Talk:Apostasy in Islam

Advice

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)

I have trouble understanding the "No True Scotsman" analogy. There is a lot I am willing to tolerate about Islam. I believe in live and let live. But the idea of an article that seems to sympathetically present arguments for the officially sanctioned murder of those merely following their natural human scientific curiosity to question a social mythology, and explore other mythologies, or reject all mythologies, is absolutely savage and barbaric. No citations are needed, human freedom of thought is axiomatic. There can be no NPOV on this.(talk) 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Make sure to keep these up to date with the best of information from here noting how long each of them should be. We do not want to flood any of those pages with information from here and I made this page because it does deserve to have a decent length. gren 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Islam#Apostasy
• Sharia#Muslim_apostates
• Apostasy#In_Islam

Someone has put irrelevant verses of quran in [Execution][1] section . These verses are addressd to Muhammad and not to followers. And these are out of context. Please examine them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.42.233 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish to refer an editor's attention to the statement "They have either completely opposed any penalty for apostasy, or believe that penalty can only be applied when apostasy is coupled with attempts to harm Muslim society.[13][14][15][16]" IMO this is not a rational, objective statement, as though applying a penalty only when "apostasy is coupled with attempts to harm Muslim society" is somehow equivalent to benignity, or somehow justifiable. Perhaps the statement should read "Some have completely opposed any penalty for apostasy, while others believe in a penalty when apostasy is coupled with attempts to harm Muslim society." I would change it myself but I'm a little out of practice as a Wikiepedian but also I know this is a very touchy subject. Still, my passion for reasoned statements compelled me to say somethng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Friendly Nerd (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

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." Heffening states that Shafi'is interpret verse ^{[Quran 2:217]} 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."

Arrow740 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, good call. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not a response. Arrow740 08:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Aminz 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable apostates section

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)

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)

• Oppose An article about apostates needs to list notable apostates.--Sefringle^Talk 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

on what basis? this isn't a straw poll by the way. ITAQALLAH 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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.--Sefringle^Talk 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"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)

You still haven't explained why the section should be removed.--Sefringle^Talk 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Apostasy in the Quran

Arrow, please explain your edit [2] and removal of each of those pieces information. --Aminz 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons against the killing of apostates

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)

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)

Add new section: Ex-muslim organizations

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)

Removed comment in early section

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)

A link was removed as 'link spam'

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)

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)

Prescribed or proscribed?

Moved from main:

However, in the following verse killing of apostates is prescribed ^{[Quran 4:89]}.Nils Dacke (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's odd to use 4:89 without also mentioning 4:90, which seems to prohibit violence against non-violent apostates. The whole thing looks something like this:

⁸⁹ They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them. So do no take them as allies until they migrate [to Medina] for God's cause. If they turn [on you], then seize and kill them wherever you encounter them. Take none of them as an ally or supporter. ⁹⁰ But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink from fighting against you or against their own people, God could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way against them.

-- M. A. S. Abdel Haleem translation

Emphasis mine. Verse 91 continues in a similarly caveat-filled manner. So to say that this bit "prescribes" killing apostates is a bit misleading. Evercat (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

QA websites

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)

Request for section expansion

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)

Pakistan: Blasphemy vs Apostasy

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)

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)

Opinion of some of the Tabi'in

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)

Opening makes broad generalization

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)

Maududi

Isn't there a fatwa against Maududi? [3] Why is this man even mentioned here if he's not part of a consensus. Faro0485 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the article

The basic problem of the article is that it is not a discussion of the actual situation of apostates in various Islamic countries, but rather it is more a list of "bad shit that sometimes happens to apostates". Under the different countries, please do NOT just list the controversial cases. Give us the law and normal practice on apostacy. This is a controversial part of Islam, so there is no need to exaggerate the already existing controversy to score points. --Aghniyya (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I find two specific problems in this regard:

First, the article claims that apostasy is generally considered punishable by death in Islam, yet it does not mention that in several of the world's major Muslim nations, apostates are explicitly protected by law. This includes, to my knowledge, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Turkey.

Second, the article makes no difference between official laws sanctioning the killing of apostates, such as in some Arab countries, and outlaw extremists taking it upon themselves to murder apostates, as in the Turkish case related in the article.

Johanronnblom (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that what is acceptable in Islam may not be acceptable to the laws of some countries in which Islam is the dominant religion. The governments of Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Turkey aren't based on Islamic law. This article should focus on Islamic laws, as the subject is apostasy in Islam, and not "apostasy in various countries". ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia has started down the sharia path - Indonesia#Administrative_divisions. Anyway, the article is about how apostasy is dealt with by islam as a religion and not how it is dealt with by a nation with majority of muslims. Nshuks7 (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Info. For Article!

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)

Badly written, self-contradicting, and violates neutrality

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)

Nigeria?

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)

Apostasy Vs Blasphemy

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)

Algeria

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)

Maududi

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

Contradiction in Article

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)

A misleading link

The second sentence in the article claims that "Islamic scholarship differs on the earthly punishment for apostasy, ranging from death to no punishment at all," and provide a link to prove this (http://www.iheu.org/node/1540). In the article however there is no claim made that some Islamic scholarship consider apostates to suffer "no punishment at all," what it says is:

But under the Sharia, apostasy (either advocating the rejection of Islamic belief or announcing such rejection by word or deed) is not permitted and for a man is punishable by death. The punishment for a woman is more lenient - she must stay in prison until she reverts, however long it takes.

Therefor the claim in this sentence of the article have to be changed or provide a new link. (The linked article is also written by an atheist and this seems to be a problem since the subject is about apostasy in in regard to Islam and Islamic law.) Davidelah (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Creation of section on the Mufti of Egypt

Davidelah and I have been going back and forth regarding the position of the Grand Mufti of Egypt on apostasy. He maintains that Ali Gomaa made a clarification in which he stated apostates must be punished. I insist that because of more recent statements this clarification is not valid

Also, the events regarding the Mufti have been doubted. Tariq Ramadan has said that it wasn't the Mufti who released the clarification, but it was his organization Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah who released it, but the very next day Ali Gomaa said that he meant exactly.

Whether or not you agree with this version of events should not stop us from noting them in the article. This can not be done in a few sentence long paragraph, but would need a new section.

Yster 11:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ali Gomaa's current position that he is against the death penalty, is not the same as saying a Muslim can give up his faith without punishment, as he clarified his rejection of here. A later reference with an unambiguous statement to the opposite effect would be valid to discard his clarification in the gulf news. If you think there is too much emphasis on this issue I suggest rephrasing the sentence rather than deleting it altogether, even though I think his clarification is given due weight. Davidelah (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't seen this discussion before my rv, as no-one hinted toward it. Anyways, my rv is still valid as a suspicious WP:BLP violation. As long as the mufti is alive, we can't use statements in such-a-way. The BLP/ANI are specialized in these cases, so they have to approve if your insertion is legitimate or not. Yster makes a good point, tho; but we need a specialized expert in a dispute like this. The content can't be added for the time being. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not just a BLP but a stance on a particular issue. Also, even by full BLP standard, you have no reason to remove it, BLP policy allows only for immediate removal of poorly sourced material and Gulf News is a notable and respected newspaper in that part of the world. So you can't claim my edit is a suspicious WP:BLP violation. And as I said before I suggest rephrasing the sentence rather than deleting it altogether if you aren't happy using the statement in such-a-way. I find it really wasteful to take up such a trivial issue in BLP/ANI. Davidelah (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)