Death for apostasy? What about "no compulsion in religion"?

Question

My understanding is that the ruling of 'death for apostasy' comes from the time of Mohammed but the people it refered to had not only left Islam; they had plotted against the Prophet. Therefore the death sentence was due to their treachory and not their change in religious belief. I have attached a link about the Abdul Rahman case in Afghanistan as illustration but there have been cases in other countries.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/03/ad051c73-2777-4497-9f13-1293c2293380.html

To arabic_quran, I am trying to ask why modern 'Islamic' countries claim that death is the punishment for apostasy under Sharia when the historical background to it would appear to be plotting against Mohammed and his early followers rather than apostasy per se. As the Quran states there is no compulsion in religion, convicting people of the 'crime' of apostasy would seem to be going against the Quran.

To Ahmad H - the site you refered me to backed up my understanding of Islam but, as that is the case, why do so called Islamic states impose the death penalty on their citizens if they change religion?

Answer 1

Not all Muslim scholars agree that there is death for apostasy in Islam. It is actually going against freedom of religion given in the Quran .

What Quran says about those leaving faith
"O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- " Quran 5: 54.

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

Quran only says he will not be forgiven and will not be guided if he repeatedly believes and disbelieve. How can a person repeatedly disbelieve if there is death for apostasy ?

Answer 2

What about death for Islamism? Or Judaism

Why is there so much death in religion these days?

Why if someone disagrees with a point of view must they die?

Religion is for weak, vulnerable people who haven't got the insight to see the bigger picture, outside what a bucnh of men in beards and frocks have passed on

It's the middle ages all over again

Answer 3

If proper Islamic Law is applied on the Muslims, there will be very less Muslims in the world today. Muslims want others to obey their laws and they themselves neglect all doctrines. If the life of the holy ones of Islam is revealed to the world, all will be fit to be stoned to death. Will anyone remain in Islam. Let the Muslims sincerely judge themselves.

Answer 4

Nowadays it's a simple issue. If you allow one person to grow up and reject a religion, then many other people will do so too, especially after they begin to realise that they've been conned. In fact, they may well rise up and slaughter the priesthood who have been living off the spoils of their charlatanry. It's happend before!

Answer 5

WHAT EVER THIS SAYS

he case of an Afghan who faces the death penalty for converting to Christianity has aroused much debate outside Afghanistan, particularly in the Western countries that supported the country's move to democracy. Both Western governments and their publics equate democracy with freedom of choice, including the freedom to choose one's religion. But, while democracy is taking root in Afghanistan, the country's constitution is not a truly secular document.

Abdul Rahman, the man now on trial in Kabul for having abandoned the religion of his birth for Christianity, will be invited to reconvert to Islam, Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizadah told the BBC on March 20. And, if Abdul Rahman agrees, "we will forgive him," Mawlawizadah said, "because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance."

If he does not, he will be judged according to Islamic law. And under the Hanafi school of jurisprudence adhered to by Afghanistan's Sunni majority and privileged by the Afghan Constitution, apostasy -- the rejection of Islam in favor of another religion -- is a crime punishable by death.
In establishing the sovereignty of the people -- and not the sovereignty of God -- the constitution enables a reform-minded judge to interpret it as a fundamentally secular document.

That is a possibility that has prompted open criticism from abroad, with critics questioning how anyone in a democratic state can be executed for their beliefs.

Other international reactions have been cautiously optimistic.

The Contradictions And Ambiguities Of The Afghan Constitution

They have some reason to be optimistic. But so too do advocates of the death penalty, because, on this and other issues of religious freedom, Afghanistan's Constitution is inherently contradictory.

Islam is central to the constitution. Indeed, the document begins with the statement: "With firm faith in God Almighty… and believing in the sacred religion of Islam." The constitution also identifies Afghanistan as "an Islamic Republic."

The constitution also provides little legal guidance about how other faiths can live or operate in this Islamic republic.

While followers of other religions enjoy the right to freely exercise "their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits and the provisions of law," neither the constitution nor the country's law set those limits. For example, there is no law that makes it clear whether a church can operate in the country. The unstated understanding seems to be that churches can operate inside diplomatic missions or in military bases but not publicly.

The constitution also states that in "Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam." This confers extraordinary power on those interpreting the laws. And so, if an Afghan court decides that it is against the "beliefs" of Islam to have a church in the country, the constitution would -- if applied literally -- support such a decision.

But despite labeling the country "an Islamic Republic," Afghanistan's Constitution can also be read as a secular document. Pakistan's Constitution proclaims that "sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone." Iran's Constitution links the foundation of the Islamic republican regime to the "exclusive sovereignty of Allah." By contrast, the Afghan Constitution stipulates that "national sovereignty in Afghanistan belongs to the nation." In establishing the sovereignty of the people -- and not the sovereignty of God -- the constitution enables a reform-minded judge to interpret it as a fundamentally secular document.

And, in a clause of particular relevance to the Abdul Rahman case, the constitution stipulates that Afghanistan "shall abide" by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- which states that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief."

In other words, the case against Abdul Rahman could be unconstitutional or constitutional depending whether the judges are conservative or reformers.

A Muscle-Flexing Conservative Judiciary

Unfortunately for Abdul Rahman, at the moment, the judiciary is overwhelmingly in the hands of men from conservative religious circles. They view the judiciary as their prerogative and tend to view any encroachment on their turf, whatever the reason, as a challenge to their power.

Ever since the demise of the Taliban regime, conservative judges have used their power base -- which includes a large, strong section of the National Assembly -- to challenge Afghanistan's reform-minded government.

So far, these battles have mainly raged over the limits of press freedom.

The Abdul Rahman case, though, is more challenging for President Hamid Karzai. If he does not intervene, he will upset his Western backers. If he does, he will undermine his standing among conservatives, whose support he desperately depends on.

Karzai's administration will certainly be hard-pressed to openly support Abdul Rahman's case. The main source of the conservatives' legitimacy is that they are guardians of Islamic values and the country's interpreters of Islam, and they will presumably be determined to protect that legitimacy. Nor has there been any debate on the issue of apostasy that would at least have questioned the conservatives' position and, possibly, have undermined it. It is a position that is open to question by religious scholars because the Koran contains numerous passages that could be read as supporting freedom of religious choice. One verse (Surah 2:226) states, "let there be no compulsion in religion." In another (in Surah 16:82) Prophet Muhammad is instructed that his "duty is only to preach the clear message" for those who "turn away" from Islam.

The presidential office has indicated that Karzai will not intervene in the case, but he would no doubt welcome a face-saving solution to the crisis. Mawlawizadah's comment that, if Abdul Rahman does not abandon Christianity, the court will evaluate his mental state before passing judgment might just be that face-saving compromise.

Answer 6

Hi...what is your question?

---

In the name of Allaah

* Quick Introduction (that helps understanding the issue):
1. Islam is not merely a religion, it is a way of life; this is not said as a slogan but it is a well known fact that appears in all Islamic teachings related, but not limited, to politics, society, economy, diplomacy, religion…etc.
2. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a prophet and a man of state.
3. In Islam, the criterion to know if something belongs to Islam or not is by matching it to what the Quraan says [Quraan by turn validates Sunnah (way/path) of the Prophet (peace be upon him)].
4. Being Muslim means one shall submit to the will of God, i.e. obeying Him by following His teachings.
5. In Islam, a piece of teaching itself is not questioned by the Why (God Almighty is not to be questioned for what He does); however, the authenticity of the teaching is to be questioned as well as understanding it.
6. apostate: somebody who renounces belief: somebody who has renounced a religious or political belief or allegiance (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.) In Islam: a murtadd (apostate) is the one who disbelieves after being a Muslim. (IslamQA, Q.: 20327)
7. In Islam, a person can be considered a murtadd without converting to a different religion. There are four categories of apostasy: in beliefs, words, actions or omission. For example, insulting Allaah or His Messenger (peace be upon him) is an apostasy in words.
8. There are conditions for a person to be in the status of apostasy and rules of such a status. These rules are judicial. No one has the right to tell that a person by name is a murtadd except the authorities that are in charge when these conditions are met and these rules are actioned on,

* Comments:
1. “My understanding is that the ruling of 'death for apostasy' comes from the time of Mohammed…” << If it does not come from, not only his time but, him directly or is related to him (ex. a companion’s narration) then the question that should be raised ‘is this part of the Islamic teaching or not?’.
2. “…but the people it refered to had not only left Islam; they had plotted against the Prophet.” << The hadeeths (sayings) of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that talked about arriddah (apostasy) did not specifying such a thing.

** Answer:
The Quraanic quotation that you pasted the translation of its meanings is from ch.2 v. 256 that is understood as interpreted in the sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the understanding and actions of the companions of the Prophet. It is understood that the verse is talking about those who _enter_ Islam, i.e. no compulsion in religion meaning in entering Islam. Accordingly, if an Islamic state wants to do such a ruling, it does not contradict the Quraan.

* In Actual Life:
1. If any Muslim wants to comply with the Islamic teachings, it would not be the Karazai regime that was placed by the enemy of Afghans, i.e. USA. One wonders how come this happen under a system that was placed and is being backed strongly by Americans!!! I think that you do not need to worry about the guy, he will be ok in case (1) there is no game about this, (2) and there is no Taliban.
2. Media (and behind it certain powers) is widen its eyes on Muslims around the globe and so far they could not find other than few instances of apostasy among 1.3 billions of Muslims (hundreds of millions live in non-Muslim countries). Most cases did not even get raised to courts, some the court has not said its opinion yet and the rest not acted on. Personally, I have never encountered any such a thing whether by being an eye-witness, reading about it in any local newspaper or hearing it from some fellowmen.
3. One might say, “Then, those ‘prospective’ apostates are scared to death of showing their heads up”; well then it works (if it is so).

Thank you for your question!

----

Commenting on the entry of inin_jomo:

"Not all Muslim scholars agree that there is death for apostasy in Islam." << The authentic hadeeth of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is so plain and direct.
"It is actually going against freedom of religion given in the Quran." << That is true for those who did not enter Islam. This is not the case with those who are already Muslims or converted into Islam.

Man! Do you want to use logic here...ok...you know that murdering is a great sin in Islam and a murderer is to be sentenced to death; isn't leaving Islam considered a greater sin in Islam? You might say "But killing another person is a different matter because it is related to the side of another human" I will wonder if the side of the Creator of this other human is any less valuable!

Anyhow, I don't want to use some elastic words like 'freedom of religion' and talk about committing a treason to the Muslim community and spreading temptation to others that might leave Islam as a result and if they die as such they will go to hell...etc.

The translation of the meanings of verses you quotated are addressed to the self of the person. Quraan doesn't focus on killing the person but rather guiding him/her (prevention is better than treatment). Some people might get reflected by certain ways at the time others have to be threatened. By any means, Quraan focuses on the person. Most of the Quraanic discourse speaks to the human (not stating rules all the time) and echoes between his/her heart and mind.

As you know, faith is a matter of heart. If one believes or disbelieves, only God knows (that what the verses you quoted are concerned in). However, if the apostate speaks up or acts accordingly then the 'part of the body (of the Muslim Ummah that will damage it) is to be isolated to see if it can be treated, otherwise it will be amputated'.

May Allaah guide us to His path and increase our knowledge afterwards!

Answer 7

I don't really know

Answer 8

answer at http://www.answering-christianity.com

Answer 9

no