Print Page | Close Window

Leaving Islam Punishable by Death?...

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islam for non-Muslims
Forum Discription: Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13161
Printed Date: 28 November 2014 at 5:23pm


Topic: Leaving Islam Punishable by Death?...
Posted By: SilverArrow
Subject: Leaving Islam Punishable by Death?...
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:34pm
Dear All,

I am in process to study Islam very seriously.
Right now I am studying the 40 Hadiths.
I come to read about the Hadith no 14.

Basically this Hadith says:
- If a person is Muslim and then leaves Islam out of his own conscience for other spiritual path is considered treason and harmful to Uma and society. Based on this kind of thinking that person is punishable by death.

In my view, this is very harming to Islam and is not respecting a basic tenet of Islam which says that the religion is NOT COMPULSORY.
As long that the person which leaves Islam remains a perfectly good person, helpful and caring to others why this person should be condemned and killed for his own conviction to leave Islam for another spiritual path?

Could you elaborate on this subject?

Thanks,
Alex

Unhappy



Replies:
Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 12:10am
 There are many variety of 40 Hadith. It is a general belief of all Muslims that apostacy is punishable by death. That is not according to Quran. It may be according to Hadith only.
 
 Any Capital punishment cannot be based on the Hadith only.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 11:53pm
apostacy is punishable by death in islam only if the apostate wages a war, fights against the muslims, becomes hostile towards islam.

so basically such a person who has become an apostate is not punishable  because of apostacy but bcz of his reversion to enemy status where he tries to harm the muslims/islam.




Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 5:46am
Originally posted by H3OO

apostacy is punishable by death in islam only if the apostate wages a war, fights against the muslims, becomes hostile towards islam.

so basically such a person who has become an apostate is not punishable  because of apostacy but bcz of his reversion to enemy status where he tries to harm the muslims/islam.


 
Right. I agree bro/sis. In more than 40 years of my life as a Muslim, I had never come across a murtad (ex-Muslim) being killed for apostasy.
 
Many times I had come across this question by non-Muslim. They are oblivious of the numerous good aspects of Islam that is beneficial for humankind. This question I believe is to deter other non-Muslim from coming close to Islam.


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 10:37am
Does it depend on which sect you join? And where you live?
 
According to this verse Allah will not forgive you, even if you repent. 
 
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: SilverArrow
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 12:11pm
Hello,

Obviously, you are not reading my email properly.
I didn't posted this email having a hidden agenda.
I am simply studying Islam and I CONSIDER IT FOR CONVERSION.

I hope this will wash away any doubt you may have.

All the best,
Alex



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 12:28pm
Originally posted by H3OO

apostacy is punishable by death in islam only if the apostate wages a war, fights against the muslims, becomes hostile towards islam.

so basically such a person who has become an apostate is not punishable  because of apostacy but bcz of his reversion to enemy status where he tries to harm the muslims/islam.
Where in the Quran or the hadith do you find that distinction?  Muhammad himself was unequivocal: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari, volume 9, book 84, no. 57) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 9:53pm
 
 Does it mean that the prophet ordered some serious thing which was not revealed to him. And his order was to kill any one who changed his religion? That could mean any christian who changed his religion and became muslim should also be killed?
 
 The sentence you have quoted seems to say "Kill any one who chnages his religion". That is short and blunt sentence. Anyhow, it is being based on some Hadith and there is nothing in the Quran which says "There is no compulsion in the matters of (any) religion"  (2:256). So the quoted Hadith would be going against the important verse of Quran.
 
 Also at other places in the Quran, it is stated that "right way has been well explained in comparison with the wrong way. So Let every one believe or reject" (something to that effect)..


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 10:45pm
Ron Webb

1st of all one thing needs to be made clear;

1.  The Word of God stands supreme.
2. This is followed by the actual practices of the Holy Prophet of Islam [sa]. This is known as sunnah.
 3. This is followed by hadith, the words reported to be those of the Holy Prophet[sa]


If the authenticity of the words of the Holy Prophet[sa] is established unquestionably, the words concerned are words put into the mouth of the Holy Prophetssa by God Almighty. Where there is no apparent contradiction between the word of the Holy Prophet[sa] and the Quran, the tradition may be accepted as authentic.

Whenever any so-called tradition attributed to the Holy Prophet of Islam[sa] contradicts any clear injunction of the Holy Quran, such a tradition is rejected as false and is not accepted as the word of the Holy Prophet[sa].

Another reliable method of investigating the credibility of a tradition is to study its internal evidence critically. If the contents of the tradition clash with the image of the Holy Prophet of Islam which has emerged from a study of his conduct and bearing throughout his life, then such a tradition would be rejected as a false attribution to the Holy Prophet[sa] or as being against the principles of logic and common sense.


CONTINUES....


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 11:02pm
Contradiction of the hadith u mentioned with the Holy Quran

It is not possible for a fair-minded person to reconcile the following verses of the Holy Quran with this tradition:

  • 2.57, 100, 109, 218, 257, 273
  • 3.21, 73, 86–92, 145
  • 4.83, 138, 139, 146
  • 5.55, 62, 91–3, 99–100
  • 6.67, 105–8, 126
  • 7.124–9
  • 9.11–14
  • 10.100–9
  • 13.41
  • 15.10
  • 16.83, 105–7, 126
  • 17.55
  • 18.30
  • 19.47
  • 20.72–4
  • 22.40
  • 24.55
  • 25.42–4
  • 26.117
  • 28.57
  • 29.19
  • 39.30–42
  • 40.26, 27
  • 42.7, 8, 48, 49
  • 47.26
  • 50.46
  • 51.57
  • 64.9–13
  • 66.7
  • 88.22–3

Holy Quran says

Whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers. How shall Allah guide a people who have disbelieved after having believed and who had borne witness that the Messenger is true and to him clear proofs had come? Allah guides not the wrongdoers. Of such the punishment is that on them shall be the curse of Allah and of angels and of men, all together, the reunder shall they abide. Their punishment shall not be lightened nor shall they be granted respite; except in the case of those who repent thereafter and amend. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful. Those who disbelieve after having believed, and then continue to advance in disbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted. Those are they who have gone utterly astray. From anyone of those who have disbelieved, and die while they are disbelievers, there shall not be accepted even an earth full of gold, though he offer it in ransom. For those there shall be a grievous punishment, and they shall have no helper. (3.86–92)

It is obvious from these verses that no punishment is to be inflicted by one man on another for apostasy. The words ‘thereunder shall they abide’ clearly refer to the life hereafter. By no stretch of imagination can any sane person interpret the words ‘curse of Allah’ to be a license to murder anyone whom he considers to be an apostate. No capital punishment is mentioned. If it had, according to the strict requirements of the law, the punishment would have been clearly defined, as in the case of all other hodud (punishments specifically prescribed in the Holy Quran). On the contrary, the Holy Quran mentions the possibility of repentance by such persons and subsequent forgiveness by God. How can anyone repent and atone for his sins in this world if he has been killed?


Holy Quran says

If thy Lord had enforced His Will, surely all those on the earth would have believed without exception. Will thou than take it upon thyself to force people to become believers? Except by Allah’s leave no one can believe and He will afflict with His wrath those who will not use their understanding. (10.100–1)

When God Himself does not force people to believe, who are we to raise the sword to force belief.

(This is a copy paste of  the words of a scholar).




Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 11:04pm
Other Verses from the Holy Quran on Apostasy

The Holy Quran says:

O ye who believe, whoso from among you turns back from his religion let him remember that in place of such a person, Allah will soon bring a people whom He will love and who will love Him, who will be kind and considerate towards the believers and firm and unyielding towards the disbelievers. They will strive hard in the cause of Allah and will not at all take to heart the reproaches of fault finders. That is Allah’s grace; He bestows it upon whosoever He pleases. Allah is the Lord of vast bounty, All-Knowing. (5.55)

Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed, excepting the case of one who is forced to make a declaration of disbelief while his heart rests securely in faith, but one who opens his mind wide to disbelief; on him is Allah’s wrath and he shall have a grievous punishment. (16.107)

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)

Muhammad is but a Messenger; of a surety, all Messengers before him have passed away. If then, he dies or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? He who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah a whit. Allah will certainly reward the grateful. (3.145)

No corporal punishment can be understood to have been mentioned by any stretch of imagination in the foregoing passages from the Holy Quran.



Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:13am
as posted before Quran says;

''Whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers. How shall Allah guide a people who have disbelieved after having believed and who had borne witness that the Messenger is true and to him clear proofs had come? Allah guides not the wrongdoers. Of such the punishment is that on them shall be the curse of Allah and of angels and of men, all together, the reunder shall they abide. Their punishment shall not be lightened nor shall they be granted respite; except in the case of those who repent thereafter and amend. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful. Those who disbelieve after having believed, and then continue to advance in disbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted. Those are they who have gone utterly astray. From anyone of those who have disbelieved, and die while they are disbelievers, there shall not be accepted even an earth full of gold, though he offer it in ransom. For those there shall be a grievous punishment, and they shall have no helper.'' (3.86–92)


even if we were to assume that the punishment of apostate is death from the above verse (eventhough it isnt so) but above verse clearly says that  the believer knew in his heart that the messenger is true but still intentionally  turned a disbeliever despite knowing the truth, so such is punishable to death,
so the question that comes to mind then is how the humans will find out  whats in the heart of the apostate. how they will know about his ill intentions that he knew the truth. Its Only Allah who knows the best whats in others heart, what their intentions are.

as Allah says in Quarn
Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation. and reason with them on the basis of that which is best. Thy Lord knows best those who have strayed away from His way; and He knows best those who are rightly guided.(16.126)

So its only in Gods hand to punish, no human can take this in their own hands or their will only be murder of the innocent.


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:24am

Ikramah relates that he heard that some Zindeeqs were presented before Hazrat Ali whereupon he directed the burning alive of these people. Ibn Abbas stated that had it been him, he would not have ordered this because the Holy Prophetsa had said that the torment of the fire may only be decreed by God but the Prophetsa had also said, ‘Slay whosoever changes his religion


The contents of the above Hadith   are erroneous in several ways.


  1. A person of Hazrat Ali’s stature is presumed to be unaware of the fact that Islam categorically prohibits a person to be punished by fire.
  2. The words ‘slay whosoever changes his faith’ are so general that they can be interpreted in many ways. They can apply to men, women and children, whereas according to Imam Abu Hanifa and some other schools of jurisprudence, an apostate woman can never be slain.
  3. The Arabic word deen (religion) used in this tradition is a general word meaning any religion, not Islam specifically. Even the faith of idolaters is referred to as deen. (Sura Al-Kafiroon)
In the light of the general nature of the language used, how can one restrict the application of this tradition to a Muslim who renounces his faith? In strict legal terms, according to this tradition anyone who changes his religion, whatever that religion is, would have to be put to death. It would mean slaying the Jew who became a Christian, slaying the Christian who became a Muslim.

(a copy/paste of a scholars words)



Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:39am
another point that can be raised is that THE hadith states the narrator was Ikramah, so it also raises a question about the truthfulness/authenticity of the narrator. what he(Ikramah)  says are neither the words of God nor the prophet.
what he says doesnt necessarily means that this is what actually happened or this is what actually was said. and quranic verses, logic, common sense surely do go against  it.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 4:42am
 
 Ron Webb, you being an atheist, would not know much about any religion. You had written:
 
 
Where in the Quran or the hadith do you find that distinction?  Muhammad himself was unequivocal: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari, volume 9, book 84, no. 57) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html
 
 You have shown long lines from Bukhari V9 book 84. There was mostly unrelated matter in those Hadith. We do not need any Hadith about any apostates. Unless they murdered some one and ran away, there is no punishment for them.
 
 Also please know that an atheist is different to an apostate. There is no burden, no danger to any peaceful person for not believing.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 5:08pm
Originally posted by H3OO

Whenever any so-called tradition attributed to the Holy Prophet of Islam[sa] contradicts any clear injunction of the Holy Quran, such a tradition is rejected as false and is not accepted as the word of the Holy Prophet[sa].
I don't see anything in the Quran that directly contradicts the hadith I quoted (silence is not contradiction); but if the consensus is that it is not authentic, I'll take your word for it.
 
I wonder, though, if there is any other (external) reason to believe that the hadith is not authentic, aside from the alleged contradiction.  If the hadith was recorded by otherwise reliable sources and transmitted via reputable scholars, doesn't that call into question the reliability and authority of all hadith?
 
Originally posted by minuteman

 Ron Webb, you being an atheist, would not know much about any religion.
Smile That is ironic, since it was my study of various religions that made me an atheist.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: SilverArrow
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 6:45pm
H3O,

Many thanks for your documented answers.
This is what I needed in fact.
I am not knowledgeable about Islam theology and before making any commitment to a new spiritual path I need to understand in what I am getting into.

I have though some important questions:
- If some of the Hadiths are contradicting the Qur'an spirit or even they may come from not entirely reliable sources why they are still part of the Hadith collection?
- Shouldn't those questionable Hadith be analyzed and if proved can't be trusted to be taken out?
- Another thing is: Why should we believe in some tradition, where is already the Qur'an there as the most important source of inspiration?

Remember one important thing about the impact of the Christian Tradition on Christianity itself:
- Some of these spiritual advices or personal conclusions have gone into the dogmas which where not really part of the initial faith as received.
- The Islamic scholars should be aware of this potential danger.

All the best,
Alex



Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 3:14am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by H3OO

Whenever any so-called tradition attributed to the Holy Prophet of Islam[sa] contradicts any clear injunction of the Holy Quran, such a tradition is rejected as false and is not accepted as the word of the Holy Prophet[sa].
I don't see anything in the Quran that directly contradicts the hadith I quoted (silence is not contradiction);


the word silence u used pretty much itself further clarifies that apostate is not punishable at the hands of humans.

if  God remains silent with regard a particular issue (a very important one), then what does that mean? what does his silence mean, are we going to wrongly assume that he is ordering us to murder the apostate, ofcourse not. 

it clearly means that He has not ordered us anything. its a thing of common sense
His silence initself prove that he doesnt want us to do anything regarding such an issue.
if he wanted humans to punish those, he would have clearly ordered us and not kept silent.

God mentions 6 or 7 times atleast   in quran that how much losers the apostate will be and how much a bigger
 sin it it is but he doesnt say anything regarding corporal punishment
, initself makes it clear that he hasnt given humans any power regarding such case. it is only him only who will take care of such persons.

being repetitive  just to make it clear


for example i murder an apostate, then on the day of judgment, God asks me why did i murdered the apostate when he did not ordered any physical punishment   regarding apostate. what am i gonna say. from where am i gonna give the prove that he ordered us. Quran doesnt say anything, the validity of the haith is in serious question, infact im sure its not the words of prophet as proven above.

so i guess this just
puts this issue to bed that there is no corporal punishment for an apostate.

continues...


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 3:35am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I wonder, though, if there is any other (external) reason to believe that the hadith is not authentic,  aside from the alleged contradiction.  If the hadith was recorded by otherwise reliable sources and transmitted via reputable scholars, doesn't that call into question the reliability and authority of all hadith?
 


exteranl reasons? it seems u didnt read all of my posts bcz i ve provided no. of reasons regarding the hadith not being  authentic, and not just the contradiction one.


if u want another reason it is
logic, common sense.
remember islam and rationality go hand in hand. There is nothing in islam that goes against ones logic. if anything appears to be illogical reagrding
any islamic teachings then that either that are not the words of islam or
the person hasnt quite understood it. and i again say islam is 100% based on the principles of logic and common sense

as to ur other question. ive already answered that:


if  hadith contradicts clearly with any verse
of quran. then they are not the words of prophet (sa).

or as stated before


Another reliable method of investigating the credibility of a tradition is to study its internal evidence critically. If the contents of the tradition clash with the image of the Holy Prophet of Islam which has emerged from a study of his conduct and bearing
throughout his life, then such a tradition would be rejected as a false attribution to the Holy Prophet[sa] or as being against the principles of logic and common sense.




This is a pretty logical way to find about the authenticity of hadith. The source being reliable isnt enough to make an hadith  authentic.


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 5:56am
Silver arrow

Sir all i can say is that unfortunately majority of muslims think that punishment of  apostacy  is death despite there being no valid authenticated logical prove as i mentioned in this thread. and similarly they think the same about this hadith too

 the Problem is these people are not willing to change their rigid views and have turned a blind eye to these facts which has been and is very much hurting islam . and regarding islamic teachings u willcome across no of issues and not just apostacy regarding which they've developed erroneuos beliefs

so until these very people dont start using their common sense, think with an open mind, they will keep on
wrongly interpret islamic teachings and unfortunately such hadith despite being invalid will remain part of
islamic teachings.



Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 7:26am

Here is some more information and the consensus of the 4 schools.

 
 

Below is an extensive research of mine I did.

 
We all can put down what we believe personally and have opinions about it but the fact remains from my learning this is the law. No one talks about what Sharia laws mentions nor the 4 schools, so hopefully this can be so, now.

People also mention that no apostates are killed these days well that maybe so or not but it still DOES NOT change the sharia law. Yes its perhaps is up to the judge to give the punishment or not but it is there.

 

Below is what I formed together some time ago:

 

 

Here I am going to talking soley on islam and its stance on apostacy - leaving islam. No other countries or religions, so lets keep the comparsions out ;-)

 

I have done a lot of research, been to (I hope) proper Islamic sites and resources.

Well there is one or two things that seem to stand out, I’ve seen majority and some scholars says that the apostate should be put to death, quite clear actually, no complex issues with this. The people here at IC seem to bring some stuff from some scholars who say that the killing of apostates is not so. And other sources of the death penalty not so. Well now, which is it, we have some scholars who say yes and some who say no, but to me what should be followed is what the 4 schools of thought say, and what I have found is that all 4 with slightly differing views agree that the apostate should be put to death, even for women, since both genders are equal in punishments under sharia laws. And of course the qu’ran where the laws are derived from.

 

I know there will be those who will give that the laws need to be deeply understood but what laws or anything for that matter does apostasy need to be understood ? I believe it is a relatively straightforward subject, why does it need to be complicated and have so many laws to figure it out ?

Apostacy is leaving a group of some sort, abandoning, what else is there to understand ?

 

So many apostates CAN'T talk, cannot live in a safe world with the threat of being killed hanging over their heads and looking over their shoulders in every turn that they do! They cannot talk about themselves or how they feel openly and do things practically in secret and be alone in the world.

 

 

 

Apostacy:

I really don’t have much to say here, it generally speaks for it self really.


From: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng which is: www.islam-qa.com :

Question #14231: Some of the rulings on apostasy and apostates


The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose. Rather he should be asked to repent and he should be offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts, if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that, he is to be put to death.

Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 9/18:
The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times. This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Because apostasy comes about because of doubt, and cannot be dispelled in an instant. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days.
End quote.

The saheeh Sunnah indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death.

Al-Bukhaari (6922) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, put him to death.”

Al-Bukhaari (6484) and Muslim (1676) narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a previously-married person who commits zina; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of the Muslims.”

The general meaning of these ahaadeeth indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death whether he is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) or not.

The view that the apostate who is to be put to death is the one who is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) only is contrary to these ahaadeeth. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that the reason why he should be put to death is his apostasy, not his waging war against Islam.

Undoubtedly some kinds of apostasy are more abhorrent than others, and the apostasy of one who wages war against Islam is more abhorrent than that of anyone else. Hence some of the scholars differentiated between them, and said that it is not essential to ask the muhaarib to repent or to accept his repentance; rather he should be put to death even if he repents, whereas the repentance of one who is not a muhaarib should be accepted and he should not be put to death. This is the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him).

He said:
Apostasy is of two types: ordinary apostasy and extreme apostasy, for which execution is prescribed. In both cases there is evidence that it is essential to execute the apostate, but the evidence indicating that the sentence of death may be waived if the person repents does not apply to both types of apostasy. Rather the evidence indicates that that is allowed only in the first case – i.e., ordinary apostasy – as will be clear to anyone who studies the evidence that speaks about accepting the repentance of the apostate. In the second type – i.e., extreme apostasy – the obligation to put the apostate to death still stands, and there is no text or scholarly consensus to indicate that the death sentence may be waived. The two cases are quite different and there is no comparison between them. It does not say in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or according to scholarly consensus, that everyone who apostatizes in word or deed may be spared the death sentence if he repents after he is a captured and tried. Rather the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, differentiate between the different kinds of apostates.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/696

Al-Hallaaj was one of the most well known heretics who were put to death without being asked to repent. Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad said:

The Maaliki fuqaha’ of Baghdad at the time of al-Muqtadir were unanimously agreed that al-Hallaaj should be killed and crucified because of his claim to divinity and his belief in incarnation, and his saying “I am al-Haqq [God],” even though he outwardly appeared to adhere to sharee’ah, and they did not accept his repentance.

Al-Shifa bi Ta’reef Huqooq al-Mustafa, 2/1091.
Based on this, it is clear that what the questioner says about the apostate not being killed unless he is waging war on Islam is mistaken, and the differentiation that we have quoted from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah may dispel any confusion and make the matter clearer.

Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or attacking the Qur’aan, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons in some cases.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/735

The punishment for apostasy (riddah) is well-known in Islaamic Sharee’ah. The one who leaves Islaam will be asked to repent by the Sharee’ah judge in an Islaamic country; if he does not repent and come back to the true religion, he will be killed as a kaafir and apostate, because of the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3017


 

 

Some further reading:



The Penalties for Apostasy in Islam

According to the Four Schools of Islamic Law
by 'Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri
(the original is Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a) and covers far more topics.

There is an english translation: http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/ilaw/l5721efc.htm

Here just a short part about what apostacy means:
(quote) “ Apostasy -- Allah forbid it -- is the unbelief of a Muslim who had publicly confessed faith in Islam willingly, according to his knowledge of the fundamentals of Islam, by professing the two main articles of faith (al-shahadatain):

There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is his messenger.

Apostasy can occur by an explicit declaration, such as, "I associate other gods alongside Allah" (usherek billah), or by a claim that results in blasphemy, such as, "Allah has a material substance or a shape just like other substances or shapes" (kufr), or by an action that clearly resembles blasphemy, such as carelessly discarding a Qur´an, or parts of it, or even a word of it (not as an honourable way of disposing it, or as a treatment for the sick), as well as burning the Qur´an out of contempt, and every manner of soiling it (such as putting it in a holy place that has become dirty, or staining it with an unclean substance, such as turning its pages with fingers that have been licked).

The same holds true for "the most beautiful names of Allah," the Hadith collections (traditions), the works of Islamic law and theology, when the Sharia and its regulations are thereby treated with disrespect or contempt, as well as the names of the prophets, or the wearing of a belt -- assigned to unbelievers -- as a leaning toward unbelief. But if a Muslim does this in jest, it is regarded only as a forbidden action (haram).

The same holds true when a Muslim enters a church, worships an idol, or learns and practises magic, for by magic one glorifies a name other than Allah and ascribes predestination, knowledge and control of fate to someone other than Allah.

A Muslim loses his faith when he says that the world has always existed from eternity (qadim), for this assumption denies the existence of the Creator, or when he says that the world is everlasting and without end, since this is a denial of resurrection -- even if he himself believes in the resurrection.

A Muslim also becomes an unbeliever and blasphemer when he denies the existence of Allah, believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation) -- since this is a denial of resurrection -- or when he denies a decision agreed upon unanimously by the Islamic community (ummah), such as the obligatory necessity of prayer and fasting or the prohibition of adultery. He also becomes a blasphemer when he denies that which is allowed (halal) -- things over which the scholars of law agree, concerning what can be definitively concluded according to religion based on the Qur´an and the unbroken, traditional Sunna (the path, lifestyle and manners) of the Prophet.

A Muslim loses his faith when he suggests the possibility of prophethood being acquired through spiritual exercise, since that would imply the possible arising of a prophet after Muhammad. The same holds true when he curses a prophet or denigrates an angel whose positions are unanimously upheld by the consensus of the Umma. Apostasy also occurs if he, when talking about a prophet or angel, says, "As for me, I am not an adulterer or a magician," if he accuses a prophet of having a deficiency -- even a physical one, such as a limp or paralysis -- or if he questions the perfection of his knowledge, since each prophet is the most knowledgeable person of his age (but the master of prophets is the Prophet Muhammad -- Allah pray for him and grant him peace -- for he is absolutely the most knowledgeable in all creation). Furthermore, a Muslim becomes an apostate if he defames a prophet's character, morals, virtues, or religion, if he accuses angels of having bad qualities, or if he questions the efficacy of a prophet's asceticism.

Muslim scholars (imams) have said: Apostasy must be determined by the testimony of two upright adult witnesses whose accounts agree. When a judge asks how the Muslim fell from the faith, the witness must say, "He says such and such or does such and such."

All four imams (the founders of the four schools of Islamic law) -- may Allah have mercy upon them -- agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt -- may Allah forbid it -- must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. The hypocrite and heretic (zindiq) who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed. (unquote) “

Summary of chapter 2 – quoted:

 

The Hanafites: When the Muslim falls away from Islam -- may Allah forbid it! -- he is first asked to return. If he has doubts, he is to express them; one can then clear up his doubts, for it may be that he truly has questions with regard to the faith -- questions in need of explanation. By this it is possible to deal with his evil deed (sharr) through the best of two possibilities: death or the acceptance of Islam. However, it remains desirable to offer him the acceptance of Islam again, although this is not obligatory, because the message had already been offered him once.

 

The Shafi´ites: If a Muslim becomes apostate -- Allah forbid! -- the imam should grant him three days' grace; he is not to be killed before this period expires, for the apostasy of a Muslim from his faith often results from his confusion. Therefore a grace period is necessary, so that he can reflect, and that the truth can become clear to him again. We, the Shafi´ites, have determined that this time should consist of three days, whether he asks for it or not.

But if he does not repent, he is to be killed by the sword immediately. This punishment cannot be evaded, because apostasy is the most atrocious and severe form of blasphemy, and it deserves the cruellest judgement, which invalidates all of a Muslim's previous deeds.

 

The Malikites: The imam should grant the apostate three days and nights -- beginning with the day on which his apostasy was committed, and not with the day of his unbelief or the day upon which the accusation was brought against him. The three days of confinement are to follow in succession, and the day on which the apostasy was proven should not be considered as part of the time limit, if it was preceded by dawn.

If he repents after three days, he is to be released; but if he does not, he is to be killed on the third day, at sunset.

 

The Hanbalites: There are two opinions on this issue. Some believe that the apostate should be given a period for repentance consisting of three days, while others are of the opinion that he is to be granted no time for reconsideration but should only be offered Islam. If he accepts the offer, he is to be set free; if not, he is to be put to death immediately.

 

The Shafi´ites, Hanbalites and Malikites believe that the same treatment is for women to, it is Hanifites who are of the notion that women should only be imprisoned.

 

http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/ilaw/ - http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/ilaw/

 

 

 

 

 

Taken from sunnipath.com:

 

“As to your question about the issues that bring about a ruling of apostasy, this is a long and risky discussion. Our jurisprudents have devoted entire sections of fiqh books to this subject and have outlined the various issues surrounding it. Some of them have even written entire books devoted to this topic, the most important of these being al-‘Ilm bi Qawati’ al-Islam (A Notice of the Revilers of Islam) by Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Haytami, the Imam of the Shafi’i School and mufti of Mecca.

 

Let me share a few principles of what the scholars have said [on this issue]:

 

Apostasy is to revile Islam by word, deed, or intention. Whoever reviles Allah Ta’ala, His religion, or any of His prophets has committed unbelief. And whoever explicitly speaks a word of unbelief and believes what he has uttered has also committed unbelief, such as a person who says, “Allah is the third of three,” or, “The Messiah is the son of God.” Whoever commits an act of unbelief and believes in what he is doing becomes an unbeliever, such as someone who prostrates to an idol or throws the Quran in the trash. And if someone intends in his heart to revile Islam, he is an apostate, even if he does not say or do anything.

 

Amjad Rasheed”

 

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4986&%20CATE=2 - http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4986& CATE=2

 

 

 

 

”The prescribed punishment for a murtadd:

 

If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished.þ In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”

 

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamO%20nline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=111950354413%204 - http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamO nline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=111950354413 4

 

 

 

Some other resources.

 

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/lofiversion/index.php/t11707%20-0.html - http://forums.muslimvillage.net/lofiversion/index.php/t11707 -0.html

 

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4044 - http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4044

 

THE MUSLIM CONDUCT OF STATE - Dr. M. Hamidullah

http://www.beautifulislam.net/articles/apostacy_blasphemy_is%20lam.htm#muslim - http://www.beautifulislam.net/articles/apostacy_blasphemy_is lam.htm#muslim

 

Short article  Apostacy (Irtidad) in Islam

http://www.al-islam.org/short/apostacy.htm - http://www.al-islam.org/short/apostacy.htm



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: SilverArrow
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 6:22pm
Clap

Angel,

Many thanks for such extensive research on the issue.
What I found strange about these decisions is this thing:
1. It is said in the Qur'an that religion IS NOT COMPULSORY.
    - My understanding is that it refers to accepting Islam
   
- In the same token, those who remain in their religion without accepting Islam are not killed.
2. Once you enter Islam, if by live events and your own conscience you decide to leave Islam, without causing any harm to UMMA or the teachings in an open way that person is killed.

My questions would be:
- Why this discrepancy in the attitude and thinking regarding these two different situations?
- If in first situation you are granted freedom not to choose Islam what logical and common sens base is for such decision to kill someone who leaves Islam?

Bottom line is:
- Such decision is not respecting the person's conscience and free will to decide something else.

As long as these kind of decisions are not put in the real perspective, meaning the each person's freedom of will and conscience many people will go away from Islam or out of it...

Overall, it seems to me that these decisions are reflecting the people mentality but not the real GOD thinking and attitude.

Thanks a lot,
Alex



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 6:44pm

Originally posted by H3OO

exteranl reasons? it seems u didnt read all of my posts bcz i ve provided no. of reasons regarding the hadith not being  authentic, and not just the contradiction one.

That's one of the drawbacks of writing too much.  People tend to miss your main point.

Can you give me just one reason why that particular hadith might not be considered authentic?  By "external" I mean a reason not based on the internal content, i.e., not based on the words of the hadith itself.  My point is that if we need to rely on the content of a hadith to validate its authenticity, then how can we rely on its authenticity to validate its content?  Isn't that a circular argument?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 6:52pm

Originally posted by Angel

Below is an extensive research of mine I did.

Thanks for that, Angel.  I normally avoid such long posts (as I implied to H3OO), but you have put together a very strong and well-documented case.  It's interesting that popular opinion, as expressed by the members of Islamicity, is quite different than scholarly opinion.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 10:25pm
 
 Angel has sent a long post supporting that Apostate should be put to death. That is the opinion of the scholars in Islam. First, may I define an apostate please:
 
 Apostate is not a one whom people make apostate. He/she is the one who had accepted Islam and after sometime, he/she found something wrong with Islam and denounced his faith in Islam. He/she said good-bye to Islam by own free will. Not that muslims due to a difference of opinion on any Islamic matter tried to make him or call him an apostate.
 
 In the Quran, it is written, "Wa man yartadda minkum..." That means whoever denounced Islam and went back...
 
 An apostate himself/herself says that he/she is dissatisfied with Islam and does not want to remain a believer in Islam. That is apostate. I had to clarify this point because it is a common practcie amongst the muslims of today to try to call normal muslims as apostates due to difference of opinion, while that person is not denouncing Islam.
 
 (More in next post)


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 10:53pm
 
 (Continued).....
 
 From the post of angel:

"
The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose. Rather he should be asked to repent and he should be offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts, if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that, he is to be put to death.

Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 9/18:
The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times. This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Because apostasy comes about because of doubt, and cannot be dispelled in an instant. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days.
End quote.

The saheeh Sunnah indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death.

Al-Bukhaari (6922) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, put him to death."

The above is a part of the post of angel.. Few rules have been formulated above. May I ask who formulated those rules? From where did they try to make those rules.Surely they are the byproduct of some thought process and as such not valid

The whole matter is resting on the Hadith only and there is not a word from the Quran. Also a Hadith from Bukhari , "Whoever changes his religion, put him to death." That is funny. It may be a hindu or a christian or a muslim. The prophet did not specify and said that whoever changes his religion, put him to death. Surprising that such a careless statement is attributed to the prophet s.a.w.s. It is not possible. It is very vague and very serious statement. cannot be true at its face value.

Also, who advised that the apostate is not to be put to death immediately? But he is to be aksed to repent. Who taught that valuable sentence?

Please rememeber that Muslims have not believed in scholars but they have believed in Allah and his messenger. The religion has gone through many turmoil soon after the passing away of the guided Caliphs. Then there was a factory of hadith invention. Imam Bukhari had remembered about 100,000 incorrect Hadith.

Surely,the scholars of the school of thought must have had some problem which they were solving by putting the apostate to death. We cannot understand what lead them to such a decision. But we know that Hadith cannot issue any serious order of Capital punishment on its own. The practice of the prophet s.a.w.s. depended on the revelation in the Quran.

He lived a life exactly in the light of the Quran. If there was no order in the Quran to put an apostate to death then why he would do that on his own? Niether an apostate is to be put to death nor an adulterer is to be stoned to death. That should be the order of the day.

On the other hand, forgetting about all non Muslims, may I ask my Muslim friends only about putting the apostates to death, forgetting what the scholars have said, what do they feel about this teaching that any one who goes back on Islam, he should be killed. What do they feel about this order. Is it true that there is no compulsion in the matter of the religion ( Way of life). Killing a person for disbelieving after believing, will it not be a compulsion?



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 11:11pm
Ronn Web SAID : That's one of the drawbacks of writing too much.  People tend to miss your main point.

I said:
writing too much? what ever ive mentioned all are main points. i have tried to give no. of reasons just to make my case stronger that the hadith is invalid.
so that there is not a bit of doubt left. and thats why
i have divided all those arguments in 6/7 posts and  not just given all the data in 1 long posts so that  it is easily digestible.

secondly if there were only one invalid point against the hadith one couldve argued but since no. of things go against it so there is no argument that hadith is still valid unless u have problems with those reasons which u can point out.

i also hope u have been actually read all my post and not discarded any as being too much or irrelevant but if u haven't ill ask u to read all my posts  otherwise there  is no point in discussing.

continues...



Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 16 September 2008 at 11:15pm
Ronn Web

i see u are very much convinced/ satisfied with arguments provided by angel though s/he  didnt provide anything from quran and the hadith she provided have already been discussed here but since it reflected a bad image on islam it seems like u didnt have any problem with those arguments but in my case u have still got some questions.

My only point of stating this is that i hope u are reading without any bias/prejudice against islam or u'll not get to the real point and accept only the negative version of islam.

& remember dont accept anything until u dont find it clearly from quran or authenticated hadith be it be any scholar. bcz these scholars are not prophets but ordinary humans like us.

if i were to believe in these scholars i wouldve left islam long way by now but Allah gave me the sense and through logic, reasoning i was able to get to the real interpretation of islam as ur sig says Religion is intellect.




continues....



Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 17 September 2008 at 12:05am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

[quote=H3OO]

Can you give me just one reason why that particular hadith might not be considered authentic?  By "external" I mean a reason not based on the internal content, i.e., not based on the words of the hadith itself.  My point is that if we need to rely on the content of a hadith to validate its authenticity, then how can we rely on its authenticity to validate its content?  Isn't that a circular argument?



Sir I have stated the case  quite clearly, just read my posts again (but with an open mind and without any bias against islam) and u'll find those external reasons (read the post 2,3,4 of page 2 of this thread).

Also regarding the point u raised that God is silent, regarding which i gave my explanation which sounds  pretty much logical,  I'll like to add to that that in quran punishment of different sins is clearly mentioned such as adultery, theft, false accusation of extramarital sex but on this subject matter, Gods is silent which is enough to convince that there is no punishment or otherwise he wouldve stated.

Now THE burden is on ur side to prove  that clear punishment is stated in quran or that there is a authenticated hadith available.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 September 2008 at 6:49pm

Originally posted by H3OO

writing too much? what ever ive mentioned all are main points. i have tried to give no. of reasons just to make my case stronger that the hadith is invalid.

This afternoon on the bus home from work I spent more than twenty minutes reading messages from you.  Then I had to stop.  I'm sorry, but that's all the time I could afford.  There are plenty of other members here, lots of messages I'd like to read and respond to, and for that matter, lots of other things I should be doing besides surfing the 'Net.  (At least that's what my wife keeps telling me.Smile)  I try to at least skim every message addressed to me, but the more you write, the less carefully I read. I wish it were otherwise, but that's just reality.

i see u are very much convinced/ satisfied with arguments provided by angel though s/he  didnt provide anything from quran and the hadith she provided have already been discussed here but since it reflected a bad image on islam it seems like u didnt have any problem with those arguments but in my case u have still got some questions.

You misunderstand me.  Angel has presented a strong case that scholarly Muslim opinion is in favour of killing apostates, but I wouldn't say I am "convinced/satisfied".  It may be that others will offer equally strong rebuttals.  I await any responses from other Muslims with interest.

You also misunderstand me if you think that I am biased against Islam, or that I am out to prove any particular interpretation of Islam.  As the saying goes, "I have no dog in this race."  I am not a Muslim, so I cannot claim to "believe" either side of the debate.  The only sense in which I care about this issue is that I am concerned about the degree of hatred against Islam in the world, and fatwas threatening death to apostates don't help the situation.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 17 September 2008 at 10:33pm
Ron webb said;
Angel has presented a strong case that scholarly Muslim opinion is in favour of killing apostates.

i said;
the only thing i'll like to add again is that dont accept anything from the scholarly Muslim unless they prove it from the quran and authenticated hadith, so the strong case u are talking about isnt strong bcz they've not proven anything from there (what they said is what they think themselves, totally illogical and against islamic teachings and practices of holy prophet [sa] as minute man also  described it very well.

i have given u enough proves regarding apostacy from quran and also the invalidity of the hadith.
take care


Posted By: SilverArrow
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 12:41am
H3OO,

My question to you is this one:
- If that is the case this Hadith is not valid why still is part of the Hadith collection? Why is not taken out?

Please see the latest efforts of Muslim Theologians from Turkey to clean the Hadiths / Sunna of things that can not be verified by Qur'an.

All the best,
Alex



Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 10:37am
SilverArrow
 i did answer this question of urs. see the last post of page 2 of this thread.  i guess it is these scholars who can answer better why theyre still considering it a part of hadith collection. i dont what is in their minds and why do they hold such rigid views. that is all i can say.


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 11:20pm
Originally posted by H3OO

Ronn Web

i see u are very much convinced/ satisfied with arguments provided by angel though s/he  didnt provide anything from quran and the hadith she provided have already been discussed here but since it reflected a bad image on islam it seems like u didnt have any problem with those arguments but in my case u have still got some questions.
 
 
H300, there are muslims that agree that apostates should be killed.
I studied the 4 schools and sharia on this, and I have provided this information for all to see. This is the 4 schools we are talking about.
 
Does this give a bad or negative image to islam, yes, but no more than the punishment for adultery & fornication  How is stoning to death or giving lashes to a person a good image for islam ???  or punishments for stealing where you cut of one's hand. Why is those punishment quite acceptable but not the death penalty for apostacy.
 
The verse that is mentioned is quite clear, there is no vagueness and even if it is a weak one, this doesn't mean it is invalid, it has as much validity as a strong one.


-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 21 September 2008 at 12:18am
Originally posted by Angel

Originally posted by H3OO

Ronn Web

i see u are very much convinced/ satisfied with arguments provided by angel though s/he  didnt provide anything from quran and the hadith she provided have already been discussed here but since it reflected a bad image on islam it seems like u didnt have any problem with those arguments but in my case u have still got some questions.
 
 
H300, there are muslims that agree that apostates should be killed.
I studied the 4 schools and sharia on this, and I have provided this information for all to see. This is the 4 schools we are talking about.
 
Does this give a bad or negative image to islam, yes, but no more than the punishment for adultery & fornication  How is stoning to death or giving lashes to a person a good image for islam ???  or punishments for stealing where you cut of one's hand. Why is those punishment quite acceptable but not the death penalty for apostacy.
 
The verse that is mentioned is quite clear, there is no vagueness and even if it is a weak one, this doesn't mean it is invalid, it has as much validity as a strong one.
 
 It is clear that most of the Muslims believe that punishment for apostacy is death. That may not only be the teaching of the four schools of thought but also of those who do not follow those schools.
 
 The problem is, it is now 1400 years after the time of the prophet. Many things have happened and Hadith is not as reliable as the Quran. The Quran has its status, well above the Hadith. hadith is to serve the Quran and Sunnah. If there is no verse of Quran or no Sunnah then the hadith cannot do anything. But the verdict of majority muslims is in favor of killing the apostate.
 
 I was wondering which verse was being made the base for killing the apostate. Give reference. Thanks.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 21 September 2008 at 10:15am
I cannot begin to comprehend how it would ever be permissible to put someone to death for abandonning religion. That's diabolical. And it seems to completely contradict the, "no compulsion in religion" sura. Fear of death would be ample 'compulsion'.
 
2:34 And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith.
  Wa-ith qulna lilmala-ikatiosjudoo li-adama fasajadoo illa ibleesa abawaistakbara wakana mina alkafireena
 
16:107 This because they love the life of this world better than the Hereafter: and Allah will not guide those who reject Faith.
  Thalika bi-annahumu istahabbooalhayata alddunya AAala al-akhiratiwaanna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alkafireena
 
I was looking at sura 2:34 the other day for some reason, and I saw the translation of the word 'alkafareena' as 'disbeliever' - and 'one who is disobedient'.  In reference to Iblis when he refuses to prostrate before Adam.
 
Can that word have different meanings ? Alkafareena.  I have read these verses and it seems they speak about the punishment/doom of the 'afterlife'. Or even the punishment, unhappiness that comes from living selfishly.
 
If Iblis were standing with angels, and being asked by God to prostrate - he could hardly be said to be of 'those who reject faith' - 'disbeliever' in the same way a human being living in this world might 'reject faith' - 'disbelieve,' for whatever reasons.
 
 
How do you, 'reject faith' ? Being 'dis obedient' has a different connotation.
 
Just wondering.
 
 


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 21 September 2008 at 11:41am
Another verse with, 'those who reject faith', but I don't see the word 'alkafareena' ? I can't get my Muslim friend to ask about this. He is arab. Gonna wring his neck when I do :-) lol
 
2:6 As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
  Inna allatheena kafaroo sawaonAAalayhim aanthartahum am lam tunthirhum layu/minoona
 
Maybe some arab speaker/writers here. Just wondering about translations and possible differences in meanings of words, if there are different meanings.


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 22 September 2008 at 7:44am
Originally posted by Angel

Originally posted by H3OO

Ronn Web

i see u are very much convinced/ satisfied with arguments provided by angel though s/he  didnt provide anything from quran and the hadith she provided have already been discussed here but since it reflected a bad image on islam it seems like u didnt have any problem with those arguments but in my case u have still got some questions.
 
 
H300, there are muslims that agree that apostates should be killed.
I studied the 4 schools and sharia on this, and I have provided this information for all to see. This is the 4 schools we are talking about.
 
Does this give a bad or negative image to islam, yes, but no more than the punishment for adultery & fornication  How is stoning to death or giving lashes to a person a good image for islam ???  or punishments for stealing where you cut of one's hand. Why is those punishment quite acceptable but not the death penalty for apostacy.
 
The verse that is mentioned is quite clear, there is no vagueness and even if it is a weak one, this doesn't mean it is invalid, it has as much validity as a strong one.


Angel if u read and understand properly the quranic verses related to adultery/fornication, u will realize how soft image of islam is as contary to  to general notion held as u sated above.

but 1st of all i dont think it is justified to compare the sin of adultery/ fornication with apostacy bcz the magnitude of sin in the
former case is way way greater than the sin in case of apostacy when it comes to the impact it has on the morals of the society.


Infact in islam it is considered one of the most heinous of all the social crimes which badly damages the moral values of a soceity which we can currently witness in the west, so  inorder to save  the society from such destruction, God has prescribed such a hard punishment, so that people refrain from it. in other words such punishment emphaiss the magnitude of this sin and most importantly its negative consequences in the eyes of God.


SECONdLY THE punishment is 100 strips and not stoning to death so i guess this misconception is cleared here and will be further cleared.


here are the versus of quran relating to adultery (Al-Nur, ch 24);

1. A Surah which we have sent down and which we have ordained; in it have we sent down clear signs in order that ye may receive admonition.

2. The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah if ye believe in Allah and the last day; and let a party of the believers witness their punishment.

3. Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty or an unbeliever nor let any but such a man or an unbeliever marry such a woman; to the believers such a thing is forbidden.

4. And those who launch a charge against chaste women and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegation) flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after; for such men are wicked transgressors.

5. Save those who afterward repent and make amends. (For such) lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.

6. As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;

7. And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.

8. But it would avert the punishment from the wife if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that (her husband) is telling a lie;


9. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth. (24:1-9)


By verse 4  The provision of 4 witnesses to prove adultery has made it impossible for it to be proved. i'll ask u which sensible person will commit adultery in front of even one person let alone 4. definately God also knew this but he still placed this restriction. So actually by announcing severe punishment, God has warned us to refrain from acting as such but by placing this verse he has given humans a way out and left the matter between such person and God.

similarly verse 5 clearly says if such a person repent and amends after the sin, forgive him, such is not punishable.

so does it reflect the harder image or the soft image?.

similarly verse 8  again gives a way out leaving it between the god and the sinner. So it definitely again proves how much islam cares and how much lenient it is even when it comes to punishment and provides every best possible way to deal with different aspects of a situation and makes sure that no innocent is harmed.

But what the problem is that the anti islamic groups only remember the 2nd verse of this chapter which they use to point fingers at islam but ignore the remaining verses.  All these verses are interlinked, interdependent, and leaving out/ignoring any verse will definitely
alter the true meaning.



Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 22 September 2008 at 7:53am
and as regards apostacy, what the muslims or sharia/ 4 schools of thought say don't hold any meaning unless it is proved from quran and authenticated  hadith.and there is enough proof given before that that hadith is invalid and contradicts the quran, conduct of prophet[sa] and also ones logic.





Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 28 September 2008 at 8:53am

 Topic:Apostasy in Islam.

 Personally i am in favour of death penalty for apostates but there are still different views regarding death penalty for apostates.

 My view is stand on Maulana Maududi's view.Let me quote his views

 Maududi

 
In the 20th Century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul_Ala_Maududi - Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi defended traditional views on apostacy against the idea of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion - freedom of religion in Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-27 - [28] He summarized what he saw as the most likely objections by critics:

  • This idea is against the freedom of conscience. How can it be right to offer an apostate the gallows when he has decided to leave Islam?
  • A faith which people maintain because of the fear of death cannot be genuine faith. This faith will be manifestly hypocritically chosen to deceive in order to save one's life. (Religious hypocrisy is the ultimate sin in Islam)
  • If all religions approve of execution for apostasy, it will be difficult not only for Muslims to embrace another religion but also for non-Muslims to embrace Islam.
  • It is contradictory to say on one hand "There is no compulsion in religion (Qur'an [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran - Qur'an   http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256 - 2:256 ])" and "Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve ([ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran - Qur'an   http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/018.qmt.html#018.029 - 18:29 ])", and on the other to threaten to punish by death who renounces Islam and moves to reject Islam.

Maududi claims that the misunderstanding and criticism arises because of a "fundamental misconception" about Islam:

If Islam is truly a "religion" in the sense that religion is understood at present, surely it would be absurd to prescribe the penalty of execution for those people who wish to leave it because of their dissatisfaction with its principles. It is not only a "religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true ordering of life before death.

Maududi also declares:

Whatever objections the critics pose regarding the punishment of the apostate, they make them bearing in mind only a single "religion" (madhhab). In contrast, when we present our arguments to demonstrate the validity of this punishment, we have in view no mere "religion" but a state which is constructed on a religion (din) and the authority of its principles rather than on the authority of a family, clan or people.

And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason. He then discusses the difference between a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir - kafir , a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - dhimmi , and the appropriateness of death for them if they apostatize after conversion, and for those born of Muslim parents he states:

In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah.

Maududi considers the threat of execution as not forcing someone to stay within the fold of Islam, but as a way of keeping those who are not truly committed out of the community of Islam. Maududi rejects the third criticism because unlike other religions which are free to exchange believers, Islam is "on whose ideas and actions society and state are constructed" cannot allow "to keep open its door that would spell its own ruin, the scattering of its own structure's parts, the stripping away of the bonds of its own existence", and he compares this to the treason penalty on the books of the U.S. and Britain. Maududi also rejects the charge of contradiction. In his words:

"There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran - Qur'an   http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256 - 2:256 ]) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.





Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 29 September 2008 at 12:05am
 
 Thanks for presenting Maudoodi sahib here and you have done quite well. I have read about 80 % of the post. I comment on small part now.More later:
 
And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason. He then discusses the difference between a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir - kafir , a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - dhimmi , and the appropriateness of death for them if they apostatize after conversion, and for those born of Muslim parents he states:
 
 Maudoodi is wrong, calling apostacy as treason. It can be only in time of war, when war is on. Not otherwise. That was a highhanded view of Maudoodi sahib to call the change of religion as treason.
 
 More over, he being the head of the muslim state had to protect the rights of the state by disallowing any one to change his faith. That was a bad way , poor way to protect his lot of people.
 
 He as head of state could never kill any one for change of faith being against the explicit teachings of the Quran. I feel that is the reason Allah is not giving any chance to any Maulvi to become the head of any state. Then there are so many sects too (Schools of thought). There is no unity.
 
 If it is not allowed to change religion then the preaching (tableegh) will all go down the drain. I am so surprised at Maudoodi. He is considered such a scholar. He said in a place that Islam had been spread by the sword. I am looking for the reference where he said that.
 
 And also that Imam Mahdi will come but he will not know that he is the Imam Mahdi.
 
 He was also a champion of the belief (till his last time) that Isa a.s. is alive in heavens. All other prophets have died.  later, In his Tafseer (vol. 1 page 420) he said that Quran does not make it clear whether Jesus died on this earth or went up to the sky.  That was a neutral stand between life and death for Isa a.s.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 29 September 2008 at 4:31am
It would seem to me from what I have read here that if one believes that Islam is the one true faith and leaves the faith at some point he or she is already dead to God.


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 29 September 2008 at 12:15pm
[QUOTE=minuteman] 
 Thanks for presenting Maudoodi sahib here and you have done quite well. I have read about 80 % of the post. I comment on small part now.More later:
 
And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason. He then discusses the difference between a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir - kafir , a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - dhimmi , and the appropriateness of death for them if they apostatize after conversion, and for those born of Muslim parents he states:
 
 Maudoodi is wrong, calling apostacy as treason. It can be only in time of war, when war is on. Not otherwise. That was a highhanded view of Maudoodi sahib to call the change of religion as treason.
 
 More over, he being the head of the muslim state had to protect the rights of the state by disallowing any one to change his faith. That was a bad way , poor way to protect his lot of people.
 
 He as head of state could never kill any one for change of faith being against the explicit teachings of the Quran. I feel that is the reason Allah is not giving any chance to any Maulvi to become the head of any state. Then there are so many sects too (Schools of thought). There is no unity.
 
 If it is not allowed to change religion then the preaching (tableegh) will all go down the drain. I am so surprised at Maudoodi. He is considered such a scholar. He said in a place that Islam had been spread by the sword. I am looking for the reference where he said that.
 
 And also that Imam Mahdi will come but he will not know that he is the Imam Mahdi.
 
 He was also a champion of the belief (till his last time) that Isa a.s. is alive in heavens. All other prophets have died.  later, In his Tafseer (vol. 1 page 420) he said that Quran does not make it clear whether Jesus died on this earth or went up to the sky.  That was a neutral stand between life and death for Isa a.s.
[/QUOTE]

 Response to minuteman

 I already said there are different views regarding death penalty for apostasy.

 For example Dr.
Jamal Badawi does not agree with the death punishment.( http://islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article02.shtml##4 - Source )

 You can also read views of famous scholar Dr.Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (
http://islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01c.shtml - Source )

 Now you are claiming that in the tafssir of Quran written by Maududi, he said that Quran does not make it clear wether Jesus died on this earth or went up to the sky.

 Now i will quote it here and you can see it.

 
(4:157) and their saying: 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary', the Messenger of Allah - whereas in fact they had neither slain him nor crucified him but the matter was made dubious to them - and those who differed about it too were in a state of doubt! They have no definite knowledge of it, but merely follow conjecture; and they surely slew him not,

 (4:158) but Allah raised him to Himself. *195 Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

 
*195. This is the truth revealed by God. What is categorically asserted here is merely that the Jews did not succeed in killing the Messiah, but that God raised him unto Himself.
The Qur'an furnishes no detailed information about the actual form of this 'raising'. It neither states categorically that God raised him from the earthly sphere to some place in heaven in both body and soul, nor that his body died on earth and his soul alone was raised to heaven. Hence neither of the two alternatives can be definitely affirmed nor denied on the basis of the Qur'an. If one reflects on the Qur'anic version of the event one gets the impression that, whatever the actual form of this 'raising', the event was of an extraordinary character. This extraordinariness is evident from three things:
First, the Christians believed in the ascension of the Messiah in both body and soul, which was one of the reasons for large sections of people to believe in the godhead of Jesus. The Qur'an does not refute that idea but employs the same term, raf (i.e. 'ascension'), employed by the Christians. It is inconceivable that the Qur'an, which describes itself as the 'Clear Book', would employ an expression that might lend support to a misconception it seeks to repudiate.
Second, one might assume that either the ascension of the Messiah was of the kind that takes place at every person's death or that this 'ascension' meant merely the exaltation of a Prophet's position, like that of Idris: 'And We raised him to an exalted station' (Surah Maryam 19: 57). Had it been so, this idea would have been better expressed by a statement such as: And indeed they did not kill the Messiah; Allah delivered him from execution and caused him to die a natural death. The Jews had wanted to slight him but Allah granted him an exalted position.
Third, if this raf (exaltation, ascension) referred to in the verse: 'Allah raised him to Himself was of an ordinary kind, the statement which follows, namely that 'Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise', would seem altogether out of context. Such a statement is pertinent only in the context of an event which manifested, in a highly extraordinary manner, by the overwhelming power and wisdom of God.
The only Qur'anic argument that can be adduced to controvert this view is the verse in which the expression mutawaffika (see Surah Al 'Imran 3: 55) is employed. But as we have pointed out (see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, Surah 3, n. 51), this word can denote either God's taking a man unto Himself in soul or taking him unto Himself in both body and soul. Arguments based on the mere use of this word are not enough to repudiate the arguments we have already adduced. Some of those who insist on the physical death of Jesus support their argument by pointing out that there is no other example of the use of the word tawaffa for God's taking unto Himself a man in body as well as in soul. But this argument is not tenable since the ascension of Jesus was a unique event in human history and, therefore, the quest for another example of the use of this term in the same context is meaningless. What is worth exploring is whether or not the use of the word in such a sense is valid according to Arabic usage. If it is, we will have to say that the choice of this particular word lends support to belief in the ascension of Jesus.
If we reflect on this verse in the light of the assumption that Jesus died physically, it appears strange that the Qur'an does not employ those terms which would exclude signifying the simultaneous physical and spiritual ascension of Jesus. On the contrary, the Qur'an prefers a term which, since it is liable to both interpretations (i.e. it can mean both spiritual and physical ascension), lends support to belief in the physical ascension of Jesus, even though that notion was used as a basis to support the false belief in the godhead of Jesus.
Belief in the physical ascension of Jesus is further reinforced by those numerous traditions which mention the return of Jesus, son of Mary, to the world and his struggle against the Anti-Christ before the end of time. (For these traditions see our appendix to Surah 33.) These traditions quite definitively establish the second coming of Jesus. Now it is for anybody to judge which is more reasonable: Jesus' return to this world after his death, or his being alive somewhere in God's universe, and returning to this world at some point in time?
(
http://www.tafheem.net - Source )

 Below you will find a link that has a mini book that proves that Prophet Issa (latinized to Jesus) (peace be upon him) did not die according to Qur'an and that he will return.
 
http://invitationtotruth.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/did-prophet-issa-die/ - http://invitationtotruth.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/did-prophet-issa-die/
 
The link also has articles from Ahadith [sayings of Prophet Muhammad (may upon him be mercy of God and peace)] for those who do believe in Hadith but call them to be metaphorical in the situation of Prophet Issa (peace be upon him). The articles from Ahadith are quite interesting as they involve interpretation of many sayings in the context of modern scenario.

 
 
 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 September 2008 at 4:51pm
And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason.
Apostacy in religion would analogous to emigration from a nation, not treason.   I wonder if Maududi (or Mansoor_ali) would advocate the death penalty for emigrants.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 29 September 2008 at 7:38pm
 
 Mansoor Ali, Thank you for presenting your case in a nice way.
 
You have presented everything from Maudoodi sahib. But all the arguments of Maudoodi sahib to prove that Isa a.s. was lifted up into the sky is very weak. When he wrote that Quran does not make it clear whether Isa .a.s. died here on earth or he was lifted up alive.... I was very lenient with Maudoodi sahib. That was a very bad statement of maudoodi sahib for making a clear case as controversial and then blaming it on Allah and the Quran that Quran did not make it clear. It means it was the fault of the Quran? What a bad idea to say like that ! The Quran makes all things very clear.

Maudoodi sahib has got an idea in his head that Isa a.s. is still alive and not died and to prove that he is blaming the Quran too. We are not blind to that bad idea of Maudoodi sahib. I purposely did not touch on that point before.

So it is the fault of the Quran that it did not make something clear? God forbids such bad ideas.

Maudoodi sahib has made the grave mistake for the meaning of the word "tawaffa" which is used about 25 times in the Quran. Every where it means to take the soul and leave the body. That means sleep or death. We use this word twice in the funeral prayer too (Janazah). It only means death. No where it means taking some one completely with body and soul.

Then Maudoodi sahib made another blunder with "Tawaffa". He wrote that one dictionary meaning of this word is to take completely. I ask why he had to open the dictionary for a word which is being used in the Quran (as a technical= Istilahi word) many times. It already has a set meaning. Why he opens the dictionary? We have Salat, Zakat, technical words in the quran. Do we open any dictionary for them? To ascertain their meaning? We never do and we are not allowed to do that. Otherwise some one will say "One meaning of zakat is piety and it does not mean paying any money".

Maudoodi sahib struggled hard to keep Jesus alive. But it was very difficult job. So in the end, his writing that Quran does not make it clear whether Jesus died here on earth or he went up to sky, that was enough to prove that he did not know anything. He had come half way down from his original stand that Jesus was alive in the sky.

But even then he did not have rest and wanted to make things doubtful. So he put the blame on the Quran. (More in next post, if necessary)



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 29 September 2008 at 7:52pm
 
 We have shifted fromt he subject of apostacy to that of life and death of
 
 Isa a.s. Isa a.s. is being worshipped as God by the christians. I am presenting the verses of the Quran below to prove that he is not livng now. Please see:
 

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:20 - 16: 19] And Allah knows what you keep hidden and what you disclose.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:21 - 16:2 0] And those on whom they call besides Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:22 - 16:2 1] They are dead, not living; and they know not when they will be raised.

 

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:2 - 25: 1] Blessed is He who has sent down Al-Furq›n to His servant, that he may be a Warner to all the worlds -

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:3 - 25: 2] He to Whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. And He has taken unto Himself no son, and has no partner in the Kingdom, and He has created everything, and has determined its proper measure.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:4 - 25: 3] Yet they have taken beside Him gods, who create nothing but are themselves created, and who have no power to harm or benefit themselves, nor have they any power over death or life or Resurrection.



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 30 September 2008 at 11:57pm
Originally posted by Nick

It would seem to me from what I have read here that if one believes that Islam is the one true faith and leaves the faith at some point he or she is already dead to God.
 
  Not really. It means that his mind is working and he is using the God given faculty to chose his faith freely. But some people do not allow the poor people to exercise the free choice of their faith. They are criminals who stop people from chosing their faith, whatever the religion.
 
 Quran says: "There is no compulsion in the matter of (any) religion."
 
  It is Fitnah to oppress people about their faith. And Fitnah (persecution) is worse than killing. (Al Fitnatu ashaddu min al Qatl.)


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 1:12pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 
Maudoodi sahib has made the grave mistake for the meaning of the word "tawaffa" which is used about 25 times in the Quran. Every where it means to take the soul and leave the body. That means sleep or death. We use this word twice in the funeral prayer too (Janazah). It only means death. No where it means taking some one completely with body and soul.



 I have shown my response to the topic of mutawafik http://islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=12 - here you can refer it.

 I agree that  there are different views regarding mutawafik. Islamic scholars like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Ahmed_Ghamidi - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_Ahsan_Islahi - Amin Ahsan Islahi consider it as physical death of Jesus, and hence question the return of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus_death#cite_note-jav-6 - [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus_death#cite_note-isl-7 - [8]

 But it is not view of all muslim scholars.Just like Sheik Jadul-Haq Ali Jadul-Haq(former Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar),Sheik M.S .Al-Munajjid(A prominent Saudi lecturer and author),Ibn Jarir, http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8339 - Ibn Kathir , http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=55&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0 - Al,Jalalayn etc

 
 But physical death of christ is not view of majority of muslim scholars.

 Allah knows best.


 
 


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 1:20pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 We have shifted fromt he subject of apostacy to that of life and death of
 
 Isa a.s. Isa a.s. is being worshipped as God by the christians. I am presenting the verses of the Quran below to prove that he is not livng now. Please see:
 

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:20 - 19] And Allah knows what you keep hidden and what you disclose.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:21 - 0] And those on whom they call besides Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:22 - 1] They are dead, not living; and they know not when they will be raised.


 Read the verses in its 'context'.Tell us where in the context of these verses Allah is talking about Jesus Christ?

 No where in the context Allah is addressing Christians so how can you attach these verses to Jesus Christ?

 Allah knows best.

Originally posted by minuteman

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:2 - 1] Blessed is He who has sent down Al-Furq›n to His servant, that he may be a Warner to all the worlds -

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:3 - 2] He to Whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. And He has taken unto Himself no son, and has no partner in the Kingdom, and He has created everything, and has determined its proper measure.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:4 - 3] Yet they have taken beside Him gods, who create nothing but are themselves created, and who have no power to harm or benefit themselves, nor have they any power over death or life or Resurrection.



 These verses are not talking about death of christ.I donot know where death of christ is mentioned in these verses.

 Allah knows best.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 10:03pm
 
  Those whom they call beside Allah are dead, not living.
 
 
[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:22 - 16:2 1] They are dead, not living; and they know not when they will be raised.
 
 Even though Isa a.s. is not mentioned in this verse by name but he is being worshipped as god beside Allah. It is a general verse, includes all those being worshipped, may be a man or a woman. It is clear that all those who are being called god beside Allah are DEAD, not LIVING.
 
There is more proof. The word "Walla Dheena' in the beginning of the verse 16:20 relates to bodies having understanding (Aql). So please see again, a slight change in translation of verse 16:20,:
 

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:21 - 16:2 0] And those (who have Aql) whom they call besides Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:22 - 16:2 1] They are dead, not living; and they know not (do not understand) when they will be raised.
 
 The words " They know not when they will be raised" to life again, also shows it is about the mankind. They are dead. To me it includes Isa a.s. and any other person who is being worshipped beside Allah. Perhaps some one will think over and let me know if this verse applies to Isa a.s. or not.



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 02 October 2008 at 11:24pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 
  Those whom they call beside Allah are dead, not living.
 
 
[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:22 - 1] They are dead, not living; and they know not when they will be raised.
 
 Even though Isa a.s. is not mentioned in this verse by name but he is being worshipped as god beside Allah. It is a general verse, includes all those being worshipped, may be a man or a woman. It is clear that all those who are being called god beside Allah are DEAD, not LIVING.
 
There is more proof. The word "Walla Dheena' in the beginning of the verse 16:20 relates to bodies having understanding (Aql). So please see again, a slight change in translation of verse 16:20,:
 

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:21 - 0] And those (who have Aql) whom they call besides Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:22 - 1] They are dead, not living; and they know not (do not understand) when they will be raised.
 
 The words " They know not when they will be raised" to life again, also shows it is about the mankind. They are dead. To me it includes Isa a.s. and any other person who is being worshipped beside Allah. Perhaps some one will think over and let me know if this verse applies to Isa a.s. or not.



 As i said the context is very important and you are failed to tell us where in the context this verse even this Surah is addressing Christians and Jews faith?The answer is no where.

 Even this Surah is addressing the disbelievers of Makkah (not christians and Jews)

 Secondly,there are majority of reliable mufassirs who disagree with you on this subject.

 I donot know any reliable mufassir who says that Jesus has been died according to Surah 16.

 

 
 

 

 

 


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 03 October 2008 at 10:04am
 
 Thanks. The context is always important. You may be right that context is about the pagans of Arabia. But the words enclose all being worshipped, all with aql are meant here, not stones. Isa is one of them. So he is no more alive. he had no special power over life and death.
 
  [ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:21 - 16:2 0] And those (who have Aql) whom they call besides Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created.
[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:22 - 16:2 1] They are dead, not living; and they know not (do not understand) when they will be raised.
 
 The verses are describing those who had understanding (aql). Also, life and death is being discussed. The idols do not have any life or death.
 ==========================================
 Now please see the other verses which I had presented. That is pointing to Isa a.s. :
 
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:2 - 25: 1] Blessed is He who has sent down Al-Furq›n to His servant, that he may be a Warner to all the worlds -

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:3 - 25: 2] He to Whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. And He has taken unto Himself no son, and has no partner in the Kingdom, and He has created everything, and has determined its proper measure.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:4 - 25: 3] Yet they have taken beside Him gods, who create nothing but are themselves created, and who have no power to harm or benefit themselves, nor have they any power over death or life or Resurrection.

 


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 04 October 2008 at 12:10pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 Thanks. The context is always important. You may be right that context is about the pagans of Arabia. But the words enclose all being worshipped, all with aql are meant here, not stones. Isa is one of them. So he is no more alive. he had no special power over life and death.
 
  [ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:21 - 0] And those (who have Aql) whom they call besides Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created.
[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=16:22 - 1] They are dead, not living; and they know not (do not understand) when they will be raised.
 
 The verses are describing those who had understanding (aql). Also, life and death is being discussed. The idols do not have any life or death.
 ==========================================


 Can you quote any single mufassir which support your claim that Jesus has been died according to Surah 16:20-21?

 Different verses and different Surahs were revealed in specific conditions and they address different sect of people.You cannot ignore those circumstances in which they were revealed.Quran address christian's faith in different Surahs particularly in Surah 3,4 etc but no where in the entire Surah 16 Allah is talking about christians and their faith.He is talking about disbelievers of Mecca.You cannot take the meaning out of the context of verse(16:20-21).It is not correct way of interpretation of Surahs.

Originally posted by minuteman

Now please see the other verses which I had presented. That is pointing to Isa a.s. :
 
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:2 - 1] Blessed is He who has sent down Al-Furq›n to His servant, that he may be a Warner to all the worlds -

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:3 - 2] He to Whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. And He has taken unto Himself no son, and has no partner in the Kingdom, and He has created everything, and has determined its proper measure.

[ http://www.alislam.org/quran/search/fetch.php?v=25:4 - 3] Yet they have taken beside Him gods, who create nothing but are themselves created, and who have no power to harm or benefit themselves, nor have they any power over death or life or Resurrection.

 It should be remembered that Surah 25 verse 2 is not specifically talking about Jesus Christ(Allah knows best)

 And also this Surah was revealed in Mecca.

 Let us suppose it is specifically talking about Jesus Christ.But my question is then where death of Christ is mentioned in Surah 25:1-3?

 And i also said that Jesus Christ performed those miracles NOT ON HIS OWN but with the help of Allah.So how it make him God? or Creator?

 And Quran is very clear that Jesus is only creature of creator.

 I know my christians who quoted many verses from their gospels to prove that Jesus is God because he performed so many miracles but i challenged them to quote only 1 miracle which Christ performed on his own but they cannot do it.

 So in a same way Jesus performed miracles but it does not make him creator,it does not mean he has attributes of creator because creator creates on his own but Christ does not create any thing on his own but with the help of Allah.

 With the help of Allah even you can go beyond the limits of heavens but it still doesnot make you God.

 Allah Knows Best.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 05 October 2008 at 1:09am
 
 Thanks Mansoor, you have explained your point of view that jesus did create birds with the permission of Allah. I disagree. I do not know about those birds which Jesus created and where they are now. Did they further procreate more birds or just kept flying about only. Are those birds created by Jesus all mixed up with thos ebirds which are created by Allah? Can we tell which ones are which?
 
 But please, you do not need to answer any of the above questions. I will try to find out an answer myself, Insha Allah.
 
 I remember some Mufassirs had much difficulty with these verses and they opined that those birds just flew away out of sight and then used to fall down and beome pieces of clay again. There are some explanations. I do not feel it necessary to take literal meanings of these verses.
 
 In the Quran elsewhere, some people have been called animals or worse than animals. Some are called dead and some are called deaf dumb and blind even though they are not so.
 
 Well thank you very much for your explanation. I have understood your point of view.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 05 October 2008 at 3:51am
He will say: "I bring you a sign from your Lord. From clay I will make for you the likeness of a bird. I shall breath into it and, by God's leave, it shall become a living bird."
 
Sura 3:49
 
Does the Qu'ran say that Jesus is the Spirit and Word of God ? "Be".
 
Adam is made from clay and the spirit of God breathed into him to bring him to life ?
 
A little bird is fashioned from clay - and Jesus breathes life into it - God's spirit, and the little bird lives - by the power of God's Word and Spirit ?
 
I tend to try and see beyond the literal in much of this scriptural writing. But maybe in this instance it has to be taken literally.
 
Just as there is said to be similtude in the creation of Adam and Isa. There is a similtude in the power of God to breathe life into clay in the creation of a man and a bird.
 
Btw. If the spirit of God, life is breathed into this little clay bird - does that mean it becomes a 'living soul' ? What makes us different from animals - we having 'souls' and they don't ?
 
The power of God to breathe life into clay and make of it a living being was made manifest in this instance through Jesus ?


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 05 October 2008 at 3:19pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 Thanks Mansoor, you have explained your point of view that jesus did create birds with the permission of Allah. I disagree. I do not know about those birds which Jesus created and where they are now. Did they further procreate more birds or just kept flying about only. Are those birds created by Jesus all mixed up with thos ebirds which are created by Allah? Can we tell which ones are which?
 
 But please, you do not need to answer any of the above questions. I will try to find out an answer myself, Insha Allah.


 As you wish.
 
Originally posted by minuteman

I remember some Mufassirs had much difficulty with these verses and they opined that those birds just flew away out of sight and then used to fall down and beome pieces of clay again. There are some explanations. I do not feel it necessary to take literal meanings of these verses.


 Can you quote these mufassirs?or link?but i think all of them agree that Jesus created those birds by Gods's permission.
 
Originally posted by minuteman

In the Quran elsewhere, some people have been called animals or worse than animals. Some are called dead and some are called deaf dumb and blind even though they are not so.


 Yes as i said earlier we can find out where verses are speaking symbolically and where they donot with the help of context.
 
Originally posted by minuteman

Well thank you very much for your explanation. I have understood your point of view.


 Here is my another response to your article forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=16 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=16


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 06 October 2008 at 4:22am
"Did they further procreate more birds or just kept flying about only. Are those birds created by Jesus all mixed up with thos ebirds which are created by Allah? Can we tell which ones are which?"
 
LOL
 
Minuteman. Those birds are in my garden ;-) They are wicked horrible things. Did you ever see the movie, "The Birds" ? They are like those. LOL
 
I am just kidding. :-)
 
What is the big deal about Isa/Jesus breathing life into clay birds and them becoming living birds ? The Qu'ran does not seem to suggest that Jesus created birds. It talks about fashioning clay birds and breathing the spirit of God, life into them. Kind of co-creator perhaps. Not the same as Creator. Like parents giving life to a child. God creates - but the parents are channels of that creative power - giving life to the new creation/child. If Jesus were just a man of clay as was Adam. Then you could see in this another affirmation of the heights to which humanity is called.
 
God bless
 
 


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 06 October 2008 at 9:32pm
Originally posted by minuteman

"Did they further procreate more birds or just kept flying about only. Are those birds created by Jesus all mixed up with those birds which are created by Allah? Can we tell which ones are which?"
 
 
 
Originally posted by Gulliver

What is the big deal about Isa/Jesus breathing life into clay birds and them becoming living birds ? The Qu'ran does not seem to suggest that Jesus created birds. It talks about fashioning clay birds and breathing the spirit of God, life into them. Kind of co-creator perhaps. Not the same as Creator. Like parents giving life to a child. God creates - but the parents are channels of that creative power - giving life to the new creation/child. If Jesus were just a man of clay as was Adam. Then you could see in this another affirmation of the heights to which humanity is called.
 
God bless
 
 
 
 For you Gulliver, there may not be a big deal. But hristians believe that God created Jesus only and then Jesus created verything of the universe. By this creation of the birds by Jesus, the Muslims are only a few steps behind the christians. Do you think it is not a big deal to learn a lesson that Jesus did not create anything.
 
 That creation of the birds by Jesus is only metaphoric. I understand the meaning of that even though I am an ignorant man. But the Quran tells that those who are being worshipped beside God ( and Jesus is one of them ), they are did not create anything. Full stop. But they are themselves created (another truth).
 
 The muslims will some day understand that the creation of the birds by Isa a.s is only symbolic, not real. They were not birds at all but they acted like birds though. I won't say who they were.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 07 October 2008 at 3:21am
Hi Minuteman
 
You're not, 'just an ignorant man'.  We are all ignorant of many things, especially when it comes to matters of faith and what may or may not be true of God. We all search and struggle to understand certain things and always will.
 
I am very ignorant too. Much of this is very new to me. When I read that part about Isa creating birds. It seems to me that in the Qu'ranic version, it is very much saying that what Isa does, he does by 'Allah's leave'. It is God who is the source of this 'miracle' - manifest through Isa. What's the difference in giving life to a bird and giving life to a dead limb. Curing a blind eye - with all its dead cells that nolonger function to give sight. Life is life - from the micro to the macro levels. To heal is to give life.
 
I don't think that Christians believe Jesus made everything - created it all. It says in John's gospel - the one y'all hate ;-) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God......   and through this 'Word' all things came into being - were 'made' " Paraphrasing.
 
THROUGH the Word all things were 'made' and held in existence. Even when there is talk about none coming to the Father/God, except through Me. (Jesus). This would fit with the beginning of John. If all came into existence through the Word of God. Then all will return to God through that same Word. God's Word - Be - permeating all that exists, or it simply would not exist. And as all that exists journeys to and from God - it journeys by the power of that very Word - Be.  Jesus is also called the word of God in the Qu'ran ?
 
Like God says to Jesus when he is created in Qu'ran - "Be" and he was.
 
THROUGH Isa - the power of God is made manifest in the creation of a clay bird and giving it life.
 
What is the symbolism of this for you Minuteman ? It must symbolise something in your mind.
 
There is one thing about ignorance - for all of us. If we don't know - have not seriously studied or understood what another 'faith' truly professes to believe - then we need to be careful in making blanket statements about what it is, in our ignorance we believe they may or may not believe. If you get my drift.
 
I am not trying to 'prove' anything cause I can't prove anything. Neither can anyone else here.
 
God bless
 
K


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 October 2008 at 2:56pm
Originally posted by Gulliver

Hi Minuteman
 
You're not, 'just an ignorant man'.  We are all ignorant of many things, especially when it comes to matters of faith and what may or may not be true of God. We all search and struggle to understand certain things and always will.
 
I am very ignorant too. Much of this is very new to me. When I read that part about Isa creating birds. It seems to me that in the Qu'ranic version, it is very much saying that what Isa does, he does by 'Allah's leave'. It is God who is the source of this 'miracle' - manifest through Isa. What's the difference in giving life to a bird and giving life to a dead limb. Curing a blind eye - with all its dead cells that nolonger function to give sight. Life is life - from the micro to the macro levels. To heal is to give life.
 
I don't think that Christians believe Jesus made everything - created it all. It says in John's gospel - the one y'all hate ;-) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God......   and through this 'Word' all things came into being - were 'made' " Paraphrasing.
 
THROUGH the Word all things were 'made' and held in existence. Even when there is talk about none coming to the Father/God, except through Me. (Jesus). This would fit with the beginning of John. If all came into existence through the Word of God. Then all will return to God through that same Word. God's Word - Be - permeating all that exists, or it simply would not exist. And as all that exists journeys to and from God - it journeys by the power of that very Word - Be.  Jesus is also called the word of God in the Qu'ran ?
 
Like God says to Jesus when he is created in Qu'ran - "Be" and he was.
 
THROUGH Isa - the power of God is made manifest in the creation of a clay bird and giving it life.
 
What is the symbolism of this for you Minuteman ? It must symbolise something in your mind.
 
There is one thing about ignorance - for all of us. If we don't know - have not seriously studied or understood what another 'faith' truly professes to believe - then we need to be careful in making blanket statements about what it is, in our ignorance we believe they may or may not believe. If you get my drift.
 
I am not trying to 'prove' anything cause I can't prove anything. Neither can anyone else here.
 
God bless
 
K
 
If I may jump in to address a few things here?
If I existed before begining my life here on this earth then Jesus (pbuh) also existed.
But if you mean, like the Christian belief, that Jesus was before anything else was created, and if we also hypothetically believe for the moment that he always was there, I wounder why Moses, or Abrham never mentioned such a important part of their belief, as they are on the same note in the Bible and considered to be believers. I wonder how they missed what/who  was  "Jesus".
We don't hate the words of John, which claims Jesus to be God. In fact it probably be Jesus who hated those word surely, when he said in the same book: why do you call me good, none is good, but God. Or, that Father is greatrer than I. Or I can of myself do nothing, or for I return to my God and your God.
 
The irony for a Bible follower is that both those claims, of Jesus being a God, and Jesus having a God are bunched up some times just a flip of a page away in the same book.  So are we told to resort to the mystry in faith, or do we have a better, solid, and more truthfull choice if we only depend on the Bible for answers?
 
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 07 October 2008 at 3:32pm
"The irony for a Bible follower is that both those claims, of Jesus being a God, and Jesus having a God are bunched up some times just a flip of a page away in the same book.  So are we told to resort to the mystry in faith, or do we have a better, solid, and more truthfull choice if we only depend on the Bible for answers?"
 
I can say the same of you with the Qu'ran. It's a matter of faith - 'cause all your 'logic' can't prove a thing Hasan- certainly not to me. I am not as well read as you all seem to be on these texts, so not qualified to argue as logically as you try to. I'm a hearty type. I try and see commonalities in both expressions of faith. I look to the human being before anything else - what is real, and does not depend on faith to believe it. Then I look to see the 'fruits' of the professed 'faith' in the believer - and see that as evidence of the reality of 'God' in the life of the believer.   "By their fruits you shall know them."  :-) I bet you have a lovely bunch of coconuts.  LOL  I am kidding. It's a song and a coconut is a fruit. LOL I coudn't resist.
 
Try and see with your heart 'stead of your head some times Hasan. I was not really talking about Jesus being God or not.
 
I was thinking to myself that it seemed that the Qu'ran and bible use similar concepts - Word. Be. Jesus.  Did God just suddenly decide to create each of us at a point in 'time' - or was that always part of the great plan - way back when, in the beginning ?
 
In the beginning was the Word (Be) and the Word (Be) was with God, and the Word was God - being part of God - His very own Word - 'Be' that called all into existence and is maintained in existence by that very Word of God - 'Be'.
 
I am thinking abstract concept here rather than personality. Attribute - manifestation perhaps of the Creator. Did God speak the Word - 'Be' for all to exist ?
 
Did he say to you 'be,' and give me a slap on the clay jaw and say 'wake up you, it's time to exist ! ' ? ;-)
 
I speak about Christianity, what I know of it Hasan cause it's what I was raised with. I knew nothing of Islam till after Christmas last year. I am not trying or seeking to prove anything - one way or the other, 'cause I know that none of us can prove anything. Only in death - when the veil is brought down will we know for real what we hope for now through faith.
 
It's a matter of faith for everyone on this forum who professes to believe whatever they believe. It's all part of that great 'test' - that thing called 'faith'.
 
It's just interesting to get different perspectives on things and see if there is any common ground.
 
God bless :-)
 
 


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 11 October 2008 at 11:54am

 CHALLENGE TO TRINITARIAN

 

1-Can you bring me the Passage where Jesus says I am God

2-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus said God is three in One

3-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God




Posted By: rememberallah
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 11:54pm
An apostate is not to be killed......it is a lie that has entered islam.....muslims are blindly following it without researching.

-------------
The whole world is like Hazrat Umar but no one is like his sister and brother in law.



Print Page | Close Window