sooda
Veteran Member
Neither can the Bible. But Muslims and Christians agree that some crimes are very harmful to society. Muslims call that treason. We do not. The definition of treason in the West is about betraying your country.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are there any Muslims here that support apostasy should be punished?
- Thread starter charlie sc
- Start date
Neither can the Bible. But Muslims and Christians agree that some crimes are very harmful to society. Muslims call that treason. We do not. The definition of treason in the West is about betraying your country.
sooda
Veteran Member
You are trying to redefine it for Muslims... as if only your beliefs matter.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
What a way of thinking!
You know, other religions are happy to at most, exile those among them who are apostate. So why is Islam hunting them down to "punish" them? Could it be that Islam is threatened by people having ideas other than it?
You know, other religions are happy to at most, exile those among them who are apostate. So why is Islam hunting them down to "punish" them? Could it be that Islam is threatened by people having ideas other than it?
sooda
Veteran Member
In reality not all Muslims are devout or believers.. Unless they make a public stink, it goes unnoticed.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Shad
Veteran Member
Hilarious considering you are the one that has babbled about apostasy and called various people "not Muslim" Kettle met pot.
No I defined them according to their own claims of being Muslim. Try again, son.
Shad
Veteran Member
Yes as treason to a religion is absurd.
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
Apostasy in Islam comes under Sharia, some of the laws remain the same regardless of changing circumstances and other change with them. Most of it is up to individual Muslims to follow in their own lives. Some are for judges to implement in courts. The third category is a set of laws that are implemented by the ruler/political authority based on the best interest of society, apostasy fall under the last category.In the past it was implemented to protect the integrity of the Muslim community. The Arabic noun ridda and the verb engaging in it were understood not as meaning a personal choice of changing one’s religion but as the public act of political secession from the Muslim community.
Dr. Jonathan Brown an Associate Professor and Chair of Islamic Civilisation at Georgetown University wrote a research paper on apostasy and here are some of the things he mentioned. I wanted to summarise the research paper, but I can't explain it as good as he can. I'll post the link below so that you can read the views on apostasy within Islam and the differences among Islamic scholars.
'' The notion that the crime of apostasy in Islam was more a matter of protecting a state and social order than of policing individual beliefs was articulated in the 1940s by the South Asian Muslim activist intellectual Abul Ala Mawdudi (d. 1979). Modern scholars such as the Egyptians Maḥmūd Shaltūt (Shaykh al-Azhar, d. 1964) and Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī, as well as the late Iraqi-American scholar Ṭāhā Jābir al-ʿAlwānī (d. 2016), have reconsidered how apostasy should be viewed in contexts in which religious identity is not a state matter.[42] They have concluded that what was criminal about apostasy was its public dimension and the threat it posed to a public order built on confessional identity. It is this public element, they argue, not the question of a person’s private decision to follow their conscience in changing their religion, that Islamic law should focus on''.
Jonathan Brown also mentions
'' The way that the early Muslim community seems to have understood apostasy differs strikingly from the decisive rulings of the later schools of law. This is most clear in the rulings of the Prophet ﷺ himself. There is no reliable evidence that the Prophet ﷺ ever executed anyone for apostasy, as was observed by the famous scholar of Cordoba, Ibn al-Ṭallāʿ (d. 1103).[30] When one of the Companions, ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh left Islam and became Christian while the Muslims were seeking refuge in Ethiopia, the Prophet ﷺ did not order him punished.[31] The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya, which the Prophet ﷺ concluded with the Quraysh, stated that if anyone decided to leave the Muslim community in Medina no harm would befall them. There was no mention of a punishment for apostasy. In fact, when a man who had come to the Prophet ﷺ just the day before to pledge his loyalty to Islam wanted to be released from his oath, the Prophet ﷺ let him go.[32] Imam al-Shāfiʿī himself notes how, during the Prophet ﷺ’s time in Medina, “Some people believed and then apostatized. Then they again took on the outer trappings of faith. But the Messenger of God did not kill them.''
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/jonathan-brown/the-issue-of-apostasy-in-islam/
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Well thought out and articulated. I would have preferred more commentary on your part, but it's all good. I may read the reference you gave.
If I understood this correctly, I'm curious why it became a state matter and leaving one's community was potentially punishable? As an analogy, I know during war time, failure to do one's duty, leave, so on, can be considered treasonous. Subsequently the death penalty could follow. Would it be logical then to assume the Islamic state has some remnants of this war time mentality? This is just speculation however.
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
I hope you read the reference,it will help with a more in depth understanding, and he actually answers your question in the part '' religion in the pre modern world''. I don't think it has to do with a war mentality, but more with the role religion played in political and social order within the human communities and the states they established.
Dr Brown explains that as far back as the first complex societies in Mesopotamia human society saw religion as essential. In his words
'' It secured the relationships of individuals It secured the relationship of individuals and communities to some reality above and beyond the superficial world around them. It also transcended the personal and communal. Whether the rule of Pharaoh in ancient Egypt, Confucius’s ‘order under heaven’ or the divine right of European monarchs, religion underpinned the political and social order within human communities and the states they established''.
Roman emperors required all inhabitants of their empire to offer token sacrifices for the emperor’s divine guidance not because they were oppressive or intolerant; people could worship whatever gods they wanted. But they had to help maintain the pax deorum (the peace of the gods), the intermingled divine and earthly order that brought peace and prosperity to all. The Old Testament law of the Children of Israel reflected this overlap of religious affiliation and affirmation of a tribal and even state identity; those Jews who forsook the God of Israel to take up the worship of other deities were condemned to stoning (Deuteronomy 13:8-9; 17:2-7).
The Muslims who built up Islamic civilisation inherited and affirmed this ancient assumed role of religion. ''
It wasn't long ago that state and religion wasn't separate in the West,and even when governments were limited in their ability to formally allow religion to shape laws and policies, religion’s role was still quite clear.
There's so much more that can be said about this issue, but like I said it will turn into me summarising the research paper.
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware that Islam was a person hunting someone down, and here I thought it was a religion..silly me.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
I had a bit of a read, but it got a bit boring after a while. The reason is because he's not just explaining how apostasy occurred; he also justifies it and defends these actions. For instance, I started noticing a few arguments resembling the tu quo fallacy. I think this piece is far more appropriate for Muslims(whom advocate punishing apostates) because it lessons the blow to their moral structure/world-view and makes them question it without being too harsh. However, in terms of freedom, the West has advanced much further in this regard. Therefore, for me, it's not easy to justify or defend apostasy, but it's perfect reasonable to explain how it happened. Similarly, slavery is nearly abolished and is abhorred. Though, I don't see people defending or justifying it, but reasons for it's existence are vital. I did find the reasons for apostasy interesting, but I think I would have preferred more dry material(less justifying) and less verbose.
Last edited:
Sakeenah
Well-Known Member
He wasn't explaining how apostasy occurred because it's a research paper on the punishment of apostasy. I thought that was the discussion? I didn't get the impression that dr.Brown was justifying it, it's a research paper so he was explaining the jurisprudence of it all. I'm not sure if you read until the end, but he actually makes clear that quite a few Muslim jurists( from the past and present)are against the punishment.
sooda
Veteran Member
I have said this a dozen times now. Treason to the community.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
He was justifying it in a very nuance way, either to appear objective and thereby convince the reader it's not the best action to take, or because, he in some way, believes it. Bellow is a quote of your original discussion topic.
Though this piece is not just about how it developed, he defends these actions in a very nuance way. However, that doesn't mean it's a bad paper, it just means he's inserted his own moral conclusion, but he seems to dodge and weave discussing if apostasy is a morally incomprehensible act. He avoids this moral question by comparing other countries' laws, morals and cultures, which then makes what he says strongly resemble a tu quoque argument. I'll examine this section - The Consequences of Apostasy Law - because it seems like the conclusion.
Here: "The liberal ideal, so influential in the West, is that it’s wrong for governments to interfere in the question of what people believe for two reasons. First, because Europe’s bloody history shows that this all too often leads to tremendous violence. Second, because religious belief is seen as something that cannot really be forced on the private interior of a person’s heart, and God doesn’t want faith if it’s coerced anyway. It must be freely and sincerely offered."
He gives two reasons the liberal West find apostasy it wrong for governments to interfere : 1 it probably leads to violence and 2 god probably doesn't want a coerced worshippers.
He doesn't actually touch on whether apostasy is shockingly immoral. What if these two weren't actually the case(E.G. god didn't mind coercion and there was little bloodshed in Europe concerning what's said) . Would it then be perfectly accepted to have apostasy laws?
"It may be more useful to argue based on premises accepted by all involved. The horrific violence unleashed by ISIS against any who oppose it is repugnant in and of itself from the perspective of Islamic law and human rights law alike. But, beyond this, the consequences for the very priorities that Islam seeks to protect have also proven dire. The harsh punishments enacted by ISIS on those it declares apostates has engendered disgust globally among non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Anecdotally, I have heard of many Muslims, both in Muslim-majority countries and in the West, who have experienced crises of faith or even lost it entirely due to the violence done in the name of Islam. Things like ISIS’s execution of apostates often top the list of what has led to these crises."
I can basically sum this one down to: You dun wanna be like those ISIS guys, huh?
"In the Shariah, the aim of punishing apostasy from Islam is to protect the communal faith and social order of a Muslim state. If punishing apostasy severely is driving Muslims away from their religion, then this policy is undermining its own purpose. It’s not clear what ‘order under heaven’ maintaining harsh punishments for apostasy would be upholding in our troubled world."
And I can sum this down to: Apostasy probably not good because we'll lose believers.
This is why I say this piece is probably suited for those who need a light touch in the right direction. This paper does not question whether apostasy is good or bad, but he does justify it in numerous ways. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer any extremist to read this than nothing or perhaps this is especially because it wont directly question their core world-view.
Last edited:
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
With the establishments of non islamic regimes and means of transportation - whatever apostasy may be - whether treason against a state / religion - it is losing its power
If harsh laws threaten individuals from following their heart and mind - they will (if possible) simply pick up and move to what they consider a friendlier, safer place.
Ergo - the question is - what purpose does it serve today?
If harsh laws threaten individuals from following their heart and mind - they will (if possible) simply pick up and move to what they consider a friendlier, safer place.
Ergo - the question is - what purpose does it serve today?
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
Fundamentally, it is a code of living, as Islam is a Holistic spiritual tradition. It inevitably becomes shoehorned into government when it comes to the larger scope of politics, but there is really no single legislative "Sharia Law" (heck, we have traditions of discourse spanning back to the 900s of Islamic intellectuals having really heated debates over all kinds of aspects of the way it applies in this context), Islam isn't nor has it ever been a Monolith. When it comes to apostasy, you have no idea about life as a non-Sunni. For centuries Shi'ites of all the sub-sects of Shi'ism have been targeted for apparent "apostasy" and there is a lot of anti-Shia propaganda spread about Shi'ism in Wahhabi-majority (Wahhabis are a deeply flawed Sunni-fundamentalist reformation related to Terrorism) countries.
Read my statement again. Imagine trying to enforce the Eightfold Path as legislation.......
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
That's not an Arabic dictionary, is it?
sooda
Veteran Member
The objective of Wahhab was to get rid of the innovations to Islam introduced by the Ottomans and get the Turks off the Arabian peninsula. The objective was to simply Islam as it was in the early days.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
From the Congressional report on 9/11
History of Wahhabism.2 Muhammad bin Abd al Wahhab, whose name is the source of the word “Wahhabi,” founded a religious movement in the Arabian peninsula during the eighteenth century (1703-1791) that sought to reverse what he perceived as the moral decline of his society. In particular, Abd al Wahhab denounced many popular Islamic beliefs and practices as idolatrous. Ultimately, he encouraged a “return” to the pure and orthodox practice of the “fundamentals” of Islam, as embodied in the Quran and in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad bin Saud, the ancestral founder of the modern-day Al Saud dynasty, partnered with Abd al Wahhab to begin the process of unifying disparate tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. Their partnership formed the basis for a close political relationship between their descendants that continues today.
@sooda
The report squarely implicates the KSA in the ongoing support for Wahhabism
“Wahhabism Spreads Terrorism”? It is widely acknowledged that the Saudi government, as well as wealthy Saudi individuals, have supported the spread of the Wahhabist ideas in several Muslim countries and in the United States and Europe. Some have argued that this proselyting has promoted terrorism and has spawned Islamic militancy throughout the world.9 Saudi funding of mosques, madrasas, and charities, some of which have been linked to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, has raised concern that Wahhabi Islam has been used by militants who tailor this ideology to suit their political goals and who rely on Saudi donations to support their aspirations.
History of Wahhabism.2 Muhammad bin Abd al Wahhab, whose name is the source of the word “Wahhabi,” founded a religious movement in the Arabian peninsula during the eighteenth century (1703-1791) that sought to reverse what he perceived as the moral decline of his society. In particular, Abd al Wahhab denounced many popular Islamic beliefs and practices as idolatrous. Ultimately, he encouraged a “return” to the pure and orthodox practice of the “fundamentals” of Islam, as embodied in the Quran and in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad bin Saud, the ancestral founder of the modern-day Al Saud dynasty, partnered with Abd al Wahhab to begin the process of unifying disparate tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. Their partnership formed the basis for a close political relationship between their descendants that continues today.
@sooda
The report squarely implicates the KSA in the ongoing support for Wahhabism
“Wahhabism Spreads Terrorism”? It is widely acknowledged that the Saudi government, as well as wealthy Saudi individuals, have supported the spread of the Wahhabist ideas in several Muslim countries and in the United States and Europe. Some have argued that this proselyting has promoted terrorism and has spawned Islamic militancy throughout the world.9 Saudi funding of mosques, madrasas, and charities, some of which have been linked to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, has raised concern that Wahhabi Islam has been used by militants who tailor this ideology to suit their political goals and who rely on Saudi donations to support their aspirations.