Talk:Apostasy in Islam

Advice: When editting this article think of No true Scotsman. If you are not getting the message of that or wish to portray a point of view that oversimplifies as such cite a source. gren 09:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to keep these up to date with the best of information from here noting how long each of them should be. We do not want to flood any of those pages with information from here and I made this page because it does deserve to have a decent length. gren 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe this article has a horrible point of view. To give it any validity cite sources referring to the Sunni madhhabs, Shia Imams declarations (and a link to how their power is derrived), cite views from Liberal movements within Islam. Also cite the Qur'an sura 2, ayat 256 "no compulsion" to make the argument as many have done that it is not a punishable offense. But, do not just make this article a laundry list of what the author thinks counts as shirk and not have any reputable source to back it up.... and please, get legitimate sources, online is not the best means for this. gren 03:09, 20 Apr 2005 (GMT)

I disagree with this evaluation. While some sentences could be reworded, the factual content is generally correct. Citing sources in English is on the whole difficult, because much of the relevant literature has not been translated from Arabic for the simple reason that any reputed jurisprudent would have to be fluent in Arabic anyway. However, it is significant that the penalty of death for (unrecanted) apostasy is common to the four major schools of Sunni law (Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali), and to Shia law. It may be Politically Correct to disbelieve this, but no one to date has been able to provide evidence that these schools disagree on this particular issue. rudra 04:11, 05 Aug 2005 (GMT)

On further reflection, I think there is a different problem with the section on penalties. It fails to distinguish between penalties according to Sharia, and penalties according to civil/criminal codes, which practically all nation states have. The actual practice in countries which declare themselves Islamic is often a mixture, where not all legislated codes are derived from Sharia sources. The term "traditional society" in the article thus blurs the distinction seriously. Penalties according to the maddhabs, as representative of the traditional or orthodox viewpoint, are facts which can be stated and verified. So can legislation in Islamic countries. But they should probably be treated in separate paragraphs, with some material to indicate that a distinction exists. rudra 05:41:02, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

Possibly Relevant Qur'an

Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path. Al-Baqarah, 256.
Those who blasphemed and back away from the ways of Allah and die as blasphemers, Allah shall not forgive them. An-Nisa, 48.
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. An-Nisa, 137.
So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them capitive and besiege them and like in wait for them in every ambush At-Tawba, 5.

Note: In context they speak of a specific group. Relatively crappy page with some relevant quotes

Sources to mention

If you can gather information from any of these sources with good citations that would be very helpful.

Direct Qur'an quotes (those who just quote Al-Baqarah 256... ? or does that go into liberal...)
Direct hadith quotes (denote whether commonly accepted by Sunni or Shia, etc. - if there is a context give it)
Sunni madhhab rulings (Hanafi, Shafi, etc.) - Hudud crime? but not always (depends on school/judge)... because there is so much depth involved. Chances to repent, etc. all must be discussed for balance and therefore reserach galore... if anyone has good sources.
Shia rulings... (no idea..)
Various sects throughout histor; Mu'tazili, Ashari, Ahmadi, etc.
Liberal sects of modernity.

One easily accessible source of law according to the Shafi'i school is The Reliance of the Traveller by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Masri, translated with an introduction and subject index by Nuh Ha Mim Keller.rudra

The following are usually the texts that give the Islamic laws on Apostasy. These are available in translations. The key parts of these are also available on the net. I will try to track down the URL.

Ahmad ibn Naqib, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.
Imam Ibn Anas Malik, Al-Muwatta: The First Formulation of Islamic Law.
Rahman Doi, Shar'ah: The Islamic Law.
Alhaji Ajijola, Introduction to Islamic Law
Adbul 'Oudah, Criminal Law of Islam, Volume II.
Adbul 'Oudah, Criminal Law of Islam, Volume IV.
Mohamed El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law: A Comparative Study.

And then ofcourse the hadees by the various scholars: Al-Bukhari,Imam Muslim,Imam Abu Dawud, Ibn-I-Maja. Nickbee 05:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee[reply]

"Defined"

I think there is a danger in saying "apostasy in Islam is defined as" because, as far as I know there is no definition... and if there it it would be in the form of a Qur'anic quote. Apostasy in itself means rejecting ones faith and people have various perception on what constitutes rejection. To some it may only be when you deny it in your own words and to others it can be acting in a way deemed "incongruous with Islam". We must not portray Islam to be monolithic because there is great variance in thought... not only among different sects, but among individuals. By the same token Islam does not define sharia, people define it for certain schools... my POSC teacher talked about "sharia law says" and we must first find out which school of sharia (if any) you follow before such a statement can be made. The same goes for apostasy since it, and its consequent punishment (or lack thereof) is defined by what school of belief you follow. gren 07:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Reliance of the Traveller

The Subject Index in Keller's translation has the following entries:

Apostasy (ridda), o8.0-7

acts which constitute (see Unbelief)
consequences of committing (see Apostates)
insanity as an excuse for, k13.1

Apostates

annulment of marriage of, m7.4, m8.7, o8.6
execution for unbelief, f1.3, o8.2
killing, no expiation for, o5.4, o8.4
--, no indemnity (diya) for, o4.17, o8.4
--, permissibility of, e12.8
--, no retaliation (qisas) for, o1.2(3)
make up missed fast-days after returning to Islam, i1.3(3)
make up missed prayers after returning to Islam, f1.1
meat slaughtered by, j17.2
Muslim marriages with, unlawfulness of, m6.7
zakat due from, h1.2

The index entry for Unbelief is large. Section o8.7, titled "Acts That Entail Leaving Islam", enumerates 20 specific cases, and ends with "There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it." rudra 04:33, 05 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Here is the section from Keller's book (page 595):

o8.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)

(O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, "Trim your nails, it is sunna," and he replies, "I would not do it even if it were," as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.) o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to he killed. o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. o8.3 It he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties). o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die). o8.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: o8.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17). o8.6 (A: If a spouse in a consummated marriage apostatizes from Islam, the couple are separated for a waiting period consisting of three intervals between menstruations. If the spouse returns to Islam before the waiting period ends, the marriage is not annulled but is considered to have continued the whole time (dis: m7.4).)

ACTS THAT ENTAIL LEAVING ISLAM

o8.7 (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

(1) to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah; (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief; (3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as "Allah is the third of three," or "I am Allah — unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:))), for these latter do not entail unbelief; (4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace); (5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1); (6) to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat; (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it; (8) to mockingly say, "I don't know what faith is"; (9) to reply to someone who says, "There is no power or strength save through Allah": "Your saying 'There's no power or strength, etc.' won't save you from hunger"; (10) for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, "This is through the decree of Allah," to reply, "I act without the decree of Allah"; (11) to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also "kafir"); (12) when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, "La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah" (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah)), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it; (13) to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr); (14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma', def: b7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4); (15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: 'Ala' al-Din 'Abidin adds the following:

(16) to revile the religion of Islam; (17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah; (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens; (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-'Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24).)

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.) — Nickbee 05:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee[reply]

Non-Traditional

Mu'tazilite and Liberal movements within Islam seem to be rather related to Sunni Islam... however should they be put under the Sunni section? They are not the classical viewpoints of Sunni Islam but they are related... or should they go in a section about "others"? I am not sure how to deal with any of this... but we must show what various groups believe because Islam itself does not have an exact answer. We can cite Qur'an at the top for a basis of what the Qur'an says and that could not fit into a section but to cite hadith (which is commonly done) has to be separated into Sunni and Shia because they accept other hadith. Some reject hadith some of the traditional hadith... but, are they considered Sunni? gren 07:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Religion versus science

What about cases where modern scientific discovery contradicts the Koran?, e.g.:-

The Koran (and the Christian Bible) have creation timetables, but the modern geological timetable and the astronomical universe history say otherwise.
The Koran says that the embryo in the womb develops from a bloodclot, but modern embryology says otherwise.
The Koran (and the Bible) says that Man and the animals were created, but the modern discovery of evolution says otherwise.

Anthony Appleyard 06:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran has no creation timetables as in Bible . According to Quran , the universe was created in 6 epochs or 6 events , not in 6 days . & universe isnt 7000 years old . And there is no such thing as a geocentric model of Universe described in Quran

ITs not blood clot , its translated as a leach like clinging mass .

Quran says Humans were created . About animals , Quran says nothing . Evolution ( excluding humans ) is not against Islam Farhansher 21:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Made some modifications , added Quranic verses , deleted some incorrect information , added a fatwa link .Farhansher 21:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan?

Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death.

It doesn't make it clear whether apostasy itself is punishable by death in Pakistan or not. It appears as if only blashphemy is punishable but the use of the word "also" suggests apostasy is punishable too. What is correct? If the law is unclear, or if there is any controversy in Pakistan, then the article should say so.

Nickbee's edits

I'm not sure it's differentiating from the disbelief (kufr as you mention) and apostasy (irtidad)... which are different. Your paragraph didn't make it clear where the Mawdudi quote came from... so it was a little confusing to me. Your quotes for the Afzal ur-Rahman section seem to be hanging... you have to start sentence quotes but don't close them off. If you could clean that up some that'd be good since I don't have the sources. It could probably be made more compact since it does go talking about just plain kafirs often. And, the hanging Qur'an quotes... are they used by the people?

As for "parallels in some other religious systems" -- many traditions have had apostasy laws of some sort. That is the parallel. Rreading apostasy will show some of the parallels. gren グレン 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In all the fiqh, apostasy, blasphemy, and heresy are linked under "Kufr". Irtidad is a Hadd offence while the other two are ta'zir offences. Maududi is specifically talking about irtidad in that passage and not disblief. I have tried to clean it up according to your suggestion. Thank you for correcting some of my typos and punctuation. I have to figure out the editing here and writing first in an editor offline first. I will learn as fast as I can. I have to see how to quote the online sources and how to qoute the books. Different pages seem to have slightly different styles. The Maududi quote is from The punishment of the apostate according to Islamic Law by Abul Ala Maududi. Translated by Dr. Ernest Hahn 1994. Nickbee 04:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.[reply]

Simple kufr is not apostasy and that is what I was questioning. What you wrote says, If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave, which leads me to believe they weren't Muslim in the first place which just makes the unbelievers and not apostates. At the end it talks about apostasy but, it states [h]ere "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants" which through me off a little... is that what the book says? Only half of it is a quote. Hmm, were you "209.76.108.207" -- someone reverted that as vandalism... and, it surely wasn't vandalism. In any case, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Cite_sources which, I really need to read too... it will make any citations you do go more smoothly (and with footnotes too). I still think your quote needs a little cleaning up... I'm just not exactly sure how. gren グレン 06:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried inserting the URL link to the copy of the translation that I found on line. The whole point of the entire quote is to show that the "convenent breaking" according to Maududi can only mean apostates. Thank you for the cite_sources link. Nickbee 17:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.[reply]

Consistency in spelling could be helpful. Mawdudi, Maudoodi and Maududi can be found on the net, and none is obviously wrong. If Google hits were a criterion, Maududi wins. rudra 05:17:05, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

I tried making the introduction more direct and took out the verses of the Quran (although their references are still there) because 1) they are redily available and 2)they were not complete verses from recognized translations. I do have a question about the remark in the paranthesis about "whom God loves" and who love God fighting to protect their beliefs and hence punishing apostates: If this is from the Quran, then a reference would be nice. If it is not from the Quran, then it should not be given as it is and should be changed.

Nickbee 17:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee[reply]

Parentheses in translations of the Quran are the same as italics in the Bible: they indicate words or phrases interpolated to complete the meaning in the translation language, but which do not correspond to actual words in the original text. rudra 01:49:50, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Starting on the Penalty of Apostasy Section: Please offer suggestions

Below is my attempt at starting the section on the Penalty for Apostasy in Islam. I would like any suggestions and ideas. This section is difficult and will need work. After this section I think another section of example of recent apostates around the world and status of different countries should do for the page. Input?

Penalty for Apostasy in Islam.

There are many scholars who have unequivocally stated that the penalty of Apostasy in Islam is death. Dr. A. Rahman I. Doi in Shariah: The Islamic Law (A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998, p. 265-267) states, "The punishment by death in the case of apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisproudence". Alhaji Ajijola in Introduction to Islamic law ( International Islamic Publishers, New Delhi, India, 1989 p.128) states that Apostasy is a Hadd sentence and the penelty prescribed is death. Adbul Qadir Oudah, a prolific Egyptian Shari'a scholar in Criminal Law of Islam (Translated by S. Zakir Aijaz, Kitab Bhavan,New Delhi, India, 1999 (Improved edition), Volume II. p. 258-262; Volume IV. p. 19-21, ISBN: 81-7151-273-9 ) states that the view advocated by the jurists belonging to all the four madhabs of Islam is "According to the Shariah taking 'murtad's' life is an impunitive act or one exempt from punishment. Hence if some one kills him, he will not be deemed as wilfully guilty." The legal issue between the different schools being when a muslim can act against an apostate without the sanction of the organised state. In 'Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri's Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a (Vol. 5, pp.422-440) (Translated from the Arabic)First English Edition (Villach): 1997: the claim is "All four imams (the founders of the four schools of Islamic law) -- may Allah have mercy upon them -- agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt -- may Allah forbid it -- must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. The hypocrite and heretic (zindiq) who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed.

There are liberal scholars as well who have argued that Apostasy carries no earthly punishment and that the Quran only warns the apostates of punishments in the hereafter. S.A.Rahman,a former Cheif justice of Pakistan (Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986) ISBN:068618551X) examined and concluded that there was no death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Quran. Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed (Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam,Ashgate Publishing, (March 30, 2004),ISBN: 0754630838) argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam and with the modern concept of the freedom to choose one's religion. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment. Mirza Tahir Ahmed (Murder in the name of Allah, Lutterworth Press 1989, ISBN:0718828054), the spiritual leader of the Ahamdis, a self proclaimed muslim sect, but enforced into apostasy by being declared non-muslims in many muslim countries, concludes his book by "Apostasy which is not aggravated by some other crime is not punishable in this world. This is the teaching of God. This was the teaching of the Holy Prophet. This is the view confirmed by Hanafi jurists,26 Fateh al-Kadeer27 Chalpi,28 Hafiz ibn Qayyim, Ibrahim Nakhai, Sufyan Thauri and many others. The Maududian claim of consensus, concerning the tradition they hold to be true, is a mere fiction."

With the exception of a few muslim countries, notably Iran and Saudi Arabia, the modern muslim states are not founded on Islamic law. They owe their existence to a combination of European colonial policies and secular nationalist ideology. The majority have a written constitution and the laws it spells out are considered to be primary and to take precedence over all other laws including Sharia, Which means, in practice, that muslim countries aim to harmonize the laws of the modern constitutions and those bequeathed by the Islamic Sharia, by no means an easy task. A consequence of this is that the death penalty is rarely carried out today in most muslim countries, but there remains an overwhelming sense of outrage among many Muslims when another leaves Islam. An example of the need to reconcile the constitutional penal code with the Islamic Sharia is the infamous blasphemy laws of Pakistan. In 1980, under President Zia-ul-Haq’s leadership, the Federal Shariat Court was created and given jurisdiction to examine any existing law to ensure it was not repugnant to Islam [1] and in its early acts it passed ordinances included five that explicitly targeted religious minorities: a law against blasphemy; a law punishing the defiling of the Qur’an; a prohibition against insulting the wives, family, or companions of the Prophet of Islam; and two laws specifi-cally restricting the activities of Ahmadis, who were declared non-muslims.

Under traditional Islamic law (according to Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri's Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a i.e Apostasy in Islam according to the Four Schools of Islamic Law (Vol. 5, pp. 422-440) First English Edition (Villach): 1997) an apostate may be given upto three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. There are difference between the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the penalties with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and in the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between "Murtad Fitri", an apostate who was born of muslim parents, and "Murtad Milli", an apostate who had converted into islam initially. Some additional penalties and considerations that are mentioned are that a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatize, an under age apostate is imprisoned till he reaches maturity and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword. As mentioned earlier that these are rarely ever carried out in toto at present as examples of Apostasy give below show and also underline the problem in harmonizing the constitutional law and Islamic law in the various countries.

Examples of Apostasy in the recent past

To be continued.....

Continuation: Apostasy in the recent past

An accurate number of muslims rejecting Islam is currently impossible to obtain because the ex-muslims are very loath to reveal their apostasy even to friends and families because of fear of retribution and retaliation even when they are living in the west. The greatest threat to apostates in the Muslim world derives from private individuals who take punishment into their own hands, and states which are complict by their silence towards these individual crimes. An example among many is the case of a Bangladeshi Murtad Fitri Christian evangelist who was stabbed while returning home from a film version of the Gospel of Luke (When Muslims Convert by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross,Friday, March 04, 2005, Commentary Magazine 2005). Bangladesh does not have a law against apostasy, but apparently some muslims felt outraged enough to kill. There are reports of 200,000 muslims who have turned away from Islam in Britan alone, ( Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family by Anthony Browne), and facing abuse, violence, and even murder at the hands of their previous co-religionists. There are similar reports of violent intimidation of those electing to reject Islam in other western countries [2].

Apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Mauritania at present, In 1980 Pakistan incorporated into the penal code making any disparaging remark against any personality revered in Islam as an offence. In 1986 the law was extended to specifically include “Penal Code 295-C: Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. In October 1990, the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) ruled that “the penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet … is death and nothing else”. In their 1996 report on Pakistan Amenesty International stated that these laws have been extensively abused to harass members of the religious minorities such as Christians and Ahmadis and that "In all the cases known to Amnesty International, these charges have been arbitrarily brought, founded solely on the individual's minority religious beliefs or on malicious accusations against individuals of the Muslim majority who advocate novel ideas. The available evidence indicates that charges were brought as a measure to intimidate and punish members of minority religious communities or non-conforming members of the majority community and that the hostility towards minority groups appeared in many cases compounded by personal enmity, professional envy or economic rivalry or a desire to gain political advantage" [3] An example of the passions and the feelings of extreme outrage that are evoked within the muslim community is provided by Amenesty international's 2005 Report on Pakistan: Samuel Masih, a 27-year-old Christian, was arrested in August 2003 and charged with having thrown litter on the ground near a mosque in Lahore. This was deemed an offence under section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which provides up to two years’ imprisonment for defiling a place of worship. Samuel Masih was held in a Lahore prison but transferred to hospital in May, suffering from tuberculosis. He died after his police guard attacked him in the hospital. The police officer stated that he had done his “religious duty” [4]. Other examples of persecution of apostates converting to Christianity have been given by the Barnabas Fund ( Barnabas Fund: The Application of the Apostasy Law in the world today ) from Kuwait, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, and Bangladesh. Barnabas Fund report concludes: "The field of apostasy and blasphemy and related “crimes” is thus obviously a complex syndrome within all Muslim societies which touches a raw nerve and always arouses great emotional outbursts against the perceived acts of treason, betrayal and attacks on Islam and its honour. While there are a few brave dissenting voices within Muslim societies, the threat of the application of the apostasy and blasphemy laws against any who criticize its application is an efficient weapon used to intimidate opponents, silence criticism, punish rivals, reject innovations and reform, and keep non-Muslim communities in their place." Similar views are expressed by the 'non-religious' International Humanist and Ethical Union (See: The fate of Infidels and Apostates under Islam).

What are the reasons given for the Death penalty for Apostasy?

Nickbee 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee[reply]

Starting Justifications of the Death Penalty.

Explanations for the death penalty.

Many of the reasons for the death penalty for apostates given by Islamic scholars are examined by Abu Ala Maududi The punishment of the apostate according to Islamic law and he summarises the most likely objections against the executions of the apostates as:

This idea is against the freedom of conscience. How can it be right to offer an apostate the gallows when he has decided to leave Islam?
A faith which people maintain because of the fear of death cannot be genuine faith. This faith will be manifestly hypocritical chosen to deceive in order to save one's life.
If all religions approve of execution for apostasy, it will be difficult not only for Muslims to embrace another religion but also for non-muslims to embrace Islam.
It is contradictory to say on one hand "There is no compulsion in religion (Quran 2:256)" and "Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve (Quran 18:30)", and on the other to threaten to punish by death who renounces Islam and moves to reject Islam.

Maududi claims that the misunderstaning and criticism arises because of a "fundamental misconception" about Islam. He states, "If Islam is truly a "religion" in the sense that religion is understood at present, surely it would be absurd to prescribe the penalty of execution for those people who wish to leave it because of their dissatisfaction with its principles." and "It is not only a "religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true ordering of life before death." Maududi is reiterating the claim of "Deen" in that Islam is a complete way of life which includes all matters relating to the functioning of a State as well as matters relating to individual conscience. It is because Islam incorporates within its realm the responsibilites of an organsied state that it treats muslims as members of an organsied state and apostates as traitors. Maududi considers the threat of execution as not forcing someone to stay within the fold of Islam but as a way of keeping those who are not truly committed, out of the community of Islam. Maududi rejects the third criticism because unlike other religions which are free to exchange beleivers, Islam is "on whose ideas and actions society and state are constructed" cannot allow "to keep open its door that would spell its own ruin, the scattering of its own structure's parts, the stripping away of the bonds of its own existence". Maududi also rejects the charge of contradiction. In his words: "There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an 2:256) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion.[2] And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.

Essentially the same arguments are skected by the Shi'i Islamic author Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi in the brief article Apostacy (Irtidad) in Islam, relying upon the opinions of some of the earlier scholars of Islam. Since the Muslims ascribing to the liberal movements within Islam disagree that death penalty is an appropriate punishment for Apostasy, it makes little sense for them to offer reasons justifying the death penalty. Nickbee 18:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee[reply]

Nick, you can't just add in long quotes. You have to summarize. I tried to do that but Karl Meier here just blindly reverts and stalks me. I'm going to bring in some other people on thisHeraclius 16:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you should make any false accusations about me stalking you. It was only a matter of hours after I edited Ma malakat aymanukum, (an article that you have never edited before) before you showed up and reverted my edit. Also, there is nothing wrong with me opposing your drive by reverts. I think, most editors would agree to that. Or maybe, would you like that I start an RfC regarding these issues? -- Karl Meier 17:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your edit, I merely made it more accurate. You can keep calling my reverts "drive-by" but honestly no one knows what you mean by that. This article has too many long quotes and I tried to summarize it. Threatening me with an RfC is just changing the subject and avoiding the conflict here.Heraclius 17:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think people know what that is. It's the unexplained PoV reverts, that you make much too many of. And I see that you have also started calling people (such as Nickbee) strange names... An RfC sure seems warranted to me... Anyway regarding the Ma malakat aymanukum article, it's not your latest edit I am talking about. It was your first. -- Karl Meier 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I called Nickbee Nick the Socialist because that's the name I know him by on another website. I have no idea how you can describe that as a personal attack, and believe me no one would buy it. Once again, you can threaten me with an RfC and get all your SIIEG member friends to sign it but there is little to no evidence for one. G'day.Heraclius 17:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know you from any other website. I considered it a personal attack, and I chose to ignore your juvenile behavior. You called me Nickbee the socialist from FFI. I checked and there is no nickbee at FFI.

Why don't you tell me what your problem is with quotes first. I think quoting here is appropriate.

I have read wiki's policy and I don't see that the quoting is against wiki's policy.
I have put the article up and asked for suggestions and modifications before it even appeared on the page.
I have incorporated changes that people have suggested, and I am not averse to making changes that you think should be made, but please talk first.
I will go through the changes you have made and I will incorporate the ones that I agree with and the rest we should discuss, before you start threatening and reverting whole sale. Nickbee 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

To get the ball rolling.

Revision of 4:01, 16 August 2005

Heraclius, your revision of 4:01, 16 August 2005. My statement is backed by the scholars I had quoted who said that the four fiqh agreed about the death penalty. I have cited them making that statement. What is your source for making the claim whether the different fiqh had disagreement about it. The only disagreement has been whether women apostates need be killed or imprisoned for life or till they recanted. So please provide a source that supports your claim. Nickbee 20:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of 4:02, 16 August 2005

You have deleted all the secondary sources that are in print and put in your opinion. Why? The sources I provide are from books on Islamic law written by Islamic Jurists. What are your sources that support your claims. Nickbee 20:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of 4:07,16 August 2005

You have deleted information that makes it explicit what is the persecution that is taking place. Why do you object to those quotes and how does that contravene Wiki's policies? Nickbee 20:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee[reply]

Let's start with the first paragraph. Can you start by sourcing it? There needs to be a source that unambiguously states "all four fiqh agree about the death penalty punishment".Heraclius 01:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. A. Rahman I. Doi in Shariah: The Islamic Law (A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998, p. 265-267) states, "The punishment by death in the case of apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisproudence". Alhaji Ajijola in Introduction to Islamic law ( International Islamic Publishers, New Delhi, India, 1989 p.128) states that Apostasy is a Hadd sentence and the penelty prescribed is death. Adbul Qadir Oudah, a prolific Egyptian Shari'a scholar in Criminal Law of Islam (Translated by S. Zakir Aijaz, Kitab Bhavan,New Delhi, India, 1999 (Improved edition), Volume II. p. 258-262; Volume IV. p. 19-21, ISBN: 81-7151-273-9 ) states that the view advocated by the jurists belonging to all the four madhabs of Islam is "According to the Shariah taking 'murtad's' life is an impunitive act or one exempt from punishment. Hence if some one kills him, he will not be deemed as wilfully guilty." The legal issue between the different schools being when a muslim can act against an apostate without the sanction of the organised state. In 'Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri's Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a (Vol. 5, pp.422-440) (Translated from the Arabic)First English Edition (Villach): 1997: the claim is "All four imams (the founders of the four schools of Islamic law) -- may Allah have mercy upon them -- agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt -- may Allah forbid it -- must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. The hypocrite and heretic (zindiq) who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed. Nickbee 02:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so attribute the claim to that one author. Don't just state it with no source.02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, I thought that was the summary section. It summarises what is in the page. The four references are in the page. It is the first paragraph of the penalty section. I think the references should go at the end of the page, then the reference in the summary can go in as in a footnote style, and do not have to be repeated again and again. I will work on that. Nickbee 02:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee[reply]

Revision of 1:20, 17 August 2005

Heraclius, you have commented out the following: "There is no definition and consequent punishment that span all Islamic views but the concept of how to deal with apostasy is traditionally a matter of hudd under sharia law and varies over the different schools of thought throughout the history of Islam. Although there is a consensus in the four Fiqah (Schools of Jurisprudence) that an apostate should be killed, most muslim countries rarely carry out the death penalty at present. please source this"

Because it is not a random and large change, I am not reverting it in good faith so we can begin a conversation. This was there before I expanded and cleaned the page up. This is a summary section and hence the information should be in the rest of the page. The definition issue is dealt by showing the list of what qualified for the Shafi fiqh. These lists have changed over the years. There are different lists. At present Iran considers insult to Khomeni as blasphemy while Saudi law does not say anything about that. The jurists that I have mentioned have all said that apostasy is a matter hudd. That is how the Pakistani and Saudi Shariat Courts have defined it as well. The law books that I have quoted from Islamic jurists all state that the four Imam's agree that there should be death penalty. The rarity of the death penalty is stated by Amnesty international. So what exactly do you want sourced? Nickbee 01:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius, from your comments above under the 4:07 revision, I take it you accept the sources and hence I have restored your commented out sentence. Nickbee 18:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of important information

I reverted Heracilius most recent changes to the "According to Quran" section, because they deleted some information that I think is important and interesting for the readers of this article. We should in my opinion not just mention the specific PoVs that important scholars have, but also why they hold these PoVs regarding this subject. To use their own words, where they explain why they hold these views, is in my opinion a excellent way to do that. -- Karl Meier 12:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to write an encyclopedia. That means writing in a concise, pithy way that gets to the point. I didn't delete any PoV's, I merely made them more concise and easy to understand/read. I did, in fact, also remove the long quote from the anti-death penalty author, so I am not just POV pushing and deleting information. The quotes from the authors are at the websites provided.Heraclius 15:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and inform the readers about the different important PoVs that exist. But it is also equally important to make our readers understand why these PoVs exist and what arguments they are based on. In your version we don't get any explanation of why Mr. Maududi "argued that Sura 9 verses 11 and 12 of the Quran sanction death for apostasy." and we don't get to know why Mr. Rahman concluded "that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter....". I really think the readers would appriciate some background information on these views. Such important information should in my opinion not be excluded just to make the article shorter. -- Karl Meier 16:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No heraclius you absolutely delete relevant information. Please support your claim on writing style by wiki policy pages. You do not make them concise. You censor views. There is much evidence to your selective editing and trying to impose your biased pov. Nickbee 15:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a bit paranoid here. If I am indeed "censoring views", then I also censored the pro-Muslim view by cutting out that quote as well. I urge you to accept this style of writing. If you don't, then I guess I'm going to have to be forced to go your way and just add large, rambling quotes to every section.Heraclius 15:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, have it your way. I guess it's time to add paragraphs and paragraphs of quotes.Heraclius 16:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius, why don't you answer Karl's point about how does one explain why Maududi argued that Sura 9 &11 advocate the death penalty? It is not rambling but appropriate quoting of the original so the reader gets to see the words of the original author as well. He then understands the context much better. So where does it say that showing the "why" of facts is against wiki policy. Please do not be destructive. Nickbee 16:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me destructive is a personal attack. Nickbee, I am really trying to accomadate your POV here. If you truly want to include long, rambling quotes, then I guess I will have to comply.Heraclius 16:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]