Apostates of Islam

[England my lionheart]

Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet."[2] Montazeri believes that it is probable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam - due to political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims, and not only because of changing the belief or expressing it. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He does not hold that a reversion of belief because of investigation and research is punishable by death, but prescribes capital punishment for a desertion of Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community.

Abu Dawud has collected the following saying of the Prophet:
" 'Ikrimah said: Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn Abbas was informed of it he said, 'If it had been I, I would not have them burned, for the apostle of Allah said: 'Do not inflict Allah's punishment on anyone.' But would have killed them on account of the statement of the Apostle of Allah, 'Kill those who change their religion.' "7

2. Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
3. Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59:
4. Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64:
. Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet."[2] Montazeri believes that it is probable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam - due to political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims, and not only because of changing the belief or expressing it. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He does not hold that a reversion of belief because of investigation and research is punishable by death, but prescribes capital punishment for a desertion of Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community.

Abu Dawud has collected the following saying of the Prophet:
" 'Ikrimah said: Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn Abbas was informed of it he said, 'If it had been I, I would not have them burned, for the apostle of Allah said: 'Do not inflict Allah's punishment on anyone.' But would have killed them on account of the statement of the Apostle of Allah, 'Kill those who change their religion.' "7

2. Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
3. Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59:
4. Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64:
. Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Ok.....

First part is Wael Hallaq Islamic view on apostasy.

Second part is a "hadith" that advocated killing of apostasy.

Third part is a verse that discuss, once again, an event that involves the hypocrites. I have posted the verse prior to the one posted to have better understanding.

004.088 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? God hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom God hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom God hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
​

Can you elaborate your point?
​

​

 

[England my lionheart]

Ok.....

First part is Wael Hallaq Islamic view on apostasy.

Second part is a "hadith" that advocated killing of apostasy.

Third part is a verse that discuss, once again, an event that involves the hypocrites. I have posted the verse prior to the one posted to have better understanding.




Can you elaborate your point?
[/font]

[/indent]

My point is simple,whether you call them hypocrites or apostates the punishment is obvious.

 

[ayani]

That is inaccurate, the commandment of wearing hijab is stated in the Qur'an. (24:31)

ProudMuslim ~

the word used in this aya is "khimar" which means something akin to shawl, not specifically a headscarf. and in this passage, the khimar is to be wrapped around the lady's bosom.

a Quran-alone Muslim may read this aya as telling Muslim women to cover their bosoms, and to dress and behave modestly. this may or may not include wearing a hijab (headscarf).

Kodanshi ~

i agree with you. what i really liked about Quranic Islam is that, frankly, Mohammad is out of the picture. one need not explain or defend his biography or his choices or manner of living to skeptics. the Quran itself does not command or permit many of the things commanded or permitted in other branches of Islam via the hadith and sunnah. Quranic Islam also encourages the believer to read and interpret the Quran on their own, and simplifies Islam in many ways.

However, after a brief period, I did what people had challenged me to do: I used the Qur’ân alone. And on its own basis it made no sense, and contained enough in it to make me realise that its divine inspiration DEMANDED extra–Qur’ânic revelations to make any sense.

i remember reading my Mohammad Asad translation of the Quran, complete with study notes and small tafsir at the botton of each page. it was interesting to see how he read and explained certain passages, such as 5:33, and i liked the way he interpreted such passages. later, i remember reading the hadith narratives behind 5:33, and was very surprised and troubled by the context.

the more i read about the life and practices of Mohammad, the more i began to really question : if i was alive at the time of Mohammad, would i have been personally upset or distressed by much of what he did? would i have believed him to be a prophet of God, and followed him no matter what? i loved the Quran very much, and loved Islam. and i truly wanted to continue being a Muslim, in spite of my doubts. yet honestly, the more i read, the more i questioned, if the same God who had sent Jesus of Nazareth could have also sent Mohammad.

 

[ProudMuslim]

My point is simple,whether you call them hypocrites or apostates the punishment is obvious.

No, hypocrites are DIFFERENT than apostates. Do you really want to discuss their difference?

One is supposedly leaving a religion to find a faith that suits him better, a faith that brings comfort to him. Whereas the other is pretending to be a Muslim while he is not, deceiving the other Muslims who might be sharing with him information that pertain to Muslims only. Consider the word "spy" more fitting for hypocrites here. The reason why hypocrisy is considered worse than disbelieving is because hypocrites play very critical role in the destruction of a society.

Considering everything is neutral. Why would anyone lie about his faith or pretend to be something he is not? It indicates to inner dangerous motives, hidden agenda. And think about. You can never tell out a hypocrite simply because you cannot read the mind and the intentions of a person, you will only find out after the action has been committed (e.g. leaking of information).

Now of course in societies that punish the apostate with death, it will be understandable for him to become a hypocrite. That is why i said earlier that killing an apostate has no place in Islam as manifested in the Qur'an because of its many hazardous consequences on a society on top of its blatant violation to the "there is no compulsion in religion". So humanely and logically it makes no sense.

 

[ProudMuslim]

ProudMuslim ~

the word used in this aya is "khimar" which means something akin to shawl, not specifically a headscarf. and in this passage, the khimar is to be wrapped around the lady's bosom.

a Quran-alone Muslim may read this aya as telling Muslim women to cover their bosoms, and to dress and behave modestly. this may or may not include wearing a hijab (headscarf).

Kodanshi ~

i agree with you. what i really liked about Quranic Islam is that, frankly, Mohammad is out of the picture. one need not explain or defend his biography or his choices or manner of living to skeptics. the Quran itself does not command or permit many of the things commanded or permitted in other branches of Islam via the hadith and sunnah. Quranic Islam also encourages the believer to read and interpret the Quran on their own, and simplifies Islam in many ways.



i remember reading my Mohammad Asad translation of the Quran, complete with study notes and small tafsir at the botton of each page. it was interesting to see how he read and explained certain passages, such as 5:33, and i liked the way he interpreted such passages. later, i remember reading the hadith narratives behind 5:33, and was very surprised and troubled by the context.

the more i read about the life and practices of Mohammad, the more i began to really question : if i was alive at the time of Mohammad, would i have been personally upset or distressed by much of what he did? would i have believed him to be a prophet of God, and followed him no matter what? i loved the Quran very much, and loved Islam. and i truly wanted to continue being a Muslim, in spite of my doubts. yet honestly, the more i read, the more i questioned, if the same God who had sent Jesus of Nazareth could have also sent Mohammad.

It is puzzling how you choose to believe the troubling ahadiths narratives attributed to Muhammed (PBUH) over the Quran! I mean i too sometimes read disturbing ahadiths but i simply refuse to believe them and rejecting them does not make me less of a Muslim in fact it makes me a better Muslim. As a Muslim we believe the Qur'an as the direct words of Allah, that Qur'an will always be preserved and unaltered while the same cannot be said about ahadiths who were subject to altereation and human error. Quran was written during Muhammed (PBUH) time and was collected by Abu Baker (the first Khalifa), not the same with hadiths. Rejecting out all hadiths is wrong, but
when you actually read something that blatanlty contradicts or violates a Qur'anic prohibitions we are ought not to believe them, how can a man who delivered those messages without any alteration simply live a life that contradicts it? And more importantly how would his earlier companions will witness that and do not question it? There is no explanation for that and therefore there is no reason to convince me that the Prophet (PBUH) would do anything remotely that go against the Qur'an.

But out of curiosity, isn't the God who sent Jesus Christ (PBUH) is the same God who sent Moses (PBUH)? Do you really not see the major difference between the teachings of Torah and the Gospels?

 

[England my lionheart]

Here we can see that it's not good to be either,some Muslims who no longer believe in Islam are too scared to leave because of punishment and are hypocrites out of neccessity.

Speaking of the authority of the punishment and its being genuine and based on the authentic sources of Islam, Sheikh 'Attiyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

"It is not right to deny the punishment of apostasy claiming that it has not been reported in the Qur'an, because it has been recorded in the mutawatir (Hadith which has been reported by at least four of the Companions in different times and places in a way that make a person sure that such Hadith is not fabricated) and the non-mutawatir Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). Hudud (Islamic punishment specified for certain crimes) may, of course, be based on the non-mutawatir Sunnah."

Detailing the issue and showing some of the evidence for the punishment of apostasy, the prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:

"All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to death.

A hypocrite in Islam is one who saw Islam; accepted its principles; embraced it; went along with it, but when his life style and preferences were challenged, Islam had failed with him. He knowingly wouldn't follow Islam because it would violate a certain life style that he adopted, ego, or standard that is too important to him, even though it directly violates Islam.
The difference between a hypocrite and a normal Muslim who sins, is that a hypocrite adopts an unacceptable life style and actions, and insists on following it, while a normal Muslim knows that he is wrong, tries to resist doing sins, but unfortunately sometimes, he still falls into sinning due to immaturity or physical weaknesses.
In a nut shell, this is what a hypocrite is in Islam. A hypocrite is a "Muslim". He is not an apostate (murtadd), nor is he a polytheist or idol worshiper (mushrik), nor is he an atheist (mulhid). A hypocrite does declare Islam as his religion, and in some cases even prays to GOD Almighty and fasts the month of Ramadan. Not everyone who Prays to Allah Almighty, however, is a good Muslim. Allah Almighty said:
"So woe to the worshipers Who are neglectful Of their Prayers, Those who (want but) To be seen (of men), But refuse (to supply) (Even) neighbourly needs. (The Noble Quran, 107:4-7)"
"The Hypocrites - they think they are over-reaching God, but He will over-reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold God in remembrance; (The Noble Quran, 4:142)"

God hath promised the hypocrites, men and women, and the rejecters of Faith, the fire of Hell; therein shall they dwell; sufficient is it for them: for them is the curse of God, and an enduring punishment. (9:68)

To the hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them but a grievous penalty. Yea, to those who take the unbelievers as their leaders rather than the believers (4:138-139)​

 

[ayani]

Proud Muslim ~

this is exactly why i was a Quran-alone Muslim. yes, many hadith show Muhammad doing some kind, wise, pious, and good things. these hadith may constitute parts of the sunnah, or parts of Muslim emulation of Mohammad.

for example, a hadith indicating that Mohammad encouraged his followers to enter the lavatory with their left foot first inspires many Muslims to do the same. that's a very neutral, inoccuous practice, and for many Muslims makes a lot of sense and is admirable, and so is part of the sunnah. another hadith recording that Mohammad stayed up late at night reciting parts of the Quran is taken by Muslims to be an example of his great piety, and in emulation Muslims may also stay up late into the night on occasions, reading the Quran and praying.

yet a hadith indicating that Muhammad ordered theieves to be mutilated and left in the desert to die of blood loss and dehydration can be ignored, if it causes discomfort, is disturbing, or gives the Muslim reason to doubt that this action could have been ordered by the beloved Rasul. why?

because, as you have indicated, it causes doubt. why would Mohammad do such a thing, which is so clearly excessively cruel, sadistic, and disturbing? instead of trying to answer this question, it is easier to say that as such an act of grotesque cruelty could not have been comitted by Mohammad, as it goes against the bounds of justice set by the Quran. to wonder whether Mohammad would have or could have done things against the Quran's mandates is much more difficult than simply dismissing or chosing to disbelief those narratives which indicate that he did.

Proud Muslim, Christians believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the Christ promised to come from Abarahm's line, and fulfil the Law.

now, Jesus did say that He came to fulfil the Law, not to destroy it. and many Muslism argue that this means that Mosaic dietary and ritual law should be kept by Christians. and some Christians do refrain from pork, and do other things in line with Mosaic law. yet what many Muslims do not realize is that as Messiah, Jesus has a power which is greater than Mosaic Law, being the Living Word, and the Son of God. He advocated adherence to the spirit rather than the letter of the law, and ushered in a new covenant with all believers in Him, through His blood and Holy Spirit.

thus, a Christin is not made right with God by how carefully they keep Mosaic Law or based on what they eat or don't eat. rather, they are made right with God by their faith in His Son, and by living as His disciples in the Holy Spirit. it's what some Christians call the "dispensation of grace" as opposed to the "dispensation of the law".

It is puzzling how you choose to believe the troubling ahadiths narratives attributed to Muhammed (PBUH) over the Quran! I mean i too sometimes read disturbing ahadiths but i simply refuse to believe them and rejecting them does not make me less of a Muslim in fact it makes me a better Muslim. As a Muslim we believe the Qur'an as the direct words of Allah, that Qur'an will always be preserved and unaltered while the same cannot be said about ahadiths who were subject to altereation and human error. Quran was written during Muhammed (PBUH) time and was collected by Abu Baker (the first Khalifa), not the same with hadiths. Rejecting out all hadiths is wrong, but
when you actually read something that blatanlty contradicts or violates a Qur'anic prohibitions we are ought not to believe them, how can a man who delivered those messages without any alteration simply live a life that contradicts it? And more importantly how would his earlier companions will witness that and do not question it? There is no explanation for that and therefore there is no reason to convince me that the Prophet (PBUH) would do anything remotely that go against the Qur'an.

But out of curiosity, isn't the God who sent Jesus Christ (PBUH) is the same God who sent Moses (PBUH)? Do you really not see the major difference between the teachings of Torah and the Gospels?

 

[England my lionheart]

Kareem Soliman AKA Amer in an Egyptian prison in what is supposed to be a secular country (how untrue) for criticising Islam,is this cultural,is this just,is this Islam suppressing discontent,what are we to believe.
I have highlighted Hadiths concerning Apostates and made sure that they were sahih yet there are Muslims who reject these Hadiths because they say they contradict the Quran (a kind of moral cherrypicking) only to see on another thread that the Hadiths are essential to understanding the Quran (anybody confused yet) which is another contradiction :help: all i am asking for is the truth.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

I would definitely say the same about Jesus time–travelling to today!

Yeah. Only I think he is here. And is sad.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

It is puzzling how you choose to believe the troubling ahadiths narratives attributed to Muhammed (PBUH) over the Quran! I mean i too sometimes read disturbing ahadiths but i simply refuse to believe them and rejecting them does not make me less of a Muslim in fact it makes me a better Muslim. As a Muslim we believe the Qur'an as the direct words of Allah, that Qur'an will always be preserved and unaltered while the same cannot be said about ahadiths who were subject to altereation and human error. Quran was written during Muhammed (PBUH) time and was collected by Abu Baker (the first Khalifa), not the same with hadiths. Rejecting out all hadiths is wrong, but
when you actually read something that blatanlty contradicts or violates a Qur'anic prohibitions we are ought not to believe them, how can a man who delivered those messages without any alteration simply live a life that contradicts it? And more importantly how would his earlier companions will witness that and do not question it? There is no explanation for that and therefore there is no reason to convince me that the Prophet (PBUH) would do anything remotely that go against the Qur'an.

But out of curiosity, isn't the God who sent Jesus Christ (PBUH) is the same God who sent Moses (PBUH)? Do you really not see the major difference between the teachings of Torah and the Gospels?

I am very happy to see that you can think and reason for yourself. This sound like the kind of Islam that I believe in. I don't know a lot about hadiths and where they originated or how reliable they are. It seems to me that it would have been a very convenient way to justify bad actions. For instance: I want to kill apostates. I claim to have discovered a hadith that tells how Muhammad killed apostates. I then pretend that it is right to do so because it is convenient for me. Do you think anything like this could ever have happened?

 

[Gharib]

Kareem Soliman AKA Amer in an Egyptian prison in what is supposed to be a secular country (how untrue) for criticising Islam,is this cultural,is this just,is this Islam suppressing discontent,what are we to believe.
I have highlighted Hadiths concerning Apostates and made sure that they were sahih yet there are Muslims who reject these Hadiths because they say they contradict the Quran (a kind of moral cherrypicking) only to see on another thread that the Hadiths are essential to understanding the Quran (anybody confused yet) which is another contradiction :help: all i am asking for is the truth.

wasn't he sopposed to be killed or something according to you, but he isn't, why bring this up again?

 

[England my lionheart]

wasn't he sopposed to be killed or something according to you, but he isn't, why bring this up again?

The reason is simple,if Kareem lived here for example he would'nt be in prison,it is significant that Egypt is supposedly secular yet is heavily influenced by Islam so his injustice is down to religion namely Islam.

 

[Gharib]

The reason is simple,if Kareem lived here for example he would'nt be in prison,

well it's not my fault that he doesn't live there, is it?

it is significant that Egypt is supposedly secular yet is heavily influenced by Islam so his injustice is down to religion namely Islam.

well of course, islam is the major religion of egypt, so would you rather have him free so someone else can go and kill him. you yourself said that the students of Al Azhar threatend to kill him with "white weapons" (what was this 'white weapon' thing about, i forgot to ask you about it, what does it matter if the weapons are black or white), so in a way according to what you have said about him being threatened, the government of egypt, has done Kareem a favour, they have put him under protection.
is this right or not?

 

[England my lionheart]

well it's not my fault that he doesn't live there, is it?



well of course, islam is the major religion of egypt, so would you rather have him free so someone else can go and kill him. you yourself said that the students of Al Azhar threatend to kill him with "white weapons" (what was this 'white weapon' thing about, i forgot to ask you about it, what does it matter if the weapons are black or white), so in a way according to what you have said about him being threatened, the government of egypt, has done Kareem a favour, they have put him under protection.
is this right or not?

He needs protection from the prison guards,Amnesty International have many issues with Egypt over Human rights abuse,both by the Police and the Prison guards,as for white weapons they are knives apparently an Arabic term.

 

[Gharib]

He needs protection from the prison guards,Amnesty International have many issues with Egypt over Human rights abuse,both by the Police and the Prison guards,as for white weapons they are knives apparently an Arabic term.

all prison guards abuse their prisoners, if that is wrong then why start in egypt, i think the US needs to be their first target. dont you think so, or what about the communist countries or the corrupt ones, they kill the inocent and you are worried about some prisoners being beaten up.

and what a relief on those "white weapons" you almost gave me a fright, i started to think they are some special islamic weapon or something, but it turns out they are just knives.

 

[Kodanshi]

I am very happy to see that you can think and reason for yourself. This sound like the kind of Islam that I believe in. I don't know a lot about hadiths and where they originated or how reliable they are. It seems to me that it would have been a very convenient way to justify bad actions. For instance: I want to kill apostates. I claim to have discovered a hadith that tells how Muhammad killed apostates. I then pretend that it is right to do so because it is convenient for me. Do you think anything like this could ever have happened?

There have, down the centuries, been intensive studies that still unearth false and weak ahadith. Even those that are good propaganda for Islâm, but false, are idenitified as fabricated. Basically, there are strong ‘scientific’ methodologies for classifying ahadith as sahih or not.

And therein lies the problem. Because scholars (how do you qualify as an Islâmic scholar that all recognise you as such, by the way?) disagree with each other enormously, despite their grounding in the science of ahadith. And to quote someone on another forum about this very topic:

And it seems there is no other reason for them to disagree, except the degree of embarrassment it causes. So this seems to be the new science of hadith: After vetting the hadith, after doing everything possible to make sure the hadith is true. After u end up with a sahih hadith in your hands. If it still embarrasses the crap out of you, then drop it. Because you do not want people to think (know, find out) that you are an idiot and that your head had been stuffed with crap for most of your formative years.

 

[ProudMuslim]

The reason is simple,if Kareem lived here for example he would'nt be in prison,it is significant that Egypt is supposedly secular yet is heavily influenced by Islam so his injustice is down to religion namely Islam.

But he would've been prisoned in Ireland for attacking his president, as Stephnew pointed out to you. And he would've been prisoned in France if he denied the holocaust. Both countries are supposedly respects and promotes "freedom of expression".

So what is your point?

 

[England my lionheart]

But he would've been prisoned in Ireland for attacking his president, as Stephnew pointed out to you. And he would've been prisoned in France if he denied the holocaust. Both countries are supposedly respects and promotes "freedom of expression".

So what is your point?

Kareem got 3 years for criticising Islam and one year for insulting the President so the point is he was imprisoned on religious grounds which is wrong but at least he kept his head.
As for being imprisoned for attacking the President thats Politics and although simmilar to religion is another kettle of fish,in my country,if you were to criticise the Priminister it would have to be something that incited violence but definately not criticism,otherwise half of my country would be in jail.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Kareem got 3 years for criticising Islam and one year for insulting the President so the point is he was imprisoned on religious grounds which is wrong but at least he kept his head.
As for being imprisoned for attacking the President thats Politics and although simmilar to religion is another kettle of fish,in my country,if you were to criticise the Priminister it would have to be something that incited violence but definately not criticism,otherwise half of my country would be in jail.

I don't see the difference here at all, the point here is the claimed "freedom of expression" right. In both cases it is violated.

So are you saying that one should not be imprisoned for criticising/attacking religion but its absolutely fine if his criticism/attack was directed to politicians?