Consequences of converting from Islam

[tariqkhwaja]

Assalamualaikum.

One of the saddest truths of this age of Muslims is their willingness to take revenge. Indeed they have done well to imitate Jews in this respect. It is, indeed, a pain to feel the fire in Muslims as it is painful to see the same in Jews and one hopes both learn the wrong of their ways. If you know a loved ones who have immersed themselves in the quest for vengeance and feel sorry for their souls then you know how it feels to see Muslims and Jews that do the same. May God guide us all.

One of the ways this fire manifests itself in modern Muslims is that (as far as I know) most believe that the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death. That is, if a Muslim should choose to change his religion and leave Islam, that person must be killed.

Has not the Quran clearly stated that:

"A section of the people of the Book urge some from among themselves: why not affirm, in the early part of the day, belief in that which has been revealed unto the believers and repudiate it in the latter part of the day, perchance they may turn away from their faith." (3.73)

This used to happen (Commentary: Bahral Muheet , vol. 11, 493) but these people were never punished. If there was any such law that decreed punishment for apostates these people would have never even dreamed of pulling something like this off!

"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go on increasing in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor guide them to any way of deliverance." (4.138)

After reading these verses is there any doubt as to what is the Islamic punishment of apostasy? Yes God would punish such people but there is no mention of any Muslim or Islamic government having authority to punish people for their religious beliefs.

Finally, the Quran closes the argument by saying "There is no compulsion in religion for the right way is clear from the wrong" (2.257). Therefore, according to the Quran, itself, only an Islam that could not prove its arguments through logical reasoning is one that would prevent people from leaving Islam. Which is the fact of the matter actually ... the Muslim scholars can not effectively prove all their arguments.

In the above discourse attempt was made to show how obvious the truth is once it is pointed out yet prevalently Muslim scholars today believe that the punishment for apostasy is death. It is an example of the need for a Divinely Guided reformer for the Muslims.

The chapter on the Punishment for Apostasy (mirror link) in the book Murder in the Name of Allah (mirror link) gives a detailed exposition on the subject along with discussion on the many Hadith used to support a punishment (a discussion that I have omitted in this note).

Love for All, Hatred for None.

I'd like to take this moment also to commend Gaura Priya who seems to have a strong sense of justice and often defends misconceptions about Islam while Muslims sleep. Thank you.

 

[gnostic]

That's not what I asked.

I asked for Qur'anic evidence. This is the Qur'anic debate anyways.

Not really.

This topic may be posted in the Qur'an Debates section, but it also a scriptural debate as well. Since the Hadith is also consider a scripture of Islam, then the Hadith can be used, as well as the Qur'an.

Second, this topic is also about Islam, and the consequences of leaving Islam. No where in the OP did Godwilling say that you must the Qur'an alone. This is what Godwilling wrote:

Leaving most Christian religions is fairly easy at present. There are some exceptions like the case of the Davidians in Waco, Texas, some Mormon sects and some other sects where power and control extend to breaking US law.

Long gone are the days of the Inquisition where people would be put to death for "not believing" in a prescribed manner.

I would like Muslims to educate me on the consequences of converting from Islam to another religion or to atheism and your views in the matter.

Do you see? It say nothing about the Qur'an.

I am not saying you can't use the Qur'an to support your argument. You most certainly can, but IT IS NOT THE ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for this topic.

You can use the Qur'an or Hadith...or both. You can also use the Sharia Law, or a biography on Muhammad's life. Or you can give recent and real events to support your argument, for or against.

Also Godwilling also wanted Muslims to educate him, as well as give their honest opinions.

 

[A-ManESL]

It has nothing to do with the original topic of this debate (and I kind of agree with you that reference to the hadith is logical) but I dont think that Hadith is considered as a scripture or as a holy book. This is just my opinion however.

See Islamic holy books. (The opening para has the line " Muslims believe the Qur'an, the final holy scripture, was sent because all the previous holy books had been either corrupted or lost.")

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Not really.

This topic may be posted in the Qur'an Debates section, but it also a scriptural debate as well. Since the Hadith is also consider a scripture of Islam, then the Hadith can be used, as well as the Qur'an.

Second, this topic is also about Islam, and the consequences of leaving Islam. No where in the OP did Godwilling say that you must the Qur'an alone. This is what Godwilling wrote:



Do you see? It say nothing about the Qur'an.

I am not saying you can't use the Qur'an to support your argument. You most certainly can, but IT IS NOT THE ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for this topic.

You can use the Qur'an or Hadith...or both. You can also use the Sharia Law, or a biography on Muhammad's life. Or you can give recent and real events to support your argument, for or against.

Also Godwilling also wanted Muslims to educate him, as well as give their honest opinions.

While your sources are somewhat correct (Sharia Law is not really a source of knowledge ... rather it is an inference from the various sources) but the one thing that must be clear:
If ANY of the other sources contradict the Quran the Quran remains superior. The post I made couple of posts ago are to show that exactly.

 

[gnostic]

While your sources are somewhat correct (Sharia Law is not really a source of knowledge ... rather it is an inference from the various sources) but the one thing that must be clear:
If ANY of the other sources contradict the Quran the Quran remains superior. The post I made couple of posts ago are to show that exactly.

For sure the Qur'an is the superior source, and I don't and won't deny that. But the author of this thread (Godwilling) didn't specify the Qur'an or any other literature. He want your personal view, not just the literary sources.

My argument is with Gaura Piya's statement "This is the Qur'anic debate anyways." as if people can't use any other sources other than the Qur'an.

Do you think this thread is just about the Qur'an?

It is not. Re-read Godwiiling's 1st post.

Godwilling stated that is usually easy to leave the church, to follow other religions or just become atheists. BUT, he also stated that there are few "exceptions", when the consequences can become severe or even violent, and I will repost this quote:

There are some exceptions like the case of the Davidians in Waco, Texas, some Mormon sects and some other sects where power and control extend to breaking US law.

Godwilling is asking if there are consequence to leaving Islam, and in some cases, there are, even today, where Muslims will either ostracize a person from family or community for leaving Islam, or actually physically punish them.

And there lies the problem. The Qur'an may say one thing, the Hadith will say another about apostasy, and people (Muslims) may not always heed the Qur'an's statement of "no compulsion".

 

[Caladan]

Assalamualaikum.

One of the saddest truths of this age of Muslims is their willingness to take revenge. Indeed they have done well to imitate Jews in this respect.

How did this thread turned to the Jews?
I didn't know Jews punish for apostasy

 

[Gaura Priya]

For sure the Qur'an is the superior source, and I don't and won't deny that. But the author of this thread (Godwilling) didn't specify the Qur'an or any other literature. He want your personal view, not just the literary sources.

My argument is with Gaura Piya's statement "This is the Qur'anic debate anyways." as if people can't use any other sources other than the Qur'an.

Do you think this thread is just about the Qur'an?

It is not. Re-read Godwiiling's 1st post.

Godwilling stated that is usually easy to leave the church, to follow other religions or just become atheists. BUT, he also stated that there are few "exceptions", when the consequences can become severe or even violent, and I will repost this quote:



Godwilling is asking if there are consequence to leaving Islam, and in some cases, there are, even today, where Muslims will either ostracize a person from family or community for leaving Islam, or actually physically punish them.

And there lies the problem. The Qur'an may say one thing, the Hadith will say another about apostasy, and people (Muslims) may not always heed the Qur'an's statement of "no compulsion".

And therein lies the problem. With any religion, such as Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, etc. there will always be the problem of differing interpretations and ways to interpret and act upon certain beliefs. But yet there will always be source texts to do so.

But not all Muslims will shun a person for leaving Islam. Not all Muslims will physically punish an individual.

The other problem of using source hadiths is that they differ according to the sect used, and different sects of Islam will validate certain hadiths as authentic and others as not authentic. Because of this disunity, the source of jurisprudence will necessarily be the Qur'an, especially since it becomes the ultimate in understanding what a Muslim should do.

Not all Muslims believe in the same hadiths, or even any hadiths. Not all Muslims agree on interpretations of sunnah. Not all Muslims believe in Shariah Law as part of the Qur'anic revelation. However, all Muslims are united with their belief in the Qur'an as the ultimate criterion for all Muslims.

"Lo! We reveal unto thee the Scripture with the truth, that thou mayst judge between mankind by that which Allah showeth thee. And be not thou a pleader for the treacherous."

-- 4:105

 

[gnostic]

The other problem of using source hadiths is that they differ according to the sect used, and different sects of Islam will validate certain hadiths as authentic and others as not authentic. Because of this disunity, the source of jurisprudence will necessarily be the Qur'an, especially since it becomes the ultimate in understanding what a Muslim should do.

Not all Muslims believe in the same hadiths, or even any hadiths. Not all Muslims agree on interpretations of sunnah. Not all Muslims believe in Shariah Law as part of the Qur'anic revelation. However, all Muslims are united with their belief in the Qur'an as the ultimate criterion for all Muslims.

So I understand.

But it doesn't matter, whether you accept or reject a particular hadith. It is there, and it can be used to either support your case or refute other in a debate topic.

All I am saying that the author of this left the thread open, so any source can be used, whether it be Qur'an or Hadith, or both. The only scopes godwilling gave Muslims (who participate) is to ask for you to educate him and to give your opinion.

One of your earlier quote seemed to indicate only the Qur'an should be used (well, that's the way I read it).

 

[gnostic]

But not all Muslims will shun a person for leaving Islam. Not all Muslims will physically punish an individual.

Which is good. But it is true that some will do it.

Do you remember what happen in Afghanistan, when one person revealed that he had converted to Christianity, a couple of years back?

He was arrested, charged and convicted. And who was it who called the authorities? His family. His own children.

If the media had not reveal this story, and the leaders around the world had not pressure the Afghan president and government, he would have been severely punished for his apostasy.

The Qur'an may say "No compulsion" about converting to Islam, but for some, they don't put this in practice.

Even Muhammad put pressure (compulsion) on people, like when Banu Qurayza surrendered to his army after a siege. Those who accept Islam were spared, but some hundreds of men who didn't, had their heads chopped off, and women and children were sold in slavery. That is compulsion, so he himself completely ignore this "No compulsion" when it suited him.

If you put a sword to my neck and gave me a choice of converting or die, I just may convert to Islam, if I had wife or family to care for.

 

[A-ManESL]

Even Muhammad put pressure (compulsion) on people, like when Banu Qurayza surrendered to his army after a siege. Those who accept Islam were spared, but some hundreds of men who didn't, had their heads chopped off, and women and children were sold in slavery. That is compulsion, so he himself completely ignore this "No compulsion" when it suited him.

That is an incorrect way to present the incident. Banu Qurayza had an old ally in the tribe Banu As and agreed to arbitration by a chief of the Banu As (to decide their fate) which was Saad ibn Muadh. It was Saad ibn Muadh who passed the judgement that they be judged by the laws of their own religion (Judaism). Invoking Torah law, Saad decreed that all adult male members of the tribe should be executed and all women and children enslaved.

Muhammad (pbuh) "no compulsion" was visible for the world to see when he conquered Mecca. To all those who had prosecuted him before he asked "O Quraish, what do you think of the treatment that I should accord you?" And they said, "Mercy, O Prophet of Allah. We expect nothing but good from you."
Thereupon Muhammad(pbuh) declared: "I speak to you in the same words as Joseph spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free."

If you keep the tribal and semi-barbaric culture of that period in mind, this was not a small thing.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

If you keep the tribal and semi-barbaric culture of that period in mind, this was not a small thing.

It was a great thing for all times. Such an example does not exist in history. 20 years of painful persecution followed by such forgiveness is unseen.

 

[gnostic]

Saad ibn Muadh may have been the one who passed judgement, but it is Muhammad who is the true leader, not Saad. He could have shown mercy, but didn't.

And you forgetting the conduct of war. The Banu Qurayza surrendered. The Muslim army didn't win the siege through combat, but the Banu Qurayza accepted defeat. That should be enough for leniency.

Saad ibn Muadh was no longer a Jew because he had already converted to Islam for 5 years before the siege; he had already abandoned his Judaism and his own people. So he invoking Torah to massacre the people he was born to, showed how merciless changing religion is.

No, the blood is on Muhammad's hand as much as Saad.

The only adult men that were spared were those who converted. Do they really have any choice? I don't think they do.

And second of all, Muhammad's army needed money to keep his army going, and the Muslims went for loots and supply, and sold women and children into slavery to make more money, just prove that Muslim army are exactly like any army of its time - ruthless.

And the empire that followed Muhammad's death, was done with wars and conquests. Muslims are proud of their history of Islamic empires and the hundreds of war they have won.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Saad ibn Muadh may have been the one who passed judgement, but it is Muhammad who is the true leader, not Saad. He could have shown mercy, but didn't.

That is not true. Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave the Jews a choice in choosing their judge. Once the judge has been chosen bypassing him and overturning his verdict would have been against the dictates of justice. History (the forgiveness of Mecca which you completely ignored) has shown Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was very willing to forgive enemies far worse than Banu Qurayza. But forgiveness and kindness should not interfere with underlying justice.

And you forgetting the conduct of war. The Banu Qurayza surrendered. The Muslim army didn't win the siege through combat, but the Banu Qurayza accepted defeat. That should be enough for leniency.

Which is why the judge, Saad, was agreed upon by both sides. If Jews miscalculated and thought he would be lenient that was their miscalculation. They should have made our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) the arbiter. There are many examples where he was made the arbiter by Jews and he ruled in their favor against his own Muslims.

Saad ibn Muadh was no longer a Jew because he had already converted to Islam for 5 years before the siege; he had already abandoned his Judaism and his own people. So he invoking Torah to massacre the people he was born to, showed how merciless changing religion is.

Irrelevant. Jews and Muslims agreed upon him as the arbiter.

The only adult men that were spared were those who converted. Do they really have any choice? I don't think they do.

Where is the reference for this point. That those who converted were spared. Maybe Saad ruled over them based on Islamic law since they had converted to Islam. Still I'd like to see the reference for this.

And the empire that followed Muhammad's death, was done with wars and conquests. Muslims are proud of their history of Islamic empires and the hundreds of war they have won.

Those wars were in defense. And yes we are proud of them because in each war the weak defeated the stronger one and showed Divine succor was with Muslims.

 

[gnostic]

That is not true. Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave the Jews a choice in choosing their judge. Once the judge has been chosen bypassing him and overturning his verdict would have been against the dictates of justice. History (the forgiveness of Mecca which you completely ignored) has shown Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was very willing to forgive enemies far worse than Banu Qurayza. But forgiveness and kindness should not interfere with underlying justice.

Then he (Muhammad) is nothing than a sycophant politician. If "justice" means more to religion than compassion, forgiveness and mercy (because you can't have both), then Muhammad would make Niccolò Machiavelli very proud how unscrupulous and ruthless a politician he is. Machiavelli described the perfect warrior prince, and Muhammad fit the bill, except he would be warlord-politician-prophet.

And that make me glad I don't have religious baggage, like Islam (or for that matter, Judaism and Christianity). You'd (not you personally, but Abrahamic religious people in general) say one thing, but you mean another.

Irrelevant. Jews and Muslims agreed upon him as the arbiter.

If I was in one of the Banu Qurayza's place, I certainly wouldn't chose one (Saad) who left one faith to join another, to arbiter.

Those wars were in defense. And yes we are proud of them because in each war the weak defeated the stronger one and showed Divine succor was with Muslims.

Building empires by invading other lands are not defensive strategy, and will never be considered defensive. And you would be naive to think that.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Then he (Muhammad) is nothing than a sycophant politician. If "justice" means more to religion than compassion, forgiveness and mercy (because you can't have both), then Muhammad would make Niccolò Machiavelli very proud how unscrupulous and ruthless a politician he is. Machiavelli described the perfect warrior prince, and Muhammad fit the bill, except he would be warlord-politician-prophet.

Hmm ... that is the only point worth replying to here.

So let it be understood that kindness can not go against justice. Because that is injustice. However both kindness and justice and prevail simultaneously.

The following story exemplifies this (story was paraphrased by me but I heard it from Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, 4th caliph of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community):

Justice versus Kindness


The pursuit was hot. And the end was near!

Stories serve a lot of purposes. Old tales related by scholars often help in illustrating the point. So another story goes. The story of a falcon that was in hot pursuit of its prey. In fact, the pursuit had lasted quite some time but the falcon had made a commendable effort. Its victim was in sight and the final assault was near. The bird being preyed upon searched frantically for an escape. Escape in the skies was hopeless but the Earth’s surface was a different story. The surface was full of trees that could dissuade its attacker. The bird dove and the falcon pursued. And indeed the falcon was skilled at its art. Tree or no tree, today did not seem like a day when it would be denied the meat it had worked so hard for. But as luck would have it the bird spotted a human sitting at a nearby tree. Just before the final blow was struck the bird flew behind a human for protection against the falcon.

The human was one kind of heart and chose to protect the bird. But this was at much protest from the falcon. In fact the falcon’s argument was a valid one. Did the falcon not earn the meat of the bird? Had the falcon not worked hard to attain it? When one examines one realizes that despite his apparent act of kindness in protecting the bird the human was, in fact, committing injustice. Nature had its ways and means. Interrupting the food cycle was injustice. For the meat was a right of one who had earned it. And so, the falcon argued, that the man was unjust in his kindness. That he had committed an act of injustice and that he must let the bird go.

Yet even more assertive was the man’s reply. For with a swish of the knife he undid the injustice that was committed. And both the bird and the falcon must have been shocked at his reply. For the man agreed that the falcon had worked hard. And that the falcon, indeed, deserved the meat. But the falcon did not deserve the bird. So understand and understand well that the man took a knife and cut his own hand off. The meat of the hand was handed over to the bird. Through the man’s sacrifice the bird was satisfied. And through that sacrifice an act of kindness was also committed. Could there have been kindness without the sacrifice? Could there have been justice without the sacrifice?

Let it be understood that many are kind. And acts of kindness usually require sacrifice. Otherwise they may be injustices. There are those who are kind to their friends but end up committing injustices in their kindness. Such is the nature of those who cheat or those who commit plagiarism in friendship or those who steal to support their family or those who lie to make others happy. But that is not kindness. That is only injustice.

True kindness requires us to sacrifice our own rights. For no one in their right minds can call that injustice. We cannot commit acts of kindness at the costs of others’ rights. For that is not kindness but injustice. However, we can and we should make a habit of being kind to others through the sacrifice of our own love and likenesses. We cannot steal to aid the poor. But we should sacrifice what money we have rightfully earned in the cause of the weak. In the same way should we must abide by laws. We must stick to justice. But while doing so should we not be kind to others? Should we not sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of society? Sit and analyze and ponder and the honest individual would realize that real acts of kindness always require real acts of sacrifice. And it is through real acts of sacrifice that true peace can be established. They all go hand in hand.

Those who are willing to confirm to such standards and make the difficult choice are truly worthy. Those unwilling to commit to such standards will always be a burden on this Earth. Might it have been better for them had they never lived? Would it not have been better if they carried the Earth rather than becoming its burden?

 

[muslim-]

There is a hadith that states that an apostate is to be executed. However when we look at it in its context (watch the movie "The Messege" to get a better picture), the Muslims were oppressed and tortured until they finally lived in peace and had their own nation, led by the prophet peace be upon him himself.

Although there were treaties, still, there were always enemies. Some of them even sent spies etc to act Muslim etc. So leaving Islam wasnt really just leaving a religion or holding a different personal belief, but it was practially joining the enemy's camp.

Traitors during wars in all cultures have always been executed. This is how I interpret that text. Some Muslims dont accept this interpretation, but I fail to see why.. I think its really clear when you look at things in context.

Furthermore, the prophet peace be upon him knew of hypocrites and didnt do anything against them. This further proves that it was more about political treason/actions than it was about personal beliefs.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

There is a hadith that states that an apostate is to be executed. However when we look at it in its context (watch the movie "The Messege" to get a better picture), the Muslims were oppressed and tortured until they finally lived in peace and had their own nation, led by the prophet peace be upon him himself.

Although there were treaties, still, there were always enemies. Some of them even sent spies etc to act Muslim etc. So leaving Islam wasnt really just leaving a religion or holding a different personal belief, but it was practially joining the enemy's camp.

Traitors during wars in all cultures have always been executed. This is how I interpret that text. Some Muslims dont accept this interpretation, but I fail to see why.. I think its really clear when you look at things in context.

Furthermore, the prophet peace be upon him knew of hypocrites and didnt do anything against them. This further proves that it was more about political treason/actions than it was about personal beliefs.

There are examples of apostates who were let go without question. The key being that apostasy combined with treason was punishable by death. Simply apostasy was never the reason.

 

[gnostic]

I have never understood why Muslims keep linking apostasy with treason. To me putting apostasy with treason, is not nothing more than coercion and compulsion of religion, no matter how you look at it.

In a Muslim-dominant countries, people who choose to leave Islam are always in the minority. And yet it is Muslim governments, Muslim authorities, Muslim clerics and Muslim community that feel threatened by a minority, and believe these people should be arrested and punished, if not killed outright. I can understand why some of those ex-Muslims need to hide their change in belief.

That doesn't speak highly about these Muslims' faith, but their insecurity with their faith, if they must persecute and punish apostates for treason.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Gnostic what I have never understood is why you keep using Muslims and Muslim countries today to evaluate a religion. Do you not feel it is unfair to ignore examples of the past?

You are right and as stated repeatedly by myself elsewhere Islam does not punish apostasy alone. But yes Islam punishes treason. It so happens that those committing treason did so in combination with recantation of Islam and so they were killed. But to infer from that that Islam punishes apostates due to their reversion from Islam is false.

If Muslims hold that view then Muslims would have to agree if Hindus killed those Hindus who converted to Islam. It is a foolish view. And I agree many Muslims hold such a view. But to blame Islam is so wrong of you.

 

[gnostic]

Treason can only happen in state affair. So unless you identified Islam as the same as being a country or kingdom, then Islam punishing people for treason is utterly meaningless.

Either that or you believe that a prophet is a monarch. It is only if you think that Muhammad then I would believe that it is possible for Muhammad to try a person for treason.

Is Muhammad a "king"?

But if you think Muhammad is a mediator, then Muhammad have no ground to say who committed treason or who don't.