121 replies to this topic

[Gypsy]

Jebreil, on 10 April 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Yet, the death penalty for apostasy is a reality. We have it in the Sunna. My question is this: except for the tiny exceptions set aside at the beginning, does it really make sense for anything else?

The apostasy or the blasphemy laws makes absolutely no sense to me. There are verses in the Quran that supports the freedom of religion. No one can be forced to accept a certain religion/belief. It has to come naturally because you either believe in something or you don't.


And if someone doesn't believe in something, what can you do?

[thecontentedself]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are hadith set at the time of the Imams, should we not have derived laws that fit within our era?

what are the rulings on apostacy of our maraj'a?

according to my knowledge of human rights in Islam, the right of your soul has priority, ie the right of tawheed. if your surpress that, you might as well kill yourself.

now, whether this hadd needs to enforced by the islamic state, I doubt it applies, due to the reasons you stated, but in the case this murtadd becomes a muharib, now that's a different story....

[thecontentedself]

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

contentedself

Thank you for your input.

The majority - if not all - maraje are clear that the penalty of irtidad is death.

However, you draw an interesting distinction between murtadd and muharib. My question is: does expressing doubt or denial of Islam and verbally yet respectfully arguing against Islamic beliefs and practices constitute muhariba?

If so, why? Isn't this a stretch of the word muhariba? If we did include this under muhariba, the above counterarguments would come into play again.



---



I think the shari'a is unchangeable by us. If the hukm of some issue is death, then it remains death until an infallible ruling abrogates it.

There has to be a better argument than just kill whoever rejects his belief. There is an undisputed narration where the Holy Prophet dreams that many companions don't arrive at the pond of al kawthar (basically guaranteeing you entry into paradise), because they became apostate after his death. Obviously the ruling elite so no harm in their actions (no surprise the elite where hypocrites themselves), therefore let them get on with their lives, This situation remained until the caliphate of Imam Ali who remained patient until the threat of NOT fighting the hypocrites was larger than keeping the (fragile) peace.

Now, my point is, we can't see these narrations in (i) isolation of current state of the islamic ummah, and (ii) other narrations that speak of freedom of belief and compulsion... just as the Quran is a living whole, so is the speech of the Imams . No contradictions allowed. If you have an issue with a concept and you see contradictions, know that it's a result of your/our presuppositions.

There's a logical answer to all this, we just need to put in the effort to come to that conclusion.

To answer your question, there is no sensible scholar that would call a murtadd's questioning his beliefs muharibah.

[Gypsy]

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Gypsy and anyone who's already read OP

Yet how to reconcile this with the fact that we have reports which have the death penalty for apostasy? Please read further here: http://www.tashayyu..../hudud/apostasy

The other sharia laws, even though they seemed harsh, are backed by the book in one form or the other. This one doesn't seem to be backed by the book. So I I don't see how you can reconcile the narrations/reports/traditions regarding apostasy. What's even more perplexing is that the book (Quran) is completely silent about it.

[Kamranistan]

Interestingly my dad and me discussed this yesterday briefly.

The fact that the apostasy laws don't quite add up, if it were the case that ALL apostates were to be executed, whether they be hurting the ummah (e.g. salman rushdie) or apostating but keeping to themselves. The latter doesn't make any sense to me, if an apostate is deemed an apostate but keeps to himself and doesn't affect any one and believes that Islam isn't the truth, then is his punishment still death? By reading the hadiths posted that would be the case so it would seem..

I think the argument that hits home with me is the one you mentioned in the OP - 'In the absence of the Imam, who is to be the arbiter of when a given opinion transgresses the limitation?'

This arbiter, how can he be certain that the 'freedom of speech' that Islam actually encourages would and should be suppressed in certain cases where it isn't harming the ummah? Again he would be fallible so he cannot be 100% certain of the law to be applied. I believe a 'benefit of the doubt' should be given in the absence of the Imam , surely for an apostate ruling you need to be 100% certain that it is 'right' to execute him even though he is not harming the Islamic ummah. Or maybe these hadith's are enough to be certain.

I doubt it but do we have any hadith at all that show an apostate that has been let off from death?

[macisaac]

It's a little strange to me that folks will have such a dilemma on this, yet not have a problem with said apostate burning eternally in the Fire of God's punishment.  Which is really more severe?

I don't see much difference between this and other crimes that Islam clearly punishes yet whose negative effect can be confined to the individuals involved if done privately.  Take the case of two people secretly fornicating. Clearly a sin, clearly something that if discovered would be punishable by the law, but also something that (so long as we are talking about two unattached inviduals here) doesn't really have an effect on others, and also, if done secretly with no one witnessing, though punishable by God is not punishable by man.  Why the difference?  I see apostasy a bit like this.  Criminal law cannot regulate the thoughts of the heart, so if someone inside themselves leaves the religion it's ultimately between them and God and nothing can really done about it by us.  But if that apostasy is made public, like fornication being made public (either via witnesses or self-confession), then it is punishable.  What is the difference?  One might argue that with a public display of sin (whether fornication or apostasy, which I'd regard as much more severe than the latter) you are now engaged in spreading your corruption to others.  The influence of sin in that sense can be as a disease, spreading from one to another whom it comes in contact with.  And what sin could be worse for an individual than that one which opposes the entire reason for his creation and betrays the very nature upon which man was created?  People tend to be weak, and easily fall under the influence of others.  Most people simply conform to whatever they are told to do in trying to fit in to the society that are a part of.  The harsh punishment against apostasy discourages one from considering such a step, but should he do so discourages him from spreading it to others out of fear he would be punished for it.  So it acts as a measure of protecting people from themselves.  The severity of the punishment in that light is in fact a mercy to us, to prevent us from doing something whose consequences would be the gravest of all for our eternal souls.

[Replicant]

It's a very hard law to swallow for many people (like myself), that is for sure.
Being sentenced to death for spreading your apostasy is understandable.
But being killed just for changing religion and not affecting anyone else, not violating anyone else's rights or harming them, is a very hard thing to fathom.

Edited by Replicant, 11 April 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[Gypsy]

Jebreil,
When the companions apostate from the religion of Islam, why didn't the Ahl al-Bayt (namely Imam Ali) enforce the laws of apostasy on the Muslims who backed away from Islam?

If you think Imam Ali was powerless with the Shaykhain (Abu Bakr and Umar), then explain why he let Ayesha and co go away after they rebel against Islam? He won the Jamal war and he let the people who rebelled against Islam go back home.

And what about all the Sunni Scholars from Bukhari right down to the current scholars that has perverted the Islamic teaching more than Rushdie and others like him. How come no-one said that the teaching of Sunnism is blasphemous and needs to be contained and constrained because essentially Sunnism is taking you away from the real teaching of Islam (teaching of ahl al-bayt).

Edited by Gypsy, 11 April 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[iDevonian]

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

macisaac


The argument that aspotasy can be contagious seems horribly weak. I have given reasons for it, but I would like to add more specific ones.

I agree, that was a horrible argument.  Thats the kind of opinion that makes muslims look bad.

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

- people can still spread their misconceptions and denials in private sessions - if there is no public outlet where scholars can listen, understand, discuss and debate and demonstrate these ideas to be erroneous, it would become private, where there are less scholars (if any) and where resentment against the tyranny of opinion can lead to conspiracy against the Islamic state

- a public apostate, if killed, receives some sympathy - it is a fact - a person who died for saying what he or she believed in because he or she came to that conclusion and wished to share it with others, to enlighten them as well. This creates martyrs out of the wrong people.

- Human beings are 'works in progress'. People can change sides during their development. These Laws stifle development and terrify the mind into obedience. This is not dignified. Human beings were created free to choose; however, because of my father, I am condemned to be a Muslim, or be silenced, or die.

- In the Day of Judgement all things will be made clear and justice will be served accordingly. However, in this world, things are not too clear, minds develop, thoughts need time, people convert and ideas are discussed and enriched. Most of us have made enough big mistakes before to know that it does not deserve the death penalty. Great minds, such as Avicenna and Razes, have been led astray despite their loyalty to truth and reason. That is the difference between killing someone here where truth is not transparent and punishing someone later according to the rule: "we will not burden a soul beyond its capacity".


- There is a beautiful legal principle: It is not sufficient that Justice is done. Justice must be seen to be done. People's trust in a system comes from seeing the system demonstrate itself. It is a vote of no confidence in reasoning or Islam's manifest truth that we should terrify people out of arguing against it.


- If people were meant to believe willingly, and if they refused, to be forced to feign belief, then I do not see why God gave the choice to disbelieve.

Who is to say the person would not change and return to the Imamiyya after a few more years with a stengthened faith and better understanding? Is an apostate who is 19 really deserving death? S/he still has much to learn, probably much ahead of him/her and could develop and return with deeper insight and a determined faith.

I agree with the bold statement, justice must be seen to be done.  Macisaacs opinion of course presupposes too many things about what "justice" is.

[Gypsy]

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

replicant

Thank you for your input.



Why is that understandable? Is killing someone who respectfully expresses doubts and arguments against certain Islamic beliefs and practices really so understandable, just because you or a scholar believe that these doubts and arguments are a danger to truth?

I cannot appreciate it when we pass sentences so easily. Killing for fear of other ideas is not a sign of a superior idea. We might as well force everyone to believe Islam at the point of sword - because Islam is the truth. This does not resound with me.


----------

Gypsy

Thank you for your continuing input.

Your points are valid. But allow me to give a possible countercase:

Why did Amir al-Mu'minin burn someone who believed he was god? Isn't it easier to argue against it? After all, the Qur'an is clear that God is not a human being.Why not just argue the case?

You are using a single dubious character like Ibn Saba to say that Ali implemented the law of apostasy?

Why haven't we seen more cases of people being burned for apostasy? What about Ibn Taymiyyah? My question is still valid. Why hasn't those who say Allah swt posses a corporeal body be killed for apostasy?

And again, why did Ali(as) worked with Shaykhain? He snubbed Abu Bakr and Umar for six months but later on he decided to speak to them and even work together.

And you didn't give a good explanation for Imam's Ali action regarding Ayesha and co. The Holy Prophet clearly said that those who don't recognising the Imam of time died the death of jahiliah" This is in the state of kafir. The Prophet also said that those who wage war against the ahl al-bayt are waging war against Allah swt.

If you read the Sunni books, you'll find a lot of blasphemous statements in their books. We are supposed to tolerate these books that takes you out from the true teaching of Islam? These books are far dangerous than anything you have. 80% of the Muslim in the world are misguided through these books.

I have never heard of any apostate misguiding 80% of Muslims in the world!

Edited by Gypsy, 11 April 2012 - 02:45 PM.

[Gypsy]

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Gypsy

I sympathise with this ^ post. It makes sense. But let me differentiate the cases, with possible responses:

- the actions of the Imam with the Shaykhan was because of maṣlaḥa. He did it because of the circumstances of unity - if he had stable power like the Prophet, he would confront them

Again, this is not a valid reasoning. Remember that there was never a time in Imam Ali life which was stable enough for him or the Muslims. Imam Ali became the caliph at the worse time in the Islamic history. He fought 4 wars in five years. And yet you said he had burned Ibn Saba to death for blasphemy/apostate. How many people are follower of ibn saba vs followers of Shaykhain.

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

- the actions of the Imam with Ayesha was because of her repentance, and possibly maṣlaḥa

We, Shias, don't believe that she repented. We don't really have any single evidence in our corpus that she even felt sorry for her action in the Jamal war. And she came out fighting again when they wanted to bury Imam Hassan with his grandfather.

Ali could have easily punished her in the Jamal war. And no one would blame Ali because Ayesha caused death of thousands of Muslims. Everyone knew what she did and everyone saw it with their own eyes. But, he let her go. Despite the Holy Prophet saying that those who fight Ali are disbelievers.

And what about Kharajites who were probably the earliest apostates in the Islamic history. Ali fought them but not because of apostasy but because they were going around murdering people. http://researchintoo...abel/Kharijites

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

- the actions of the Imams after Imam Ali was one of weakness. They pronounced rulings, but they could not carry them out

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

- the actions of the Shia after the martyrdom of Imam al-Husayn was one of weakness. They could not confront scholars of the awām like ibn Taymiyya

I don't know about that. As far as I know, even the non-Shia scholars think ibn Taymiyyah was a bit crazy with his idea of a walking and a sitting god. And it was the Sunnis who first brought Ibn Taymiyyah in for questioning about his faith.

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

- however, if the Shia found someone amongst themselves who apostasised and rejected the Messenger of God, it seems they were commanded to kill the person

I don't know about this. Do you know the number of Ghulats who used to circle around our Imams? These Ghulats were condemned by our Imams and we are told to stay away from them. I am not sure how many of them were killed though. But you can correct me on this if you have a reference to this.

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

It seems that the Murji'a were condemned as kafir, even though they believed in God, the Prophet, the Qur'an and practiced the Shari'a. It seems rash if a Shi'a developed Murji'ite tendencies, for us to do takfir on them - but I find it incomprehensible that their blood would be permissible? Would we force them into silence because of that, bar them from expressing their views on pain of punishment?

In general people who promoted false belief about Islam and the the ahl al-bayt were condemned by our Imams. The list of those who were condemned is very long which included Kharajite, Murjiyah, Zaydis Batris, Sufis, Ghulats, Ismailis and also Sunnis (mostly their leaders/scholars).

The Imams in general told the people to stay away from them and not listen to their false doctrine even though it may seem attractive to you. They didn't promote killing anyone; they speak about harsh punishments awaiting those who perverted the pure teaching of Islam. But again most of our Imams never become caliph of land. The one that did rule the nation like Imam Ali was not interested to prosecute deviant people because of their faith.

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

What if a Shi'a became a Qur'anist? Would they be outside the fold of Islam? They've rejected the wilaya, the sunna, a lot of the shari'a, and do tafsir bir-ra'y. But is their blood permissible? Must they be silenced from giving arguments?

I think you can easily counter all their arguments without shedding anyone's blood. All you need to do is present facts. Present Islam and clarify their misunderstanding. No need to kill people who are extremely ignorant about Islam. Even if they choose to stick with their version of the Islamic religion then you can't do much.

Edited by Gypsy, 11 April 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[Gypsy]

Did the Ghulat got his head smashed? As far as I remember from my reading, we had lots of Ghulats in the past. Any documented case of any ghulats having their head smashed?

Also, we still have some Ghulats in the modern time living in Syria. They enjoy the freedom of religion. No Shia scholars have pronounced death fatwa on them.

Edited by Gypsy, 11 April 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Gypsy]

I am asking if the directive from the Imam was carried out or not. So far you only have one single report of someone being killed for apostasy.

I've given you plenty of examples where people were not killed for turning against Islam. I honestly don't know why we have conflicting report on this issue. Isn't this the reason why you started this topic? To find out where we stand?

Edited by Gypsy, 11 April 2012 - 04:24 PM.