Leaving Islam Punishable by Death?...

H3OO wrote: Ronn Web i see u are very much convinced/ satisfied with arguments provided by angel though s/he  didnt provide anything from quran and the hadith she provided have already been discussed here but since it reflected a bad image on islam it seems like u didnt have any problem with those arguments but in my case u have still got some questions.

I cannot begin to comprehend how it would ever be permissible to put someone to death for abandonning religion. That's diabolical. And it seems to completely contradict the, "no compulsion in religion" sura. Fear of death would be ample 'compulsion'. I was looking at sura 2:34 the other day for some reason, and I saw the translation of the word 'alkafareena' as 'disbeliever' - and 'one who is disobedient'.  In reference to Iblis when he refuses to prostrate before Adam.

Angel wrote: H3OO wrote: Ronn Web i see u are very much convinced/ satisfied with arguments provided by angel though s/he  didnt provide anything from quran and the hadith she provided have already been discussed here but since it reflected a bad image on islam it seems like u didnt have any problem with those arguments but in my case u have still got some questions.     H300, there are muslims that agree that apostates should be killed. I studied the 4 schools and sharia on this, and I have provided this information for all to see. This is the 4 schools we are talking about.   Does this give a bad or negative image to islam, yes, but no more than the punishment for adultery & fornication  How is stoning to death or giving lashes to a person a good image for islam ???  or punishments for stealing where you cut of one's hand. Why is those punishment quite acceptable but not the death penalty for apostacy.   The verse that is mentioned is quite clear, there is no vagueness and even if it is a weak one, this doesn't mean it is invalid, it has as much validity as a strong one.

Angel if u read and understand properly the quranic verses related to adultery/fornication, u will realize how soft image of islam is as contary to  to general notion held as u sated above.

but 1st of all i dont think it is justified to compare the sin of adultery/ fornication with apostacy bcz the magnitude of sin in the
former case is way way greater than the sin in case of apostacy when it comes to the impact it has on the morals of the society.


Infact in islam it is considered one of the most heinous of all the social crimes which badly damages the moral values of a soceity which we can currently witness in the west, so  inorder to save  the society from such destruction, God has prescribed such a hard punishment, so that people refrain from it. in other words such punishment emphaiss the magnitude of this sin and most importantly its negative consequences in the eyes of God.


SECONdLY THE punishment is 100 strips and not stoning to death so i guess this misconception is cleared here and will be further cleared.


here are the versus of quran relating to adultery (Al-Nur, ch 24);

1. A Surah which we have sent down and which we have ordained; in it have we sent down clear signs in order that ye may receive admonition.

2. The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah if ye believe in Allah and the last day; and let a party of the believers witness their punishment.

3. Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty or an unbeliever nor let any but such a man or an unbeliever marry such a woman; to the believers such a thing is forbidden.

4. And those who launch a charge against chaste women and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegation) flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after; for such men are wicked transgressors.

5. Save those who afterward repent and make amends. (For such) lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.

6. As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;

7. And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.

8. But it would avert the punishment from the wife if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that (her husband) is telling a lie;


9. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth. (24:1-9)


By verse 4  The provision of 4 witnesses to prove adultery has made it impossible for it to be proved. i'll ask u which sensible person will commit adultery in front of even one person let alone 4. definately God also knew this but he still placed this restriction. So actually by announcing severe punishment, God has warned us to refrain from acting as such but by placing this verse he has given humans a way out and left the matter between such person and God.

similarly verse 5 clearly says if such a person repent and amends after the sin, forgive him, such is not punishable.

so does it reflect the harder image or the soft image?.

similarly verse 8  again gives a way out leaving it between the god and the sinner. So it definitely again proves how much islam cares and how much lenient it is even when it comes to punishment and provides every best possible way to deal with different aspects of a situation and makes sure that no innocent is harmed.

But what the problem is that the anti islamic groups only remember the 2nd verse of this chapter which they use to point fingers at islam but ignore the remaining verses.  All these verses are interlinked, interdependent, and leaving out/ignoring any verse will definitely
alter the true meaning.


Edited by H3OO - 22 September 2008 at 10:59am

 Topic:Apostasy in Islam.

 Personally i am in favour of death penalty for apostates but there are still different views regarding death penalty for apostates.

 My view is stand on Maulana Maududi's view.Let me quote his views

 Maududi

 In the 20th Century, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi defended traditional views on apostacy against the idea of freedom of religion in Islam.^[28] He summarized what he saw as the most likely objections by critics:

• 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 hypocritically chosen to deceive in order to save one's life. (Religious hypocrisy is the ultimate sin in Islam)
• 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 (Qur'an ^{[Qur'an 2:256]})" and "Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve (^{[Qur'an 18:29]})", and on the other to threaten to punish by death who renounces Islam and moves to reject Islam.

Maududi claims that the misunderstanding and criticism arises because of a "fundamental misconception" about Islam:

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. 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 also declares:

Whatever objections the critics pose regarding the punishment of the apostate, they make them bearing in mind only a single "religion" (madhhab). In contrast, when we present our arguments to demonstrate the validity of this punishment, we have in view no mere "religion" but a state which is constructed on a religion (din) and the authority of its principles rather than on the authority of a family, clan or people.

And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason. He then discusses the difference between a kafir, a dhimmi, and the appropriateness of death for them if they apostatize after conversion, and for those born of Muslim parents he states:

In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah.

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 believers, 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", and he compares this to the treason penalty on the books of the U.S. and Britain. Maududi also rejects the charge of contradiction. In his words:

"There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an ^{[Qur'an 2:256]}) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. 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.