Consequences of converting from Islam

[muslim-]

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.

The messenger Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him did indeed eventually start an Islamic state led by him. After believers were oppressed and tortured they eventually migrated to Madinah, and the prophet naturally was their leader. Later on he entered political treaties with enemies etc. No Muslim could logically have authority over the prophet who Muslims followed and obeyed.

 

[gnostic]

The messenger Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him did indeed eventually start an Islamic state led by him. After believers were oppressed and tortured they eventually migrated to Madinah, and the prophet naturally was their leader. Later on he entered political treaties with enemies etc. No Muslim could logically have authority over the prophet who Muslims followed and obeyed.

I understand that Muhammad was a prophet and warleader, and if he want to give order to his Muslim followers, then he could do so, and his people could follow him.

The way I see it, if Muhammad wasn't a king then he should be able to accuse anyone or any group of treason, let alone people who weren't Muslims.

Considering that the Banu Qurayza were not Muslims and regardless if they had treaty with Muhammad or not, then Muhammad had inappropriately used treason, to declare war on the Qurayza. Muhammad was supposed to be a mediator, not a king, and he certainly wasn't king of the Banu Qurayza, so a mediator can't simply dispense treason on a whim, regardless what the treaty say.

Muhammad's claim was groundless.

If Muhammad wanted to dispense treason on people who turn away from Islam, then he could, but the way I see it, he would be considered a tyrant, if he did so, and the Qur'an of "no compulsion" with regarding to conversion to Islam, is a simply hypocritical statement, with no real application in real life.

 

[muslim-]

I understand that Muhammad was a prophet and warleader, and if he want to give order to his Muslim followers, then he could do so, and his people could follow him.

The way I see it, if Muhammad wasn't a king then he should be able to accuse anyone or any group of treason, let alone people who weren't Muslims.

Considering that the Banu Qurayza were not Muslims and regardless if they had treaty with Muhammad or not, then Muhammad had inappropriately used treason, to declare war on the Qurayza. Muhammad was supposed to be a mediator, not a king, and he certainly wasn't king of the Banu Qurayza, so a mediator can't simply dispense treason on a whim, regardless what the treaty say.

Muhammad's claim was groundless.

If Muhammad wanted to dispense treason on people who turn away from Islam, then he could, but the way I see it, he would be considered a tyrant, if he did so, and the Qur'an of "no compulsion" with regarding to conversion to Islam, is a simply hypocritical statement, with no real application in real life.

See now you change the subject. "‘Used treason to declare war" huh. Treason and violating a peace treaty and joining the enemy against them in the battle of Al Khandaq seems to be irrelevant to you. Have you even heard about the battle of Al Khandaq before?

You say hes a leader then that he isnt. Then you say hes supposed to be a mediator, not a leader, and I dont know where you bring that from.

Look how when you get your answer on this topic then you jump to another one stating misunderstandings and false claims. If you dont know the difference between Qur'aan and Shariah then you probably have no clue about so many other things, like their support of the enemy in the Battle of Al Khandaq.

If you have a pre-decided position against Islam and prophet Muhammad. Just say so. But trying to talk about events that you dont know much to support a pre-decided position really only makes your position weaker.

Good luck.

 

[gnostic]

See now you change the subject. "‘Used treason to declare war" huh. Treason and violating a peace treaty and joining the enemy against them in the battle of Al Khandaq seems to be irrelevant to you. Have you even heard about the battle of Al Khandaq before?

Changing the subject is my biggest fault in a forum. But what is treason and what isn't treason is the point I am trying to make.

Apostates is not about treason. Nor is violating treaty, treason.

You say hes a leader then that he isnt. Then you say hes supposed to be a mediator, not a leader, and I dont know where you bring that from.

Leader, yes. King, no.

Muhammad was leader of his religion, a prophet. He wasn't a king, so he can't dispense justice as he see fit, by saying who (non-Muslims) committed treason or not.

Are you telling me that they are same thing?

Mediator, yes. King, no.

Once again, I will repeat it. Are they the same thing?

Appointed as a mediator, doesn't give Muhammad the power of kingship.

And in order to hold the Banu Qurayza as treason, Muhammad should be able to define as Banu Qurayza as Muslims and/or as his subjects. They were neither.

Look how when you get your answer on this topic then you jump to another one stating misunderstandings and false claims. If you dont know the difference between Qur'aan and Shariah then you probably have no clue about so many other things, like their support of the enemy in the Battle of Al Khandaq.

If you have a pre-decided position against Islam and prophet Muhammad. Just say so. But trying to talk about events that you dont know much to support a pre-decided position really only makes your position weaker.

Actually the history (and biography) of Muhammad was written on one side - Muslims.

You don't know anything about the other side. You don't know what the Banu Qurayza wanted or desire, but all you hear about is how the Banu Qurayza betray Muhammad's treaty, but is that the real story, or just Muhammad's side of it.

When I read about Muhammad's life, I only see propaganda. Only Muhammad and his team of merrymen who were good guys, and everyone else, bad.

We don't have the whole story, just the biased one. And I don't think we will ever know the whole story. There is saying about history, in which the history are written by the victors only.

At least, if you read about Julius Caesar, you get both, his side, as well as writing from his enemy about Caesar's life, and you don't just rely on Caesar's own writings.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

See what needs to be understood is that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) held two offices. He had to discharge duties of both offices.

The first office was that of Prophethood and to that effect the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the spiritual leader of the Muslims. This constituted voluntary conversion of people to Islam who accepted the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) on religious issues as final.

After coming to Medina via various treatise Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did indeed become a king of that city. I am not aware of the details of the treatise signed in this regard but the office of kingship which protected Muslims and non-Muslims alike did also fall on the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) following his arrival in Medina.

So being the king naturally the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had to bear the responsibility of setting laws, etc. and establish justice.

The primary confusion arises from Muslims' and non-Muslims' inability to differentiate between Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) two offices. The error of judgement is made that implementing Shariah law is via government while, in fact, sharia law can only be implemented through hearts.

Now if you think Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) story is a biased version then you really can't lay any allegations unless you can produce evidence to back it up. If "the other side" does not exist then what is the source of your criticism? If it truly was a propaganda machine then why did Muslims bother even talking about the Banu Qurayza massacre at all?

 

[gnostic]

After coming to Medina via various treatise Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did indeed become a king of that city. I am not aware of the details of the treatise signed in this regard but the office of kingship which protected Muslims and non-Muslims alike did also fall on the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) following his arrival in Medina.

So being the king naturally the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had to bear the responsibility of setting laws, etc. and establish justice.

You're the 1st person I've encountered who admit that he is king.

From what I understand about Muhammad, he was never given the title of king, but he did seem to rule like one. He was sort of like a king without being called one, or a king without a crown.

However, what I also understand of the Abrahamic religions, you don't need to be a king to set laws.

Moses was never a king. He was a prophet, but he was given a title (not found in the Bible) of Lawgiver.

Jesus had the title of Messiah (or Christ) attached to him. I don't remember if he called himself Messiah or Christ in the gospels, but he was called this by the gospel authors (or evangelists). And he was given the title as a sign of mockery by the Roman soldiers, as being "King of the Jews", but he really did have traditional offices as a monarch would have. Christians would claim that the his kingship was of spiritual ones, but I would call that fibbing.

Now if you think Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) story is a biased version then you really can't lay any allegations unless you can produce evidence to back it up. If "the other side" does not exist then what is the source of your criticism? If it truly was a propaganda machine then why did Muslims bother even talking about the Banu Qurayza massacre at all?

You know every well I can't produce evidences to support my allegations, because the only historians and biographers of Muhammad were all Muslims. I wish I did have writings of the Banu Qurayza, but none existed about the battle (of Trench) or the siege that followed, certainly nothing by the Jews at that time.

The few that did write about Muhammad or about Muslim women in satires were murdered by Muslim assassins. And a satire can't be considered history.

With the Arabian peninsula becoming dominantly Muslim in population after his death, who would write anything against Muhammad. Muslims were no longer a minority in Mecca and Medina, let alone on the peninsula.

And the Banu Qurayza is mentioned because the Muslims were proud of their victories. Look at the numbers of raids and battles that the Muslims won during his lifetime.

Muhammad wasn't just a prophet, and you know it. What better story than beating enemies that have numerical advantage. To the Muslims, he was a general, war-leader and warlord, who started at first, with smaller numbers, winning raid after raid in guerilla warfare, then as his army swell with more conversions to his ranks, tackling armies in full battles or sieges. Even I would admit it, that he had brilliant tactics and strategy...for a former merchant and former shepherd.

When Muhammad lay siege to the stronghold of the Banu Qurayza, and even later with Mecca, it was no longer about self defence, because he had army larger than his enemies. Large enough that Mecca surrendered with minimal causalities. Muhammad was far more lenient with Mecca than towards the Banu Qurayza.

During the lifetime of Muhammad, Syria didn't attack Muslims, and yet after his death, Muslim army invaded Syria, which was in the hand of Byzantines. An invasion, which had nothing to do with self-defense.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Lots of speculation on your part without evidence to back it up. And any evidence I present you would refute as biased. So thank you for your view and we can agree to disagree.

On the part about him being king I must emphasize the difference between his kingship and Moses' kingship and Jesus' kingship. All three were spiritual kings. Only Moses and Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were worldly kings.

You must also understand that religious laws do not make you a worldly king. The key difference being there is no force involved in religious laws. Following religious laws is voluntary and is a matter between God and the person. This is the difference between spiritual kings and worldly ones. Spiritual kings have followers who follow voluntarily without force. They follow because they believe the word of the Prophet (spiritual king) to be reasonable. Religion appeals to their reason, conscience, guilt, etc.

The pope of catholics or our Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are both spiritual kings. The community respects them and is supposed to follow everything they say. Many within the community follow more than others. The worst that could happen to an individual who does not follow our Khalifa's instructions is that he is kicked out of the system of the Khalifa. Like losing a club's membership. No more force is put on such a person. He can even continue to call himself an Ahmadi Muslim.

Similarly Shariah laws are to be voluntarily adopted and there is no compulsion in them. Muslims who think otherwise are mistaken and have not understood Islam. Now if Muslims become the overwhelming majority in a country then they may choose by majority to legally adopt the laws proposed in Quran as the laws of the land. But even then those laws can not be forced on non-Muslims.

This is how Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him ruled). The people of the land had decided to make him king of Medina and he was also the spiritual king of Muslims. So certain laws were implemented by him on Muslims. But if it came to Jews (as in case of Banu Qurayza) he let them be evaluated by their own laws. Really to punish a people based on a religion they themselves believe in ... how is that unfair?

I hope that clarifies the difference between king of land and king of spiritual kingdom and religious laws and worldly laws.

 

[A-ManESL]

I think the sense of the word "king" does apply to the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). His word was absolute to all Muslims. The fact that there was no formal declaration in the European sense, does not matter. In fact, I would argue that the caliphs who followed him also had status equivalent to the king.

 

[gnostic]

Are you versed in the Bible, tariqkhwaja?

Because I would like to see sources for this Hebrew law that deal with war prisoners through beheading.

Because there are no Mosaic law as to pertaining have people's heads chopped off in the Torah. Not even to their enemies, do they have such executions of war prisoners. Massacres do happen in the Bible's narrative, but beheading was never used.

I would like to see one of these imaginary laws in the Torah or any of the episodes of the books of Kings that deal with war prisoners in such fashion.

The only beheading known I know of in the whole bible, was in the gospels (don't remember chapters or verses), where John the Baptist was beheaded by the order of King Herod Antipas. But this form of capital punishment was never mentioned in Moses' laws.

 

[gnostic]

The fact that there was no formal declaration in the European sense, does not matter. In fact, I would argue that the caliphs who followed him also had status equivalent to the king.

European?

The office of kingship in the Middle East, predates anything in Europe. Or perhaps you was referring to nearer to Muhammad's time? Nope, kingship flourished in many place outside and around the Arabian peninsula, and Europe, especially in the west was experiencing the Dark Ages at that time, with many petty kings.

 

[A-ManESL]

Well, I was thinking in the context of the society of Muhammad(pbuh) himself where there were no kings. At any rate, this is besides the point. My point remains that he had status equivalent to a king, if not more, for the Muslims.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Are you versed in the Bible, tariqkhwaja?

Because I would like to see sources for this Hebrew law that deal with war prisoners through beheading.

Because there are no Mosaic law as to pertaining have people's heads chopped off in the Torah. Not even to their enemies, do they have such executions of war prisoners. Massacres do happen in the Bible's narrative, but beheading was never used.

I would like to see one of these imaginary laws in the Torah or any of the episodes of the books of Kings that deal with war prisoners in such fashion.

The only beheading known I know of in the whole bible, was in the gospels (don't remember chapters or verses), where John the Baptist was beheaded by the order of King Herod Antipas. But this form of capital punishment was never mentioned in Moses' laws.

That's a good question. I never looked into that. I should get back to you on this.

 

[gnostic]

That's a good question. I never looked into that. I should get back to you on this.

Please do.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

http://www.alislam.org/topics/reply/2010_spring.pdf#page=17

Good analysis of the killing of 600-900 of Banu Qurayza.

Also (brief search on Google):
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NIV - When you march up to attack a city, - Bible Gateway

Seems like that is the verse.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

 

[gnostic]

http://www.alislam.org/topics/reply/...ng.pdf#page=17

Good analysis of the killing of 600-900 of Banu Qurayza.

Also (brief search on Google):
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NIV - When you march up to attack a city, - Bible Gateway

Seems like that is the verse.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

I thought you might bring up the verses in Deuteronomy, and still I see nothing that indicate beheading, although you could use the sword for beheading, but at the time, in the Bronze Age, bronze swords were not suitable for beheading. And swords in Moses were pretty primitive in the Canaan regions and its surrounding neighbours.

Do know how hard it is to decapitate someone, if you don't have the right strength or types of swords?

And the Israelites at that times, were mostly ex-slaves, and nomads. Do you think they could afford swords? Or even sufficient qualities of swords? Clubs, bows, spears were cheaper to make in sufficient qualities.

The 2nd thing, is that the Banu Qurayza did surrender in the siege, so everyone should be put to work (forced labours), leniency should be the road taken, not the executions and slavery.

Why was the Banu Qurayza treated more harshly than the Meccans?

Mecca was under siege too, and they surrendered, but Muhammad offered leniency. Is it because the Banu Qurayza were not Arabs?

The Banu Qurayza were Jews, that believe in God of Abraham, and the Meccans were pagans, and yet Muhammad treated the pagans differently. Why? Because they were Arabs?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

If you read the link:

In the same year as the Treaty ofHudaybiyah with the Meccans and the Battleof Khyber in which 93 Jews were killed, the Prophet negotiated a peace treaty with the Jews, took Safiyah in marriage, and thus sealed his alliance with the most important Jewish power in the Hijaz.

So that's that for racism. How many excuses do you plan to give before the truth descends in your heart?

I honestly don't have an answer to the swords argument. But it does not strike me as such a strong evidence refuting the hypothesis that judgement was made based on Deuteronomy. I mean seriously we are disagreeing because of the weapon of choice? Okay.

 

[gnostic]

So that's that for racism. How many excuses do you plan to give before the truth descends in your heart?

I honestly don't have an answer to the swords argument. But it does not strike me as such a strong evidence refuting the hypothesis that judgement was made based on Deuteronomy. I mean seriously we are disagreeing because of the weapon of choice? Okay.

They are valid points, tariqkhwaja.

There are also other considerations.

And the Deuteronomy was certainly not written by Moses, unless you think Moses could write about his own death. It was written along with other Deuteronomic texts in the 6th-5th centuries BCE.

The phrase "put to the sword", considering how little people can afford the swords in Moses' time, the phrase would be inappropriate at this time. A sword in ancient time would almost like buying a car.

Did you even bother to read Numbers (particularly 1:45-46)?

45 All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel’s army were counted according to their families. 46 The total number was 603,550.

There were as many as 603,550 men (for all 12 tribes, and that they were 20 or over in age) who could actively bear arms.

Do you even think 1/10th of these men could possibly carry swords?

And bronze swords were known to break either at the blade, or at the tang.

But if the Deuteronomy was written much later, when iron swords were made, and decapitation is certainly quite possible. However, I still think stabbing would still be far easier than decapitation, even if they were "put to the sword" with the iron swords. And you would more than likely use a dagger or spear to the stabbing than the sword, especially if have a large number of captives.

 

[Mark2020]

http://www.alislam.org/topics/reply/2010_spring.pdf#page=17
Also (brief search on Google):
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NIV - When you march up to attack a city, - Bible Gateway

Seems like that is the verse.

That's typical Muslim justification for the killings in Islam.

 

[Godwilling]

Does anyone have an answer to my question? I would like to know the consequences to Muslims of converting from Islam? Does Islam prescribe any punishments imposed onto the ex-believers?

 

[sandandfoam]

Does anyone have an answer to my question? I would like to know the consequences to Muslims of converting from Islam? Does Islam prescribe any punishments imposed onto the ex-believers?

I think that this might answer your question

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda&#8206 is commonly defined in Islam as the rejection in word or deed of one's former religion (apostasy) by a person who was previously a follower of Islam. The Qur'an itself does not prescribe any earthly punishment for apostasy; Islamic scholarship differs on its punishment, ranging from execution - on an interpretation of certain hadiths — to no punishment at all as long as they "do not work against the Muslim society or nation

from Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia