The rules for leaving Islam and life after Islam -

[gnostic]

Apostasy:

1) leaving Islam (either for another religion, or no religion)

Treason:

2) The common understanding of treason.

Which is what I thought they both mean.

These are two different things, the problem is however is that some people mix up between the two, and consider merely leaving Islam as a form of treason.

And this is what I thought might be the case.

I am not surprise if this is the case that some Muslims would put two the together. Even scholars and clerics who should know better have put the apostasy and treason together.

And there lies my confusion where Muslims blurred the definitions of the two.

There are three ways in which you could leave Islam, leave and have no bad feelings towards it or its followers, or leaving it but with a negative view which you usually share with others. The last is leaving it and becoming an enemy to muslims, or in other words becoming a traitor to your community, in the common understanding of being a traitor.

The last one is the one on which this is supposed to be applied, as in there is no punishment for anybody leaving Islam, except if they utterly become enemies to the community.

So if someone leaves Islam and has no problem with it, but just don't want to follow it, or if someone leaves it and criticizes it, he shouldn't be touched. However, like i said for people who believe in killing apostates, some of them consider leaving the religion and criticizing Islam and Muslims as treason, and some consider even merely leaving as treason.

It reminded me of the case of one Afghan who left Islam and converted to Christianity. Don't remember his name. Many Muslim Afghans would have been happy to see him executed, including his own family, because it was his own family that had the police arrested him in the 1st place. He was found guilty of apostasy and sentence to death. And at the head of calling for his death are the Muslim clerics. Only the pressures from outsiders and media attention on the case, that eventually the president and government.

This apostate should not been arrested in the first place. Nothing in the case indicated he was attacking Islam. His admission to conversion to Christianity to his family was all that needed for his arrest, conviction and punishment. It would seem more like vendetta and revenge against those would leave a religion instead of justice.

It is one of the reasons why I don't think religion should be involved in politics and laws.

I know that Islam states that should not be compulsion or coercion to join Islam, but that doesn't seem to be the case with someone who wish to leave Islam. It like the old Christianity, but in reverse. With Christianity, it is instilling fear of God's wrath and fear of hell that make some people baptize. It is the opposite with Islam - leave Islam and risk death.

It's bad enough to force people to believe or join in a religion unwillingly, but it is just as as repugnant to force people to stay in a religion that a person no longer believe in.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

It reminded me of the case of one Afghan who left Islam and converted to Christianity. Don't remember his name. Many Muslim Afghans would have been happy to see him executed, including his own family, because it was his own family that had the police arrested him in the 1st place. He was found guilty of apostasy and sentence to death. And at the head of calling for his death are the Muslim clerics. Only the pressures from outsiders and media attention on the case, that eventually the president and government.

It also remind me of a certain egyptian christian girl , a wife of a priest called Camilia who converted to Islam and was kidnapped by the Pope and the church, she was emprisoned and tortured with the excuse that she had mental troubles.

Not that it has anything to deal with our subject , but you just reminded me of it and wanted to mention it since a lot lot of christians love to use such stories to attack Islam while forgetting what their own popes did.

Anyway, continue your conversations..

EDIT: Ah and you just mentioned it :

I know that Islam states that should not be compulsion or coercion to join Islam, but that doesn't seem to be the case with someone who wish to leave Islam. It like the old Christianity, but in reverse. With Christianity, it is instilling fear of God's wrath and fear of hell that make some people baptize. It is the opposite with Islam - leave Islam and risk death.

But if I were you I would have changed the bold word to "new"

 

[waitasec]

It also remind me of a certain egyptian christian girl , a wife of a priest called Camilia who converted to Islam and was kidnapped by the Pope and the church, she was emprisoned and tortured with the excuse that she had mental troubles.

Not that it has anything to deal with our subject , but you just reminded me of it and wanted to mention it since a lot lot of christians love to use such stories to attack Islam while forgetting what their own popes did.

Anyway, continue your conversations..

EDIT: Ah and you just mentioned it :


But if I were you I would have changed the bold word to "new"

i have been observing this post for a few days and i have been wondering...
with all the injustices, bigotry and hate that has been fueled by an idea that there is 1 true god... i am including all religions that claim this notion... since the purpose of any religion is to find inner peace for knowing the one true god, why then all the hate? i thought once god is in your life you have peace...
seems to me religion perpetuates the need for control.
isn't the one true god bigger than that, is the one true god that insecure that the one true god needs his creation to do the fighting for him?

 

[Badran]

It reminded me of the case of one Afghan who left Islam and converted to Christianity. Don't remember his name. Many Muslim Afghans would have been happy to see him executed, including his own family, because it was his own family that had the police arrested him in the 1st place. He was found guilty of apostasy and sentence to death. And at the head of calling for his death are the Muslim clerics. Only the pressures from outsiders and media attention on the case, that eventually the president and government.

Well, Afghanistan is a country where extremism is at its finest. Good thing he wasn't executed.

This apostate should not been arrested in the first place.

I agree.

Nothing in the case indicated he was attacking Islam.

And if he did, meaning that if he even criticized Islam, he obviously shouldn't be arrested neither.

I know that Islam states that should not be compulsion or coercion to join Islam, but that doesn't seem to be the case with someone who wish to leave Islam.

It's bad enough to force people to believe or join in a religion unwillingly, but it is just as as repugnant to force people to stay in a religion that a person no longer believe in.

No doubt that the position of killing converts contradicts with freedom of religion, which is why i don't accept it as a teaching or Islam. The quran says there is no compulsion in religion, which is pretty obvious what it means.

 

[gnostic]

It also remind me of a certain egyptian christian girl , a wife of a priest called Camilia who converted to Islam and was kidnapped by the Pope and the church, she was emprisoned and tortured with the excuse that she had mental troubles.

Not that it has anything to deal with our subject , but you just reminded me of it and wanted to mention it since a lot lot of christians love to use such stories to attack Islam while forgetting what their own popes did.

The story of the Egyptian girl is interesting as it is appalling, but I don't see how this is relevant about a thread of those who leave Islam.

I can also tell you a story of pope, who abducted a Jewish boy from his family, converted to Christianity, became a pope's pet priest, and when his father finally managed to meet his adult son, the son did not want to know his Jewish father or his Jewish heritage. This story like yours is irrelevant.

I can also tell you of how bishops and archbishops in Australia, have hidden crimes committed by priests who molested women or children. One of them, a former Anglican archbishop, Peter Hollingworth, who became governor-general of Australia (the UK Queen's representative), appointed by the then Prime Minister, John Howard. Hollingworth knowingly protect the identity of pedophile priest, John Elliot. Hollingworth was more interested in protecting the church's and the perpetrator than in community. This is also irrelevant.

If you think that I support what Christians have done in the past that I would consider immoral or criminal, then you are sadly mistaken, because I won't defend nor condone actions of the church.

Why (you may ask)?

I am not a Christian.

In any case, this is about what are the rules of Islam for those who leave Islam, and what the laws or rules applied to these apostates. That Afghan that I mentioned, did leave Islam for Christianity and was arrested and convicted because of this very act of leaving Islam, and wouldn't have die too, had not outside pressures force the Afghan president to pardon the Afghan. Behind those in the court was the Supreme Council of Islam in Afghanistan, who prosecute the Afghan apostate - senior clerics and scholars. Also, the Afghan court had supposedly implemented their version of Sharia law against apostates with death. This story is relevant to the OP, whether you like or not.

With you, throwing the Pope's action against the Egyptian girl as retaliation against the church, don't really help Islam's cause in any way. If it is swipe at me, personally, I'd have to say I am not affected or offended. But you are free to start up a new thread about the evilness of the pope or vatican if you so wish to, because I just may add a few nasty stories about the Pope, myself.

 

[Penumbra]

i have been observing this post for a few days and i have been wondering...
with all the injustices, bigotry and hate that has been fueled by an idea that there is 1 true god... i am including all religions that claim this notion... since the purpose of any religion is to find inner peace for knowing the one true god, why then all the hate? i thought once god is in your life you have peace...
seems to me religion perpetuates the need for control.
isn't the one true god bigger than that, is the one true god that insecure that the one true god needs his creation to do the fighting for him?

Many people seem to believe that their one true god is hateful or wrathful at times. Not all religions are about peace.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Assalamualaikum.

It is popularly believed in Muslim circles that apostasy (converting from a Muslim to a non-Muslim) is punishable by death.

Yet the Quran presents the exact opposite picture. Our Holy Book tells us that

There is no compulsion in religion ... [2:257]

And the Quran gives the most wonderful reason for there being no compulsion

... Surely, the right way has become distinct from error ... [2:257]

Quran tells us that the teachings of Islam are so rational that for an honest and rational human being the right and wrong way are distinct. That is why force is not at all required to prevent people from becoming non-Muslims. Force is always used when rationality fails to convince people. But the Quran tells us that if the rationality of Islam is not convincing it is because of the individual's dishonesty and he/she shall be punished in the hereafter for that.

The above-mentioned verse should be sufficient but if that leaves some of the Muslims unconvinced:

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.

It is a hadith but a hadith stored by God in the Quran. It used to happen that the Jews would do this. These verses were revealed in Medina after Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) became victorious over Mekkah. But if even this is not evidence enough to convince you then:

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]

No mention of corporeal punishment.

My plea to Muslims ... please stop attributing this false belief to Islam.

Those are the rules for leaving Islam. i.e. no wordly rules at all ... only punishment in the hereafter should one fail to turn back.

 

[Bismillah]

There has never been an ijma on the penalty for Riddah (apostasy) and many scholars have rejected the idea of death being instituted as an effect of leaving Islam including Ibn Taymiyyah and the mentor of Imam Hanafi. Today many scholars share this position.

Here is a collection of evidences I compiled detailing why there is no hudood (penalty) for simply apostasy and rather there is different classes of apostasy wherein a legal penalty can only be applied to cases where a person also commits treason in conjunction with his apostasy.

It is interesting to note that the Prophet never punished a man for apostasy, even though they apostized before him during Medina (meaning that the Prophet had the power to carry out a punishment if he so wished), or the treaty Hudaibiya which granted Muslim apostates free leave to Mecca (when the Prophet also had power to carry out any punishment he wished). The link examines why the hadith normally used to justify apostasy refer to apostasy combined with treason as well as why they cannot be relied upon to carry out any such legalistic punishment (in regards to their isnaad or chain of narration)

http://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/jxso8/apostasy_and_islam/

 

[tariqkhwaja]

There has never been an ijma on the penalty for Riddah (apostasy) and many scholars have rejected the idea of death being instituted as an effect of leaving Islam including Ibn Taymiyyah and the mentor of Imam Hanafi. Today many scholars share this position.

Here is a collection of evidences I compiled detailing why there is no hudood (penalty) for simply apostasy and rather there is different classes of apostasy wherein a legal penalty can only be applied to cases where a person also commits treason in conjunction with his apostasy.

It is interesting to note that the Prophet never punished a man for apostasy, even though they apostized before him during Medina (meaning that the Prophet had the power to carry out a punishment if he so wished), or the treaty Hudaibiya which granted Muslim apostates free leave to Mecca (when the Prophet also had power to carry out any punishment he wished). The link examines why the hadith normally used to justify apostasy refer to apostasy combined with treason as well as why they cannot be relied upon to carry out any such legalistic punishment (in regards to their isnaad or chain of narration)

wall-y comments on Apostasy and Islam

Frubals!

 

[gnostic]

I think those who resort to punishing those who leave a religion (not necessary Islam, but any faith), I'd consider those people weak in their faith. If they were secure in their faith, they wouldn't need to punish anyone.

Fear and insecurity (as well as ignorance) are largely the reason why people feel the need to persecute other people, and the punishment of apostates is just another form of persecution.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I think those who resort to punishing those who leave a religion (not necessary Islam, but any faith), I'd consider those people weak in their faith. If they were secure in their faith, they wouldn't need to punish anyone.

Fear and insecurity (as well as ignorance) are largely the reason why people feel the need to persecute other people, and the punishment of apostates is just another form of persecution.

Yes. How interesting it is that in the history of religion we find all Prophets were persecuted for "apostasy" (i.e. they taught people to leave their current religions) yet when it comes to Islam Muslims scholars make the same mistake. In fact the status quo that the scholars attempt to keep serves their selfish interests while the change in status quo that Prophets wish to bring endangers their seats of power. Alas, but that is normal.

 

[gnostic]

How interesting it is that in the history of religion we find all Prophets were persecuted for "apostasy" (i.e. they taught people to leave their current religions) yet when it comes to Islam Muslims scholars make the same mistake.

Looking at the biblical literature, none of the Hebrew prophets were persecuted in the Tanakh, and none of them die from martyr death. But there are 2 (if you count Jesus as a prophet) who were persecuted (and died as martyrs) only in the New Testament Bible.

The majority of apostles and disciples in the NT and Christian traditions that were persecuted, were not by definition "prophet".

 

[Bismillah]

Frubals!

I accidentally snipped off one article in the old link, there is a total of three articles included and analyzed which explain both the fallacy of declaring a new hudood for Riddah as well as the context and meaning of the hadith associated with punishing apostasy

http://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/jxso8/apostasy_and_islam/

 

[Protester]

Is certainly not tolerated in Afghanistan anyway, Afghanistan: Red Cross worker arrested for converting from Islam to Christianity released from prison - Jihad Watch However, I am surprised at the detailed description of how apostasy is handled in Islam, by Wikipedia, it might be considered an impartial article on the subject? Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[A-ManESL]

This article is interesting. I think those who are interested in knowing more about apostasy and Islam should go through it.

 

[gnostic]

I think the biggest problem is those in powers in those countries or communities, particularly the clerics and the imams, who encourage punishments towards apostates (including executions). They have powerful voices in the communities, and what they say, people (including police and judges) don't often challenge them.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I think the biggest problem is those in powers in those countries or communities, particularly the clerics and the imams, who encourage punishments towards apostates (including executions). They have powerful voices in the communities, and what they say, people (including police and judges) don't often challenge them.

Yes. As shown earlier the Quran clearly supports freedom of religion and does not encourage any corporeal punishment for apostates. But scholars keep shouting these terrible things and silence anyone who goes against their viewpoint. Muslims are to blame as they cower into these threats.

 

[gnostic]

Yes. As shown earlier the Quran clearly supports freedom of religion and does not encourage any corporeal punishment for apostates. But scholars keep shouting these terrible things and silence anyone who goes against their viewpoint. Muslims are to blame as they cower into these threats.

I'd suppose that many of these communities are not very well-educated, so the average Muslims more or less rely these clerics or imams on the interpretations of anything relating to Islam (like the Qur'an, Hadith or religious laws).

So who would challenge the clerics or leaders about corporal or capital punishments of apostates?

Perhaps, other clerics could. But even they (referring to other clerics) are reluctant to interfere with the more radical clerics.

Is there some sorts of codes that clerics and imams have among themselves not to voice concern or opposition when some of them are doing something wrong?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I'd suppose that many of these communities are not very well-educated, so the average Muslims more or less rely these clerics or imams on the interpretations of anything relating to Islam (like the Qur'an, Hadith or religious laws).

So who would challenge the clerics or leaders about corporal or capital punishments of apostates?

Perhaps, other clerics could. But even they (referring to other clerics) are reluctant to interfere with the more radical clerics.

Is there some sorts of codes that clerics and imams have among themselves not to voice concern or opposition when some of them are doing something wrong?

That's the whole purpose of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. We challenge these clerics, remain peaceful, suffer for it, but don't stop speaking. The fact that we challenge status quo of Islamic clerics is why they unanimously (despite major internal differences) unite against us. Why is it that many sects with militant wings are not unanimously opposed but the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community who has a record of peace and patience despite persecution is unanimously opposed?

So like Jesus, the Messiah of Moses' people opposed the clerics of his time so the Promised Messiah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian opposed the clerics of Islam.

[62:6] The likeness of those who were made to bear the law of Torah, but would not bear it, is as the likeness of an *** carrying a load of books. Evil is the likeness of the people who reject the Signs of Allah. And Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

Today Muslims as you stated don't care to study things themselves so they put the load of Islam on few select scholars. But the moral values of the scholars are no more than the usual Muslims so when they see the power they wield in religion interpretation they become like donkeys carrying books not understanding what they carry.

 

[gnostic]

Today Muslims as you stated don't care to study things themselves so they put the load of Islam on few select scholars. But the moral values of the scholars are no more than the usual Muslims so when they see the power they wield in religion interpretation they become like donkeys carrying books not understanding what they carry.

When I read scriptures, I preferred to learn what I can, myself, instead of relying on other people's interpretations. I may get it wrong, but I think it is the only the way to really learn.

It is fine to read what scholars or experts may have to say, especially if there is something I don't understand, and I could learn something from their experiences or expertise, but I rather not place too much reliance on someone else knowledge, especially when it concern morality or ethic. There are just some things in life where you have to trust your own judgement and your own conscience.

For example, people should know that it is wrong to force people to rejoin Islam or punish other people for no longer accepting Islam. It is immoral to hurt other people simply because they don't follow Islam anymore. They should be able to distinguish right from wrong, without relying too heavily on some of these clerics.

Clerics, are like everyone else. They are humans. They can make mistake like everyone else. Flawed. Their feelings, like hatred or distrust (towards apostates), can cloud their judgements. They are supposed to represent Islam, but all they end up doing is tainting the religion they supposed to represent.

That's the whole purpose of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. We challenge these clerics, remain peaceful, suffer for it, but don't stop speaking. The fact that we challenge status quo of Islamic clerics is why they unanimously (despite major internal differences) unite against us. Why is it that many sects with militant wings are not unanimously opposed but the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community who has a record of peace and patience despite persecution is unanimously opposed?

So like Jesus, the Messiah of Moses' people opposed the clerics of his time so the Promised Messiah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian opposed the clerics of Islam.

I think it is sad that you can't have different opinion to some of these clerics. Being a cleric doesn't mean you're untouchable and you can't err. I understand that not all clerics are like this, but I think that some of these clerics are less than wise.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community sounds like a group of Muslims that I could like and admire. I still don't know much about them.