the hadith in order to see when and how it came to be fabricated.
We can say with some confidence that the hadith was indeed related by some third-generation narrators – Ayyub (d. 131), Qatadah (d. 117) and Zayd bin Aslam (d. 136). Several chains lead us to Ayyub, some lead us to Qatadah and we have Imam Malik’s documented word that Zayd bin Aslam (d. 136) narrated the hadith. This means that the hadith had begun to be known in the early part of the second century or even a little earlier. But the history of the hadith prior to that time is uncertain.
Zayd bin Aslam does not give any source of the hadith. Qatadah is said to relate from three narrators: 1) al-Hasan; 2) Anas bin Malik; 3) ‘Ikrimah. But all three isnads are doubtful. Both al-Hasan and Anas had many students coming to them to seek ahadith and it is unlikely that only Qatadah will report the hadith from them. It seems that originally the hadith was related by Qatadah without any isnad, like Zayd bin al-Aslam in the Muwatta. It was later that isnads were provided. Since Qatadah was known to be a companion of al-Hasan and Anas, some presumed that he narrated the hadith from al-Hasan (Nasa`i 3995) while others presumed that he narrated it from Anas (Nasa`i 3996-7, Ahmad 2813). Still others, knowing that ‘Ikrimah also narrated the hadith, assumed that Qatadah heard it from ‘Ikrimah (Nasa`i 3994). Such additions and changes in isnads must have taken place. We have very many clear examples of changes taking place in the contents of ahadith, some of which we have encountered in connection with the hadith under discussion. And if changes took place in the contents of ahadith, then they must have also taken place in their isnads.
Having dealt with Zayd bin Aslam and Qatadah, we are now left with Ayyub who is consistently said to name ‘Ikrimah (d. 104) as his source. So we can accept that ‘Ikrimah did indeed relate the hadith. Moreover, it is probable that ‘Ikrimah narrated the hadith in a form that mentioned the burning of some people by ‘Ali and the objection of Ibn ‘Abbas’ to that action (Narrations I-III). This is because it is in this form that ‘Ikrimah’s hadith is narrated by most isnads and in most books.
To move further in our analysis note that the hadith of ‘Ikrimah presents ‘Ali in a negative light. He is shown as burning people in ignorance or in violation of the command of the Prophet. This negative attitude towards ‘Ali is carried further in narration II, which tells us that when Ibn ‘Abbas’ objection to the action of burning reaches ‘Ali, he responds not by regrets for acting against the command of the Prophet but by saying, “Woe to (the mother) of Ibn ‘Abbas!” The question arises: Who would want to present ‘Ali in such a negative light?
‘Ali had two main opponents: Supporters of Bani Umayyah and the Khawarij. It turns out that the very ‘Ikrimah who narrated the hadith had sympathy with the Khawarij, if he was not actually one of them. Ibn al-Madini, ‘Ata`, and Ahmad bin Hanbal are all reported as saying that ‘Ikrimah belonged to a sect of Khawarij, although they differ as to the identity of the sect, probably because the differences between various sects of Khawarij were not very sharp in the time of ‘Ikrimah. Yahya bin Bukayr said: “‘Ikrimah came to Egypt on his way to Morocco where the Khawarij of Morocco learned much from him”. Mus‘ab Zubayri said: “‘Ikrimah has adopted the views of Khawarij”, suggesting that he attributed to Ibn Abbas after his death what he used to reject during his life.
Moreover, historical reports indicate that Khawarij believed, and whenever possible practiced, the killing of those Muslims whom they considered as apostates. They fought with ‘Ali on the basis of a similar thinking. ‘Ikrimah seems to have shared this view. According to Ibn al-Madini ‘Ikrimah once stood beside the door of a masjid and said: “All who are inside are apostates”. And once at the time of hajj when people were gathered around the Ka‘bah, ‘Ikrimah is reported to have said: “I wish I had a spear in my hand to kill all those who came to hajj this year”. It would thus appear that the rule, “Whoever changed his religion, kill him”, originated as a view held by the Khawarij and then made into a hadith by someone, probably by ‘Ikrimah, who certainly provided it with an isnad by attributing it to Ibn ‘Abbas after the latter’s death. The “hadith” began to spread in the second and third generations, thereafter becoming more and more acceptable.
The reason for the gradual and wide acceptability of the hadith is no doubt the appealing nature of the idea of loyalty to one’s group and of keeping that loyalty by executing traitors and apostates. An indication of the wide appeal of this idea is provided by the fact that the death penalty for traitors/apostates was found in all cultures and traditions near the time and place of the rise of Islam and indeed beyond. In the Jewish tradition, which is the source of many fabricated rules and ideas in Islam, the death penalty for apostasy, especially when manifested by the worship of gods other than the God of Israel, is taught in several Biblical passages including Exodus 22:20, 32:21-29, Deut 17:2-7, Lev 24:16. Similar is the case with Roman and Christian tradition or practice.
Often the punishment for traitors/apostates was death by burning. Thus Romans often burned people for treason and apostasy, including Christians whom they considered traitors to the empire and/or apostates from the Roman paganism. Later the death by burning was used by the Christians themselves against heretics and witches, considered apostates from Christianity. For example, in the Middle Ages prominent Unitarian Christians such as Servetus who believed in true monotheism and rejected the Catholic dogmas of divinity of Jesus and trinity of God were burned to death. Judaism also prescribes death by burning for a number of crimes: sex with one’s mother in law (Lev 20:14), prostitution by the daughter of a priest (Lev 21:9), for adultery (Gen 38:24), (Josh 7:15, 24-25), though not for apostasy. It may well be that the tradition of burning of some people by ‘Ali has been inspired by the influence of this non-Muslim tradition rather than by historical fact.
In view of the above analysis we are now in a position to explain significant differences among the various narrations. The most important of these differences concern the words: “Woe to the mother of Ibn ‘Abbas” (wayha umm Ibn ‘Abbas)” attributed to ‘Ali in one narration. For the following two reasons these words were probably part of the original narration of ‘Ikrimah.
First, the words fit with the negative view of ‘Ali presented in the burning of some people by him in ignorance or violation of a command of the Prophet. This negative attitude also fits with the attitude of Khawarij with whom ‘Ikrimah sympathized or associated.
Second, if we start by assuming the absence of these words from ‘Ikrimah’s original narration, then it seems difficult to explain why someone added the words after ‘Ikrimah, since none of the narrators after ‘Ikrimah is known to be among the opponents of ‘Ali. On the other hand, by assuming the words as part of the original narration we can explain why they later came to be changed or omitted. This explanation is as follows: Narrators after ‘Ikrimah were not comfortable with these words because of their negative characterization of ‘Ali and so they started to modify them in their own different ways. Some narrator toned down the harshness of the words a little by removing the reference to the mother of Ibn ‘Abbas, as we find in Narration II. Another decided to change ‘Ali’s words to a positive form found in Narration III: “Ibn ‘Abbas said the truth.” (sadaqa Ibn ‘Abbas). Still another narrator decided to simply remove ‘Ali’s response, as in narrations of type I. Yet another solution was to remove the whole episode of ‘Ali burning people and Ibn ‘Abbas objecting to it. This solution is adopted in Narration IV.
In addition to the differences connected with ‘Ali’s response, there is also the difference between narrations I – IV and narration V. In narration V only the words attributed to the Prophet and prescribing the death penalty are related; there is no mention of burning by ‘Ali. This difference is not a case of tahrif, because it was a common and acceptable practice among narrators to extract from a tradition words attributed to the Prophet and narrate them separately. The procedure is acceptable because it is the Prophet’s words that constitute the primary source of our guidance and therefore focusing on them is justified.
It is interesting to note that there is also one narration in which the Prophet’s prohibition of burning is isolated and related by itself:
Sufyan related to us from Ayyub from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas who said: The Messenger of God said: “Do not punish with the punishment of God”. (Ahmad 1802)
It is a pertinent question to ask: Did the law prescribing death penalty for apostasy and the one prohibiting punishment by burning existed as separate ahadith before ‘Ikrimah or is he the first one to make them into ahadith? The answer seems to be the latter. For, narrations containing only one or the other of the two laws are not as well-imbedded in the Hadith literature as they would have been if they had existed as ahadith earlier than ‘Ikrimah and independently of him. Two of them have incomplete isnads and others are found only in Nasa`i, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad, of which the last two books are not known for their high reliability. In contrast, the narration of ‘Ikrimah with its reference to burning of some people by ‘Ali is more mainstream, being in Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Abu Da`ud, Nasa`i, and Ahmad. Hence ‘Ikrimah’s narration seems to be the more original and other narrations are derived from it by a process mentioned above, that is, by isolating the words attributed to the Prophet and quoting them separately
This issue was and still arguable between Islam theologians, but all the Moslem countries now a days apply this opinion.
part of them tells that apostate suppose not to be killed except if he began to corrupt in earth, here is their evidences from the holly Quran,
256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand hold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower (2-256)
137. Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief,
Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way. (4-137)
32. For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel (and you too) that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had: saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. (5-32)
99. And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers? (10-99)
Surah 109. Al-Kafirun
1. Say: O disbelievers!
2. I worship not that which ye worship;
3. Nor worship ye that which I worship.
4. And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
6. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
But Practically, Islamic history tells us almost no thing about any cases has been killed for apostasy.
The most arguable case just few years ago, an Egyptian dr/ Nasr Abu alyazeed, when the court judged him with apostasy it obligates his wife to leave him until he repent. That’s every thing.
Can we compare such problem with what happened in Europe for 300 years between the Catholic and Protestant, and before that between the eastern Roman orthodox and western Roman Catholic Compare too with the power of the pop and priests there to kill any person without the slightest fair judgment, in fact to burn them alive on the cross, you can ask Copper Nikos and Galaliluo.
This issue was and still arguable between Islam theologians, but all the Moslem countries now a days apply this opinion.
part of them tells that apostate suppose not to be killed except if he began to corrupt in earth, here is their evidences from the holly Quran,
What the fuck does “corrupt the earth” mean? That is an entirely meaningless and fabricated term used as an excuse to persecute anyone who leaves the religion and actively speaks out against Islamic laws, Islamic society, Islamic teachings, or criticizes the Quran, Mohammed or Allah. In other words, you’re saying that someone should be free to become an apostate but they have ZERO freedom afterwards to convince others to do the same or to show any criticism of Islam. That is not freedom, that is subjugation. There is value to the nonbeliever of simply being able to not believe in your garbage religion. A non-believer who decides to renounce the religion of Islam should have equal rights as any Muslim and be able to function in society and a sociopolitical force if he so chooses, even if it means to go against Islam. That’s the only way your religion can be seen as remotely “tolerant”. The fact that the rest of the world has figured out or is on the way to figuring out that tolerance of other viewpoints is paramount while your stupid “Moslem theologians” are still arguing over basic human rights such as freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of and from religion just goes to show how backwards the countries of the world really are where Islam is present. It should not be in the power of “Moslem theologians” to decide the fate of someone who decides to renounce or criticize Islam. That should be a basic human right awarded to everyone equally around the globe to be able to:
a) change their religion at any time from what ever they wish to whatever they wish whenever they wish
b) to be able to speak out and criticize whatever religion they wish, whenever they wish, except maybe on private property.
c) to be able to convert anyone away from any religion. This means I should be able to walk into a Muslim country and be completely free to go around convincing Muslims the abandon their religion just as any Muslim should be able to convince a person of another faith to convert to ISlam.
It’s really that fucking simple. I don’t know what the fuck your “Moslem theologians” have to discuss here, except furthering their own hatred, intolerance and bigotry towards anyone who is not a Muslim.
What a trash religion.
The most arguable case just few years ago, an Egyptian dr/ Nasr Abu alyazeed, when the court judged him with apostasy it obligates his wife to leave him until he repent. That’s every thing.
No, that’s the whole fucking point. Nobody should ever be “obligated” by any court or government to do ANYTHING simply because they change their beliefs. Anybody should be able to get married to whomever they want, Muslim or non-Muslim, male or female, straight or gay. It is a personal issue between 2 people and should not be the business of a theocratic police state. Pretty much everyone has recognized this around the world, except some dumbfuck Muslim countries. When you say there is no compulsion in religion, it means there should be NO compulsion in religion. There should not be legal prerequisites towards choosing to believe in or criticize any given idea. This is why religion should stay seperate from politics and government affairs. Nasr ABu alyazeed should not be “obligated to leave his wife”, nor should a court “judge” someone’s beliefs and ask them to “repent”. That is medieval fuckwittery that unfitting for the modern world and is heavily intrusive into people’s private lives.
For all your raving and rantings upon “peace” and “tolerance”, you Muslims sure as fuck don’t even understand what these terms mean.
For all your raving and rantings upon “peace” and “tolerance”, you Muslims sure as fuck don’t even understand what these terms mean.
Bioeng,
You are my new favorite poster, and you are a breath of fresh air on this forum which is so infested with people who refuse to state the obvious.
Greets,
Vincent
That’s because many people know fuck all about what it’s like to live in a Muslim majority country, regardless of whether its “moderate” (like Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey) or a complete mess (Saudi Arabia, AFghanistan…). None of these places, NONE of them have any freedom of speech or freedom of conscience. None of them. The vast majority of people who post on this board would be either executed or spending their time in prison or a mental ward if they publicly said the stuff they say on this forum about religion in general and Islam in particular in ANY Muslim majority country in the world. That’s what a lot of Islamist appeasers don’t understand. They think that simply because people are not getting stoned to death in places like Malaysia that they are therefore “moderate”. If Christianity in the US was as “moderate” as that in Malaysia or even Turkey, we’d be considered a damn theocracy.
This issue was and still arguable between Islam theologians, but all the Moslem countries now a days apply this opinion.
part of them tells that apostate suppose not to be killed except if he began to corrupt in earth, here is their evidences from the holly Quran,
What the fuck does “corrupt the earth” mean? That is an entirely meaningless and fabricated term used as an excuse to persecute anyone who leaves the religion and actively speaks out against Islamic laws, Islamic society, Islamic teachings, or criticizes the Quran, Mohammed or Allah. In other words, you’re saying that someone should be free to become an apostate but they have ZERO freedom afterwards to convince others to do the same or to show any criticism of Islam. That is not freedom, that is subjugation. There is value to the nonbeliever of simply being able to not believe in your garbage religion. A non-believer who decides to renounce the religion of Islam should have equal rights as any Muslim and be able to function in society and a sociopolitical force if he so chooses, even if it means to go against Islam. That’s the only way your religion can be seen as remotely “tolerant”. The fact that the rest of the world has figured out or is on the way to figuring out that tolerance of other viewpoints is paramount while your stupid “Moslem theologians” are still arguing over basic human rights such as freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of and from religion just goes to show how backwards the countries of the world really are where Islam is present. It should not be in the power of “Moslem theologians” to decide the fate of someone who decides to renounce or criticize Islam. That should be a basic human right awarded to everyone equally around the globe to be able to:
a) change their religion at any time from what ever they wish to whatever they wish whenever they wish
b) to be able to speak out and criticize whatever religion they wish, whenever they wish, except maybe on private property.
c) to be able to convert anyone away from any religion. This means I should be able to walk into a Muslim country and be completely free to go around convincing Muslims the abandon their religion just as any Muslim should be able to convince a person of another faith to convert to ISlam.
It’s really that fucking simple. I don’t know what the fuck your “Moslem theologians” have to discuss here, except furthering their own hatred, intolerance and bigotry towards anyone who is not a Muslim.
What a trash religion.
The most arguable case just few years ago, an Egyptian dr/ Nasr Abu alyazeed, when the court judged him with apostasy it obligates his wife to leave him until he repent. That’s every thing.
No, that’s the whole fucking point. Nobody should ever be “obligated” by any court or government to do ANYTHING simply because they change their beliefs. Anybody should be able to get married to whomever they want, Muslim or non-Muslim, male or female, straight or gay. It is a personal issue between 2 people and should not be the business of a theocratic police state. Pretty much everyone has recognized this around the world, except some dumbfuck Muslim countries. When you say there is no compulsion in religion, it means there should be NO compulsion in religion. There should not be legal prerequisites towards choosing to believe in or criticize any given idea. This is why religion should stay seperate from politics and government affairs. Nasr ABu alyazeed should not be “obligated to leave his wife”, nor should a court “judge” someone’s beliefs and ask them to “repent”. That is medieval fuckwittery that unfitting for the modern world and is heavily intrusive into people’s private lives.
For all your raving and rantings upon “peace” and “tolerance”, you Muslims sure as fuck don’t even understand what these terms mean.
If you can calm down!!!!!! It will be great
If you stop mentioning the word “f….” between each two wards, that’s will be great too.
Or it lost it’s old meaning? I’m not sure, is it ok or not?
1st “corruption in earth” is an old term to what we can say “cutting the roads, armed robberies,….. “. What happened at the time of our prophet, as some people knew about the peaceful and kindness of Moslems, some came to the prophet and claim to be Moslems and requested some money and some teachers. And he gave them what they need. After leaving “Almadeena”, and at some distance they killed the teachers and stolen the money and fled away. That’s corruption in earth.
2nd About apostate, almost in 2002 the high counsel of the Islamic affairs, Alazhar, the highest Islamic authority in Egypt published a “fatwa” that says, “The apostate ought to be “yostatab يستتاب “discussed, advised, and reviewed all of his life. Not to be killed nor jailed.
3rd we the Moslems ask, criticize and, modify many issues. And you are welcome to criticize or change it to ask, since you aren’t in full knowledge of Islam yet, with the reasonable and polite procedures.
4rd you’re welcome any time in Egypt to discuss what ever you like, but for your knowledge Egypt as will as most of the Moslem countries were occupied by the Protestant British, Catholic French, mixed Germany, ….and the Atheist Russian. For decades and centuries, and non of them could to change the religion of one Moslem with any means. So the net is a good mean now a days.
5th that wife can continuo her life with the man if she like, no one will chase here, while if she, according her full well, and for the sake of what she believe, left him that’s will be better. She can do as he did and leave Islam too, if she like.
1st “corruption in earth” is an old term to what we can say “cutting the roads, armed robberies,….. “. What happened at the time of our prophet, as some people knew about the peaceful and kindness of Moslems, some came to the prophet and claim to be Moslems and requested some money and some teachers. And he gave them what they need. After leaving “Almadeena”, and at some distance they killed the teachers and stolen the money and fled away. That’s corruption in earth.
That’s your opinion, but it is not how it plays out in reality in Muslim societies, where any criticism or political action against Islam done by an apostate is considered a capital crime in most Muslim societies as it “undermines” the sanctity of Islam.
2nd About apostate, almost in 2002 the high counsel of the Islamic affairs, Alazhar, the highest Islamic authority in Egypt published a “fatwa” that says, “The apostate ought to be “yostatab يستتاب “discussed, advised, and reviewed all of his life. Not to be killed nor jailed.
I don’t care what a 2002 fatwa by some “council” says. Nobody should ever have to be killed, jailed, persecuted, harassed, or carried out into court to have his life “reviewed” simply because they change their personal beliefs about something. It is none of the governments business to know what people’s beliefs are. That’s also another reason that national ID cards that mention people’s religion are a major infringement upon people’s religious freedom and privacy.
3rd we the Moslems ask, criticize and, modify many issues. And you are welcome to criticize or change it to ask, since you aren’t in full knowledge of Islam yet, with the reasonable and polite procedures.
That does not seem to be how it plays out in practice nor does that seem to be the mainstream opinion of government officials in Islamist states. You only need to look at the retarded blashphemy laws present in most Muslim countries or the case of Salman Rushdie. It is also a position held by numerous so called “Scholars” in the Islamic world:
Whoever insults Allah, the angels, and the religion, has apostatized from Islam, and become an infidel—(agreed).
The apostate is the legally competent one who voluntarily withdraws from Islam, whether he openly declares his infidelity, or utters something which makes him an infidel, or does something which makes him an infidel. In this case, this man has uttered something which makes him an infidel! For he insulted the religion, or in other words mocked, ridiculed, and belittled it. We take this from Islam—(agreed).
The ruling on the apostate is for him to seek forgiveness within three days, and if not he is killed, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): “The blood of a Muslim man is not permissible except under one of three conditions: 1) he commits adultery, 2) he takes an innocent life, or 3) he abandons his religion and separates himself from the community” (narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim from Ibn Mas’ud).
Let us beware, servants of Almighty Allah, to not be careless or reckless in our words and deeds, and to fear Almighty Allah in that which we say. For it is a great disaster for insults to the religion and the like to be found on our tongues, rather than remembrance and thanks for Almighty Allah.
4rd you’re welcome any time in Egypt to discuss what ever you like, but for your knowledge Egypt as will as most of the Moslem countries were occupied by the Protestant British, Catholic French, mixed Germany, ….and the Atheist Russian. For decades and centuries, and non of them could to change the religion of one Moslem with any means. So the net is a good mean now a days.
“Occupations” have nothing to do with it. Muslim Mughal invaders occupied India, Muslims occupied most of eastern Europe and Spain at one point in time before they were driven back. Plenty of Muslims gave up their religion and continue to renounce their religion and those that do often face death threats and attacks by Muslim communities within free nations.
By the way, in Egypt, I do not have the freedom to discuss whatever I like:
5th that wife can continuo her life with the man if she like, no one will chase here, while if she, according her full well, and for the sake of what she believe, left him that’s will be better. She can do as he did and leave Islam too, if she like.
So it should be up to the wife and the husband whether they choose to remain together or not. Not some ISlamic authority meddling in people’s private affairs. It is of noone’s business but the couples what religion each individual subscribes to. Thank you for proving my point, it’d be nice if Muslim society followed suit.
RSS Feed
