Viking Posted April 12, 2005 Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law? by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D. President Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. 7102 W. Shefford Lane Louisville, KY 40242-6462, U.S.A. E-mail: IRFI@INAME.COM Website: http://WWW.IRFI.ORG Ridda or Irtidãd: Literally means "turning back". The act of apostasy -- leaving Islam for another religion or for a secular lifestyle. Murtadd: Literally means "one who turns the back." An apostate. Murtad Fitri: Literally means apostate - natural. A person born of a Muslim parent who later rejects Islam. Murtad Milli: Literally means apostate - from the community. A person who converted to Islam and later rejected the religion. Due lack of education and critical thinking several myths have taken root in the Muslim world over the ages, and there have not been any efforts in the past to clear these doubts. On the contrary, there has been a sort of effort to strengthen these myths and misconceptions. These misinterpretations of Islamic teachings have taken their toll on the Muslim world and have strengthened a misplaced perception that Islam is a symbol of obscurantism, a religion of intolerance and answers everything with the sword. And there is no bigger misconception-strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years-other than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy. The Christian missionaries and the Western world are cashing in on it. Ulama have tried to strengthen their point of view and several leading Muslim reformists have failed to tackle the issue. This misconception has also presented Islam as a medieval and killer religion. Islam bashers have time and again tried to carry the point by pointing out that Islam orders the killing of a person if he or she reverts to another religion from Islam. No body is forthcoming to challenge this widely held belief as well as put forth a convincing argument about the misinterpretation of Qur'anic teachings by Ulama. The Qur’an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations. Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: ‘Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him (man baddala Dinahu faqtuluhu)’â€. It is this last quote from the Prophet that forms the basis of the said ruling. While jurists are agreed on the authenticity of this tradition, they differ very widely on the appropriate interpretation and thus, the law concerning apostasy. Understanding the different viewpoints, and arriving at the truth is crucial to our discussion of this subject. This tradition does not refer to Muslims who leave the religion of Islam for other religions. Finally, there is the crucial dispute over the nature of the punishment and the crime. Al-Nakha’ee and, according to Sha’rani, al-Thawri, hold that the apostate is a grave sinner who should however be continuously called back to the fold for the rest of his life, and not killed. By implication, they do not consider the offence a hadd (fixed penalty) offence with a fixed punishment that must be carried out. This view is similar to the view that apostasy is a sin that carries no fixed punishment, and any penalty for it is discretionary (ta’zeer). This is a view held by the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taimiya and he attributes it as well to the Maliki Imam al-Baji. Among Hanafites, the jurist Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi holds the same view. He says in al Mabsut that the fixed penalties or hudud are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the Imam. He then adds in the case of apostasy “renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offences, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of Judgement. (“fa’l jaza’ ‘alayha mu’akhkhar ila dar al-jazaâ€). If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set a time limit for his repentance. Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur’an (39: 53-54: Say: “ O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering (of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succored.†Any scholar who says the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, then the convict is to be given a life-time to repent, and this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’ee, Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi, Imam al-Baji and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. One must conclude that the death sentence is not for “simple apostasy†(mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse and slander (sabb) of the Noble Prophet. Freedom to convert to or from Islam "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." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256. "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137. For example, the Qur'an says: "Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so." (Al-Kahf: 29) In another verse, Allah Almighty says: "Yours is only the duty to convey the message; you are not a guardian over them." (Al-Ghashiyah: 21- 22) The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown above, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy. From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty. Hence the death penalty is not an appropriate response to apostasy. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an. Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the above cited hadith, in which the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because this hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient confirmation to impose the death penalty. The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy. The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has not been documented. Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason. (e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.). There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy. The issue of killing a murtad or the apostate is not a simple one. Scholars have debated it from various angles and it is not simply an issue of killing someone for choosing one religion or another. The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. So, it cannot be confused with the freedom of conscience for every individual, which has been guaranteed in the Qur'an through hundreds of verses. For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha (RA) concerning apostasy relates to one who left his religion and fought against Muslims. QUR'ANIC VIEWS The Qur’an has referred to the issue of apostasy at more than one place (for example see Al-Baqarah 2: 217, Al-Baqarah 2: 108, A’l Imra’n 3: 90, Al-Nisa’ 4: 137 and Al-Nahl 16: 106). But at none of these places does the Qur’an mention the punishment of death for such people who change their religion. The Qur’an does mention that such people shall face a terrible punishment in the hereafter but no worldly punishment is mentioned at any of these instances in the Qur’an. This situation obviously raises a question mark in the mind of the reader that if Allah had wanted to give the punishment of an apostate a permanent position in the Shari`ah, the punishment should have been mentioned, at least at one of the above mentioned places. If the Qur’an had kept completely silent about the apostate, the matter would have been different. But the strange thing is that the Qur’an mentions apostasy, and still does not mention the punishment (if any) it wants the apostate to be subjected to. Furthermore, the Qur’an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases. One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of creating unrest in the country (fasa’d fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society, for example activities like terrorism etc. The Qur’an says: Whoever kills a person without his being guilty of murder or of creating unrest in the land, is as though he kills the whole of mankind. (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32) Obviously, apostasy can neither be termed as "murder" nor "creating unrest in the land". Thus, in view of the above facts, we are left with one option only. We can only say that either the saying has been wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as it is clearly contradictory to the Qur’an and the Prophet could not have said anything contradictory to the Qur’an, or that the saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relates not to all apostates but to a particular and specific people. Shaykh Subhani Shaykh Inayatullah Subhani (author of the Book Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam) says that neither Islam forces any person to embrace neither Islam nor it forces him to remain within its fold. He writes, "Apostasy has been mentioned several times in Qur'an. It also describes the bad treatment that will be meted out for committing apostasy, but it never talks of punishment for the crime in this world." The learned scholar mentions three Ayaat (verses) from Qur'an on apostasy (Al-Baqara 217, Muhammad 25-27 and Al-Maida 54) and then says that none of these Ayaat prescribes any punishment for that though these Ayaat pass strictures on the people who commit it. There are several other Ayaat on the same issue and none of them prescribes either death penalty or any other punishment for apostasy in this world. He then adds that had there been some punishment in Islam for apostasy there was no reason as to why the issue was mentioned repeatedly in Qur'an but no punishment was prescribed. Misinterpretation of the hadith, Man baddala Dinahu faqtuluh (kill him who changes his religion) has caused the problem. This order has been made to look general and permanent, though it was said in a particular circumstance for a particular group. Shaykh Subhani writes that this order was made to counter a scheme prepared by Jews of Madinah. They had planned that some of them embrace Islam for some time and then return to their old religion. Then some other people do the same. It was aimed to create restlessness among Muslims against their own leadership so that the strong Muslim unity should start crumbling. It was made clear in Qur'an in (Aal Imran, 3: 72-73). To counter this planning the Prophet (SAW) ordered his companions to act in such a manner. Despite this order lengthy investigations were made to ascertain that the case was true and the person concerned was given adequate time to explain before the punishment was carried out. Shaykh Subhani says lack of clear grasp of Qur'an misguided even leading Ulama. Otherwise it was not difficult to understand the hadith. Qur'anic teachings on the issue were not kept in mind. He emphasizes that people who were awarded death penalty for reverting to other religions from Islam during the time of the Prophet (SAW) or during the reign of his caliphs were not given the punishment for the crime of apostasy but for the fact that they were at war with Muslims and Islamic government. Shaykh Subhani regrets that punishment that was prescribed for certain people under special circumstances was made to look like a general order. He says that it was the order for people who posed threat to Islamic state and became at war with Islam and not for any person who reverts to other religion. A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred. In conclusion, we must never confuse the issue of killing a murtad with the freedom of conscience guaranteed in the Glorious Qur'an. For a detailed discussion, one should read (1) the Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's book on this issue: Jareemat ar-riddah wal murtadd (The Crime of Apostasy and Apostate) - published by Ar-Risalah foundation. source: http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_251_300/is_killing_an_apostate_in_the_is.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Khayr Posted April 13, 2005 Salaamz, Here is a quote from an article by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D. from his website. Title of the artile is 'Is Hijab Complustory?' To wear the Hijaab is certainly NOT an Islamic obligatory on women. :eek: :eek: :eek: It is an innovation (Bid'ah) of men suffering from a piety complex who are so weak spiritually that they just cannot trust themselves! If the Dr. Ibrahim Syed, the Author makes such a conclusion that is against the Islamic TRADITION and goes against the quran and sunnah, then his article about 'Apostasty in Islam' ain't worth a Rebuttal at ALL!!! Fi Amanillah Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking Posted April 14, 2005 Khayr, I understand your concerns sxb. I read the article and was shocked by the paragraph you quoted...but when I read on, I thought he was referring to 'intermingling' with men and general behaviour (expected) of women. Hijab for women does not only refer to clothing but behaviour etc. This is the definition I found on IslamicWeb for the word HIJAB and might explain what the author meant. 'Hijab' is an Arabic word that describes Muslim women's entire dress code, which includes a veil and whatever else is needed to cover everything except the face and hands. It is adopted at puberty - an age when Muslims, say children, should become accountable for their actions... The term 'Hijab' itself includes not only dress and covering the body, but methods of behavior before members of the same and/or opposite sex, promoting privacy for females and prohibiting loose intermingling between males and females, and thereby encouraging modesty, decency, and chastity. As for the 'rebuttal' on the issue of apostasy - it could only be valuable by quoting verses of the Qur'an or sound Hadith. If you know of any please don't hesitate to share it with us. Peace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warrior of Light Posted April 14, 2005 Viking this article has disturbed and confused me. Personally, I stay hold to the hadith of the Prophet and believe that an apostate should be reminded of his duty to Allah then if failed killed. The question of how long the grace period lasts I know not of. But I do know that fire is not allowed to be used to kill such a person. SAHIH Muslim Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" But I do recall a hadith which says if a person does not pray for 40 (?)days he is considered a Kufar.And its through prayer we connect with Allah. Apostasy is in contrast with the Idea of Tawhid oneness of Allah accepting Him Allah and His way of justice after beleiving And according to Sahih Muslim, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 470: Narrated Mu'adh bin Jabal: The Prophet said, "O Mu'adh! Do you know what Allah's Right upon His slaves is?" I said, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "To worship Him (Allah) Alone and to join none in worship with Him (Allah). Do you know what their right upon Him is?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "Not to punish them (if they do so)." AND Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59: Narrated Abu Huraira: When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it." 'Umar said, "By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right." Thus an apostate is fit to be punished . Nevertheless the Prophet SAW predicted that muslims will occur who will unite with idolators and kill muslims and he promised if he was Alive he would have killed them. Thus this does imply that punishemnt is mandatory to such people. Volume 9, Book 93, Number 527: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: When 'Ali was in Yemen, he sent some gold in its ore to the Prophet. The Prophet distributed it among Al-Aqra' bin Habis Al-Hanzali who belonged to Bani Mujashi, 'Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, 'Alqama bin 'Ulatha Al-'Amiri, who belonged to the Bani Kilab tribe and Zaid AI-Khail At-Ta'i who belonged to Bani Nabhan. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, "He gives to the chiefs of Najd and leaves us!" The Prophet said, "I just wanted to attract and unite their hearts (make them firm in Islam)." Then there came a man with sunken eyes, bulging forehead, thick beard, fat raised cheeks, and clean-shaven head, and said, "O Muhammad! Be afraid of Allah! " The Prophet said, "Who would obey Allah if I disobeyed Him? (Allah). He trusts me over the people of the earth, but you do not trust me?" A man from the people (present then), who, I think, was Khalid bin Al-Walid, asked for permission to kill him, but the Prophet prevented him. When the man went away, the Prophet said, "Out of the offspring of this man, there will be people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out through the game, and they will kill the Muslims and leave the idolators. Should I live till they appear, I would kill them as the Killing of the nation of 'Ad." There is an example of a person punished in Islamic histroy for reverting. Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58: Narrated Abu Burda: Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" and Volume 9, Book 84, Number 67: Narrated Abu Sa'id: While the Prophet was distributing (something, 'Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira At-Tamimi came and said, "Be just, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, "Woe to you ! Who would be just if I were not?" 'Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "Allow me to cut off his neck ! " The Prophet said, " Leave him, for he has companions, and if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs. Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game's body in which case, if the Qudhadh of the arrow is examined, nothing will be found on it, and when its Nasl is examined, nothing will be found on it; and then its Nadiyi is examined, nothing will be found on it. The arrow has been too fast to be smeared by dung and blood. The sign by which these people will be recognized will be a man whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman (or like a moving piece of flesh). These people will appear when there will be differences among the people (Muslims)." Abu Sa'id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet and also testify that 'Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet was brought to 'Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person (i.e., 'Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira At-Tarnimi): 'And among them are men who accuse you (O Muhammad) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.' (9.58) Allah knows better. Fiamanillah Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking Posted April 14, 2005 Originally posted by Warrior of Light: Viking this article has disturbed and confused me. Personally, I stay hold to the hadith of the Prophet and believe that an apostate should be reminded of his duty to Allah then if failed killed. The question of how long the grace period lasts I know not of. But I do know that fire is not allowed to be used to kill such a person. Warrior of Light, As the writer mentionned, nowhere in the Holy Qur'an is it mentionned 'killing of an apostate' for leaving the fold of Islam. "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256. As Muslims, we always refer to this verse without really pondering on the meaning...does it mean that even a Muslim who reverts cannot be forced or killed? It doesn't make sense, why would a beautiful religion welcome converts and then threaten them with death if they change their mind? "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137. As the author said, this verse shows that even someone who toys back and forth has his punishment with Allah SWT. Should it be the responsibility of men to persecute someone for disbelief when someone can disbelieve for their whole lives without being discovered? Only Allah SWT knows the real extent (or the evidence) of a person's disbelief because as He hassaid in the Glorious Qur'an, he closer to us than the jugular vein. Those who were killed for disbelief in the eraly days (as I've always understood it) were those who conspired with the enemies of Islam. Like the Jews who pretended to be Muslims and then went back to their people to reveal the secrets of Muslims and compromising their saftey. Allah SWT knows best! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OG_Girl Posted April 15, 2005 I understand where this guy is comming from.I was doing my final project about that and things not how it seems or what we took it as a facts. however let me answer your question or the title of this thread! Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law? Yes, It is in the Islamic Law since we take our Law from Quraan and Sunnah plus,Ijtihad al olamma or qiyas NOT only from Quraan! Yes, we don't know how our early Muslims took Apostacy! My conclusion was they took it as "Apostacy is = to Treason therefore, even in the west they have Law againt treasons , death plenty is the punishment! Since Muslims that time just started their Goverment ... They couldn't take any Fitna , they needed to unite and make Islam and Muslims ONE. So Apostate was equal to treason.Or crime against the state. On other hand If we take his logic and throw the Sunnah, where is in the Quraan says we have to pray 5 times? or where it says we have to pray fajer 2 rakah, thuhur 4, Azar 4..etc! I don't know but true "There is no compulsion in the religion".And you have right to accept Islam or reject no one can force others into Islam. But at the same time once you accept Islam as a religion the rules change, when you become a Muslim by your own choice, you are expected to submit yourself to Allah and not go back after that!. Anyways.. I am tired now I can't even remember my project..lol Salam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xiinfaniin Posted April 15, 2005 I think OG_Girl summarized both the position of Islam and the reasons for it! That I shall not repeat. But I would like to object the vaguely stated premise of his argument: that Islam has no firm penalty for a murtad and the narrated daliils are ambiguous. How could that be the case when all the Islamic schools agree the killing of the apostate? As we all know Islamic jurisprudence has for major schools or Mathaahibs: Maaliki, Xanafi, Xanbali, and Shaafici. These Islamic schools all, to my knowledge, agreed that the punishment of murtad must be death. The Shia Islam is as well in line with the rulings of those scholars. So if this was an attempt from the author’s part to liberalize the Islamic penal-code and tune it to the liking of the west’s progressive ideals, then I think the basis of his argument does not hold water. needless to say, he needs to do better work than making unsopported assertions! He could, however, have made beneficial and perhaps enlightening argument against the application of these Islamic laws by the current corrupt regimes in the Muslim world. He could’ve pointed out the automatic divorce, the lack of inheritance by his immediate relatives, and the limit of repent period to mere three days. Legitimate areas, I think, where genuine discussion and propping questions could yield better remedies. That I would’ve welcomed. But to question, or worse yet, to negate the well sourced and solid position of this religion as it relates to apostate is a bit disingenuous, me think! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nur Posted April 17, 2005 Nomads I avoided opening this page for a while, I was suspecting that it is going to be a controversial issue that will beg my thin energy and time, and since I was involved in other writing activities, I did not have the heart to open more intellectual fronts than I can bite, but seeing that this issue is on the front burner for a longer time than anticipated, I looked into it, interesentingly, the article was presented by a notable like Professor Ibrahim Syed, a heavywheight in scientific research and Muslim activism, I decided to shed a light (Nur) on the merit of his article alone, and its repercussions that he did not address. Dr. Ibrahin Syed is an accomplished person, and a Muslim activist, May Allah SWT reward him for his good work and forgive him for his misjudgements, ethically speaking though, one must never use a secular science achievement title such as a PhD. to speak on specialized Sharia Issue, so fundamental as this as he is not qualified to be an authority in this field nor an authority in the Arabic language as the medium of the treansmission of the Quraan and Sunnah, I kindly suggest to the brother in the future to present his articles as authored by a layman in Islamic knolwedge, because it is very unethical to use a PhD earned in a purely scientific field to present a lengthy article in aqeedah to sound liuke an authority in such a specialized field. The aqeedah field of Islamic sciences, requires a thorogh knolwedge base on 1. Quraan Tafseer ( Interpretation) 2. Science of Hadeeth ( Cilmul Hadeeth) 3. Usuul al Sharia ( Maqaasidul Sharia) 4. Arabic Language ( Grammar, Nahw, Sarf, Balaagha, and Poetry) 5. The Seerah, and the reasons behind the revelations ( Asbaabul nuzool, and the backgrounds of the hadeeths) In contrast, Dr. Syed is an educator and is a Professor of Nuclear Medicine and a Clinical Professor of Medicine (Medical Physics, Nuclear Cardiology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Radionuclide Studies) all at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. He is an activist who lectures to communities, visits jails, he is a licensed marriage Qazi, and he has deffinetly spent a good part of his time studying Islam, and working for its cause, may Allah reward him for his efforts, though I doubt that it is not as structured as his secular scientific education. His achievements in these areas show that he has earned recognition and acclaim, however, his article on Appostacy did not live up to the level of expected thoroughness neither the accepted scholarly research and impartiality a scholar should display to earn the trust of his readers. After reading the article on Apostacy in this page, one is left with the impression that the author has collected supporting evidence to a preconceived opinion he formed as a result of his desire not to offend the non Muslims he lives with, and to quell the orchestrated media barrage against islam, which drives any Muslims if not careful, to look for expedient novel fatwas, and then to claim it to be the main stream opinion on the matter, very simplistic indeed, but very devastating to the very foundations of the faith we call Islam ( Surrender To Allah) not to fellow man. Although I was not a member nor qualified to be, of the committee that reviewed his research and his Scientific Doctoral thesis which he is leveraging as an expert witness here, the way he presented the different viepoints would have have failed if it was an actual scientific research paper. I must clarify that i am not in no way criticizing his intentions, I believe they are very noble, but his presentation of facts, and hence his conclusion leaves a lot to be desired. As the moderator of this page, and as a Senior Nomad of Somaliaonline, with the help of Allah SWT I shall, clarify the disturbing ambiguities that Dr. Ibrahim Syed has left on the minds of Nomads on this site, specially, Viking, the most open minded Nomad, whose role as the advoclate of all new concepts have helped bring out a lot of my intuitive energies to the frontline in defense of an embattled faith between ignorant followers on one hand, and scholars with questionalble sincerity, as they write their articles in the comfort of their non Islamic homebases, away from the scrutiny of the Islamic authorities residing at Muslim countries. I will post the rebuttal once finished inshAllah, support me through your prayers duaa. Nur Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paragon Posted April 17, 2005 Originally by Viking: As for the 'rebuttal' on the issue of apostasy - it could only be valuable by quoting verses of the Qur'an or sound Hadith. If you know of any please don't hesitate to share it with us. A question that needs answering! Any verse of the Qur'an or Sound hadith? It would be helpful to learn them. Please do share. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-Serenity- Posted April 17, 2005 Nur, what credentials do you have for ur rebuttal to be valued any more than Mr.PhD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nur Posted April 17, 2005 Amethyst walaal you write: Nur, what credentials do you have for ur rebuttal to be valued any more than Mr.PhD? The issue at hand is a question on Sharia's stand on the ruling of an apostate ( Murtadd ) in Islam, to answer this question , I have never suggested anywhere on mu post that anyone needs a qualification such as a PhD, my objection was that the writer of this article misleadingly have used a PhD in a scientific field to get credibility in a Sharia issue I find him ill prepared in a scholarly way. My suggestion was for him, like myself, not to use any titles other than our own names or scree names as we are laymen. I will rebutt, the issue, just like Og Girl has done in an isightful way, neither she, nor I for that matter need credentials to rebutt as this is a discussion forum, what i objected was for someone to post a PhD infront of their name, when that PhD was earned in a non relevant issue. In this discussion forum, I do not claim a title other than being a businessman, I am in the business of helping others understand complex issues in a simple way, and in that direction I am striving. Nur Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warrior of Light Posted April 17, 2005 Viking, After the Quran we find guidance from the Hadith and sunnah of the Prophet SAW. Thats why I quoted some hadith. wondering now of the strenght of the hadiths though. Sister OG Girl, you summed it up well JZK. Bro Nur, Looking forward to read your article. JZK in advance. May Allah ease the task for you. I support you though that credentials do not stipulate how knowledgeable a person is. Especially when it comes to matters of religion. May Allah increase us in knowledge. Religion is sincerity.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pastaboor Posted April 17, 2005 Asalaamu calaykum i am looking forward to nur's article on this subject. amyst or whatever you'r name is walaal or walaashis do not discourage the brother from doing his work. God knows how much effort he's putting on this article among others. he is asked for duca, not iskadaba qadaasho. The least you can do is to pray for him that Allah makes his work much easier form him. myself is among the many like warrior above waiting anxiously for bro nur's article on this subject. at least wait untill he submits it it and if you disagree with what he has to offer, then feel free to take platform and tell him where he's gone wrong. in the meantime be patient bro/sis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nur Posted April 19, 2005 Nomads This is first part of my rebuttal, I am posting this in haste in order not to loose momentum. It was brought to my attention that some Nomads understood that I am boasting a title qualifying me to answer to Brother Syed, however, that was not what I meant. For the last four years as an active member on this forum, and later, a volunteer to act as a moderator, I have limited my title as Nur, at times I add Brother Nur, but never any other title, my only credentials are my writings, like they say, the proof is in the pudding. Now Brother Ibrahim Syed writes: Originally posted by Viking: [QB] Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law? Due lack of education and critical thinking several myths have taken root in the Muslim world over the ages, and there have not been any efforts in the past to clear these doubts. On the contrary, there has been a sort of effort to strengthen these myths and misconceptions. These misinterpretations of Islamic teachings have taken their toll on the Muslim world and have strengthened a misplaced perception that Islam is a symbol of obscurantism, a religion of intolerance and answers everything with the sword. Answer: This statement is flawed on several counts: 1. Lack of education: Has the brother surveyed the Islamic Educational Institutions and quantified the criteria of required level of education, and then found Muslims failing the grade? which justifies that he pioneers the subject after 14 centuries? 2. The Efforts to strengthen misconceptions about Islam. To counter that notion, does a nonbeliever has a good conception of Islam no matter how it is presented? 3. Misinterpretation: What are trhe guidelines of good interpretation, is it to suit those who want to sound like Christianity, a vague religion where everyone can write like this statement in the bible:" And it seems good to me also to write" Brother Syed writes: And there is no bigger misconception-strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years-other than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy . Answer: Islam means Submission to One true God, Allah, and living by the commandments of Allah alone, Appostacy means a stark denial of that creed, a declaration of rebellion and a promise to work against it. Brother Syed writes: The Christian missionaries and the Western world are cashing in on it . Is there an issue they have not cashed on? like women in Islam are oppressed, Islam is a terrorist religion, Allah says that people of the book will never be staified until Muslims follw their ways, how much farther should Muslims drift in their direction to appease them? Brother Syed writes: Ulama have tried to strengthen their point of view and several leading Muslim reformists have failed to tackle the issue Which clearly leaves Brother Syed as the only alternative to scholars in Sharia? Brotehr Syed writes: This misconception has also presented Islam as a medieval and killer religion. Islam bashers have time and again tried to carry the point by pointing out that Islam orders the killing of a person if he or she reverts to another religion from Islam . Islam bashers will not stop until they make all of appostates if they can as Allah says in Quraan " Xatttaa yarudduukum can diinikum in istdaacuu" Brother Syed writes: No body is forthcoming to challenge this widely held belief as well as put forth a convincing argument about the misinterpretation of Qur'anic teachings by Ulama . Very interesting! a non native Arabic speaker, non versed in Sharia or Hadeeth science is taking on the Ulema of Islam throughout the ages, to prove that they have failed the proper interpretation of the Quraanic teachings. Brother Syed writes: The Qur’an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations . This statment is false, Please read the following verses of the quraan and then read the asbaabul nuzuul ( Purpose of Revelation): (وقالت طائÙØ© من أهل الكتاب أمنوا بالذي أنزل على الذين أمنوا وجه النهار واكÙروا آخره لعلهم يرجعون، ولا تؤمنوا إلا لمن تبع دينكم، قل أن الهدى هدى الله أن يؤتى Ø£Øد مثل ما أوتيتم أو ÙŠØاجوكم عند ربكم، قل أن الÙضل بيد الله يؤتيه من يشاء والله واسع عليم) (سورة آل عمران/ 72-73 A group of the people of the book conspired and said "Convert to Islam in the early part of the day, and become apostates at the end of that day, so that (Muslims) becomes apostates (like us), and do not believe (in any Mulsim) unless he is following our faith, say (O Muhammad) guidance is (ONLY) the guidnace of Allah SWT. It was reported by ibn Ubbas RAA, that he said that this verse was revealed when Abdullah ibn Saff, Adi ibn Zeid, and Harith ibnu Auf (people of the Book) conspired and said to each other " let us convert to the belief of Mohammad and his companions in the morning and become apostates at sunset to confuse them about their faith so they will do what we do and revert back from their faith. In other narrations, it was reported that they wanted to show believers that the people of the book found errors with Islam after they have asked their Rabbis about the religion of Muhammad and after converting found the religion of Muhammad not to be true just like their Rabbis told them, therefore, they became apostates. Then, Allah revealed this verse on that occasion. The verse above lays the groundwork for the Hadeeth ruling which was meant to close this loophole, the Sharia requires once a danger is identified that Muslims take a course of action to minimize the danger to their faith, thus the sufficient and necessary ruling. Brother Syed writes: Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: ‘Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him (man baddala Dinahu faqtuluhu)’â€. It is this last quote from the Prophet that forms the basis of the said ruling . Wrong again, the basis of this ruling is the principle of protection of faith, the first article of the Usuul al Sharia. Even if there was no single Hadeeth, the science of Usuul Al Shraria maintains that any threat that can endanger the faith's exisitence should be dealt with appropriately. Islam, the last true Abrahamic religion should be preserved and protected in face of forces that caused Christianity and judaism to be diluted with paganism. Brother Syed writes: While jurists are agreed on the authenticity of this tradition, they differ very widely on the appropriate interpretation and thus, the law concerning apostasy. Understanding the different viewpoints, and arriving at the truth is crucial to our discussion of this subject . It is interesting to follow the fallacies of arriving at the notion that this hadeeth is false after you have accepted that all Muslim Jurists agree on the authenticity of this hadeeth, at the end of the brothers article he claims that one possibility is that the Hadeeth may not be true after all, thus, his creative analyses that will lead to a defenseless paralyses of Islam against attempts to confuse its ever increasing followers. Brother Syed writes: This tradition does not refer to Muslims who leave the religion of Islam for other religions. Finally, there is the crucial dispute over the nature of the punishment and the crime. Al-Nakha’ee and, according to Sha’rani, al-Thawri, hold that the apostate is a grave sinner who should however be continuously called back to the fold for the rest of his life, and not killed . Apostacy is not a sin, or at least in Arabic, Masiya and kufr and not the same thing, nor do they carry the same judgemnet, since kufr has a special ruling: 1. Dhimmi ( Non believer living with Muslims adhering with the Sharia law, not seeking to convert Muslims to Kufr) Has full rights, his life, properties and dignity is protected by Sharia law. 2. Muxaarib ( A non beliver at declared war against islam) His life is not protected. 3. A Convert who reverted back to Kufr ( His status is risky, he can not benefit from Dhimmi status, because of the caution of the above verse, therefore, unless he declares that he is non believer in public, no harm is done to him, but if goes ahead with publicity that he left Islam, his statement will constitute war against Islam, no one can go to any country and take their citizenship, aoth of allegiance, then declare that they want to live with them as a foreign agent to spread suspicion against that state constitution. 4. A natural Muslim who became apostate: His ruling is similar to that of those Abu Bakar waged war of apostates ( Xuruubul Ridda). As for the traditions that support that above are many, its due to lack of enough research time that i can not recall, but one such Hadeeth is the Hadeeth in which a Jew and a Muslim came to The Prophet Muhammad SAWS for a judgment on a disbute, The Prophet SAWS ruled for the favor of the Jew, the Muslim was not satisfied, he went to Abu Bakar, likewise, Abu Bakar ruled for the Jew, then the Muslim went to Omar for judgement, Omar asked him if he was dissatisfied with the judgemnet of the Prophet, when the Muslim plaintiff confirmed, Omar killed the Muslim for apostacy, here, for rejecting a ruling by the Prophet SAWS. It is this incidence and many others that show the bases of the Ulema's and the companions like Omar's fatwa that an apostate is not a crime alone, it is a treason against the ummah, therefore, he is deemed at war against Islam in essence thus the ruling. Brother Syed writes: By implication, they do not consider the offence a hadd (fixed penalty) offence with a fixed punishment that must be carried out . Xuduud (Hudood) are penalties for those who adhere and accept islam, it is reported that prophet SAWS said that Kufr is beyound a Sin, therefore apostacy is regulated by a different department altogether, that of the nonbelievers as I classified above. I would appreciate if the brother can show where did Imaam ahmed ibn Hanbal, or Ibn Taymia suggested that an apostate is not punishable by death? amazingly, Ibn Taimia had written a lengthy book called " Al Saarimul Masluul calaa Shaatimul Rasuul " in which he addressed this issue in detail, arguing for the ijmaa , the consensus of ulema that an apostate is punishable by death, if after clearing his misconceptions , he does not return to Islam, if on the other hand, a person is so stubborn as not to even to conceal his disbelief and is willing to die for his convictions, then no Sharia law is there to protect him from his own choice. It is of special interest to know that no one at the time of the Prophet SAWS doubted the punsihment of an Apostate, when the companions learned of some of the hypocrites who were consealing their kufr, they suggested to the prophet to allow them to kill them, but the prophet SAWS rejected on the grounds that it will seem as though Muhammad was kiulling his own companions, which was an issue that would have ill served the advance of islam and its acceptability. Brother Syed writes: If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set a time limit for his repentance . To try to save him on technicality of the ambiguity of the time frame bewteen when he is asked to repent and when he responds, is clearly a go around the law of Sharia to make the Quraan and hadeeth ineffective, In Islam, when there is ambiguity in Quraan and Hadeeth we resort to the Qiyaas, and then to Ijmaa, all driven by the principle of protection of faith, Mind, life, property, dignity and so on. This argument arose in several places in Sharia, such as how long does a person stays away from perfroming prayers before we can label him Tarikul Salaat? how many hairs constitute a beard? when the Sharia is ambigous on a time dependent punishment, reasonable time is allowed, but not forever, thus making the law void an null. Brother Syed Quotes the following verse in Quraan Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur’an (39: 53-54: Say: “ O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering (of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succored. †Interesting! This verse is addresses Muslim sinners, not apostates, how can they benefit from it when they are bent denying the Messenger and the verse itself? Freedom to convert to or from Islam " 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." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . When did the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights superced the Sovreignty of Allah as the law maker? When did a group of men who do not believe in Allah SWT the authority to set the law that protects the rights of those who want to cause confusion in islam? Of course, Islma preceded this devlaration, so, if any institution has to abide by any universal law, its the entire world must accept the supremacy of Allah's laws in the Quraan, if they reject our faith, how can we subscribe to theirs? Brother Syed Quotes: The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256 . This verse does not support to his argument, but I wonder why he mentioned it after the universal declaration of human rights, does he believe that Quraan is infrior to this declaration? anyway, I have already classified above that non Muslims have their rights to live peacefully with muslims in their lands, and that their persons, property and dignity is safeguarded by Allah' sacred law, anyone who violates their rights is doomed in hell. Brother Syed continues: " Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137 . Finally, he quotes a verse that shows that apostasy is no SIN, but kufr. and that its ruling is hell in the next life, and in ithis life, the believres are given the mandate to determine how to set controls for this phenomena so that Islam does not become a permeable religion with destructive elemnents breaking its internal structure as a viable faith. Brother Syed Quotes: In another verse, Allah Almighty says: "Yours is only the duty to convey the message; you are not a guardian over them." (Al-Ghashiyah: 21- 22) If we follow this fallacy, all Sharia should be thrown out of the window. The brother fails to read reasons for the revealtion, the timing, and the succession of verses that were revealed after this one that together formed the body of the Sharia as it has been transmitted to us by the Umema, I am really shocked how shallow Brother Syed's knowledge is in this regard, my sincere advice is that he should stop writing simplistic articles like this when he has not studied the suuceession of verses and their meaning in the Arabic language. Brother Syed argues: The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown above, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy . Interesting again, why bother beat on a dead horse, you have already declared that the mission of the Prophet was only to deliver, and not to judge? so, the logic gets interesting here, Ok, we allow indefinite time limit for a person to oscillate between kufr and islam, because if we dont allow them, then this verse would meaningless, right? WRONG Apostacy does not have always to be declared, an apostate who hides his apostacy is known as hypocrite, thus, one can become a believer without being noticed, and likewise, he can become kafir privately, so in that case, no earthly punishment for him, just a devine punishment in hell as the verse says. Brother Syed reaches a conclusion: From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty , Hence the death penalty is not an appropriate response to apostasy . I fail to see the connection bewteen the verses above and the conclusion of complete legality of apostacy without any penalty. Islam, means submission to Allah swt, it is a binding covenant between man and his Maker, it entails total submission, and allegiance, and following of its teachings, Apostacy constitues breach of the covenenat, and contempt of the veru Sharia law that Syed is arguing for the protection of the Apostate. What needs to be asked is, how can any law protect a person who has declared contempt to revealed foundations on which that law was based? Brother Syed argues: The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an . Pakistan is a secular country, not governed by Sharia, the chief justice is not the authority for this ruling, I think he overstepped his authority, its the Ulema in Pakistan who should clarify this. Brother Syed argues: Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the above cited hadith, in which the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because this hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient confirmation to impose the death penalty. The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy . More fallacies, The Ummah accepts Hadeeth Al Ahaad, its a minority among scholars who do not, its a Saheeh category, not a weak based hadeeth. The Sharia unanimously sets death penalty for an apostate after being given reasonable time to repent, no one in his right mind should forgo to at least save his skin by claiming that he repented while concealing bis disbelief, but when that person fights for his right to declare and practice his disbelief, one wonders about his motives. Brother Syed continues: The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam, This is obviously not the prophet's intent . I am sure that Syed did not bother to read this verse, if he did, he failed to understand. A group of the people of the book conspired and said "Convert to Islam in the early part of the day, and become apostates at the end of that day, so that (Muslims) becomes apostates (like us), and do not believe (in any Mulsim) unless he is following our faith, say (O Muhammad) guidance is (ONLY) the guidnace of Allah SWT . Brother Syed claims: There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy. There are many, please refer to the hadeeth about Omar killing a Muslim who refused ruling in favor of a Jew by the Prophet, the Muslims refusal constituted apostacy, and was killed for it. Brother Syed argues: The issue of killing a murtad or the apostate is not a simple one. Scholars have debated it from various angles and it is not simply an issue of killing someone for choosing one religion or another . He is right this time, I was wondering why he was simplyfying it all along. Brother argues: The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This hadeeth is new to me, but on the face of it, if an Apostate is leaving the community to live outside without any plans to wage war against them, it makes sense to leave him alone. Punishment has a reason, which is to protect faith, if faith is deemed secure, judgement is left for what fits the revelation best while securing the contiuation of our faith. In conclusion: In matters of Sharia in Islam, the bases are the Benefits against Losses, The Sharia came down to uphold common good, and help increase it, stop evil and help decrease it, when two goods are competeing, the better good is choses against the lesser good, when two evils are competing, the lesser evil is chosen, for that reason, the Sharia is Dynamic, its first priority is self preservatiuon, no one can argue to use Sharia to abolish Sharia, opening the door for mockery without penalty could make it possible for allowing non Muslims to convert to temporarily marry Muslims women, and then apostate back after they have tried "Muslim" women as the case in Canada when a convert confided to a friend that he converted to Islam just to try a Muslim woman, other motives could be more severe, unless the Sharia activates controil mechanisms for protecting the faithful, Islam will be made a joke just like Christianity and Judaism, next thing will be for some enlightened "Muslims" to argue for the acceptance of other lifestyle based people to be accepted as full members of the community. To Be contiuned......................................................................................... An in depth scholarly essay to show the consensus of the Ulema about the Apostacy phenomena, coming soon to a monitor near you. Nur Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OG_Girl Posted April 19, 2005 ^^ Can't wait the second part. Salam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
