This link calls out places in the Quran and the Hadith that talk about punishment for apostates:
Apostasy in Islam
Apostasy in Islam
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Become a muslim in three days or die
- Thread starter Anthem
- Start date
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Because you proclaim to be atheist.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
I know reading is hard but if you’re going to tell people what I said, correctly quote me. I said Muslims believe all babies or humans for that matter are in a natural state of Islam or submission to the will of God. That means all humans are born believing in God (this concept comes from a Quranic passage where God appears before the souls and proclaims “am I not your Lord?” The. The souls affirm that God is their lord.
This is where the idea of the natural state of belief comes from in Islamic theology so I did not say anything I was merely paraphrasing. I’m not concerned what you think what Hindus or others worship as there are plenty of Hindus that believe in a higher power. I just see a bunch of whiny atheist concerned about Muslims.
I need a pacifier emoji for all the whining about Muslims that go on here.
hey Epic,
You didn't say this:
"
Epic Beard Man said: ↑
The answer is more complex and often cited as a black and white answer according to those who hate Islam so allow me to offer a more academic approach to the issue. To answer why apostasy (irtidād) is taken so seriously we need to begin with the Natural state of Islam, that is, the idea that all human beings are born with an innate sense of belief in God. When it comes to apostasy, in Islam, apostasy is seen in equivalence to treason of the faith. In western society treason in this sense is limited to political/national alliegence. Ironically the idea of treason even defined in estern terms has been stretched to include non-political and non-military matters as well as one author notes:"
You read it !
You didn't say this:
"
Epic Beard Man said: ↑
The answer is more complex and often cited as a black and white answer according to those who hate Islam so allow me to offer a more academic approach to the issue. To answer why apostasy (irtidād) is taken so seriously we need to begin with the Natural state of Islam, that is, the idea that all human beings are born with an innate sense of belief in God. When it comes to apostasy, in Islam, apostasy is seen in equivalence to treason of the faith. In western society treason in this sense is limited to political/national alliegence. Ironically the idea of treason even defined in estern terms has been stretched to include non-political and non-military matters as well as one author notes:"
You read it !
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
If you'd learned your history from works of scholarship, rather than Wikipedia, you'd not be writing such nonsense.
In Medieval Islamic Spain there were repeated pogroms and many Jews fled abroad. I've read a letter from one who went to Italy written to a friend who went to Tunisia, suggesting that he'd be much safer in a Christian country. (Glick's Islamic and Christian Spain in the early Middle Ages)
And what of the restrictions on freedom of religion set out by EBM? Were they not in force in the so-called Golden Age?
Muslim conquests were accompanied by religious oppression. Al-Biruni, the greatest Islamic scholar, speaks in his India of the atrocities committed in the invasion of India.
Finally, if the culture of the Near East in that period were because of rather than despite Islam, why did it collapse?
exchemist
Veteran Member
I often quote Wiki on forums like this, as it is easy for readers to read for themselves. However I can equally quote Norman Davies's "Europe East & West". In his essay on Al Andalus he writes:
"Muslim Iberia was not a closed world. It was a civilisation where many elements met, where, among other things, Judaism flourished as in few other places. Many of the great Talmudic rabbis like Moses Isserles came from Spain. It was also the civilisation where many works of the classical world were translated from Greek or Arabic into Latin......"
"This was an extremely lively and tolerant place and it wasn't just a flash in the pan. It lasted for 800 years, twice the duration of the Roman Empire in the West. Those 800 years ended in 1493 with the expulsion [by Isabella and Ferdinand] of the Jews who refused to convert and later of the Moriscos, the Moors who had accepted conversion. The contrast between the extremely intolerant ethos of Catholic Spain with its inquisition and the world of Moorish Spain which preceded it, is fairly obvious."
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
There is no such teaching in Quran- the first source of guidance for Muslims, whatever the denomination. Such person are to be left on their own as per Quran*, ultimately it will benefit Islam.
Regards
__________________
*Quran[5:55]
O who believe! whoso among you turns back from his religion, then let it be known that in his stead Allah will soon bring a people whom He will love and who will love Him, and who will be kind and humble towards believers, hard and firm against disbelievers. They will strive in the cause of Allah and will not fear the reproach of a faultfinder. That is Allah’s grace; He bestows it upon whomsoever He pleases; and Allah is Bountiful, All- Knowing.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 5: Al-Ma'idah
Notanumber
A Free Man
While the rest of the world generally believes that if God wanted people dead over their religious beliefs then he would do the job himself, apostasy is taken so seriously by Muslims that it spawned the first of many serious internal wars.
Immediately after Muhammad's death, several tribes wanted to leave Islam and return to their preferred religion. In a conflict known as the Riddah (apostasy) Wars, they were slaughtered in such places recalled as "Garden of Death" and "Gulley of Blood" during the first caliph Abu Bakr's aggressive and violent campaign to force submission (and keep the tribute payments flowing back to Mecca, of course). Within months, a great many people were dead, including Muslims who had memorized the Quran by heart.
As Abu Bakr, Muhammad's closest companion, explained in a letter at the time, his prophet "struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly." Thus did Abu Bakr promise to "burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive" any who left Islam. (al-Tabari v10 p.55-57)
Ali, the fourth "Rightly Guided Caliph" was Muhammad's son-in-law and one of the first converts to Islam. He also had people burned alive for wanting to follow their conscience. An old man named Rumahis b. Mansur, who regretted leaving Christianity and vowed not to remain a Muslim, was quickly beheaded by Ali. (al-Tabari v.17 p.191).
In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe the death penalty for Muslims choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern, ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions "guaranteeing" freedom of religion, there is de facto enforcement of this law with intimidation and the vigilante murder of apostates.
A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers. Contemporary Muslim apologists sometimes find it embarrassing that their religion - and theirs alone - endorses killing someone over a mere change in opinion (as critic Geert Wilders puts it, "Any religion that invites you in but then will not let you out is no longer a religion"). As such there are various tricks played to deny or explain away this weak and draconian which is so well-ensconced in Islamic tradition.
Such defenders usually quote verse 2:256 to Western audiences. The verse states "Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out from error." They may also include a fragment of verse 10:99-100, "Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?" What they don't mention is that Muslim scholars agree that both verses were spoken by Muhammad during an earlier time in his teachings, when he did not have the power to compel others. They are abrogated by later verses, such as verse 9:29, which clearly orders Muslims to fight unbelievers until they relent and either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic rule (an obvious illustration of compulsion).
These apologists also ignore the actions of Muhammad at Mecca and those of his companions following his death, particularly the bloody Ridda Wars. How could those closest to him have felt that there should be "no compulsion in religion" if they were instructed to kill anyone who wanted to leave Islam?
Muhammad referred to the Companions as the 'best generation of Muslims' (Sahih Bukhari 6429), yet they wound up in battles against one another over disagreements of faith and charges of apostasy.
The "Religion of Peace" expanded across the globe by conquering people of other religions and then making life miserable for those who didn't "embrace" Islam. Once the shahada was spoken, a person was locked into the faith. Any sign of false witness - such as raising their children in another faith - was punished with death. Thus did Islam gradually supplant other religions.
One of the world's most respected Sunni scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, admitted in 2012 that if Muslims had "gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn't exist today". (Astonishingly enough, he was not apologizing for the beheading, torture, burning and murder of millions but, rather, trying to rationalize it).
And, while some apologists bend the truth in order to distance Islam from one of its most draconian rules, the world's most popular Muslim apologist recently affirmed that the death penalty should be applied to those who leave Islam and share their faith with others. (Ironically Zakir Naik made his comments on a British television channel called Peace TV).
In 2018, a prominent Saudi scholar with 110k Twitter followers and a commitment to clearing up "misconceptions" about Islam confirmed that those who leave the faith are to be tried and killed by 'Muslim rulers': "This is the LAW in Islam and if you don’t like it, tough bananas! We don’t like your laws either!"
Also in 2018, Mauritania mandated the death penalty for anyone who blasphemes against Allah or leaves Islam. Two years earlier, the Islamic State beheaded a 14-year-old boy in front of his parents for missing prayers. There was not a peep of protest from the Muslim world to either event. The latter act was actually consistent with Muhammad's order to burn those who would not pray (along with their houses), which he issued near the end of his life.
One can't help but notice that even Muslims who insist that the mandate to kill apostates from Islam isn't a part of the "true" religion never appear all that bothered when it does happen. Neither do they champion the right of other religions to evangelize in Muslim countries; in fact, they discourage it. They know as well as anyone that Islam cannot compete within the arena of free ideas and must rely on brute force at some level to retain believers.
Apostasy in Islam
Immediately after Muhammad's death, several tribes wanted to leave Islam and return to their preferred religion. In a conflict known as the Riddah (apostasy) Wars, they were slaughtered in such places recalled as "Garden of Death" and "Gulley of Blood" during the first caliph Abu Bakr's aggressive and violent campaign to force submission (and keep the tribute payments flowing back to Mecca, of course). Within months, a great many people were dead, including Muslims who had memorized the Quran by heart.
As Abu Bakr, Muhammad's closest companion, explained in a letter at the time, his prophet "struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly." Thus did Abu Bakr promise to "burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive" any who left Islam. (al-Tabari v10 p.55-57)
Ali, the fourth "Rightly Guided Caliph" was Muhammad's son-in-law and one of the first converts to Islam. He also had people burned alive for wanting to follow their conscience. An old man named Rumahis b. Mansur, who regretted leaving Christianity and vowed not to remain a Muslim, was quickly beheaded by Ali. (al-Tabari v.17 p.191).
In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe the death penalty for Muslims choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern, ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions "guaranteeing" freedom of religion, there is de facto enforcement of this law with intimidation and the vigilante murder of apostates.
A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers. Contemporary Muslim apologists sometimes find it embarrassing that their religion - and theirs alone - endorses killing someone over a mere change in opinion (as critic Geert Wilders puts it, "Any religion that invites you in but then will not let you out is no longer a religion"). As such there are various tricks played to deny or explain away this weak and draconian which is so well-ensconced in Islamic tradition.
Such defenders usually quote verse 2:256 to Western audiences. The verse states "Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out from error." They may also include a fragment of verse 10:99-100, "Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?" What they don't mention is that Muslim scholars agree that both verses were spoken by Muhammad during an earlier time in his teachings, when he did not have the power to compel others. They are abrogated by later verses, such as verse 9:29, which clearly orders Muslims to fight unbelievers until they relent and either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic rule (an obvious illustration of compulsion).
These apologists also ignore the actions of Muhammad at Mecca and those of his companions following his death, particularly the bloody Ridda Wars. How could those closest to him have felt that there should be "no compulsion in religion" if they were instructed to kill anyone who wanted to leave Islam?
Muhammad referred to the Companions as the 'best generation of Muslims' (Sahih Bukhari 6429), yet they wound up in battles against one another over disagreements of faith and charges of apostasy.
The "Religion of Peace" expanded across the globe by conquering people of other religions and then making life miserable for those who didn't "embrace" Islam. Once the shahada was spoken, a person was locked into the faith. Any sign of false witness - such as raising their children in another faith - was punished with death. Thus did Islam gradually supplant other religions.
One of the world's most respected Sunni scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, admitted in 2012 that if Muslims had "gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn't exist today". (Astonishingly enough, he was not apologizing for the beheading, torture, burning and murder of millions but, rather, trying to rationalize it).
And, while some apologists bend the truth in order to distance Islam from one of its most draconian rules, the world's most popular Muslim apologist recently affirmed that the death penalty should be applied to those who leave Islam and share their faith with others. (Ironically Zakir Naik made his comments on a British television channel called Peace TV).
In 2018, a prominent Saudi scholar with 110k Twitter followers and a commitment to clearing up "misconceptions" about Islam confirmed that those who leave the faith are to be tried and killed by 'Muslim rulers': "This is the LAW in Islam and if you don’t like it, tough bananas! We don’t like your laws either!"
Also in 2018, Mauritania mandated the death penalty for anyone who blasphemes against Allah or leaves Islam. Two years earlier, the Islamic State beheaded a 14-year-old boy in front of his parents for missing prayers. There was not a peep of protest from the Muslim world to either event. The latter act was actually consistent with Muhammad's order to burn those who would not pray (along with their houses), which he issued near the end of his life.
One can't help but notice that even Muslims who insist that the mandate to kill apostates from Islam isn't a part of the "true" religion never appear all that bothered when it does happen. Neither do they champion the right of other religions to evangelize in Muslim countries; in fact, they discourage it. They know as well as anyone that Islam cannot compete within the arena of free ideas and must rely on brute force at some level to retain believers.
Apostasy in Islam
No it is not true according to the Holy Quran which stipulates freedom of religion.
Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (Quran 2:256)
If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Quran 10:99)
According to God in the Quran, freedom of religion is accorded all.
Corrupt leaders of religion however, over the ages have usurped Islam for themselves and used it for their own selfish purposes, in particular the Umayyads and Abbasids and their descendants ignoring the clear laws of the Quran and substituting man made hadiths to try and justify political conquests in the name of religion for their lust of power and wealth.
God has always promoted freedom of religion and tolerance but fanatic clergy have often preached against it making up their own laws for personal ambitions.
Anthem
Active Member
That's great but Muhammad killed his opponents.
Wasn't a great start for peace and unity, was it?
That is misinformation spread by His enemies to try and discredit Him.
Muhammad never killed a soul. His character was impeccable. The Quran, which is the Word of God Himself states that Muhammad was an example to all humanity so jealous enemies fabricated stories known as ‘hadiths’ attempting to discredit and attribute to him all sorts of slander and lies.
The Umayyads and Abbasids who wanted to justify their offensive military attacks could not do so using the Quran because in Sura 2:190 only self defense is permitted.
So to be able to exploit Muslims to join their lust for power and wealth in conquering, they devised ‘sayings of Muhammad’ which told of Muhammad supposedly consenting to and committing mass slaughter.
But Muhammad never ever killed anyone. That is a mere fabricated story called a Hadith used to justify political conquests.
Anthem
Active Member
Before this who were oppressed and killed and tortured by the Meccans for 13 years? All Muhammad did was call people to follow ONE God whereas Mecca made vast wealth from tributes to 360 gods so they oppressed a religious minority until they fled to Medina where the entire city accepted Muhammad.
At that point Muhammad was given the right to defend the city and Muslims from attackers.
Permission has been given to those who are being fought because they were wronged. And indeed, God is competent to give them victory. (Quran 22:39)
So any battles were in this context. For the correct history of Islam there is a very good movie that depicts what really did happen. There’s a lot of misinformation on the internet.
Did the Prophet Cause the Battle of Badr? | About Islam
Anthem
Active Member
well it was his great (or great great) grandfather who took over Mecca to make some mulah
It was Muhammad and the Muslims who were subject to barbaric treatment for 13 years once they began teaching there was only one God. The Meccans murdered Muslim women and tortured and killed many Muslims when they refused to give up belief in one God.
That’s all there was to it. It was vile, cruel religious persecution. The Muslims fled to Abyssinia where a just Christians king gave them asylum. The Meccans pursued them to Medina with intent to slaughter them all.
After Abyssinia the Muslims went to Medina where there was a dispute between the ruling tribes and as Muhammad was able to reconcile them, they chose Him as their new leader and accepted Islam voluntarily.
The Meccans sent out spies and were hunting Muslims with intent to commit genocide and wipe them out completely.
Muhammad had Medina protected but the Meccans were always close by trying to find ways to murder and kill the Muslims. It was a war by the Meccans against religious freedom.
Anthem
Active Member
Aha. What's your source for all this? I'd love to read the whole thing.
Anthem
Active Member
my source says some of them accepted Muhammad because it would finally end the fighting in their city. Nowhere it daid the entire city did accept him. Of course cities during those days were on the smaller side...
Refer to the YouTube movie which really is very factual. It’s in the same style as the Ten Commandments. It’s a couple of hours long and goes into the early history and cruelty Muhammad and His followers were exposed to at the beginning. They were hunted like dogs to exterminate them completely and they accepted all forms of torture for the right to freedom of religion.
I also have consulted a lot of other sources from the Baha’i Writings. We are not Muslims but believe the true story about Muhammad has not been told to the west without distortions and bias.
The story is a very tragic and heroic one about the earliest historical fight for religious freedom in humanity’s history.
This book is out of print but it’s one of the most accurate with regards to early history of Islam in my view.
Muhammad and the Course of Islam
Holy-Writings.com - Read text
Here’s an excerpt....
The opposition to the Prophet was increasing, but so was the number of Muslims. Even the person of Muhammad Himself was no longer immune from attack, for His adversaries, no longer content with verbal abuse, would strike Him, throw ashes over Him, and strew thorns in His path.
Last edited:
Anthem
Active Member
I cannot take a youtube video as a reliable source.
The only 100% reliable source I believe comes from God Himself.
But I believe another Messenger was sent by God to clear up these misunderstandings and establish the truth and His Name is Baha’u’llah. His Word comes from God not Himself and He confirms the truth of Muhammad and the wrongs committed against Him in many Writings.
Only the Word that comes from God I believe can be fully accurate and whatever agrees with the Words sent down by God is I believe the truth also.
If anything didn’t fully agree with the Word of God I would be hesitant to pass it into you or anyone as I want to pass on the truth as God sees it not more misinformation.
Also, I am a Baha’i not a Muslim. And Baha’u’llah and after Him His Son passed onto us priceless and fully accurate knowledge about Muhammad that we believe comes from God not people’s opinion.