> Apostasy in Islam

[Qatada]

Why in Islam Death is Punishment for Apostasy?

(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

(3) By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

(4) The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

(5) If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

(6) None of those who bleat about personal freedom and freedom of belief would put up with a neighbour’s child hitting their child or justify this as "personal freedom," so how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

Source: Why Death is Punishment for Apostasy?

Why should a person who disbelieves after becoming Muslim be executed?

The punishment for apostasy from the religion of Islam is execution. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever”

[al-Baqarah 2:217]

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh. What this hadeeth means is that whoever leaves Islam and changes to another religion and persists in that and does not repent, is to be executed. It was also proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a person who bears witness that there is no god but Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah except in three cases: a life for a life, a previously-married person who commits adultery, and one who leaves Islam and forsakes the jamaa’ah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

This harsh punishment is for a number of reasons:

1 – This punishment is a deterrent to anyone who wants to enter Islam just to follow the crowd or for hypocritical purposes. This will motivate him to examine the matter thoroughly and not to proceed unless he understands the consequences of that in this world and in the Hereafter. The one who announces his Islam has agreed to adhere to all the rulings of Islam of his own free will and consent, one of which rulings is that he is to be executed if he apostatizes from the faith.

2 – The one who announces his Islam has joined the jamaa’ah (main body) of the Muslims, and whoever joins the main body of the Muslims is required to be completely loyal and to support it and protect it against anything that may lead to fitnah or destroy it or cause division. Apostasy from Islam means forsaking the jamaa’ah and its divine order, and has a harmful effect on it. Execution is the greatest deterrent that will prevent people from committing such a crime.

3 – Those Muslims who are weak in faith and others who are against Islam may think that the apostate has only left Islam because of what he has found out about its real nature, because if it were the truth then he would never have turned away from it. So they learn from him all the doubts, lies and fabrications which are aimed at extinguishing the light of Islam and putting people off from it. In this case executing the apostate is obligatory, in order to protect the true religion from the defamation of the liars and to protect the faith of its adherents and remove obstacles from the path of those who are entering the faith.

4 – We also say that the death penalty exists in the modern laws of man to protect the system from disorder in some situation and to protect society against certain crimes which may cause its disintegration, such as drugs etc. If execution can serve as a deterrent to protect man-made systems, then it is more appropriate that the true religion of Allaah, which Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it [cf. Fussilat 41:42], and which is all goodness, happiness and tranquility in this world and in the Hereafter should punish those who commit acts of aggression against it and seek to extinguish its light and defame its image, and who fabricate lies against it to justify their apostasy and deviation.

Source: Why should a person who disbelieves after becoming Muslim be executed?

[Qatada]

asalamu alaikum wr wb

Some of the rulings on apostasy and apostates

Firstly:

The Muslim should not incline more towards one scholarly opinion rather than another just because it is in accordance with his whims and desires or his reasoning. Rather he has to accept the ruling based on evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is essential to put the texts and rulings of sharee’ah before all else.

Secondly:

Apostasy (riddah) and going out of Islam are things that may be done in the heart, on the tongue or in one's actions.

Apostasy may take place in the heart, such as disbelieving in Allaah, or believing that there is another creator alongside Allaah, or hating Allaah or His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Apostasy may take the form of words spoken on the tongue, such as defaming Allaah or the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Or apostasy may take the form of outward physical actions, such as prostrating to an idol, mistreating the Mus-haf, or not praying.

The apostate (murtadd) is worse than one who is a kaafir in the first place.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, refuting the pantheistic belief of the Baatinis:

It is well known that the kaafir Tatars are better than these (Baatinis), because the latter are apostates from Islam, of the worst type of apostates. The apostate is worse than one who is a kaafir in the first place in many aspects.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 1/193

Secondly:

Not every Muslim who falls into kufr is a kaafir and apostate. There are reasons why a Muslim may be excused and not judged to be a kaafir, for example: ignorance, misunderstanding, being forced, and making mistakes.

With regard to the first, a man may be ignorant of the ruling of Allaah, because he lives far from the Muslim lands, such as one who grows up in the desert or in a kaafir land, or has only recently come to Islam. This may include many of those Muslims who live in societies where ignorance prevails and knowledge is scarce. These are the ones concerning whom the questioner is confused as to whether they are to be judged as kaafirs and executed.

The second reason is if a person interprets the ruling of Allaah in a manner not intended by the Lawgiver, such as those who blindly follow the people of bid’ah (innovation) in their misinterpretations, such as the Murji’ah, Mu’tazilah, Khawaarij and the like.

The third reason is if an oppressor overwhelms a Muslim and will not let him go until he makes a blatant statement of kufr out loud in order to ward off the torture, when his heart is at ease with faith.

The fourth is when words of kufr come to one's lips without meaning it.

Not everyone who is ignorant about wudoo’ and prayer can be excused, when he seed the Muslims establishing prayer and praying regularly, and he can read and hear the verses on prayer. What is preventing him from praying or from asking about how it is done and what its essential conditions are?

Fourthly:

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

Source: Some of the rulings on apostasy and apostates

[Qatada]

There is a narration which many people misunderstand or take out of context, and think that it is punishment for apostasy. I will quote the text and then show the explanation below insha Allah:

Sahih Bukhari:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794:

Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Explanation:

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...conceptions#18

Bukhari: Some people from `Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle (pbuh) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones. (Volume 2, Book 24, Number 577)

This narration is often quoted in order to present the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who delivered exceedingly cruel and barbaric punishments. Let us examine the narration more closely along with other narrations of the same event. The narration states the following:

-Some people from Urayna (or Ukil) tribe came to Madinah after accepting Islam

-They acquired an illness due to the climate, for which the Arabs used to drink milk and urine of camels as medicine

-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) allowed them to go to the herds of camels for their medicine

-After recovering from their illness, they killed the sheperd and drove away the camels

-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered their hands and feet cut off, their eyes branded with heated pieces of iron, and they were left in the desert

It is clear that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prescribed the hands and feet to be cut off in accordance with the Islamic laws concerning hirabah (armed robbery). What doesn't appear in this narration is the reason for branding their eyes with heated pieces of iron. This is explained in other narrations where it states that this was the punishment because they had done the same thing to the sheperd whom they killed. As Shaykh Abdul Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef states about this narration:

It should be made clear that those people who came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were Muslims and they were sick. The Prophet advised them to go to the herd of camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). When they became healthy, they killed the herder of the Prophet and drove away all the camels that were allocated for sadaqah (charity). When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came to know about this, he applied the punishment for Hirabah on them. Hiraba means killing people, robbing their money or raping women by an armed group of people. The punishment for Hirabah is mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah says:

“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom” (Al-Ma’idah: 33).

As for branding their eyes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) branded the eyes of the people of `Ukl or `Uraina with iron because they killed the herder and branded his eyes with iron. Imam Ibn Hajar stated the differences of opinions among scholars and he said, “The killing that took place (that is, in reference to the above hadith) was in retaliation and Allah Almighty says,

‘And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you’ (Al-Baqarah: 194).”

All in all, using this story as evidence in favor of the permissibility of torturing people in Islam is refuted by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applied the punishment for Hirabah on them and that he did not do so for personal vengeance. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Likwise, Moiz Amjad writes:

There is only one part of the referred narrative, which raises a question-mark in one's mind. It apparently seems strange that after having implemented the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an for crimes committed against the society, in general, why did the Prophet (pbuh) ordered their eyes to be branded. Most of the narratives do not provide an answer to this question. However, in one of the narratives reported in Ibn Al-Jarood's Al-Muntaqa, Anas (ra) is reported to have explained the reason for this punishment as well. The companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:

The Prophet (pbuh) branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen. (volume 1, Pg. 216)

This explanation adequately clarifies the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered the branding the eyes of the culprits, in compliance with the Qur'anic directive of Qisas (Al-Baqarah 2: 178, Al-Maidah 5: 45) for the punishment of murder and inflicting physical injury on someone. In view of the foregoing explanation, I find no reason to consider the incident narrated in the referred narrative to be unauthentic. (SOURCE)

[Qatada]

continued...

Shaykh Muhammad al-Qann?s, a Professor at Al-Imam University (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), places the narration in perspective by presenting the views of the various Muslim scholars:

The above mentioned had?th is narrated in Sah?h al-Bukh?r? (6802) and Sah?h Muslim (1671). It reads:

Some people belonging (to the tribe) of `Uraynah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) at Mad?nah, but they found its climate uncongenial. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to them: If you so like, you may go to the camels that are part of the charity and drink their milk and urine. They did so and were all right. They then fell upon the shepherds and killed them and turned apostates from Islam and drove off the camels of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This news reached Allah?s Apostle (peace be upon him) and he sent (people) on their track and they were (brought) and handed over to him. He got their hands cut off, and their feet, and put out their eyes, and threw them on the stony ground until they died.


The scholars disagree among themselves on this punishment:

1. Some said: This punishment was in retaliation for their act and the Prophet (peace be upon him) punished them in the same way that they killed the shepherds. It is mentioned in Sah?h Muslim

?The Prophet (peace be upon him) put out their eyes because they put out the eyes of the shepherds?.The people concerned in studying the Prophet?s (peace be upon him) military career said: They dismembered the shipyards. Ibn al-Qayyim said: ?It is extracted from the story of al-`Ar?niy?n tribe that the criminal will be subject to the same act similar to the one he perpetrated, when they put out the shepherd?s eyes, he put out their eyes.? [Z?d al-M?`?d: (3/286)]

2. Other scholars said what is mentioned in the had?th is abrogated, according to the prohibition of mutilation.

Accordingly, what took place in this had?th was abrogated. This was adopted by al-Bukh?r?. He narrated from Qat?dah that:?It is been narrated to us from the Prophet (peace be upon him) after that the Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged charity and prohibited mutilation.?[Sah?h al-Bukh?r? (4192)].

It was narrated by Qat?dah through Muhammad b. S?r?n that this took place before the revelation on the ruling of punishments. [Sah?h al-Bukh?r? (5686)]

Al-H?zim? said: ?This had?th was abrogated? and he set a chapter ?Mutilation and its abrogation?. He said: ?A group of people adopted the opinion that these ruling were fixed in the beginning and then were abrogated when Allah sent: ?The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger??[S?rah al-M??dah: 33][Al-I`tib?r fi al-N?sikh wa al-Mans?kh, page 196].

It could be that this severe punishment was at the beginning because the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that some of the tough and hardened Bedouins who live around Mad?nah would not refrain from attacking others unless they heard of some of these severe punishments. The desert Bedouins living in the surrounding wilderness were warlike tribes used to toughness and to causing harassment. Allah says: ?The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Messenger; and Allah is Knowing, Wise? [S?rah al-Tawbah: 97] (IslamToday fatwa service)

Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not punish them any more than the harm they inflicted upon the sheperd and the Muslim community. He also sent a strong message to other desert tribes who were accustomed to raiding and attacking nearby villages and tribes. This punishment was done for the security of the Muslim community, living in a very dangerous time with no formal legal system governing the arabian tribes. The situation is incomparable to modern times where governments have strong control over their territories - in arabia there existed a tribalistic anarchy. As Shaykh Muhammad 'Ata Al Sid Sid Ahmad writes:

When the criminals of 'Urainah betrayed the community of Madinah which had met them with all love and respect -- by torturing and killing the herder of their camels and escaping with the Muslim's camels as their booty -- the Prophet quickly marshalled all his powers, arrested and dealt with them in the severest manner as the law allowed him. (Al-Sid, Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud; Malaysia, Eagle Trading Sdn. Bhd., 1995, p. 132)

It should also be noted that many critics of the punishments in Islam are themselves believers in an afterlife in which people will be punished for their crimes, often with eternal torment in Hell. Eternal torment is far more servere than any temporary punishment delivered in this life. The punishments prescribed in Islam are intended to purify the offender of their sin in order that they may be saved from a far greater punishment in the next life. It seems that when one defers a punishment to the afterlife, there is a subconcious belief that such a punishment is not as "real" and consequently it is not as bothering to sentence someone to eternal torture in Hell as it is to prescribe a painful punishment here and now. Such thinking is inherently flawed.


Some writers have also claimed that the punishment delivered to the Ukil/Urayna tribe was prescribed for their apostasy. This is clearly rejected by the text of the hadith as well as the consensus of all Muslim jurists. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa explains this as well:

On the other hand, the prevalent view among Muslim jurists is that the case of this group of 'Ukal and 'Urayna was a case of hiraba (armed robbery) and it was for this crime that they were punished (fn. See Tabari, Tafsir, vol. VI, pp. 132-146; Ibn al-Qayyim, Zad al-Ma'ad, vol. III, p. 78; Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari, where he criticises Bukhari's view). The text itself demonstrates this very clearly. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51)

To conclude, this narration refers to an event of Hirabah (armed robbery), where the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) implemented the law of Qisas (retribution), and the offendors were punished exactly as they had punished the sheperd. The Prophet did not exceed this limit at all in his prescribed punishment, but rather purified the offenders so that the punishment in the next life would be averted.

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


check this;

It has been suggested Britons fighting for the Taleban or radical Islamist preachers could be charged with treason...

BBC NEWS | Magazine | What are the laws on treason?

Keep in mind that the bolded part is a reaaaaallly subjective issue, and its open to interpretation. So Allahu a'lam, it may be that some law is passed against Muslims in support of an Islamic state, which would be treason.

The punishment of death was just abolished in 1998, but lifetime imprisonment is possible. But in the US, you don't know what they'll come up with.


In the UK, the treason law is for the following reasons (which seem that its only disrespect for the queen or her family):

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

• "when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
• "if a man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir";[5]

[5]^ As was widely pointed out in the press at the time, if the allegations that James Hewitt had an affair with Princess Diana whilst she was married to Prince Charles had been substantiated, it would have amounted to the crime of treason. [1] Queens consort Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard and Caroline of Brunswick were prosecuted for treasonable adultery.

So if the UK legislation says its treason just to disrespect the Queen, or her family (even though they might not necessarily apply this law presently) - then why shouldn't the Muslims be angry when someone insults Allah or His Messenger? __________________

[optimist]

Originally Posted by Qatada

First of all, the law on apostasy has been explained here and here. It is commonly taken out of context, but the point to note is that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) clarified that the one to be punished was the one who rebelled against the community. This is quite similar to state laws on treason. A state is justified in taking action against those who pose a significant threat. But the idea of setting up an inquisition to examine the beliefs of the people is against Islamic teachings, so someone who personally changes their religious convictions will be insignificant in the eyes of the state. It is the one who publically announces his rebellion, stirring civil unrest, who must be opposed. While the Christian inquisitions were bent on examining (through the use of torture) the beliefs of those Muslims and Jews who outwardly professed conversion to Christianity, in an Islamic state, someone who even outwardly professes acceptane of Islam is left alone because they cause no harm to society, and the Islamic state is only interested in the security of its society.

If someone poses a threat to a state's security, then they are justified in taking action against them. But if someone changes their personal religious views, then it is quite extreme for the state to attempt to pry into the hearts of its citizens to determine their faith and punish them.

_______

Material from this post has been added to this article:
Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations :: load-islam

Salam,

Thank you for the post. As explained in your post, the death penaty is for someone who reject the faith accompanied with some criminal intention on their part to undermine the Islamic state. Some of the verses from the Quran are also very important for our reference.

"And if any of you turn back from their faith (Islam) and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter; they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein." (2:217)

Here the Quran specifically talks about those who leave Islam, and promises them punishment on the day of judgment. Allah doesn't order the death of those people.

"Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way."(4:137)

Notice that the Quran says those who reject faith and then BELIEVE and again DISBELIEVE. If a Muslim rejects faith and is then killed for doing so how will he live to again BELIEVE and then DISBELIEVE. The atmosphere of this verse is that of free will and freedom of choice to everyone. If Allah wanted he would have said something about the punishment, if there was any, of those who reject Islam after accepting it. But Allah takes this to be clearly a private matter between them and Allah.

"O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He (Allah) will love as they will love Him lowly with the believers, Mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproachers of such as find fault. That is the Grace of Allah which He will bestow on whom He (Allah) pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things." (5:54)

"But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray." (3:90)

What is interesting in all these verses is that the Quran specifically discusses Muslims rejecting the faith, but Allah is not setting any worldly punishment for them.

There is also one thing. If we insist on someone not leaving Islam as per their own individual choice it will in effect welcoming hypocrites into our religion which sometimes more dangerous than an apparent disbeliever. Hypocrites love their life, because they dont believe in the hereafter or Allah, so obviouslyt if we told them to repent and come back otherwise face death penatly, they will be coming back like the hypocrites they are.

Moreover, Quran has set clear guidelines for imposing capital punishment as mentioned in chapter 5 Verse 32.

"If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."(5:32)

Apostacy with a criminal intention to undermine Islamic state should be considered as spreading mischief on the land and waging war against Allah and his messenger.

"The retribution for those who fight God and His messenger, and spread mischief in the land, is to be killed, or crucified, or to cut off their hands and feet on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land; except for those who repent before they fall into your power; in that case know that Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful. (5:33-34)

In the normal circustance, the Quran gives complete freedom to human beings to choose a path of their own.

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): (18:29)

wassalam

[Qatada]

asalam alykum

That was a copy and paste and i had to remove that part yet.. lol.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by Qatada

asalam alykum

That was a copy and paste and i had to remove that part yet.. lol.

salam,

Brother, what you mean remove that part?

wassalam

[salman]

^he meant to remove the part which says that an apostate is not to be put to death unless he rebels against the Islamic State, because this is a modern opinion which is not found in the history of Muslim ummah and against the established ijmaa of early scholars.

PS: brother, the ayaat you have posted to support your view do not support you at all and they are very weak arguments. Why do you not quote me understanding of the mufasreen instead of your own understanding?

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

^he meant to remove the part which says that an apostate is not to be put to death unless he rebels against the Islamic State, because this is a modern opinion which is not found in the history of Muslim ummah and against the established ijmaa of early scholars.

PS: brother, the ayaat you have posted to support your view do not support you at all and they are very weak arguments. Why do you not quote me understanding of the mufasreen instead of your own understanding?

Salam,

I do not know your understanding about the the verses I have quoted. Anyhow, as you have thought, it was not a layman's understanding I was posting. I provide below a Fatwa issued by Kutty Ahmed Kutty. This was taken from Islamonline(dot)net. I am also posting his qualifications and academic backgroud towards the end. Please read

The questionnaire:

Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. Non-Muslims often comment about Islam saying that most Muslims are Muslims because of the death penalty for apostasy. Many claim that there is inherent hypocrisy as converts from other religions are eagerly awaited for, while if a Muslim decides not to follow Islam he is put to death. Please clarify.

Answer:

Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His sake.

Islam, as a divine religion, pays great attention to the importance of conviction for those who embrace it. Therefore, it lays down the principle that there is no compulsion in religion.

Moreover, it is incorrect to say that everyone who leaves Islam is automatically killed. Thus, if an apostate causes no harm to the Muslim community and does not call for spreading hostility towards Islam, he is not to be punished, rather he is to be advised kindly and wisely to let him know the true image of Islam.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

You have raised a very important question; it is something we need to address seriously, for it has been a source of much confusion not only among non-Muslims but also among Muslims in many quarters.

Like any Islamic issue, in order to find a satisfactory answer, we must study in a way that harmonizes the scripture and reason. This is the correct Qur’anic perspective that all believers must adopt in approaching any issue of religion. One of the most fundamental principles of the Qur’anic world view is that we must never allow ourselves to surrender our rationality and common sense in holding on to antiquated beliefs and practices, as was the case with the pagans in the pre-Islamic times. So let us reason about this in a manner that does justice to the sound teachings of Islam and our own sense of rationality and common sense.

Let us assume for a moment that most Muslims today (mind you there are over 1.5 billion Muslims out there) are simply holding on to their faith and failing to renounce it for fear of the death penalty. It looks absurd for anyone to hold such a view; it begs an answer for the following reasons:

1. Why did people embrace Islam in the early days when the faithful were subjected to all sorts of trials, tribulations, and persecutions? They were even forced to flee their homes and possessions in order to secure freedom of conscience to practice their religion of choice.

2. How do we explain the historical fact that in virtually all of the conquered territories such as Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Egypt, an enormous number of people entered Islam quite willingly even though they were allowed to remain as they were: Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and so on?

3. The Spanish Inquisition instituted against the Muslims and the Jews is a historical fact. Why did many preferred to opt for expulsion or death instead of conversion to Christianity?

4. As the European historians have recorded, thousands and thousands of both Muslims and Jews were slaughtered by the Crusaders in the holy lands; the blood of the victims ran knee deep in the streets of the holy land. Why didn’t they choose to embrace Christianity in order to escape their miserable fate?

5. There are today over 1. 5 billion Muslims in the world coming as they are from diverse racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. We ought to ask ourselves: Why did such a huge mass of humanity embrace a faith which allegedly teaches such crude notions? Why did they forgo their allegedly superior beliefs and practices?

6. How do we explain the fact that Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world in spite of the horrendously negative image of Islam and Muslims that is often projected?

7. Newspapers in Great Britain report that an increasingly large number of men and women are converting to Islam in Great Britain in spite of the extremely negative publicity against Islam. The irony is that the majority of those who embrace Islam are women, despite the fact that the media project them as the most disadvantaged in Islam. Whose sword is driving them to join the fold of Islam?

8. Finally, those who allege that Islam was spread through the sword may do well to read an excellent study on the spread of Islam by a former Christian missionary to India and a late professor of Islamic studies at Aligar Muslim University, namely Thomas Arnold; his work is entitled The Preaching of Islam.

Now coming to the false notion that everyone who leaves Islam is automatically killed, I can assure you that this was certainly not the case in many cases. Even though the penalty for treason was the death penalty (as was the case in the Law of Moses as well), there was no targeting of people who simply chose to leave Islam without any implication of treason. To simply kill anyone who chooses to follow a religion other than Islam is against the fundamental teachings of the Qur’an. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of the Qur’an that is clearly stated in many Qur'anic verses. I list just a few:

[Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you (Prophet) compel people to believe?] (Yunus 10: 99).

[Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: Let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so’] (Al-Kahf 17: 29).

[So (people) respond to your Lord before there comes a Day that cannot, against God’s will, be averted—you will have no refuge on that Day, and no possibility of denying (your sins). If they still turn away (remember that) We have not sent you (Prophet) to be their keeper: your duty is to deliver the message] (Ash-Shura 42: 47-48).

[There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allah is all hearing and all knowing] (Al-Baqrah 2: 256).



Name: Ahmad Kutty
Born in Kerala State, India (1946)
Nationality: Canadian

Educational background
- 1975-1980: McGill University, Montreal: Doctoral Studies; Specialized in Shari’ah Thought.
- 1972-1973: University of Toronto: Masters in Islamic Studies.
- 1968-1972: Islamic University of Madinah, Saudi Arabia: Licentiate in Usul al-Ddeen (first rank).
- 1957-1967: Islamiyya College: Graduated in the Traditional Islamic Sciences and received the ‘Ijazah (title) of al-Faqih fi al-ddeen (first rank).

Scholarly papers/works/publications, etc.
1. Shah Waliullah’s Concept of Harmony (tatbiq) of Reason, Revelation and Intuition in the Light of Hujjat Allah al-Balighah (Under Preparation).
2. Human Rights: The Western & Islamic Perspectives (Work in progress)
3. Translation of al-‘aqeedah al-tahawiyyah (2002)
4. An analytical study of Ibn Taymiyyah’s al-‘Aqidat al-Wasitiyyah (1978)
5. Translation of al-Insaf fi bayan asbab al-ikhtilaf (1981)
6. An analytical study of Ibn Khaldun’s Shifa’ al-sa’il fi tahdhib al-masaail (1976)
7. Al-Nass wa al-ikhtiyaar fi al-khilafah: A Comparative Study of the Sunni and the Shi’ah Theories of Khilafah/Imamah (1982)
8. Kitab al-Tawhid of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 944): A report on his work with reference to his role in the development of Kalam (1978)
9. Abolition of Khilafah and the reaction of the Muslim world (1976)
10. Muhammad b. Abd al-Wahhab: His life & Reformist Ideas (1976)
11 Shah Waliullah’s Concept of Shari’ah (1979)
12. Ibn Taymiyyah’s Attitude towards Sufism (1979)
13. Ramadan: Blessings and Rules (1990)
14 Islamic Funeral Rites (1991)
15. Social Justice in Islam: A translation of Sayyid Qutb’s al-adalatul ijtima’iyyah fi al-Islam into Malayalam (4th edition, 1987)
16. Miscellaneous articles published in various newspapers/magazines

Courses taught
1. Evolution of Fiqh and the Emergence of the Schools of Jurisprudence
2. Fiqh al-Hadith: A Study of Bulugh al-Maraam
3. Readings in Sahih al-Bukhari
4. Islamic Ethics: Readings in Riyad al-Saliheen
5. Fiqh of Priorities
6. Islamic Ethics and Morals
7. Studies in Islamic Spirituality based on Imam Ghazzali’s Ihya ulum al-Ddeen
8. Islamic ‘Aqeedah Level One
9. Islamic ‘Aqeedah Level Two
10. Marriage and Family in Islam
11. Comparative Religions
12. Sects and Sectarianism in Islam
13. Fiqh al-Zzakah
14. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh)

Career/experience
1. Presently: Senior Lecturer/Imam at the Islamic Institute of Toronto & and a non-resident Imam/Khatib (orator) at the following centers/Masjids in Toronto: Islamic Center of Canada, Islamic Center of Canada, Bosnian Islamic Center, and Ansar Masjid
2. 1984-1994: Director/Imam Islamic Foundation of Toronto
3. 1979-1982: Director/Imam: Islamic Center of Toronto
4. 1973-1975: Assistant Director: Islamic Center of Toronto

Participation in Seminars/Symposia, etc.
1. Participated as a presenter in numerous seminars, conferences, and symposiums (from1975 onwards).
2. Participated on a regular basis in the ISNA conferences as a speaker & as a participant in Fiqh Sessions (1975 onwards).
3. Presentations on Islam in various churches/ inter-faith gatherings/hospitals, etc.
4. Gave numerous interviews to newspapers/ television (both local and national) on various issues affecting Islam and Muslims.

Wassalam