Punishment For Converting From Islam?

[Recursion]

Hi,  hope all is well. 

 

I am a first time poster in this forum would like to thank everyone for this opportunity. 

 

Although this may seem a random topic to discuss on my first post, the recent news regarding the 'likely' hanging of the Sudanese ex Muslim convert has inevitably and unavoidably given rise to this jurisprudential issue.   

 

My question is in relation to apostasy (conversion from Islam to a different belief system) in Islam and the associated punishment. I would like to gain a more comprehensive and in depth understanding about this particular ruling and the reasoning behind it.

 

I believe in religious freedom and feel that this ruling defies the essence of human rights and does great damage to those whom endeavor to seek the truth.  I do however acknowledge that there is wide a variation of viewpoints within and between the Islamic sects. Nonetheless, even with the most moderate ruling (imprisonment) I have been struggling to fit this ruling within the realms of a logical and rationale framework.  

 

Kindest regards,

 

 

[mahdi servant.01]

salum alykum

first of all we should take into consideration that it is not true that every kinds of apostasy would be sentenced to hanging. And this punishment would apply for those apostates who try to affect others by their announcements. And this seems reasonable. Why? Because you benefit freedom and there is no compulsion to stick to your former religion while the society is also safe. This is to defend any sinister and political method which wants to weaken and overcome  the faith of ordinary and not educated people in society.

And this not only the religion of Islam that execute such extreme penalty for apostasy in order to avoid general misguidance and deviation in the community, the essence of this ruling says : although there is room for questions upon the theological issues and doubts, we are not allowed to share our dubious thoughts with lay people. And though there is possibility  to change our religion we are not permitted to announce the conversion because it may affect others.

I really appreciate your criticism and ideas about this explanation.

best regards,

[El Cid]

salum alykum

first of all we should take into consideration that it is not true that every kinds of apostasy would be sentenced to hanging. And this punishment would apply for those apostates who try to affect others by their announcements. And this seems reasonable. Why? Because you benefit freedom and there is no compulsion to stick to your former religion while the society is also safe. This is to defend any sinister and political method which wants to weaken and overcome  the faith of ordinary and not educated people in society.

And this not only the religion of Islam that execute such extreme penalty for apostasy in order to avoid general misguidance and deviation in the community, the essence of this ruling says : although there is room for questions upon the theological issues and doubts, we are not allowed to share our dubious thoughts with lay people. And though there is possibility  to change our religion we are not permitted to announce the conversion because it may affect others.

I really appreciate your criticism and ideas about this explanation.

best regards,

 

Best explaination I have read on any forum, the others were more about the law of God is not meant to be criticized and some hadiths about apostates and their fate. Keep it up, brother.

[mahdi servant.01]

Best explaination I have read on any forum, the others were more about the law of God is not meant to be criticized and some hadiths about apostates and their fate. Keep it up, brother.

thank you brother. but I think it still needs to be enriched with some examples from other religions, how do they encounter the apostate according to their costumes?

Fee Amane Allah 

[Recursion]

Thank you for your contribution. 

 

Before I reply I would like to quickly add that you have somewhat reiterated the position many Muslim scholars generally hold.  In saying this, I feel there is a number of flaws or absurdities with the theory/reason behind such a ruling and the subsequent practice of punishment for apostasy. 

 

Although this is not a reply directly to your post but rather a chronological assessment of the general argument posed regarding apostasy (including your point and of others i.e Ammar nakshawani etc). Let me explain my position. 

 

Firstly, the fact that apostasy may potentially warrant punishment is absurd in itself given that we live in the modern era where freedom of belief is one of the most basic of human rights. Some may argue that religion is a product or by product of local culture and socio-political and economic factors. Whilst religious indoctrination has seemingly adapted to the 'the time's i.e culture, education, environment and region, these factors have lead to changes or shifts in thinking and for this reason can also adapt to the modern era or liberal ideals of the 21st century just like it has been adapting for thousands of years. You only have to observe the difference between Judaism and Islam to identify how much more enlighten islamic indoctrination is as compared to more earlier religious belief systems.

 

Article 18 of the UN human rights act states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Thus, regardless of whether or not you are hanged, stoned or even pardoned there should be no debate as to whether an apostate, in this case, simply leaving the religion should be punished.

 

Secondly, even if there is no punishment for apostasy per se, I would like to challenge the point that an individual has no right to publicly disclose or challenge their former belief system as it is flawed on many levels.  Academics across a variety of different disciplines recognize  that theory and practice albeit somewhat synonymous are categorically different. This difference is significant, for example, scholars of academia continuously develop new theories and models for which they must use various empirical methods of investigation to either verify or falsify its theoretical and practical basis (usually with no less than 95% certainty). Thus, if you take a religious ruling such as that of the punishment of apostasy and its associated reasoning behind it, that is, you do not have the right to disclose your new religion publicly because it can cause uncertainty among religious believers is flawed since this reasoning has not been tested empirically and on this basis lacks any evidence.  If you take European countries for example, individuals have the freedom of belief but also the freedom to challenge social, cultural, economical and religious systems yet there is no real problem like that suggested in Islam (in this case). You could argue that Islam is outgrowing Christianity in Europe and for this reason illustrates why converts away from Islam should not be allowed to publicly disclose their new belief in fear that it causes uncertainty. However, this leads to several other moral and ethical complications such as freedom to express ones belief, to teach it and to promote it.  Furthermore, if individuals changing belief systems and publicly announcing it causes instability then so be it since societal advancement is not only in the hands of governments but also at the hands of the people too.

 

Consequently this idea that punishment for announcing (includes challenging former belief etc) your religion prevents as you say '' any sinister and political method which wants to weaken and overcome  the faith of ordinary and not educated people in society'' is unacceptable since there is a lack of real world evidence to suggest that the annunciation of a new belief leads to negative implications according to Islamic rulings. For this reason I unfortunately have to strongly disagree with you that the prescribed punishment for 'announcing' your new belief warrants death is 'reasonable' since it is not based on evidence (that announcing your new religion has implications on society) and thus cannot be considered 'reasonable' because it keeps the society 'safe' 'affects others' and 'avoid general misguidance and deviation in the community'. The religious definition of 'misguidance' is an opinion and not a fact and thus religion cannot police peoples beliefs because they differ from that of the status quo since no authority gave one definition of misguidance precedence over another. My belief that an individual is misguided is just as valid as the opposing view.

 

I of course, as you may have realized, will not accept, as one of the members above stated, that we cannot criticize this ruling because it was ordained by an all mighty, all knowing deity. This is not an argument that can be put forth to support this ruling since it is an opinion and not a fact. (Please excuse me if this sounds offensive).  I strongly hold the position that sometimes we need to take a step back and look at the practical implications of a particular theory and in this case, this theory may have some face validity but no ecological validity which is extremely critical.

 

Thirdly, the pointing fingers argument is also invalid and adds no real value in this type of discussion. Regardless of whether the punishment for apostasy is evident in other religions does not make this ruling any more acceptable. I think that when anyone states ''this not only  the religion of Islam that execute such extreme penalty for apostasy in order to avoid general misguidance and deviation in the community'' I find utterly disrespectful to my intellect since I could read it as .... the religion of peace (Islam) is not the only religion that executes apostates''. Does anyone else who holds an impartial, non-prejudice and non bias position see the contradiction/problem with this?

 

My last point and one that has intrigued me is this notion that we can all question and challenge religious indoctrination yet we must all come to one final conclusion that fits within the realms of a particular belief system, in this case, Islam. I will not expand on this point since I want to discuss apostasy itself although this notion is a point of debate within all aspects of theology and one that I felt was important to address.

 

Once again thank you, 

[HamzaTR]

Salam. Before your queries are answered, please refer to the related threads on this forum:

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235022459-woman-sentenced-for-apostasy-and-adultery/

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235018516-saeed-abedini-life-threatening-situation-in-iran/

 

ma salam

[Recursion]

HamzaTR, I have read them already. Although useful, these threads were case specific. I would like to have a discussion purely related to the reasoning behind the punishment for apostasy since it seems that those who accept this ruling cannot see beyond the theoretical rhetoric. I have yet to see a response that provides any moral and logically justification for this ruling. 

[mahdi servant.01]

I would like to appreciate your contribution as well , thanking  the time you devoted to answering my post, with nice and well-ordered writing.

But before I get to the ideas you raised, I would prefer to give priority to establish a mutual agreement about  the religion per se. Let's evaluate our construction of religion. As a matter of fact believers in comparison with faith and belief, are of various types.

1. Some believe in religion because they found, this is the exclusive way they could go by their life in the religious society. They are more hypocrites rather than believers. 
2. Some believe in religion because they found their spiritual aspect needs to be answered, and believing in a supernatural being gives them tranquility. This division even is confirmed partially by psychologists though they do not believe in Shariah; 
3. Some believe in a religion because they see themselves encountering eternal life, having no idea how they could gain prosperity accompanied with a lot of questions. In such situation every single information they receive from the religion put them one step forward. In this section believers are obedient to the religion because they confess there are lots of things which are beyond the human reasoning whether they live in the modern time or the dark ages of ignorance.

Thank you for your contribution. 

 

Firstly, the fact that apostasy may potentially warrant punishment is absurd in itself given that we live in the modern era where freedom of belief is one of the most basic of human rights. Some may argue that religion is a product or by product of local culture and socio-political and economic factors. Whilst religious indoctrination has seemingly adapted to the 'the time's i.e culture, education, environment and region, these factors have lead to changes or shifts in thinking and for this reason can also adapt to the modern era or liberal ideals of the 21st century just like it has been adapting for thousands of years. You only have to observe the difference between Judaism and Islam to identify how much more enlighten islamic indoctrination is as compared to more earlier religious belief systems.

 

Regarding what I mentioned in the third part, this is only the religion which has right to say to us what to do and what not to do, not the product which come out of the limited mind of human. Since our reasoning has no access to the hereafter world it seems absurd to take its advice pertaining to the issues like changing the religion that may cause eternal felicity and misery. Thus the UN articles have nothing to do with these issues.

 

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

 

Of course the organization constituted based on the human rights regardless the creature who has created him and sent prophets to guide him toward the right path, may issue such articles; but simple question to be replied by your conscience, bro: what is the role of religion in our eternal life? And if the religion itself in any type of it, whether Islam or Christianity could bestow us the perfect instruction, what is the reasoning behind this huge interreligious discussions? isn't it because every one of them claim that will guarantee the heaven and others are going wrong??

 

Secondly, even if there is no punishment for apostasy per se, I would like to challenge the point that an individual has no right to publicly disclose or challenge their former belief system as it is flawed on many levels.  Academics across a variety of different disciplines recognize  that theory and practice albeit somewhat synonymous are categorically different.

This idea is really far from what we are discussing about. Do you really think that the responsibility that the religion carry out is similar to what a physician or a scientist does? To test empirically a sort of operations on the laboratory mouse in the experimental atmosphere in order to come to the best option?! Or to examine different hypothesizes concerning the humanistic topics in order to set up a theory? The approach we take regarding the religious issues is not like that of other scientific ones? The outcome of proved experimental theories still might be wrong insofar .indeed it is not absolute and the extent of its effect is limited to this world, but changing the religion might result in eternal misery therefor this this idea that 'you do not have the right to disclose your new religion publicly because it can cause uncertainty among religious believers is flawed since this reasoning has not been tested empirically and on this basis lacks any evidence' sounds awkward.

Thirdly, the pointing fingers argument is also invalid and adds no real value in this type of discussion. Regardless of whether the punishment for apostasy is evident in other religions does not make this ruling any more acceptable.

With respect to what you said in this part, I want to appreciate your point. It was somehow slip of tongue. I really meant other religion may apply this ruling as well.

 

Many thanks,

Edited June 4, 2014 by mahdi servant.01

[mahdi servant.01]

HamzaTR, I have read them already. Although useful, these threads were case specific. I would like to have a discussion purely related to the reasoning behind the punishment for apostasy since it seems that those who accept this ruling cannot see beyond the theoretical rhetoric. I have yet to see a response that provides any moral and logically justification for this ruling. 

 

what happened to you brother, you looked curious, looking for the truth, specially with your nice former reply!

[openmind 2020]

what happened to you brother, you looked curious, looking for the truth, specially with your nice former reply!

good answer bro, but could you please give some examples from other religions?

[GermanShia]

Interesting