Can apostates be forgiven according to Islamic theology?

[Assad91]

That means, if an apostate loves their life, than they better not go to the town square and denounce Islam infront of everyone.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't have a source. But as with all punishments, one must be convicted. One can't be convicted unless the sin is revealed.

Do you personally agree that Apostates who've been found out should be killed?

 

[Assad91]

Do you personally agree that Apostates who've been found out should be killed?

As long as they keep quite and do not partake in aggression, I could care less. But if tey apostate and demonize islam as been seen before, then they have revealed their sin and are eligible for capital punishment.

 

[Aquitaine]

As long as they keep quite and do not partake in aggression, I could care less. But if tey apostate and demonize islam as been seen before, then they have revealed their sin and are eligible for capital punishment.

If a person apostates and announces to his/her friends and family that s/he is no longer a part of Islam, then having him/her killed would deny him/her the possibility to ever change his/her mind; revert back to his/her old ways etc.

Considering Allah is apparently all-merciful, wouldn't executing apostates like that be a crime against potential Muslims and Allah's children?
I'm curious if the justification for this originates from the Hadiths or the Koran.

 

[Union]

If a person apostates and announces to his/her friends and family that s/he is no longer a part of Islam, then having him/her killed would deny him/her the possibility to ever change his/her mind; revert back to his/her old ways etc.

Considering Allah is apparently all-merciful, wouldn't executing apostates like that be a crime against potential Muslims and Allah's children?
I'm curious if the justification for this originates from the Hadiths or the Koran.

This is from Hadith , Qur'an never mentioned killing of apostates in any circumstances . The freedom of choice in religion is one of fundamental moral emphasised in Qur'an .

Qur'an 2.256
"Let there be no compulsion in religion​

 

[Union]

References of Ahadith in decree of killing of apostate at all circumstances (as opposed to Asad's own personal view of killing them only when in public disclosure etc. )

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - "[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

 

[Aquitaine]

This is from Hadith , Qur'an never mentioned killing of apostates in any circumstances . The freedom of choice in religion is one of fundamental moral emphasised in Qur'an .

Qur'an 2.256
"Let there be no compulsion in religion​

I see. Since I'm aware of the disputes amongst Muslims regarding the Hadiths, I assume you place greater priority on the Koran over the Hadiths? I also assume you disagree with death for Apostasy?

 

[Union]

I see. Since I'm aware of the disputes amongst Muslims regarding the Hadiths, I assume you place greater priority on the Koran over the Hadiths? I also assume you disagree with death for Apostasy?

Exactly my dear .

 

[Gharib]

Can this discussion of the punishment for apostates please stop by both Muslims and non-Muslims.

The OP doesn't ask for the punishment of apostates. Please all of you refrain from derailing the thread or I will report the posts that have nothing to do with answering the OP.

If anyone wants to discuss the punishment then open a new thread somewhere else.

 

[Rational_Mind]

I'm curious if the justification for this originates from the Hadiths or the Koran.

In my opinion a misconception originates from misunderstanding of Hadith. But today those misunderstandings have been cleared up yet people cling to the past practices. I have lost track of the number of times I have stated that the Holy Prophet (saw) never practiced this, there is not a single Hadith that has recorded him giving this punishment to any apostate. The Quran and Hadith are clear that anyone who apostates is free, there is no compulsion in Religion.

And to clear up another misconception, people believe that if you Apostate in public then there is a punishment or if you attack Muslims. For the first case there is no support for this but merely a claim, I think it is a cop out attempt to defend the judgement of past Scholars. Secondly, if you attack Muslims as in treason, then you are punished to death for treason not apostasy. You will notice a lot of people bring up incidents where a apostate was punished to death, but they never seem to realize it was for a crime (murder, treason, rape, etc).

 

[Aquitaine]

In my opinion a misconception originates from misunderstanding of Hadith. But today those misunderstandings have been cleared up yet people cling to the past practices. I have lost track of the number of times I have stated that the Holy Prophet (saw) never practiced this, there is not a single Hadith that has recorded him giving this punishment to any apostate. The Quran and Hadith are clear that anyone who apostates is free, there is no compulsion in Religion.

And to clear up another misconception, people believe that if you Apostate in public then there is a punishment or if you attack Muslims. For the first case there is no support for this but merely a claim, I think it is a cop out attempt to defend the judgement of past Scholars. Secondly, if you attack Muslims as in treason, then you are punished to death for treason not apostasy. You will notice a lot of people bring up incidents where a apostate was punished to death, but they never seem to realize it was for a crime (murder, treason, rape, etc).

Oki-doki, thanks for your input.

 

[TashaN]

In my opinion a misconception originates from misunderstanding of Hadith. But today those misunderstandings have been cleared up yet people cling to the past practices. I have lost track of the number of times I have stated that the Holy Prophet (saw) never practiced this, there is not a single Hadith that has recorded him giving this punishment to any apostate. The Quran and Hadith are clear that anyone who apostates is free, there is no compulsion in Religion.

And to clear up another misconception, people believe that if you Apostate in public then there is a punishment or if you attack Muslims. For the first case there is no support for this but merely a claim, I think it is a cop out attempt to defend the judgement of past Scholars. Secondly, if you attack Muslims as in treason, then you are punished to death for treason not apostasy. You will notice a lot of people bring up incidents where a apostate was punished to death, but they never seem to realize it was for a crime (murder, treason, rape, etc).

This can be a start for a good discussion where both of us can learn from. Do you mind if we started a thread on the same faith debate area making this post the basis for discussion?

 

[Rational_Mind]

This can be a start for a good discussion where both of us can learn from. Do you mind if we started a thread on the same faith debate area making this post the basis for discussion?

You can go open up a new thread. Thanks.

 

[ZooGirl02]

It would seem that some of you believe apostates can't be forgiven and others believe they can. Isn't there an official teaching on this? I know in Catholicism you can be forgiven for anything if you go to Confession.

 

[Union]

It would seem that some of you believe apostates can't be forgiven and others believe they can. Isn't there an official teaching on this? I know in Catholicism you can be forgiven for anything if you go to Confession.

Thant's a difficult question . Muslim should decide first which one they should regard as official decree :

GOD's decrees - the Qur'an
Human's decrees - the Hadith

 

[Nehustan]

Oh okay. And the same is true of apostasy right? I can be forgiven of apostasy as well?

I ask these questions because I am strongly leaning towards embracing Islam again but I definitely want to do more research before I make a final decision.

To be honest ZooGirl, I tend to think that if you were able to 'leave' Islam you probably hadn't understood Tawheed properly, and if you didn't grasp Tawheed, then whatever you thought your religion was, it probably wasn't Islam.

You're obviously on a journey, and once you fully grasp Tawheed (a firm handhold) there will be no turning from that doctrine. When and if you take shahada it will be as if it was the first time.

I know it sounds presumptuous to say that you didn't understand Tawheed and thus weren't a Muslim, but Tawheed, although in some ways complex, is also ridiculously simple, frugal, and parsimonious. There is no simpler explanation of God, and once you really have your head and heart around it, you wouldn't leave.

That's why I think the punishment for Murtad is harsh, as no 'real' Muslim (i.e. one that God has made) leaves.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thant's a difficult question . Muslim should decide first which one they should regard as official decree :

GOD's decrees - the Qur'an
Human's decrees - the Hadith

Doesn't that also involve deciding whether what the Quran has to say about the matter is clear enough, and how to better follow it, though?

When you put it that way, it would seem that there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to ever listen to the Hadiths, or in fact to even make any in the first place. No Hadith will ever present itself as human-made and yet also somehow more accurate than the Quran, now will it?

Is it even possible to avoid human interpretation for any length of time?

 

[Union]

Doesn't that also involve deciding whether what the Quran has to say about the matter is clear enough, and how to better follow it, though?

When you put it that way, it would seem that there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to ever listen to the Hadiths, or in fact to even make any in the first place. No Hadith will ever present itself as human-made and yet also somehow more accurate than the Quran, now will it?

Is it even possible to avoid human interpretation for any length of time?

O bro , you sound very obscure to me . I didn't get what you try to ask , excuse my low intellect

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry. I guess I made some undue assumptions. Bear with me for a while more, please.

Am I correct in understanding that according to the Islamic Faith there is no way for what the Quran says to be wrong except by some sort of misinterpretation?

Yet there are also the Hadiths, that do not enjoy that degree of trust yet are perhaps unavoidably used to complement the Quran by a very many Muslims.

That of course leads to endless controversy about which Hadiths, if any, should be considered legit and how they should be interpreted. Or am I misrepresenting the situation?

Because if I am correct, there are many conceivable reasons for writing Hadiths, but among them there isn't certainly any desire to present them as more reliable or more authoritative than the Quran. They may well be useful to complement the Quran or at least the understanding of same, but they will always be over-ruled by the Quran whenever a conflict is perceived.

Is that correct?

 

[Union]

Sorry. I guess I made some undue assumptions. Bear with me for a while more, please.

Am I correct in understanding that according to the Islamic Faith there is no way for what the Quran says to be wrong except by some sort of misinterpretation?

Yet there are also the Hadiths, that do not enjoy that degree of trust yet are perhaps unavoidably used to complement the Quran by a very many Muslims.

That of course leads to endless controversy about which Hadiths, if any, should be considered legit and how they should be interpreted. Or am I misrepresenting the situation?

Because if I am correct, there are many conceivable reasons for writing Hadiths, but among them there isn't certainly any desire to present them as more reliable or more authoritative than the Quran. They may well be useful to complement the Quran or at least the understanding of same, but they will always be over-ruled by the Quran whenever a conflict is perceived.

Is that correct?

Your way of understanding in this regard is very correct BUT the traditionalist Muslim give upper-hand to Hadith over Qur'an . A classical example is this thread . According to the Qur'an the apostates should be spared and a complete freedom of religion must be assured while Hadith says an apostates should be killed immediately after s/he leaves the fold of Islam .

So to say theoretically it is said that Qur'an is the first source of Islam and the Hadith is second but practically the opposite .

And also Qur'an mentioned that it is well-detailed , well-explained , self-sufficient and well enough for the Muslims and ready to follow , hence it doesn't need any hadith or Tafsir to supplement or be augmentative to it .