121 replies to this topic

[.InshAllah.]

The effect of the apsotacy laws on the Islamic world is difficult to judge.  For all we know, without these laws Islam would be weaker today and there would be fewer muslims.  Take Ibn Saba, if Imam Ali hadnt killed him, would there be far more people who take Imam Ali to be God today?  Maybe.  For all we know, killing Ibn Saba saved hundreds of thousands of Muslims from misguidance over the last 1400 years.  Given that the historical effects of these laws is difficult to judge, I wouldnt be surprised if their effects were overall positive.  But if they were overall positive, then thats an argument in their favour.  Of course it could be that the effects of these laws were beneficial in the past, but not so in the present.

Edited by .InshAllah., 11 April 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[.InshAllah.]

Im starting with the assumption that these are divine laws, and Im asking myself 'what would justify these laws?'.  There isnt any reason to believe that forcing everyone to be muslim by the sword is a divine law, so the question doesnt arise.  But in any case its harder to see how following such a law would be overall beneficial compared to following apostacy laws, because it involves more force and coercion, and consequently people are more likely to rebel against it.  For all we know, such a law would be overall detrimental.

[Replicant]

It's an interesting topic.

Let's say there is a person who believed in 'Religion X', and lived in a country that was run by this religion.
Let's say he converted to Islam and according to the laws of 'Religion X', he had to be killed for apostasy.
All of us Muslims around the world would be protesting outside the embassys of this country and accusing this country of oppression, violating human rights and killing people just because of their beliefs and not having freedom.

However, when an Islamic State kills apostates, then some Muslims think that is fine.
I find that inconsistent.

Edited by Replicant, 11 April 2012 - 06:43 PM.

[.InshAllah.]

Replicant, on 11 April 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

It's an interesting topic.

Let's say there is a person who believed in 'Religion X', and lived in a country that was run by this religion.
Let's say he converted to Islam and according to the laws of 'Religion X', he had to be killed for apostasy.
All of us Muslims around the world would be protesting outside the embassys of this country and accusing this country of oppression, violating human rights and killing people just because of their beliefs and not having freedom.

However, when an Islamic State kills apostates, then some Muslims think that is fine.
I find that inconsistent.

If the principle was 'It's fine for a state to kill apostates from the religion of that state' then yes, there would be inconsistency.  But that isnt the principle.  The principle is 'It's fine to kill apostates from Islam'.  Someone who believes the latter is not inconsistent in objecting to the killing of converts to Islam because there is no contradiction involved.  Such a person may reason: its right to convert to the true religion, and evil to kill converts to the true religion.  Islam is the true religion, so its evil to kill converts to Islam.

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

But the rationale for the laws of apostasy was: For all we know, killing Ibn Saba saved hundreds of thousands of Muslims from misguidance over the last 1400 years

The advocate of apostacy laws may think like this.

[Person a] Hadith say apostates should be killed, so we should kill apostates.
[Person b] Why do we have such laws?
[Person a] For all we know the effects of these laws has been overall positive.

Quote

But by forcing the Christians and Jews of Arabia to become Muslim (rather than just pay jizya), the Prophet would also save hundreds of thousands from being trinitarians and other errors. This would not need any force beyond the capacity they already had.

[Person a] But he didnt.
[Person b] Why?
[Person a] For all we know the effects of such actions would have been overall negative

Quote

The utilitarian logic can be applied in both situations. My point is: do the ends really justify the means here?

Note that its not the consequentialist logic that is the ultimate reason to believe such laws, its the hadith.  The consequentialist logic is just there to help in understanding these laws.   Do the ends justify the means?  For all we know, yes.

Quote

This rationale, by itself, does not appear to me to be excellent. (but thank you for bringing it up) First, it is presumptive.

We're not starting from a blank slate and trying to figure out with reason alone what the laws should be.  We are starting from the assumption that apostacy laws are divine laws (based on hadith), and then thinking about what would justify them.  This process of trying to figure out a rational justification can be presumptive, because its not the source of our acceptance of the apostacy laws (hadith are).

Quote

Second, it could be applied to other non-existent laws.

But there would be no reason to accept these non-existent laws (there are no hadith or verses about them), and probably good reason to reject them.

Quote

Third, Gypsy gave examples where the Prophet or the Imams or Shi'i scholars did not confront certain persons despite the fact that they are the reason why 80% of the Muslim population today are misguided.

For all we know, confronting them would have done more damage than good.

Quote

Fourth, and this is crucial, it relies on force and fear to save the truth, and there is something deeply unsettling about that. Other counterarguments have been presented before.

Its not always wrong to save the truth by fear or force.  Doesnt the Quran threaten those who spread lies about the truth with hell?  When the value of whats at stake is very great, threats of punishment can be justified.  You said that speech that endangers the existence of an Islamic state can warrant the application of apostacy laws. But for all we know, without these laws there would be no Islam state at all, because Islam would be weaker, there would be fewer muslims, or fewer Shia.

Quote

I cannot uphold that the laws of apostasy make sense, because it presupposes Islam is clearly and obviously true to everyone.

Not necessarily.  It could be the case that most apostates are not evil in their apostacy, but given the damage they would do by professing their apostacy in the long run, killing them is the right thing to do.

nb, in saying the above Im not professing any opinion on the ultimate validity of the apostacy laws which depends amongst other things on a comprehensive investigation of Islamic texts.

I suppose I should also point out that Im not advocating that anyone should go out and kill or harm apostates.

Edited by .InshAllah., 11 April 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Replicant]

.InshAllah., on 11 April 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

If the principle was 'It's fine for a state to kill apostates from the religion of that state' then yes, there would be inconsistency.  But that isnt the principle.  The principle is 'It's fine to kill apostates from Islam'.  Someone who believes the latter is not inconsistent in objecting to the killing of converts to Islam because there is no contradiction involved.  Such a person may reason: its right to convert to the true religion, and evil to kill converts to the true religion.  Islam is the true religion, so its evil to kill converts to Islam.

Put it this way - if we were not Muslims, we would deem Muslim countries who kill apostates as violating human rights.
If a 'Christian State' killed apostates who were turning into Muslims, we would be protesting against this country for oppression.

At the end of the day, all religions believe they are correct.
A Christian State may kill people who apostasize because they believe Christianity is the true religion and it's a crime to believe in anything else.
A Jewish State may kill people who apostasize because they believe Judaism is the true religion and it's a crime to believe in anything else.
An Islamic State may kill people who apostasize because they believe Islam is the true religion and it's a crime to believe in anything else.

As long as you're not harming anyone else and not violating anyone else's rights, then I find it hard to fathom why you should be killed for changing your religion.

God knows best.

Edited by Replicant, 11 April 2012 - 07:29 PM.

[thecontentedself]

Guys, guys you need to take a step back here.

There are fundamental definitive muhkam laws in the Qur'an that state 'no compulsion in religion, the right path is clearrly distinct from the crooked', 'come together to a common word..' etc

Any hadith that goes against these verses must be anaylsed further and put along side other narrations dealing with the same subject. as I said before, you have to understand the context of these narrations and the verify the Prophets' or Imams' intentions with either applying or not applying these laws. Remember any narration going against what the Quran states, is worthless.

Now apparently there are narrations with this regard related to Ibn Abi 'l-'Awjã' (during the days of Imam Ja'far as-Sãdiq) and Ishãq al-Kindi (during the days of Imam Hasan al-'Askari). I couldn't find them, maybe someone can help. But the basic idea is that once you've accpted Islam, and you're alligned with your fitrah, there's no turning back. That's a fact as well. Treason comes to mind. Now treason is punishable by death in some countries. Do you get the same outrage about that as you do for apostacy?

Another thing that comes to mind is Salman Rushdie. But this goes back to my point about muharibah, and therefore 'to us', it makes more sense that the death penalty should be upheld. Tainting the purity of Islam in such a way goes beyond just keeping yourself to yourself or your family and announcing Islam isn't for you....

Another thing, if a person has been through the effort and time (in some cases risking total rejection from his family and near ones) to accept Islam, announces it to the world, and then rejects it after some time...what kind of submission is that? could we consider that person serious in his pursuit? can we consider people born into Islam and never having practised the religion TRUE apostates? Compare that to those that publicly reject and denounce Islam after leaving it and therby causing fitnah...

Some stuff to think about...

some more background (from Seyyed M Rizvi):

Quote

Murtad can be of two types: fitri and milli.
(1) Murtad Fitri means a person born of a Muslim parent and then he rejects Islam. Fitri means nature or natural. The term "murtad fitri" implies that the person has apostated from his nature, the nature of believing in God.
(2) "Murtad Milli" means a person who converted to Islam and then later on he rejects Islam. Milli is from millat which means a community. The term "murtad milli" implies that the person has apostated from his community.

In the first case, the apostacy is like treason against God; whereas in the second case, the apostacy is like treason against the Muslim community. Probably, that is why there is also a difference in dealing with these two kinds of murtads:

A former kãfir who became a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Milli) is given a second chance; if he repents, then he is not to be killed.

But one who is born as a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Fitri) he is to be killed even if he repents. His repentance might be accepted by Allãh but he still has to go through the punishment prescribed for his treason in this world.

This punishment is only applicable in case of apostacy by men; in case of women, the punishment is not death but life imprisonment. And if such a woman repents, then her repentance is accepted and the punishment is suspended.

In the writings of some of the mujtahideen, I have sensed that the punishment of a murtad is to be implemented only in dãru 'l-Islãm (i.e., the Muslim world) and not if the murtad flees to dãru 'l-kufr (i.e., the abode of kufr).
What are the sources for these laws?

The sources on which these punishments have been outlined in the sharí'a are the authentic and reliable ahãdíth from the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Those who know Arabic and have the aptitude to handle the fiqh istidlãli text may refer to the late Ayatullãh al-Khu'i's Takmilatu Minhãju 's-Salihiyn, vol. 1, pp. 324-337 for the ahãdith used by our jurists.

This is not a new issue or a controversial one among the Shi'a jurists. Even the scholars of the past centuries had the same views; for example, Shaykh at-Tusi (d. 460 AH) in an-Nihãya; Ibn Idris (d. 598 A.H.) in as-Sarã'ir; Ibn Hamza at-Tusi in al-Wasila, al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli (d. 676 A.H.) in Sharãya'u 'l-Islãm, al-'Allãma al-Hilli (d. 726 A.H.) in Qawã'idu 'l-Ahkãm, and the First Martyr (d. 786 A.H.) and the Second Martyr in Sharhu 'l-Lum'ati 'd-Dimishqiyya.

Those who might suspect a division on this issue between the "usuli" and the "akhbãri" schools, they should know that even the muhaddithin have chapters in their collections of hadith on "the punishment for murtad" citing the ahãdíth on this subject. See, for example, Shaykh Hurr al-'Ãmili, who has seven pages of ahãdíth under the title "abwãb haddi 'l-murtad - sections on the punishment for murtad" in volume 18 of his Wasã'ilu 'sh-Shí'a.

[Nima]

Punishment for an Apostate in Islam

http://www.revivinga...e-in-islam.html

[repenter]

:Sami, on 12 April 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

my last two posts have been removed.
Looks like this site is not ready for some real TRUTH !

Because it was irrelevant, learn to keep to the subject and your posts won't be removed. And also learn some forum etiquette and stop capitalizing everything, it's both annoying and frustrating to read,

[ShiaSoldier@2007]

Islam has survived over 1400 years of wear and tear while still remaining very much intact. Its prevalence worldwide despite negative portrayal by the media just shows how powerful it is as a religion; with all this in mind, I am certain Islam should be able to withstand criticism even if it may be from ex-muslims who have more knowledge of Islam than the average Joe.

[:Sami]

repenter, on 12 April 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Because it was irrelevant, learn to keep to the subject and your posts won't be removed. And also learn some forum etiquette and stop capitalizing everything, it's both annoying and frustrating to read,

There you have it brothers and sisters , FREEDOM OF  SPEECH AND APOSTASY thread removing  freedom of speech , ironical.
Please PM me the process for me to make a complaint against you for your injustice done to my very relevant contribution.
Perhaps you like to remove this too ???

Edited by :Sami, 12 April 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[Muhammed Ali]

thecontentedself, on 12 April 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

can we consider people born into Islam and never having practised the religion TRUE apostates?

Interesting point.

{49:14} The dwellers of the desert say: We believe. Say: You do not believe but say, We submit; and faith has not yet entered into your hearts;..

Jebreil, on 12 April 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Could it be that the concept of murtadd refers to a more sinister individual who apostasises spitefully in order to weaken the religion rather than a public change of religion or arguing against Islam? But what would spitefully mean? And can this interpretation be proven?

I think this is the opinion that Shaykh Arif Abdulhussain holds. Have a listen to his 'Human Islam' series of lectures on Youtube, from what I remember he speaks about it in one of the earlier lectures in the series.

[Muhammed Ali]

It would be good to know how the fuqaha reconcile those ahadtih (on killing apostates) with the counter evidence which suggests that they should not necessarily be killed. Zareen has mentioned some of that evidence and here is some more to consider:

According to some scholars verse 2:56 was revealed because two Muslim men converted to Christianity.

Quote

There was a man from Medina by the name of Abu-Haseen who had two sons. Some of the Christian merchants, who used to import merchandise from abroad into Medina, invited those two lads to Christianity whenever they met them in Medina. Those two young men were seriously affected by them, too.

Abu-Haseen became very inconvenient from that condition. He went to the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and, informing him the matter, requested him to bring those children back to their own religion. He asked whether he could bring them forcefully to Islam. Then, the verse was revealed and manifested this fact that there is no compulsion in accepting the religion.

www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/quran/light/light_03/002/256.htm

These is also this well known Sunni hadith that is often quoted by those who appose the death penalty. I have heard some knowledgeable Shia also quoting it but I don't know if it is in our books.

Quote

Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 316:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam and the bedouin got a fever where upon he said to the Prophet "Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. He came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my Pledge.' But the Prophet refused. Then (the bedouin) left (Medina). Allah's Apostle said: "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good."

Edited by Muhammed Ali, 12 April 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[MFAHH]

In the Quran 5:32, Allah allows the killing of a person provided the following two conditions are satisfied; the execution of said person acts as retribution for manslaughter or retribution for spreading mischief in the land. If, in Islam, there are crimes punishable by death, then they must either result in the unwarranted killings of others or rampant corruption. Therefore, if apostasy is punishable by death, then death is perhaps ultimately meant for those who use the rejection of religion as an instrument to either instigate murder or induce a frantic and widespread surge of corruption.

In light of this, I myself find it hard to believe that the Holy Prophet and the Imams would have sanctioned the execution of every person who forsakes religion regardless of them having done so in a cultured and respectable manner; with no ulterior motives in mind. Perhaps when they issued the death sentence it wasn't to combat the simple renunciation of faith per say, but instead, to tackle the problem that the overwhelming majority of those who did - in their time specifically - did so to uphold an under handed and scornful agenda.

If this is not the case, then I too would like to see how scholars reconcile the two seemingly incompatible ideas of 'no compulsion in religion' and 'death to the rejectors'.

[Gypsy]

Jebreil,
Just a note. I am not ignoring your questions. I am leaving this discussion for now. I think I have already said what I had on my mind.

Frankly I am not very satisfied with the explanations given for the reasons behind why the Imams didn't execute every apostate on sight.


I have also heard many Islamic scholars on mimbar justifying that apostasy is equal to treason and hence they deserve to be killed.


What was the worst treason in the Islamic history? The Jamal War. This is the absolutely the worst act of treason in whole the of Islamic history because it was the first time that Muslims were waging war against one another. But why wasn't the main culprit punished? No good explanation was given here.

The second reason given on why apostate should be punished with death is because their misguidance has the potential to misguide everyone. Well, we know that Imam Ali didn't really punish people who turned against Islam as soon as the Prophet passed away. In the current day, we are left with the great majority of Muslims in the world who are not only misguided but also are misguiding everyone daily.

The reasoning given was for the sake of Unity. For the sake of Unity, Imam Ali didn't punished people who apostate, who turned against Islam after the death of the Prophet and also through act of treason. The irony of this statement is that we didn't have unity back then and we don't have unity right now.


Like, I said, all the explanations given are not satisfactory to me and I don't think there are good explanations for this. So, I guess I am done.


But you guys can carry on.

[.InshAllah.]

Jebreil, on 11 April 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Inshallah


Thank you for the continuing contribution.

My response to Person 'a' would be: no, we don't know. You suppose.

Im not sure I understand this response.  'for all we know.. x' entails that we dont know x.  What it means is that its an open possibility.

Quote

Assuming the hadith, you asked for a possible justification - that the law was the means producing an overall positive consequence (the end) and, because good ends justify the means, therefore the consequence justifies the law.

However, you are implictly presuming that the ends justify the means. We have no naṣṣ that this is so. The ends do not always justify the means. The laws against torture teach us that.

Its true that they dont always justify the means, but they do sometimes.  And its not clear to me that this is one of those cases in which the ends do not justify the means.  Which is why I say 'for all we know...'

Quote

But one problem I have with the rationale is that you are speculating that this is the reason for the law. But is it? This is why I call it presumptive.

Its sufficient for it to be an open possibility that it is the case.

Quote

If your rationale is what creates that law, it should create the other law. I fail to see a difference. The rationale yields both results.

As I explained, the rationale is not what creates the law, rather the hadith do.  The rationale is just an attempt to explain it.

Quote

I struggle to see why God just didn't create everyone Muslim if He wanted people to be forced to believe or have their voices silenced on pain of severe punishment.  

Freedom is important and valuable, but too much can be destructive, eg the freedom to be openly racist.  God knows the what the right amount is.