Apostasy (Was: Conversion Info)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

comsen...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
May 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/1/99
to
sv...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <7g6kqe$ank$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
>>comsen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Now, for another perspective, and one that is academically sound on
>>> top of it, check out my web page, and its text files on Islam:
>>>
>>> http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/islamtext.htm
>>>
>>> Here you will find an easy to read essay on some basic issues,
>>> such as apostacy, that anti-Muslims love to manipulate for their
>>> own twisted aims,
>
>>CS
>> Here's an excerpt from an Islamic manual of Fiqh (Islamic Sacred
>> Law), dealing with apostacy (ridda). No "manipulation" is
>> necessary.....
>
>SAQIB
>You might be correct. It would not be necessary to manipulate the
>issue if there were many Muslims who supported the plain idiocy
>of the excerpt from the so-called Islamic manual you posted.

I agree with you on this point: it is idiocy to murder people for
apostatizing from any religion. Unfortunately, there are many Muslims who do
in fact support this, and often cite "so-called Islamic manual" wrt apostasy
and other matters, including several of the more frequent posters to this
forum. A DejaNews search with keywords "Reliance of the Traveller",
restricted to soc.religion.islam resulted in over 100 hits; a similar search
restricted to alt.religion.islam yielded 100. Here is a small sampling of
the hits from sri:

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=471087216
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=446270698
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455521542
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439110439
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=218394238
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=376563624
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=228782982

Articles by Muslims dealing with apostasy, some of which also quote the
"so-called Islamic manual":
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=411682398
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=413233791
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=146809517
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=258002382
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=228558310
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443457055

I did not write the book. If you do not like its contents, you are
complaining to the wrong person.

>I only took a quick look at the excerpt but it appears that there
>was not one reference to the Quran. Why not? If someone is going
>to go to the trouble of putting together such a long treatsie
>about Islamic law you would think they would support their
>position with at least a few passages from the Quran.

Good question. According to the book, there is a complimentary text available
which explains the rulings. I do not have this book, however.

However, I remind you that this "so-called Islamic manual" contains a letter
of endorsement from Al-Azhar in Cairo. I would assume that they do not pass
letters of endorsement for Manuals of Fiqh out on the street corner.

>What's even worse is that the so-called Islamic manual plainly
>contradicts the Quran. In my opinion, the manual is worthless,
>utter foolishness and in clear opposition to Islam.

I certainly agree that the manual is worthless and utter foolishness, and it
is good to hear there are Muslims who see this manual as the claptrap it is.
But you're shooting the messenger. Furthermore, as cited above, there are
plenty of Muslims who think this manual is _not_ in clear opposition to
Islam, which is truly a pity.

Plus, you have plainly violated rule (19) from the Manual:

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=471818159

It says that the following constitutes apostasy:
> (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

Better be careful!! :-)

CS

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Jeremiah McAuliffe

unread,
May 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/3/99
to
As "comsense" knows....

<yawn>

a death penalty for apostacy is not in the Qur'an

<yawn>

it is an issue of government and jurisprudence

<yawn>

thus, a death penalty for what is being called in English "apostacy"
is actually more similar to the English term "treason"

<yawn>

<zzzzzzz>


Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues Y2K
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html

sv...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
In article <7ggh51$jqm$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
comsen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

CS
>>> Here's an excerpt from an Islamic manual of Fiqh (Islamic Sacred
>>> Law), dealing with apostacy (ridda). No "manipulation" is
>>> necessary.....

SAQIB
>> You might be correct. It would not be necessary to manipulate
>> the issue if there were many Muslims who supported the plain
>> idiocy of the excerpt from the so-called Islamic manual you
>> posted.

CS


> I agree with you on this point: it is idiocy to murder people for
> apostatizing from any religion. Unfortunately, there are many
> Muslims who do in fact support this, and often cite "so-called
> Islamic manual" wrt apostasy and other matters, including several
> of the more frequent posters to this forum. A DejaNews search
> with keywords "Reliance of the Traveller", restricted to
> soc.religion.islam resulted in over 100 hits; a similar search
> restricted to alt.religion.islam yielded 100. Here is a small
> sampling of the hits from sri:

SAQIB
I realise that there are many Muslims who support the kind of
information found in the manual. It is for this reason that I took
a strong stance against it; an attempt at throwing down 'the
gauntlet' to cajole any Muslims who might support killing apostates
to actually defend their view. I am thoroughly convinced they will
not be able to do so and only end up proving to everyone how wrong
they are.

As for, "Reliance of the Traveller", I have not read it beyond
the extract you posted. Maybe it does contain useful information
but on the point of apostasy, I say it is completely wrong.

CS


> However, I remind you that this "so-called Islamic manual"
> contains a letter of endorsement from Al-Azhar in Cairo. I
> would assume that they do not pass letters of endorsement for
> Manuals of Fiqh out on the street corner.

SAQIB
Wow, a letter of endorsement. The views of Al-Azhar in this
regard can be compared to the views of the Catholic Church in
the past. The Church made decisions on many matters for the
majority of Christians but quite often they were the most
un-Christian of decisions.

>> What's even worse is that the so-called Islamic manual plainly
>> contradicts the Quran. In my opinion, the manual is worthless,
>> utter foolishness and in clear opposition to Islam.

CS


> I certainly agree that the manual is worthless and utter
> foolishness, and it is good to hear there are Muslims who see
> this manual as the claptrap it is. But you're shooting the
> messenger.

SAQIB
I don't think I fired a single shot in your direction. You
quoted part of a manual/book and I called it worthless.
However, I do find it very interesting to note how often the
non-Muslims will jump to defend the supposedly Islamic law of
killing apostates.

--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk

comsen...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to
Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>
> As "comsense" knows....
>
> <yawn>
>
> a death penalty for apostacy is not in the Qur'an

Which did nothing to prevent the practice from being proscribed in Islamic
Manuals of Fiqh and being carried out in practice.

>
> <yawn>
>
> it is an issue of government and jurisprudence

So? It's still a crime against humanity to kill people for changing their
beliefs. As I've pointed out before, were the Christians still barbaric
enough to enforce apostasy laws, you would probably have been killed for the
"crime" of apostatizing from Christianity to become a Muslim. Fortunately,
they have abandoned this idiocy; one can only hope that Islam will follow
their example.

>
> <yawn>
>
> thus, a death penalty for what is being called in English "apostacy"
> is actually more similar to the English term "treason"

Wrong. You, who do not speak Arabic, tried to raise this false "apostasy in
English does not have a corresponding word in Arabic" flag before, on ARI,
and I addressed it in the following post, and in several others:

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452654000

Furthermore, this claim of yours (that "murtad" cannot be translated into
English, but means something between "apostasy" and "treason") was refuted by
several speakers of Arabic:

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453050099
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452487451
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452811551

Ridda = apostasy.
Murtad = an apostate.

Please stop disingenuously maintaining that these are not one to one
translations. You have been shown clear proof of the truth. The Fiqh Manual
I quoted clearly states "Apostasy (Ridda)", and proceeds to clearly proscribe
the death penalty for this "crime". There is no "issue of translation" here.

> <yawn>
>
> <zzzzzzz>

A slumber which cannot be disturbed by facts, obviously.

CS

comsen...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to
svirk wrote:
>In article <7ggh51$jqm$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
> comsen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip to get below the magic 50% number]

>SAQIB
>I realise that there are many Muslims who support the kind of
>information found in the manual. It is for this reason that I took
>a strong stance against it; an attempt at throwing down 'the
>gauntlet' to cajole any Muslims who might support killing apostates
>to actually defend their view. I am thoroughly convinced they will
>not be able to do so and only end up proving to everyone how wrong
>they are.

I applaud you, and I wish you the utmost success. To kill in God's name is
to blaspheme Him in the worst possible manner.

>As for, "Reliance of the Traveller", I have not read it beyond
>the extract you posted. Maybe it does contain useful information
>but on the point of apostasy, I say it is completely wrong.

It is a joke. Most of the controversial planks adopted by the Taliban can
be found within, such as not allowing a woman to leave the home without her
husband's permission, stoning for adultery, forbidding music, etc..

>CS
>> However, I remind you that this "so-called Islamic manual"
>> contains a letter of endorsement from Al-Azhar in Cairo. I
>> would assume that they do not pass letters of endorsement for
>> Manuals of Fiqh out on the street corner.
>
>SAQIB
>Wow, a letter of endorsement. The views of Al-Azhar in this
>regard can be compared to the views of the Catholic Church in
>the past. The Church made decisions on many matters for the
>majority of Christians but quite often they were the most
>un-Christian of decisions.

Absolutely. The Spanish Inquisition is but one of thousands of examples
which could be cited here. It is unfortunate that Al-Azhar lends its name
to such lunacy. Clearly, they could (and should) set a better example.

>>> What's even worse is that the so-called Islamic manual plainly
>>> contradicts the Quran. In my opinion, the manual is worthless,
>>> utter foolishness and in clear opposition to Islam.
>
>CS
>> I certainly agree that the manual is worthless and utter
>> foolishness, and it is good to hear there are Muslims who see
>> this manual as the claptrap it is. But you're shooting the
>> messenger.
>
>SAQIB
>I don't think I fired a single shot in your direction. You
>quoted part of a manual/book and I called it worthless.

We agree.

>However, I do find it very interesting to note how often the
>non-Muslims will jump to defend the supposedly Islamic law of
>killing apostates.

Defend it? Hardly. I would like nothing more than to see it abolished,
once and for all. It is a crime against humanity to kill someone for
changing their beliefs. One can hardly imagine a more heinous crime.

I do, however, bristle when certain people try to deny the problem exists.
One cannot solve a problem by sweeping it under the carpet. Only when a
sufficient number of brave people such as yourself have the courage and
fortitude to attack the practice for the idiocy it is will it finally be
eradicated. I salute you, sir.

jnawaz

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to
In article <7gpe2h$dpc$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,
<comsen...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>>
> ...stuff not worth quoting..
>

An authentic Hadith exists with the meaning:
"Whoever changed his Deen(religion) should be killed"
Original Arabic:
"Man baddala deenahu fa uqtuluhu"

Whoever does not carry out what the authentic Hadith enjoins is at
least a Fasiq.

Whoever diagrees with the authentic Hadith is a Kafir.

The understanding of the best generation - the Sahabah - was that
anybody who converts out of Islam into another religion is to be given
chance for repentance, and failing that to be killed. This was their
understanding and they indeed applied this understanding in practice.

For this punishment to be meted out, an Islamic state must exist, or
at least an Islamic society where it is possible to apply the Hudood.

The issue is pretty clear, so leave it alone.

jn

Haroon Khan

unread,
May 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/12/99
to
Salam All,
jnawaz <jna...@scf-fs.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:7grr00$10l$1...@bolero.rahul.net...

> Whoever diagrees with the authentic Hadith is a Kafir.

Humour me. The only complaint of the messenger on the day of judgement is
the abandonement of the Quran (25:30), this is a stated fact in the Quran.

> The understanding of the best generation - the Sahabah - was that
> anybody who converts out of Islam into another religion is to be given
> chance for repentance, and failing that to be killed. This was their
> understanding and they indeed applied this understanding in practice.

On what basis do you say that the sahaba are the best generation? Did it
ever occur to you that the sahaba are never mentioned in the Quran? What do
you think of this verse?:

"There shall be no compulsion in religion:the right way is now distinct from
the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in God has
grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. God is Hearer,
Omniscient." 2:256

Kind of puts a dampener on your sectarian rulings of killing apostates
doesn't it?

> For this punishment to be meted out, an Islamic state must exist, or
> at least an Islamic society where it is possible to apply the Hudood.

Really. Like the oppressive state of Saudi Arabia?

> The issue is pretty clear, so leave it alone.

It'll take more than words to keep me off of the case of those who put the
opinions of scholars above the word of God.
Peace
Haroon Khan
http://www.q-zone.com
mailto:Har...@q-zone.com
Dedicated to Qur'anic Studies, with no Sectarian Affiliation

sv...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/14/99
to
In article <7grr00$10l$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,
jna...@scf-fs.usc.edu (jnawaz) wrote:

> An authentic Hadith exists with the meaning:
>
> "Whoever changed his Deen(religion) should be killed"
>
> Original Arabic: "Man baddala deenahu fa uqtuluhu"
>
> Whoever does not carry out what the authentic Hadith
> enjoins is at least a Fasiq.
>

> Whoever disagrees with the authentic Hadith is a Kafir.

SV
You mean I have to kill people who convert from Hinduism
to Buddhism? Would I have to kill a Christian who converted
to Islam? Apparently the answer is, "yes", otherwise I would
be a kafir (as if I need more reasons to be declared kafir).

What's that? You say it means only those people that convert
out of Islam? How do you know? Who are you to put such
conditions on the hadith? Why am I arguing with myself and
what time is it?

I am assuming you would put some condidtions on the plain
meaning of the hadith. Let me tell you what conditions I
would apply; first lets refer to the most important of sources
and make those "Quran only" people happy.

"It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will
believe and let him who will disbelieve." [Quran 18:29]

If you threaten to kill people who choose to believe in
something beside Islam you violate this principle.

"And if thy Lord had enforced His Will, surely, all who are
in the earth would have believed together. Wilt thou then
force men to become believers?" [Quran 10:99]

Will you force people to believe? No, but do you want to
force them to keep believing even when they no longer do?

"And obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and be on your guard.
But if you turn away, then know that on Our Messenger lies
only the clear conveyance of the Message." [Quran 5:92]

Muhammad(pbuh) had only the right to convey the message. Do
you imagine that you have been given the right to kill those
who accept then reject it?

"THERE SHALL BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION. Surely, right
has become distinct from wrong; so whoever refuses to
be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah has
surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking."
[Quran 2:256] (emphasis mine)

"Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed - save him
who is forced to make a declaration of disbelief while his
heart finds peace in faith - but such as open their breast
to disbelief, on them is Allah's wrath; and they shall have
a severe punishment...Undoubtedly, it is they who
will be the losers in the Hereafter." [Quran 16:106-109]

Those that disbelieve after having believed are described
as facing a severe punishment, that they will be "losers in
the Hereafter". There is no mention of Muslims having to
kill such people.

"Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again
believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief,
Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right)
path." [Quran 4:137]

If you disbelieve, how are you going to believe again if
the Muslims have already killed you? Does the Quran state
that those who disbelieve then increase in disbelief ought
to be killed? No.

I am certain I could put together a list of at least 20 if
not more verses of the Quran which would farther prove that
apostates can not be killed. Islam recognizes the right of
freedom of conscience and freedom of belief and that as far
as one's religious belief is concerned one is answerable to
God alone. No man has the right to punish another for his
choice of belief. There is absolutely no compulsion whatsoever
in Islam and no punishment of any kind permitted in the Quran
for apostasy.

"Admonish, therefore, for thou art but an admonisher;
Thou art not appointed a keeper over them.
But whoever turns away and disbelieves,
Allah will punish him with the greatest punishment.
Unto Us, surely, is their return.
Then, surely, it is for Us to call them to account."
[Quran 88:22-26]

The passage is quite clear, punishment for the apostate is
in Gods hands. There is no punishment a human can enforce.
It is between God and the apostate.

Now let us turn to the hadith in question:

The hadith is found in the collection of Imam Bukhari and
reads:

"Whoever changed his religion should be killed"

It is impossible to argue the death penalty for apostates from
the Quran. In the Quran the apostate is threatened with
punishment in the next world only. Thus, those who seek a
death sentence for apostates derive it from the hadith. First
off, any hadith that contradicts the Quran is not trustworthy.
The proper course of action is that we should try to bring it
into line with the Quran, if that is not possible we have to
assume that we do not understand the hadith or that it is not
at all trustworthy.

At a time when war was in progress between Muslims and the
unbelievers, it happened that a person turned apostate, went
over to the enemy and joined them in fighting the Muslims. Such
a person is treated as an enemy, not because they left Islam,
but because they have changed sides in a war. If an apostate
went over to a group of people who were not at war with the
Muslims or if such an apostate did not seek to fight the
Muslims, then he was left alone. The Quran does speak about
this situation:

"They wish that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,
so that you may become alike. Take not, therefore, friends
from among them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah. And
if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you
find them; and take no friend nor helper from among them;"
[Quran 4:89]

It seems to support the hadith in question perfectly and
contradict everything I was trying to prove earlier on. What
ever will I do? Read on:

"Except those who are connected with a people between whom
and you there is a pact, or those who come to you, while
their hearts shrink from fighting you or fighting their
own people. And if Allah had so pleased, HE could have given
them power against you, then they would have surely fought
you. So, if they keep aloof from you and fight you not,
and make you an offer of peace, then Allah has allowed you
no way of aggression against them. " [Quran 4:90]

Apostates who do not fight against the Muslims can not be
touched.

In Bukhari's collection of hadith there are two 'books' dealing
with apostates. They are called 'The Book of those who fight
(against the Muslims) from among the unbelievers and the
apostates' and 'The Book of calling to repentance of the enemies
and the apostates and fighting with them'. I believe the
hadith in question is located under those headings. Apparently,
Bukhari has described apostates as fighters or associates them
with those people who fight the Muslims. Taken in this light
and the Quran verses quoted above, the hadith can only refer to
those who apostate and join the enemy in fighting Islam. ie.
Traitors during a war. I think that a comparable laws are found
among most nations.

That is the only way the hadith can be reconciled with the
Quran. Taken 'as is' the hadith is worthless because, as I
mentioned in the beginning, it does not specify a religion.
Taken literally Muslims would have to kill anyone who converted
to Islam or even people who converted from Christianity to
Buddhism. Meaning, that even those who are ignorant or just
plain blood-thirsty, must put some conditions on the hadith to
make it useful. I ask only that you refer to the Quran when
looking for conditions to apply.

In Bukhari's collection I believe there is a hadith that speaks
of a Christian who accepted Islam and then went back to
Christianity and he was not punished. Also, in Bukhari, I think
you will find there is a story of the nomad who accepted Islam
and then got sick and asked Muhammad(pbuh) to give him back his
pledge. Apparently he thought Islam made him ill and he wanted
out. The man left and was not killed.

There were some Jews who used to accept Islam, join the Muslims
and then leave hoping to create confusion and draw Muslims away
with them. They lived in Medinah under Muslim rule and were not
punished for apostasy and are spoken of both in the Quran and
hadith.

"And a party of the People of the Book say, 'Declare your
belief outwardly in that which has been revealed unto the
believers, in the early part of the day, and disbelieve in
the latter part of thereof; perchance they may return.'"
[Quran 3:72]

If death were the punishment for apostates could the Jews have
adopted this plan to try and undermine Islam?

All of these cases show that the hadith dealing with killing
of apostates applies only to a situation of war when a person
left Islam and joined those who were fighing the Muslims. In
other words, traitors during a time of war. Certainly, no
reasonable person may argue that a death sentence is too harsh
a penalty for such people.

"There shall be no compulsion in religion."

--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---


jnawaz

unread,
May 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/17/99
to
In article <7hhq2m$e5n$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, <sv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <7grr00$10l$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,
> jna...@scf-fs.usc.edu (jnawaz) wrote:
>> An authentic Hadith exists with the meaning:
>> "Whoever changed his Deen(religion) should be killed"
>> Original Arabic: "Man baddala deenahu fa uqtuluhu"
>> Whoever does not carry out what the authentic Hadith
>> enjoins is at least a Fasiq.
>> Whoever disagrees with the authentic Hadith is a Kafir.
>
>SV
>You mean I have to kill people who convert from Hinduism
>to Buddhism? Would I have to kill a Christian who converted
>to Islam? Apparently the answer is, "yes", otherwise I would
>be a kafir (as if I need more reasons to be declared kafir).
> ...deleted stuff...

By making statements such as the above and the ones that I deleted
you only show your extreme ignorance of how Islamic rulings are
derived and applied. Such an ignorant person has no business playing
around with the rulings of Islam and trying to find support in the
verses of the Qur'an when he doesn't even understand them in the
first place, never mind knowing their tafseer. You seemed to suggest
that the ruling for killing apostates was only contained in the
above Hadith that I quoted and that the Hadith lends itself to many
interpretations. Well, if you go back and re-read what I posted I
mentioned that we already know how the Sahabah, those who understood
Islam the best, understood the Hadith and how they applied it - So,
sure the Hadith by itself does not say explicitly which Deen if
changed would entail the death penalty, nor does it give other
details (such as whether the person should be given a chance to
repent) but we can get these details from the actions of the
companions. No amount of verses of the Qur'an you quote can match
the understanding of the Companions who were well aware of the
verses of the Qur'an and the language in the Qur'an was their
language.

Golden rule in Islam is: do not re-invent the wheel. When something
has been dealt with by the Prophet (s) or by the earlier
generations, then we have no recourse but to follow their dealings.

jn


sv...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/21/99
to
In article <7hpesl$r2m$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
jna...@scf-fs.usc.edu (jnawaz) wrote:

>> An authentic Hadith exists with the meaning:
>> "Whoever changed his Deen(religion) should be killed"
>> Original Arabic: "Man baddala deenahu fa uqtuluhu"
>> Whoever does not carry out what the authentic Hadith
>> enjoins is at least a Fasiq.
>> Whoever disagrees with the authentic Hadith is a Kafir.

SV
>>You mean I have to kill people who convert from Hinduism
>>to Buddhism? Would I have to kill a Christian who converted
>>to Islam? Apparently the answer is, "yes", otherwise I would
>>be a kafir (as if I need more reasons to be declared kafir).

>> ...deleted stuff...

JNAWAZ


> By making statements such as the above and the ones that
> I deleted you only show your extreme ignorance of how
> Islamic rulings are derived and applied. Such an ignorant
> person has no business playing around with the rulings of
> Islam and trying to find support in the verses of the
> Qur'an when he doesn't even understand them in the first
> place, never mind knowing their tafseer.

SV
Well, lets leave my ignorance and your frustration aside
for a moment; you have said nothing that will convince
anyone that your views are correct. I have discussed the
matter as well as someone as ignorant as myself is able
and, so far, I see no rebuttal or correction of my views
>from other Muslims. I am afraid that I will have to
continue to wallow in my own ignorance until you or
someone else can provide me with a logical and reasoned
response. In the meantime I will continue to post the
following every time the issue of apostasy in Islam is
discussed.

http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=477901112

My claim is that no apostate was ever killed by Prophet
Muhammad(pbuh) merely for disbelief and that killing
apostates for mere disbelief is opposed to Islam. I have
already explained the hadith you brought forward but more
importantly I built my case from the Quran. I am quite
certain you will never be able to seriously challenge
that case.

Sherif Safwat

unread,
May 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/22/99
to
In article <7i3nki$ipb$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, sv...@hotmail.com writes

>My claim is that no apostate was ever killed by Prophet
>Muhammad(pbuh) merely for disbelief and that killing
>apostates for mere disbelief is opposed to Islam. I have
>already explained the hadith you brought forward but more
>importantly I built my case from the Quran. I am quite
>certain you will never be able to seriously challenge
>that case.

You are quiet right:

If you would like references, the story of of AbdAllah ben Abi Sarh is a
good example:

He was a Moslem immigrated to Medina, was quiet close to the Prophet,
then he reverted to Paganism, returned to Mecca, and claimed that
Mohammed is a false Prophet. When The Moslems conquered Mecca, AbiSerh
was pardoned.
Sherif Safwat

http://www.safwat.freeserve.co.uk

jk...@math.gatech.edu

unread,
May 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/23/99
to
In article <7i5uhe$gkf$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
Sherif Safwat <She...@safwat.demon.co.uk> writes:

> >My claim is that no apostate was ever killed by Prophet
> >Muhammad(pbuh) merely for disbelief and that killing
> >apostates for mere disbelief is opposed to Islam. I have
> >already explained the hadith you brought forward but more
> >importantly I built my case from the Quran. I am quite
> >certain you will never be able to seriously challenge
> >that case.
>
> You are quiet right:
>
> If you would like references, the story of of AbdAllah ben Abi Sarh is a
> good example:
>
> He was a Moslem immigrated to Medina, was quiet close to the Prophet,
> then he reverted to Paganism, returned to Mecca, and claimed that
> Mohammed is a false Prophet. When The Moslems conquered Mecca, AbiSerh
> was pardoned.
> Sherif Safwat

There are some observations to be made though in this case...

It is true that this particular man was not killed (in the end)
but it needs to be said that Muhammad ORDERED him to be killed.
It just didn't work out. Obviously, the misfortune that Muhammad
didn't get his will in this case does not make the pardon a
virtue of Muhammad or Islamic law.

Second, for all apostates it was always true in Islamic Sharia
(at least in the first few times), that they could revert to Islam,
confess the Shahada again and then the death penalty was off.

So, the issue never was what happens to those who in the face
of death decide they rather become Muslims (again), but the
issue is what happens to those who have the guts to stick to
their convictions and speak what they believe is true.

The events about Ibn Abi Sarh are discussed in quite some
detail on the page

http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/sarh.html

Regards,

Jochen Katz


PS: Just one relevant quote from Sirat Rasul Allah:

The apostle had instructed his commanders, when they entered Mecca,
only to fight those who resisted them except a small number who were
to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba.
Among them was Abdullah b. Sa`d, brother of the B. Amir v. Lu'ayy.
The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim
and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned
to Qurahysh [Mecca] and fled to `Uthman b. `Affan whose foster brother
he was. [`Uthman was one of Muhammad's closest friends, and later
became the Caliph of Islam]. The latter hid him until he brought him
to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked
that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle
remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes, [granting
Abdullah immunity from the execution order]. When `Uthman had left
he [Muhammad] said to his compainions who were sitting around him,
"I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his
head!" One of the Ansar [Muhammad's helpers from Medina] said,
then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?"
He [Muhammad] answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing.

[...] are insertions for clarification.

Sherif Safwat

unread,
May 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/23/99
to
In article <7i8mbv$8up$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, jk...@math.gatech.edu writes

>It is true that this particular man was not killed (in the end)
>but it needs to be said that Muhammad ORDERED him to be killed.
>It just didn't work out. Obviously, the misfortune that Muhammad
>didn't get his will in this case does not make the pardon a
>virtue of Muhammad or Islamic law.

If it was Islamic law he would have been killed, Mohammed could not have
stopped it. Mohammed has not got the powers to defy God's will. If God's
law was for killing apostates, he would have been killed.

>Second, for all apostates it was always true in Islamic Sharia
>(at least in the first few times), that they could revert to Islam,
>confess the Shahada again and then the death penalty was off.

It is no where mentioned that this man reverted to Islam.!


Sherif Safwat

http://www.safwat.freeserve.co.uk

jk...@math.gatech.edu

unread,
May 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/24/99
to
In article <7ian54$hlc$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
Sherif Safwat <She...@safwat.demon.co.uk> writes:

> >It is true that this particular man was not killed (in the end)
> >but it needs to be said that Muhammad ORDERED him to be killed.
> >It just didn't work out. Obviously, the misfortune that Muhammad
> >didn't get his will in this case does not make the pardon a
> >virtue of Muhammad or Islamic law.

> If it was Islamic law he would have been killed, Mohammed could not have
> stopped it.

The Qur'an says: Obey the messenger.

In all honesty: Do you think the companions would have gone
against Muhammad's will? I am convinced they had rather
questioned their own understanding of Islam at least ten
times before they contradict what Muhammad orders. And that
is the main problem in this case, Muhammad changes his mind
on something that supposedly is the law of God. At least
I see that to be a problem.

> Mohammed has not got the powers to defy God's will.

But how do the others know what God wants, and to kill him
if Muhammad does not say so?

> If God's
> law was for killing apostates, he would have been killed.

Why? How?

I have the impression you have not really read the documentation
on this case and its discussion in

http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/sarh.html

> >Second, for all apostates it was always true in Islamic Sharia
> >(at least in the first few times), that they could revert to Islam,
> >confess the Shahada again and then the death penalty was off.
>
> It is no where mentioned that this man reverted to Islam.!

I agree, it is not stated explicitly, but I consider this implicit
in the request for pardon. Also, the man was later made the governor
of Egypt under Uthman and he was then a good Muslim. I don't know
WHEN he confessed the shahada, whether immediately after Muhammad
conquered Mecca, or only some time later, but he certainly did
become a Muslim, and it is somewhat likely that his reversion is
at the time of danger for his life and the basis for Uthman's
pleading with Muhammad for the pardon of Ibn Abi Sarh. This is
only my personal conjecture without source material. I am open to
be corrected by those who have sources that say it more clearly.

Best regards,

Jochen Katz

Sherif Safwat

unread,
May 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/24/99
to
In article <7i8mbv$8up$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, jk...@math.gatech.edu writes

>It is true that this particular man was not killed (in the end)
>but it needs to be said that Muhammad ORDERED him to be killed.
>It just didn't work out. Obviously, the misfortune that Muhammad
>didn't get his will in this case does not make the pardon a
>virtue of Muhammad or Islamic law.

If it was Islamic law he would have been killed, Mohammed could not have

stopped it. Mohammed has not got the powers to defy God's will. If God's


law was for killing apostates, he would have been killed.

>Second, for all apostates it was always true in Islamic Sharia


>(at least in the first few times), that they could revert to Islam,
>confess the Shahada again and then the death penalty was off.

It is no where mentioned that this man reverted to Islam.!


Sherif Safwat
http://www.safwat.freeserve.co.uk

Sherif Safwat

unread,
May 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/24/99
to
In article <7ibdpj$41l$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, jk...@math.gatech.edu writes

>In all honesty: Do you think the companions would have gone
>against Muhammad's will?

You are missing the point totally.

What Mohammed felt or desired is one issue, and the law of God is
another (How Mohammed felt is something neither you or me can tell.. It
is up to God to judge)

You will have to remember that Mohammed is not God or the Son of God, he
is simply a messenger, we do not follow his desires, we follow God.

The facts are that the Koran says that there is no compulsion in
religion, and Mohammed has never killed or forced any one who changed
his religion.

>> It is no where mentioned that this man reverted to Islam.!
>

>I agree, it is not stated explicitly, but I consider this implicit
>in the request for pardon.

No it is not... The Meccans in general were pardoned without being
required to convert to Islam. They were known as "Tolakaa" or the "freed
ones".


Sherif Safwat

http://www.safwat.freeserve.co.uk

Mohammad Ghoniem

unread,
May 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/27/99
to
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Assalaamu 3alaykom wa raHmatollaahi wa barakaatoh.

In article <7ibdpj$41l$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:

> > It is no where mentioned that this man reverted to Islam.!
>
> I agree, it is not stated explicitly, but I consider this implicit

> in the request for pardon. Also, the man was later made the governor
> of Egypt under Uthman and he was then a good Muslim. I don't know
> WHEN he confessed the shahada, whether immediately after Muhammad
> conquered Mecca, or only some time later, but he certainly did
> become a Muslim, and it is somewhat likely that his reversion is
> at the time of danger for his life and the basis for Uthman's
> pleading with Muhammad for the pardon of Ibn Abi Sarh. This is
> only my personal conjecture without source material. I am open to
> be corrected by those who have sources that say it more clearly.

Let me refresh your memory about the sources that where provided At
Islamic Awareness in rebuttal to your page about Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh:

http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Quran/Sources/Sarh/

At the above link, you can find enough references removing any doubt
from your mind. More specifically, when did Ibn Abi Sarh convert back to
Islam and that the crime of Ibn Sarh does not have a specific punishment
according to the Quran which means that it is left for the souvereign's
assessement (ie the Prophet pbuh). As Sherif said if Ibn Sarh deserved a
punishment specified by the Quran, neither the Prophet nor the
Companions could rescue him or intercede in his favor. (Remember when
the Prophet refused the intercession of his companion in favor of the
woman from banu Makhzoom who had stolen. Since stealing was a crime
mentionned by the Quran and had a punishment (ie Hadd in Arabic)
mentionned in the Quran, the punishment was carried out.)

I hope this helps.

wassalaam

Mohammad

Haroon Khan

unread,
May 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/29/99
to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages