Talk:Apostasy in Islam/Archive 1

message: 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)
===NPOV / apostate as contestable word===
The very word, 'apostate' has a pejorative connotation.
Are we falling into the language of critics of dissidents within Islam by using the word 'apostate'?
:No i do not, we are not labeling these people this, we are reporting what is happening to people who get labeled this.Hypnosadist 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The very word, 'apostate' has a pejorative connotation.
Are we falling into the language of critics of dissidents within Islam by using the word 'apostate'?
:No i do not, we are not labeling these people this, we are reporting what is happening to people who get labeled this.Hypnosadist 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV / apostate as contestable word

message: *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
Hey Dude
Suraht At-Tawba, 5  or [9:5] is LINKED to [9:12-13]. … Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you …
It is  talking about those whom plotted to  Expel The Apostle of Allah Muhammad and whom Conspired and violate their oath  and started the fight . being the first (to assault) or start the hostility ..“ being the first (to assault) you “[9 :13]   
It does not talk about Apostasy, or killing anything that breath as the bible say'..in DT 20:16 "[In the cities] of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes'
It talks about people Start the Hostility by 
1)Being the first to fight you.
2)Breaking their Oath of treaty.
3)Continued in their conspiracy and plotted to expel the Messenger.
This is a WAR Situation.
It does not talk about ambusing Cities,killing anything that breath apostasy or Apple and banana.
Wael Faiez 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly Relevant Qur'an 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Sources to mention 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Defined" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  From [[Reliance of the Traveller]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Traditional 

message: 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)
thread_title: Religion versus science

message: 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  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 . 
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"  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”  .   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)
thread_title: Starting on the Penalty of Apostasy Section: Please offer suggestions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Starting Justifications of the Death Penalty. 

message: 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)
replies: text: A better wording seems to be that there is no consensus on the issue, but the death penalty for apostacy is a majority position in all fiqh - ie, being pro/contra death penalty doesn't depend on which school a scholar belongs to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.2.58 (talk • contribs) . (October 2, 2006)
===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)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Revision of 4:02, 16 August 2005

message: 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)
thread_title: Revision of 4:07,16 August 2005

message: 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)
thread_title: Revision of 1:20, 17 August 2005

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: Calling me destructive is a personal attack.  Nickbee, I am really trying to accomodate your POV here.  If you truly want to include long, rambling quotes, then I guess I will have to do the same.Heraclius 16:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No, he said "please don't be destructive".  That poisons the mood and is a personal attack.  I don't think anyone here is being "destructive".Heraclius 16:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heraclius, please try to wrap up the objection on the Din page.  I have posted suggestion there.  I did post request for third opinion but no one has responded so far.  What is the next step?  Shall we call for an RFC for that page or mediation? Nickbee 17:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no more to say to you on the Din page.  You just won't take no for an answer even when presented with Wiki policies that contradict your paragraphs.  I have called for third opinions as well.  You can place the article on RfC if you want and see if anyone responds, though I doubt many people will be interested.Heraclius 17:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of important information

message: Heraclius, here is a short bio of ibn Baz:
bu 'Abdullaah Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez ibn 'Abdullaah ibn 'Abdur-Rahmaan Aal-Baaz was born in the city of Riyadh in Dhul-Hijjah 1330 A.H./1909 C.E.
He memorized the Qur.aan in his early age and then he acquired knowledge from many of the great scholars of the Kingdom. Some of his teachers were Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Lateef Aal-Shaykh, Shaykh Saalih ibn 'Abdul-'Azeez Aal-Shaykh and the eminent Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem Aal-Shaykh who, in his time, was the Muftee of Saudi Arabia. Shaykh Ibn Baaz accompanied the eminent Shaykh and learned from him for about ten years. Thus he gained his religious education from the family of Imaam Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab.
Afterwards Shaykh Ibn Baaz was appointed as a Justice and he worked for fourteen years in the judiciary until he was deputed to the education faculty. He remained engaged in teaching for nine years at Riyadh Islaamic Law College, Riyadh Religious Institute. Then he was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Islaamic University, al-Madeenah; but shortly afterwards, he was made the Chancellor with all the administrative powers. Later he was appointed President of the General Presidency of Islaamic Research, Ifta, Call and Propagation, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
He held the position of Grand Muftee of Saudi Arabia, the Presidency of many Islaamic Committees and Councils, the prominent among these being: Senior Scholars Committee of the Kingdom, Permanent Committee for Islaamic Research and Fataawa, the Founding Committee of Muslim World League, World Supreme Council for Mosques, Islaamic Jurisprudence Assembly Makkah; and the member of the Supreme Council of the Islaamic University at al-Madeenah, and the Supreme Committee for Islaamic Propagation, until he passed away on Thursday 27 Muharram 1420 A.H./May 13 1999 C.E. May Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala) have Mercy upon his soul, aameen.
:You didn't need to give me that bio.  Citing him would have been fine.Heraclius 18:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ibn Baz

message: There is an image of a Arabic letter, with the caption "legal opinion". What is this, could someone who understands Arabic expand on it and perhaps update the caption? Thanks Mustaqbal 11:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Contact the user who uploaded it in the first place: Orientalist --Kripkenstein 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have contacted the user and still am waiting for an answer. In the mean-time, an anonymous user dropped me a line and translated the text (a bit roughly, but intelligibly), and I will put a quote of the text on the caption of that image. --Kripkenstein 21:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legal Opinion" Image 

message: Irishpunktom removed this section with the summary 'rv per consensus'. I'm new here, but I don't see such a consensus on this talk page. The material seems timely, and looks to be sourced. What in particular are the objections to including it? Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the material may be moved to Blasphemy#Blasphemy in Islam. The creation of a separate article Blasphemy in Islam may also be on the agenda. Pecher Talk 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy in the Recent Past 

message: The page needs to be cleaned up in regards to the use of quotations and italics and quotations within quotations. POV needs to be addressed as the only reasons one should oppose the death penalty for apostasy in Islam are given by a proponent (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi). The headings also need to be cleaned up. Hyacinth 19:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I find the section headings on this page unclear. It almost seems like they were vandalized so I assume there was a big rewrite that neglected to update the headings appropriately.
"According to critics" doesn't indicate whether these "critics" are critical of apostasy, the death penalty for apostasy, Islam, or what. It only discusses the work of one person (Ibn Warraq) and doesn't seem critical.
"Death penalty for apostasy" comes after three sections discussing the death penalty for apostasy ("According to Hadith", "According to Tafsir", and "According to critics"). "Reasons for the death penalty" also comes after these three sections which also gives reasons.
Hyacinth 18:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: As a result of this debate, a section of the article Islamic Rulings was supposed to be merged here. Since it is not obvious how to do it, I have created Apostasy in Islam/temp, where material can be taken from. Regards. - Liberatore(T) 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is completely unsourced, so it does not look like there is anything useful to take. Pecher Talk 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: /temp deleted after prod elapsed. Deizio talk 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Rulings 

message: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes, so verses and hadith cannot go alone, but their relevance and interpretation by scholars must be explained. There is no place in this article for unexplained quotes. Pecher Talk 10:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not justify removing the Qur'anic verses, most of them have a clear meaning unless they are picked out the context. You can always add the neighbor verses, or explain their context; but one should not remove them. I am sure it is interesting for many to see the relevant qur'anic verses. Finally, if we don't want to quote any qur'anic verses, we should not also quote any biblical verses and so on. Why don't you then clear up other articles first? Let's start with dhimmi article which nobody besides us are editing it. --Aminz 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qur'an and hadith quotes

message: The tags bother me. Can we at least remove the "clean up" tag? --Aminz 07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the tag should remain since some editors such as Pecher have disputed the content of the article.Aminz 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: It seems me that the article is quite neutral now. What about removing this tag? --Xorox 10:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the tag should remain since some editors such as Pecher have disputed the content of the article.Aminz 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing <nowiki>{{totally disputed}}</nowiki> tag 

message: Would you guys work it out already?  It doesn't have to be perfect.  Reasonably acceptable to both parties and stable is enough.  The alternative is more edit conflict, arbitration, etc., etc.  Think of all the energy we could be redirecting towards other articles.Timothy Usher 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for Compromise

message: What about http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm ? 
One thing interesting about this site is that it says: 
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.
So, it true, the sentence in the intro should be revised. thx. --Aminz 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, in your opinion, qualifies religioustolerance.org as a reliable source? Pecher Talk 08:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is something which totally against the Basic Principals of Islam what we learn" I would advise you to take a visit to the middle east, you'd be surprised at how many people strongly believe (are prepared to die for) that one should be killed for converting from Islam to any other religion. JHJPDJKDKHI! 19:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Question 

message: The edit summary says "Verified true, notability previously established. RVK" Where is the citation? Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the accuracy of the statement - the kind of citation we could put in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an alone Muslims 

message: These two articles discuss a somewhat neglected issue, which are entirely relevant to this article:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/f2921ec68c9633ca1f8777847036e1f1.htm
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/May/middleeast_May69.xml§ion=middleeast&col=
Perhaps someone could include something?
Matarael 08:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baha'is in Egypt 

message: Can anyone else see how completely absurb sharia law is in the following sentence.
"In Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed."
So... it's ok for muslims to threaten other muslims with death if they convert to another religion but these people are saved the death penalty if the people trying to convert the muslim to another religion are threatening the muslim with death.
Are the muslims here trying to say that threatening one with death if they don't convert to another religion is a bad thing? It's standard practice in Islam.
And besides they still think it's ok to threaten someone with death to 'keep them locked into the muslims faith, yet it's not ok for another religion to threaten a muslim with death if he doesn't convert. And they have the nerve to talk about double standards as applied to everything they complain about.
JHJPDJKDKHI! 18:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The contradictory nature of sharia astounds me. 

message: Can someone make a map of which Muslim countries have a law imposing the death penalty on apostates, or non-Muslims? 137.22.15.104 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is this isn't always clear because there is often a tension between the secular state and Islamic courts within it and there is also the problem of de jure law and de facto law do not go hand in hand. It should be possible to find decent criteria to make such a map about. gren グレン 05:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: So, I was browsing JSTOR as I tend to and I found two articles that may be of interest.
* Bernard Lewis. "Some Observations on the Significance of Heresy in the History of Islam" Studia Islamica  >   No. 1  (1953), pp. 43-63 
* Rudolph Peters. "Apostasy in Islam" Die Welt Des Islams > Vol. 17 Issue 1/4
Both of these may prove to be of use to anyone wishing to expand this article. gren グレン 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: Material for a religous comaprision:  Catholic Canon Law Says Catholics Can Kill Protestants  --Striver 00:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: more: false oath is no perjury, so killing is no murder, according to canon law, when heresy and heretics are to be purged out.  --Striver 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone believe that that is actually a credible source?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but in any case, here you got another one: What's incredible about the case being argued in a San Francisco federal court, besides the media keeping the case away from the public eye, is the Pope's attorney had the audacity in a November hearing to claim the Vatican was justified in partaking in mass murder as it was "permissible under international law --Striver 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what multiple completely unreliable sources proves, but it certainly isn't anything that is important. The home page of your last website asks users to "Donate NOW" in order to "to continue to expose the dirty work of the Illuminati and their secret societies". Come on man, get real.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just something i just stumbled on while listening to an audio, im sure a few minutes of googling can reveal more reliable sources. --Striver 08:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes by all means please provide more sources, if they as humorous as the last one this should be quite an entertaining day.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity

message: How do we know that this website is reliable? What about the testimonies?--Aminz 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow, please discuss this here. --Aminz 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is as reliable as some of the other external links. ,,, ,, , These sites are about as reliable as faithfreedom.org. Now how do we know it is accurate, well we don't. We really don't know anything is accurate when we think about it.--Sefringle 09:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sefringle, you are right and I have always opposed all these websites. This is also confirmed by [].--Aminz 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also removing the sources I mentioned above, because they are just as reliablie as faithfreedom.--Sefringle 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. These websites are not reliable except http://www.islamonline.net/ one. Because it is directed by a Muslim scholar. --Aminz 06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me how islamonline.net is any different from faithfreedom.org, other than the fact that they are on opposite extremes.--Sefringle 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Islamonline is official website of a Muslim scholar who has credentials at least. Faithfreedom is directed by Ali Sina(if he exists) who doesn't have any degree in Islamic studies whatsoever. --Aminz 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a scholar is the mantainer of the website, but a lot of the articles are not written by him. So it cannot be concluded that it is a scholar unless the particular article was written by the owner. For example, the link on this page was to a list of articles. That is unscholarly and inappropiate for this article.--Sefringle 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The articles are written by his students, true. And they are not necessarily reliable for usage inside wikipedia but to my standards that's considerably more reliable than Ali Sina's website which, to my mind, virtually writes any nonsense. --Aminz 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles written by his students are not scholarly, so they are also nonsense.--Sefringle 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faithfreedom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advice 

message: This doesn't belong in the lead as it does not receive a significant amount of elaboration in the body:
W. Heffening states that in Qur'an "the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only" and "in traditions, there is little echo of these punishments in the next world ... and instead, we have in many traditions a new element, the death penalty."  W. Heffening, in Encyclopedia of Islam Heffening states that Shafi'is interpret verse  as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in Qur'an. Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet." He further states that "nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text."  Encyclopedia of the Quran, Apostasy  Arrow740 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, good call. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is the view of the Qur'an on the topic followed by a section on the view of traditions.  In fact, the article starts with the section on the Qur'an. --Aminz 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a response. Arrow740 08:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean? --Aminz 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: It appears selecting people to list is unencyclopedic and unnecessary to "select" individuals to be listed in a section here, I recommend we simply provide a link in the seealso section to the relevant article (already there in fact). ITAQALLAH 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This is unnecessary and appears to indicate that the ones not selected are not notable. → AA (talk • contribs) — 19:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: on what basis? this isn't a straw poll by the way. ITAQALLAH 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure looks like one. Anyway because the article is about apostates of islam. An article about people who do a certian thing should include a small list of notable people who do that thing.--SefringleTalk 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "An article about people who do a certian thing should include a small list of notable people who do that thing." -- says who? do you, for example, see a list of notable homosexuals on Homosexuality? what stylistic/guideline-based precedent are you citing for this assertion? ITAQALLAH 00:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't explained why the section should be removed.--SefringleTalk 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please address my questions. a list of this nature isn't necessary, nor is it encyclopedic. we have a place where such people are listed, we don't need to pick and choose who from the notable personalities should be mentioned here - nor is there any appropriate precedence for it. ITAQALLAH 00:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable apostates section

message: Arrow, please explain your edit  and removal of each of those pieces information. --Aminz 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To support the statements I've made above, you can read the academic books and journals on the following websites:
*Toleration and Exclusion: Al-Shafii and al-Ghazali on the Treatment of Apostates - extractedfrom Cambridge Journals
- Toleration and Exclusion: Al-Shafii and al-Ghazali on the Treatment of Apostates - extracted from J Stor
*Macalester Islamic Journal Apostasy and the Notion of Religious Freedom in Islam By Sherazad Hamit
Based on the statements, from both the Journals and from the article's author on answering christianity.com on apostates, killing apostates is wrong - as in this case, the Koran wants Muslims to believe that it is between the individual apostate Islam and God.  We can't just read one verse and ignore the rest - this is how many people have misinterpret the Koran and thinks that Islam is all violent.  So, that's why it's important for all Muslims to read and expand their knowledge and not become ignorant and dangerous like the radical Muslims. If you've read various Koranic verses - you'll know it's wrong to kill an apostate. Every Muslim has been given guidance as set in the Koran. They have the choice to follow it or not follow it - know that if one obeys God, they will So, Muslims are to leave God to judge with them.  You have to understand when the verses are applied/what are they for, and what they mean.
--Fantastic4boy 05:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy in the Quran 

message: Noble Verse 2:217 "They ask thee (Mohammed) Concerning fighting In the Prohibited Month.  Say:  Fighting therein Is a grave (offence); but graver is it In the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.  Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.  Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can.  And if any of you turn back from their faith (Islam) and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter; they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein."  Here in this Holy Verse we see that Allah Almighty talks about those who leave Islam, and promises them punishment in the day of judgment.  Allah Almighty doesn't order the death of those people. 
Some group of Muslims believe in killing apostates because they follow a Hadith (Saying) from Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him regarding the apostates.  While Islam was weak and still growing among Jews, Christians and Pagans, Muslims did not have the full and complete religion that they needed.  Some Jews and Christians wanted to take advantage of such situation to destroy Islam.  They had a plan to adopt Islam first and then desert it, thus creating the impression that Islam was not a religion worth adopting. 
Let us look at Noble Verse 3:72 "A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam)."  To protect Islam from such Satanic attempts done by a group of the people of the book (Jews and Christians), Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him ordered the death of those who enter Islam and leave it.  This temporary law that was put by our Prophet had stopped the hypocrites from the People of the Book who carried so much hatred toward Islam to enter Islam and desert it afterwards.  
Let us look at Noble Verse 2:191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."  The killing of the pagans who fought the Muslims during the time when Islam was not yet complete was essential.  
Important Note:  Noble Verse 2:191 above is not dedicated to the apostates as some Muslims use it to prove that the Noble Quran orders the killing of apostates.   In fact, it doesn't even mention the apostates.  It talks in general about slaying the pagans who declare wars on the Muslims.  The pagans would obviously include the apostates who deserted Islam, but the Noble Verse certainly doesn't DIRECTLY order the killing of anyone who deserts Islam. 
Let us look at Noble Verse 5:3 ".....This day those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion:  Yet fear them not But fear Me (Allah).  This day have I (Allah) perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your (complete) religion....".  So long as Islam was not organized, with its own community and its own laws, the unbelievers and the Hypocrites from the People of the Book and the Pagan Arabs had hoped to wean the believers from the new teaching.  Now that hope is gone forever with the complete organization of Islam. 
Let us look at Noble Verses 15:2-3 "Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam.   Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)."
For further details, please see the following site: http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
--Fantastic4boy 05:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To support the statements I've made above, you can read the academic books and journals on the following websites:
*Toleration and Exclusion: Al-Shafii and al-Ghazali on the Treatment of Apostates - extractedfrom Cambridge Journals
- Toleration and Exclusion: Al-Shafii and al-Ghazali on the Treatment of Apostates - extracted from J Stor
*Macalester Islamic Journal Apostasy and the Notion of Religious Freedom in Islam By Sherazad Hamit
Based on the statements, from both the Journals and from the article's author on answering christianity.com on apostates, killing apostates is wrong - as in this case, the Koran wants Muslims to believe that it is between the individual apostate Islam and God.  We can't just read one verse and ignore the rest - this is how many people have misinterpret the Koran and thinks that Islam is all violent.  So, that's why it's important for all Muslims to read and expand their knowledge and not become ignorant and dangerous like the radical Muslims. If you've read various Koranic verses - you'll know it's wrong to kill an apostate. Every Muslim has been given guidance as set in the Koran. They have the choice to follow it or not follow it - know that if one obeys God, they will So, Muslims are to leave God to judge with them.  You have to understand when the verses are applied/what are they for, and what they mean.
--Fantastic4boy 05:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against the killing of apostates

message: We need to add a new section "Ex-Muslims Organizations and groups" and add:
* Central Council of Ex-Muslims
* Faith Freedom International
Thats all I can think of. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add new section: Ex-muslim organizations 

message: The ulema and so-called broader group of Islamic scholars maintain only that which advances Arab supremacy and not what is truly recorded in the Holy Qu'ran, which is that all Muslims are brothers...instead, they continue to suport the killing of Shia all over the world, and other sects which are not of the same fanatical Jihaddism. 
The links following this comment do not support it, but support the sentence before. This seems to be a slur on Islamic scholars (and Sunnis in general in terms of killing Shia) that, even if true, does not belong here. --User:Umdunno 14:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed comment in early section 

message: I added a link because it seemed related to Apostasy in Islam - it was removed about 90 mins after posting labeled as 'link spam' - what constitutes as link spam? It was important because it discusses the opposing view point on how punishment for apostasy is not death. I am unable to figure out the policy for that, can someone please clarify? Thanks (The link was outgoing to domain omeriqbal.com) 67.42.86.189 13:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, What Wikipedia is not along with the External links guidelines govern what links are suitable for inclusion in an article.  In general, links to blogs are not acceptable unless they are "written by a recognized authority". Additionally, it is preferable to link to external sites which can be regarded as reliable sources but the contents cannot be used in the article itself (example reasons given in WP:EL). Hope that clarifies. → AA (talk) — 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A link was removed as 'link spam' 

message: the website states that by using the death penalty, one must
understand that conversion to islam is a total commitment...yet failing to regard the majority who were born into the religion(what of them?)Domsta333 (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  QA websites 

message: I've created a new section, Discrimination against atheists#Qur'an.  I was hoping someone who knew a little bit about this topic could drop a few words, summarizing the dispute? AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for section expansion 

message: Folks, the section on Pakistan is all about blasphmey and has nothing to with apostasy. It should be removed or be added with something related to apostasy. Comments? Omer (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe blasphemy is considered in Islam as a form of apostasy, I think that the section should be replaced. Mohehab (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan: Blasphemy vs Apostasy 

message: Sufyan al-Thawri and Ibrahim al-Nakai were both highly prominent scholars from the second generation of Muslims. Both held that apostates should not be executed. Something to be added to the article, perhaps? 92.11.111.242 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion of some of the [[Tabi'in]] 

message: I think that the opening makes a huge generalization when it presents decisions by "The four major Sunni Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) and the Twelver Shi'a Jafari madhab" in such a way that it generalizes the faith as a whole. This seems to me like it would be to say, "the Catholic church is against abortion, and therefore all Christians are." Although it does not explicitly state that these decisions that death is the punishment for apostasy, to those unfamiliar with the religion (as most western audiences are) it could be misconstrued. 138.192.143.159 (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening makes broad generalization 

message: Isn't there a fatwa against Maududi?  Why is this man even mentioned here if he's not part of a consensus.  Faro0485 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maududi 

message: I have found an excellent source detailing the Islamic views on punishment for Apostasy:
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm
Could someone please add that info. to the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.86.132 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Info. For Article! 

message: This article is quite badly written. It seems at first to say that the four Imams called for not establishing apostasy (which is untrue) yet later on it does dictate that under the four math-habs of the Imams apostasy laws are to be upheld! It says that Ibn Taymeyya said there is no punishment for apostasy which is absolute falsehood, he had a whole section about it in his books where he divided apostasy into greater and lesser, where greater apostasy does not warrant showing regret and the punishment is upheld instantaneously as in the case of the Iraqi who claimed he is God, or lesser which requires checking whether the man is crazy or not and if he doesn't repent the apostasy punishment MUST be applied.
The article also seems to only mention the practical consensus view and evidence to executing apostates in Islamic history only under marginal sections or under "Fatwa" which seems to be trying to SPIN the article. 
Most of all the article mentions wrong information right and left, and is picking and choosing marginal researchers who were nothing but footnotes on the Islamic science scene, or were already discounted and proven wrong by the majority and withdrew to their own dark corners.
The whole thing needs a re-write. It violates wp:verifiability, and wp:neutrality especially in WP:Undue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.19.172 (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly written, self-contradicting, and violates neutrality 

message: The article says this on Nigeria: "Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts. In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the reintroduction of relatively harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony. The punishments include amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy." As far as I know, such sentences are regularly (systematically?) overturned by the higher courts. Only the lowermost courts apply Sharia, and appeals against any harsh punishments automatically go to a secular higher court, which overturns them. Aridd (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nigeria? 

message: This bit of text in WP:LEAD clearly states that the death sentence was for blasphemy not apostasy. As such, I'm removing it as it is nothing short of misleading:
"Some prominent contemporary examples of death sentences threatened or issued for apostasy include Salman Rushdie, who was condemned to death in 1989 by Ayatollah Khomeini,[14] (ruler of Iran at the time) for his book The Satanic Verses;"
If you want to state that a fatwa was issued for apostasy then find an appropriate reference and word it as such. As it stands this fatwa was issued for blasphemy against Muhammad and not for apostasy itself. Thus, it does not belong here and should be expunged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlinfinity (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy Vs Blasphemy 

message: Is this actually an example of the topic? It looks more like an anti-conversion law to me. Munci (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algeria 

message: Maududi is one Muslim scholar. Why are his views given so much prominence?VR talk 08:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Maududi

message: In the third paragraph of the article it is said that Mufti Ali Gomaa is against the penalty for apostasy, but  2 paragraphs later the opposite position is attributed to him. If you check the source given for the late claim it is clearly an anti-islamic polemic sight which provides no sources for it's claims about the mufti. I request that this claim be permanently removed along with the source --Yster76 13:34 (CCT)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yster76 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in Article