Apostates of Islam

[ProudMuslim]

That’s exactly what I said when I wrote that ‘treatise against the execution of apostates’. My last two points focussed on this insistence by muslims of referring to apostasy as the equivalent of treason.

No one is insisting on anything. I and many other Muslims at this forum made a clear distinction between an apostate and a traitor. In fact i think it is the other way around, many non-Muslims insist on bringing up historic events that involved traitors and depict them as apostates whose only "crime" was leaving the religion.

 

[Seven]

the reason they aren't is because they think that Muhammed (saws) was a bad man, if they though otherwise, they would be muslims.

It's definitely not that simple. I don't think Jesus was a bad man but that doesn't make me a Christian.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

what do you mean by "personal revelation", as in god telling me do this do that?

As in, pray to Allah and ask him to show you which way is right.

 

[ayani]

My question ,to Muslims especially,what are your views on Apostacy in Islam and should Kareem be punished for criticizing Islam and being an Atheist? please be honest.

within Islam, views on apostasy vary. the Quran itself does not suggest or command a death sentence for apostates. in fact, it does not suggest any punishment. it does state that those who wander from Islam are misguided, astray, and will face Allah's punishment and judgment.

based on hadith, however, many Muslims understand that if a person leaves Islam (whether a Muslim from childhood or a later convert) that they should be killed, or at least punished. this makes it especially difficult for converts to other faiths in countries where Islamic faith and religious law have a great influence.

my view on apostacy in Islam, is that it happens. as a Christian, i don't believe that anyone should be forced to convert to a faith, or feel in danger if they chose to leave a faith. faith is a matter between the soul, and the object(s) of faith in question. no, i do not believe that Kareem should be punished, either for criticizing Islam, or being an atheist. were he criticizing Christian faith, my answer would be the same.

 

[ayani]

but here is the question, ProudMuslim. i've considered this question before, and please excuse me if it's been answered.

an apostate is someone who turn their back on Islamic faith and tenants. e.g. one who no longer believes that Mohammad was inspired by God, or who no longer believes that the Quran is God's word, etc.

could this denial, especially if it's a public denial of faith, amount to traitorous behavior? meaning, this person had once stood in a congregation on jummah, recited the shahada daily, read the Quran, and followed sunnah. now, they deny the very basics of that faith. to throw in another aspect, they are also sharing with curious Muslims how and why they came to leave Islam, and are publishing blogs or pamphlets to clarify their position and opinions.

is this person a traitor to Islam? if so, how and why?

No one is insisting on anything. I and many other Muslims at this forum made a clear distinction between an apostate and a traitor. In fact i think it is the other way around, many non-Muslims insist on bringing up historic events that involved traitors and depict them as apostates whose only "crime" was leaving the religion.

 

[ayani]

well, that may be the position of some Muslims, Fatihah.

but there are many, many committed, sincere, devout, and deeply believing Muslim men and women who have come (gradually or suddenly) to leave Islam.

they were Muslims, friend, by their own accounts. they believed the shahada with all their heart, and devotedly read the Quran as Allah's word. they practiced Islam faithfully and sincerely, believing it to be the perfect religion revealed for mankind.

but something changed.

whether a religious experience pointing them towards another faith, a series of doubts leading to apostasy, or anything else. yet the fact remains that these people were, inside and out, Muslims.

that some Muslims may wish to deny or can not understand that, does not chance the fact that there are many, many people in the world formerly on fire for Islam, who have left the faith, and can and will tell you about it if you ask them.

Response: We must first understand that the issue is apostacy. After an explaination, you can decide for yourself whether the individual should die.

A person who leaves islam and insists on staying in disbelief were never muslims to begin with. They were enemies of islam. If the muslim community allowed this practice, they would be easy target for their enemies which would cause havoc and destroy the unity between muslims and any individual muslim directedly involved. Therefore it is very necessary to put an end to such a practice by putting the apostates to death before they attempt to harm the muslims.

But if the apostates promise to give the muslims peace then they must enter into a peace treaty with the muslims and no harm will come to them unless the treaty is broken.

 

[YmirGF]

that some Muslims may wish to deny or can not understand that, does not chance the fact that there are many, many people in the world formerly on fire for Islam, who have left the faith, and can and will tell you about it if you ask them.

And when they answer, that is where treason comes into it. The apostate is supposed to remain silent and never say a word against Islam, in so doing they are merely an apostate. If they ever utter a word about why they no longer believe they open themselves to blasphemy laws and the red herring of treason. It does make sense in a twisted sort of way, but the reasoning involved is fairly superficial.

 

[ayani]

i am finding that myself.

and i've found that you are right, in many cases, Ymir. that simply saying one has left Islam, is different from going into how and why, and even more different than contrasting one's new faith logically and spiritually to Islam. this is especially true of Muslim converts to Christian faith, who, in Muslims' eyes, have backslid terribly and into blasphemous error.

claims to religious authority and supremacy are always going to clash. if you've more than one claim, there's already a clash. if you've got one man describing himself as the fulfillment of a prophecy while others disagree and are deeply offended, there's more room for clashing. this is precisely what happened in the case of Christ, as recorded for us in the Gospels. Jesus' followers believed Him to be Messiah, and Jesus Himself stated that this is who He was. many disagreed, and found His claim blasphemous, and outrageous. this won Him numerous death threats, and finally was used to make a case to have Him killed.

and a similar thing happens between Christian and Islamic faith. it's sticky. and sensitive. but that's no reason to stay silent on it.

And when they answer, that is where treason comes into it. The apostate is supposed to remain silent and never say a word against Islam, in so doing they are merely an apostate. If they ever utter a word about why they no longer believe they open themselves to blasphemy laws and the red herring of treason. It does make sense in a twisted sort of way, but the reasoning involved is fairly superficial.

 

[gnostic]

What about the Afghan, some years ago, who was arrested for admitting that he left Islam and converted to Christianity?

I don't remember his name and I don't remember exactly when this happen, but his arrest and hostile Muslim reaction in Afghanistan caused a sensation and international outrage.

A bunch of Muslim clerics were demanding his death for leaving Islam, not because he was attacking or killing Muslims, and not for defiling a mosque or the Qur'an. They wanted his death simply because left Islam to join another religion.

Who said that there's no compulsion in Islam. If there's no compulsion for converting to Islam, then there should be no violent, death threat or arrest for leaving Islam.

The only way the damn Afghan court would let him leave, if the poor guy admitted insanity.

What it does demonstrate how petty and unforgiving and cruel Muslim societies are towards those who leave Islam.

• Was it right to arrest and charge him?
• Was it right to demand for his death (or even imprisonment)?
• Is it right to punish those who leave Islam?

 

[YmirGF]

• Was it right to arrest and charge him?
• Was it right to demand for his death (or even imprisonment)?
• Is it right to punish those who leave Islam?

Oh come now, Gnostic Storyteller, wouldn't someone have to be crazy to want to leave a perfect religion of peace?

 

[gnostic]

Oh come now, Gnostic Storyteller, wouldn't someone have to be crazy to want to leave a perfect religion of peace?

Well, Mr Grumpy don't believe in "perfection", so there's no such thing as "perfect" this or "perfect" that.

The Impostor :fork: believed that "perfection" is an illusion.

The Jester :jester3: thinks "perfection" is overrated...and of course, it's all a big joke.

Lost Patient just want Dr Angelo to write more prescription for the green and pink pills, so he can't fathom what "perfection" is.

So if Islam is so perfect, then why is there so much sins, crimes and violence committed all in the name of Allah?

If Islam is so perfect then why does fear one person announcing that he has converted to Christianity that they have to arrest and charge him?

 

[Kodanshi]

Kodanshi - Where can I read your treatise? Thanks.

I reproduced it here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...reatest-comparative-study-21.html#post1473280

and added the extra points about ‘treason’ in this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...reatest-comparative-study-27.html#post1474227

 

[ProudMuslim]

but here is the question, ProudMuslim. i've considered this question before, and please excuse me if it's been answered.

an apostate is someone who turn their back on Islamic faith and tenants. e.g. one who no longer believes that Mohammad was inspired by God, or who no longer believes that the Quran is God's word, etc.

could this denial, especially if it's a public denial of faith, amount to traitorous behavior? meaning, this person had once stood in a congregation on jummah, recited the shahada daily, read the Quran, and followed sunnah. now, they deny the very basics of that faith. to throw in another aspect, they are also sharing with curious Muslims how and why they came to leave Islam, and are publishing blogs or pamphlets to clarify their position and opinions.

is this person a traitor to Islam? if so, how and why?

Ayani, with all my respect didn't you say that you were once a devout Muslim? I really do not mean to be rude, but i think the answer to your questions is very obvious in Islam.

The reason why i put forward the example of someone deciding to leave his home country and giving up his citizenship is a way to understand the difference here. That person also gave his back to his country and denied every good thing the country done to him, and perhaps he might even share his reasons publicly, will that amount to treason?

Islam is a very realistic religion, no judgment can be made without the actual doing. For example you are not an adulterer for simply thinking about a woman/man, if one commit sexual intercourse outside marriage then he/she is an adulterer. In Islam open debate and questioning is encouraged.

Apostasy is leaving the religion, it does not mean the apostate need to harm or fight his former people, if he choose to do that then he is a traitor.

 

[ProudMuslim]

And when they answer, that is where treason comes into it. The apostate is supposed to remain silent and never say a word against Islam, in so doing they are merely an apostate. If they ever utter a word about why they no longer believe they open themselves to blasphemy laws and the red herring of treason. It does make sense in a twisted sort of way, but the reasoning involved is fairly superficial.

Whose they?

Show me posts that connected apostasy to treason.

Unless of course you are indicating that an apostate should have the right to leave, criticize AND fight his former people as a way to liberate them from the "darkness". That will be another issue.

The definition of apostasy and treason is different and clear. One is dealing with spirituality while the other is dealing with betraying your country and scheming against it.

 

[ProudMuslim]

What about the Afghan, some years ago, who was arrested for admitting that he left Islam and converted to Christianity?

I don't remember his name and I don't remember exactly when this happen, but his arrest and hostile Muslim reaction in Afghanistan caused a sensation and international outrage.

A bunch of Muslim clerics were demanding his death for leaving Islam, not because he was attacking or killing Muslims, and not for defiling a mosque or the Qur'an. They wanted his death simply because left Islam to join another religion.

Who said that there's no compulsion in Islam. If there's no compulsion for converting to Islam, then there should be no violent, death threat or arrest for leaving Islam.

The only way the damn Afghan court would let him leave, if the poor guy admitted insanity.

What it does demonstrate how petty and unforgiving and cruel Muslim societies are towards those who leave Islam.

• Was it right to arrest and charge him?
• Was it right to demand for his death (or even imprisonment)?
• Is it right to punish those who leave Islam?

I think you have serious problem with generalizing or hey maybe you are just Islamophobic.

 

[gnostic]

I think you have serious problem with generalizing or hey maybe you are just Islamophobic.

Not precisely.

Try phobia for everything Abrahamic.

I loved history, but I don't like people persisted on using archaic customs that are cruel and barbaric. I loved mythology, but I dislike insane faith in a belief of myths.

Anyway I found his name at Wiki, Abdul Rahman. It was about 3 years ago (2006).

Beside the groups who were demanding the apostate's death were not a tiny faction. There were the police who arrested him. There were the Islamic court. There were the clerics inciting mobs, who wanted him receive the death sentence. It was just a few people, who wanted him dead.

And worse of all, his own family were the ones who called the police, arresting him because he possessed a bible.

Tell me, is this what Muslims called of being religiously tolerant?

The only reason he was released, was because of international media attention and other countries putting pressure on the Afghan president and government. So it was eventually Afghan president who had him released.

Were the Afghan authority right in arresting him?

Do the Muslims really respect others, who leave?

Because to me, the family was willing to feed Abdul Rahman to the wolves. And these Afghan Muslims hardly showed tolerance. If the world didn't know about his trial, he would have been dead.

 

[Gharib]

As in, pray to Allah and ask him to show you which way is right.

yes of course, Allah accepts the prayer if it is good for the person, ie. if you say "o Allah breack eselams neck" he would not accept that. but if you say "o Allah direct me on the right path and guide me from the sheytan" then Allah will accept that prayer, but it must be meant not just said.

 

[Gharib]

To be honest no am not. I know that some Muslims think that killing apostates is an Islamic teaching. It is not. Islam is a religion of reasoning, rationality and logic. Flip this issue in all its sides and nothing will make sense of killing a person for merely changing his belief. In contrary i can go on and on about the negative results of committing such a rule.

i too am not saying we should kill all apostates, i'm just going with the quran, and what it says about appostacy i'm not sure of, so i'll keep my mouth shut next time, thank you.

 

[YmirGF]

Whose they?

It is a literary device that was an extension to the post by Ayani. In this sense, they refers to the apostate.

Show me posts that connected apostasy to treason.

What the heck? Your own posts connect apostasy to treason? Am I missing something here?

Unless of course you are indicating that an apostate should have the right to leave, criticize AND fight his former people as a way to liberate them from the "darkness". That will be another issue.

Yes, in fact this is exactly what I am saying. Why should they not be allowed to express their opinion any way they wish? Are Muslims so incredibly insecure that they have to crush any dissenting view on sight? I am thinking that "fighting" would simply be a reaction to oppression from surrounding Muslims who make the person's life so intolerable that they begin to fight back.

The definition of apostasy and treason is different and clear. One is dealing with spirituality while the other is dealing with betraying your country and scheming against it.

Ah, the mischief-makers. This is actually a bit of a red herring in this context due to the fact that in Islam there is no division between religion and state. By rejecting the religion, one also is immediately rejecting the very basis that the state is formed on and so could immediately be considered as a candidate for treason.

Further to this, I would suggest that it is highly disingenuous of you to even imply that there is a division of religion and state in Islam. There simply is not. You are taking a secular concept, explaining it to a secular audience in terms that would make complete sense in a secular society and pretending the same situation exists in an Islamic theocracy. That is promoting a lie. In theory, you already know that though.

i too am not saying we should kill all apostates, i'm just going with the quran, and what it says about appostacy i'm not sure of, so i'll keep my mouth shut next time, thank you.

This statement would imply that by saying you should not kill all apostates, then it is perfectly ok to kill some of them? Oddly, one would expect more from a so-called "religion of peace".

 

[ProudMuslim]

What the heck? Your own posts connect apostasy to treason? Am I missing something here?

You bet you are missing something here. Show me where i connected apostasy to treason.

Don't talk, just post.

Yes, in fact this is exactly what I am saying.

Why should they not be allowed to express their opinion any way they wish?

Must they express their opinions by their hands and weapons? lol.

Are Muslims so incredibly insecure that they have to crush any dissenting view on sight? I am thinking that "fighting" would simply be a reaction to oppression from surrounding Muslims who make the person's life so intolerable that they begin to fight back.

Insecure? Late Ahmed Dedat have challenged the most profound religious figures on live debates infront of millions of people. Through him 4 Catholic priests embraced Islam. He even publicly invited the late Pope to an open debate in which the latter rejected. I'm sure you will act all "what has this to do with my point", this is to show you that Muslims are not insecure about our Islam, we dont care in fact we look for open debates and discussions with others figures on public televisions simply because we are too secure about our belief. How many other religious figures will encourage pubic debates?

I will repeat again, when apostates think they can express their hatred with physical force then they will recieve the same.

Ah, the mischief-makers. This is actually a bit of a red herring in this context due to the fact that in Islam there is no division between religion and state. By rejecting the religion, one also is immediately rejecting the very basis that the state is formed on and so could immediately be considered as a candidate for treason.

What an utter crap. So in this case in Islam we make no difference between an apostate and a person of other belief like a Christian or a Jew because they also rejected the very basis of the state?

Further to this

, I would suggest that it is highly disingenuous of you to even imply that there is a division of religion and state in Islam. There simply is not. You are taking a secular concept, explaining it to a secular audience in terms that would make complete sense in a secular society and pretending the same situation exists in an Islamic theocracy. That is promoting a lie. In theory, you already know that though.

You give yourself so much credit for thinking your posts can intimidate me or even trap me to the point where i change my Islamic belief just to please you! lol. Yes Islam is a complete way of life, it does not deal with spirituality only but with other aspects of life. The reason why state and religion is not seperate is because there isn't a law that is not covered in Islam. However, we do have civil laws for non-Muslims as Sharia Law is only fully applicable on Muslims with some exceptions.

This statement would imply that by saying you should not kill all apostates, then it is perfectly ok to kill some of them? Oddly, one would expect more from a so-called "religion of peace"

It is a religious of justice

Finally not only Qur'an does not state any worldly punishment for aspotates, but in fact states that "no compulsion in religion" and that hypocricy is far more dangerous for a society than disbelieving, and we all know that not allowing people to leave the religion will create hypocrites among them and scheming against religion by them.