Why is it that if a Muslim chooses to convert to another religion, he has to be killed? I am not sure about my facts, but I have always wondered about this
Salam, Sara.
I took some time to think about your question, which must also be on the minds of many people.
We Muslims believe that Islam is an action of the heart. In other words, all aspects of the Qur'an and the Sunnah stress the fact that no one is to be forced to accept Islam, whether through conversion or through remaining a Muslim.
Many verses in the Qur'an testify to this fact, where we read what means:
*{And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve.}*(Al-Kahf 18:29)
The very meaning of the Arabic word deen, which is translated into English as "religion," relates more to the heart and the inner self of man. Many other occurrences in the Qur'an testify to this fact and make the killing of someone because of that person changing his or her religion a taboo.
A close study of the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), which serves as an example for all Muslims to learn how to practice Islam and carry out its injunctions, will show us that he never killed people who changed their religion or left Islam, for the reason of their leaving Islam.
In incidents when the Prophet commended the killing of some people, it was because they had committed an offense to the Muslim community, threatening its safety, or because they had killed someone and were killed themselves in retaliation. Therefore, killing them had nothing to do with their apostasy.
In fact, many Islamic scholars support the view that there is no prescribed punishment (hadd) for apostasy. In doing this, they use both reason and strong evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah.
Hadd is a punishment allocated and defined by Shari`ah as a punishment for infringing a certain prohibition or limit. For example, the hadd for adultery is lashing for an unmarried adulterer and adulteress. The number of the lashes allocated for the carrying out of this punishment is 100 lashes. Therefore, if someone who has committed adultery and is proven guilty is lashed 100 lashes, this will mean that the hadd has not been applied. This means no one can decrease or increase the degree of the punishment.
The hadd is a well-defined punishment, and is explained by Allah in both the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Furthermore, the hadd cannot be reneged. That is to say, there is no pardon once a person is proven guilty. For example, if someone is proven to have consumed alcohol and is brought for punishment, a judge cannot forgive and release this person without applying the hadd on him.
RE:Reply - Wada Pav - An Intellectual Reply - Do not ask again.
by Jeffrey Mittal on Apr 12, 2007 09:44 PM Permalink
Reding this repeat post, afew doubts came to my mind
"In incidents when the Prophet commended the killing of some people, it was because they had committed an offense to the Muslim community, threatening its safety, or because they had killed someone and were killed themselves in retaliation. Therefore, killing them had nothing to do with their apostasy."
What is defined as an offense to the Muslim community?
Anybody a muslim thinks that is an enemy, i.e., non-believers in the Muslin faith
I think that the evidence shows that this has been used to murder anybody who does not agree with a certain point of view.
Even the "Apostasy Wars" that were fought after the death of the Prophet were actually wars against dissenters who refused to conform to the law of the state and began an organized rebellion, which were tantamount to treason at that time. In fact, these were wars to protect the safety of the state and to ensure the supremacy of the law governing everyone living within the borders of the Muslim state during that time."
Can you tell me if this law was seperate from Muslim law?
If it was not, then how is diffrerent from killing people for their religious beliefs?
The history of Muslim majority countries show this to otherwise.
So, please reply with facts not propoganda.
"There is more evidence that the Prophet did not kill or punish anyone for leaving Islam, as there is no allocated hadd, in a hadith. A Bedouin came to the Prophet and asked to take back his pledge of allegiance, i.e. to leave Islam. The Prophet was addressed three times and did not answer until the man left. The Prophet did not harm him in the least, but said, "Truly, Madinah gets rid of its filth exactly as fire removes the filth of iron." (Al-Bukhari"
"gets rid of its filth" SOunds like a call to arms to me, i.e. get rid of him, ???
The issue remains is why is there so much brutality in "Apostasy Wars" and in the las 1400 years, which has to be justified.
"In short, there is no clear evidence in Islam to say that a person who leaves Islam has to be killed"
What do yuo mean by that?
Are you implying that you have ANY JUSTIFICATION, to kill some one who does not agree with yuor set of beliefs?
BTW, the usual abuse techniques that you have used below will not answer the question or stop the questions.
RE:Reply - Wada Pav - An Intellectual Reply - Do not ask again.
by Truth Finder on Apr 12, 2007 10:12 PM Permalink
In incidents when the Prophet commended the killing of some people, it was because they had committed an offense to the Muslim community, threatening its safety, or because they had killed someone and were killed themselves in retaliation. Therefore, killing them had nothing to do with their apostasy.
Could you read it again and again. that you can understand it. It clearly said the killing of some people nothing to do with their apostasy.
The Indian Government killing thousands of Naxals for what? It is not the religion. Due to rebellion against the government and threat to the safety of Indians.
RE:[object]
by Truth Finder on Apr 12, 2007 10:15 PM Permalink
In above case you are killing to Indians. Mixing, concocted, fabrication truth would not serve the human cause. We know some Jewish, Hindu and Christian created such websites and since centuries people asking same questions. Same question. Why not dear go to Islamonline or Islamic Research Foundation of Indian site go there and ask question they will answers all question.
RE:Reply - Wada Pav - An Intellectual Reply - Do not ask again.
by raghav bhatt on Apr 14, 2007 02:33 PM Permalink
SAME QUESTIONS JUST LIKE YOU PEOPLE ARE PUTTING THE SAME LIES ABOUT BLOODY AURANGAZB & GOOD THINGS ABOUT ISLAM. YOU PEOPLE NEVER TRIED TO ANSWER THE BAD THINGS ABOUT ISLAM RAISED BY WADA PAV, INDIAN ETC.
RE:Reply - Wada Pav - An Intellectual Reply - Do not ask again.
by raghav bhatt on Apr 15, 2007 10:56 AM Permalink
That means only sites which you people like are the sites tell truth. Others lie? Good!You have not answered to any questions. Only you have posting the same old things or abusing Old hindu customs(which are no way in practise now) or refering Hindu books which only you people will read to find out some bad things. You have not answered any of the questions Raised by Wada Pav about the bad things in Koran. You only succeded in abusing the message & hiding that. Which is the only thing you can do
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
First of all, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you have in us. We hope our efforts meet your expectations.
First of all, we would like to stress that Islam caters for rights of every creature. It urges a Muslim to show good and kind treatment to anyone under his/her control; he should neither maltreat him or her nor should he subject him/her to any form of exploitation.
Islam totally objects and fights all forms of slavery. The focus of Islam in all its teachings and rites was to eradicate this prevailing practice. Now, slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and this goes in line with the goals of Islam.
Responding to the question, Dr. Taha Jaber Al-`Alwani, president of the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and president of the Fiqh Council, states:
When Allah created human beings, He created them to be free and to be vicegerents on the earth. Slavery is something that came from people who couldn%u2019t understand the position of the human being and it was made, in the past, as a global phenomenon.
When Islam came, it tried to bring change to get the human being back to being free, as Allah has created us, by certain procedures. Those procedures of Islam went through without interference from the other nations or states who are non-Muslim states or nations. Maybe within the third century of Hijrah or the migration of the Prophet to Madinah, this phenomenon would have been over and disappeared. But as I mentioned, because it was a global phenomenon, that procedure which was established by Islam couldn%u2019t go through and finish with this very bad phenomenon.
Now, al-hamdulillah all people have agreed to stop this phenomenon and stand up against it. With this, there is no way to go back to adopt this phenomenon again in any way, especially for Muslims, since they must protect the freedom of others and always be with their rights to be free servants of Allah only. We should remember when the Caliph `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said in a famous khutbah (speech or sermon) of his, %u201CWhen did you make the people as slaves or servants of you while Allah, the Almighty, created them free!%u201D
This means that the Muslims from the very beginning advocated the freedom of all human beings and were against the oppression of free people by tyrants and dictator leaders.%u201D
Having clarified the above, we would like to state that it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with them.
I took some time to think about your question, which must also be on the minds of many people.
We Muslims believe that Islam is an action of the heart. In other words, all aspects of the Qur'an and the Sunnah stress the fact that no one is to be forced to accept Islam, whether through conversion or through remaining a Muslim.
Many verses in the Qur'an testify to this fact, where we read what means:
*{And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve.}*(Al-Kahf 18:29)
The very meaning of the Arabic word deen, which is translated into English as "religion," relates more to the heart and the inner self of man. Many other occurrences in the Qur'an testify to this fact and make the killing of someone because of that person changing his or her religion a taboo.
A close study of the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), which serves as an example for all Muslims to learn how to practice Islam and carry out its injunctions, will show us that he never killed people who changed their religion or left Islam, for the reason of their leaving Islam.
In incidents when the Prophet commended the killing of some people, it was because they had committed an offense to the Muslim community, threatening its safety, or because they had killed someone and were killed themselves in retaliation. Therefore, killing them had nothing to do with their apostasy.
In fact, many Islamic scholars support the view that there is no prescribed punishment (hadd) for apostasy. In doing this, they use both reason and strong evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah.
Hadd is a punishment allocated and defined by Shari`ah as a punishment for infringing a certain prohibition or limit. For example, the hadd for adultery is lashing for an unmarried adulterer and adulteress. The number of the lashes allocated for the carrying out of this punishment is 100 lashes. Therefore, if someone who has committed adultery and is proven guilty is lashed 100 lashes, this will mean that the hadd has not been applied. This means no one can decrease or increase the degree of the punishment.
The hadd is a well-defined punishment, and is explained by Allah in both the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Furthermore, the hadd cannot be reneged. That is to say, there is no pardon once a person is proven guilty. For example, if someone is proven to have consumed alcohol and is brought for punishment, a judge cannot forgive and release this person without applying the hadd on him.
The Islamic scholar, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal related in his book Musnad the first time the hadd was applied for a man found guilty of theft during the time of the Prophet. The Prophet felt sorry for him, yet he commanded for the hadd to be applied. Some
RE:Why is it that if a Muslim chooses to convert to another religion, he has to be killed? I am not sure about my facts, but I have always wondered about this Question by Sara
by Jeffrey Mittal on Apr 12, 2007 09:44 PM Permalink
Reding this repeat post, afew doubts came to my mind
"In incidents when the Prophet commended the killing of some people, it was because they had committed an offense to the Muslim community, threatening its safety, or because they had killed someone and were killed themselves in retaliation. Therefore, killing them had nothing to do with their apostasy."
What is defined as an offense to the Muslim community?
Anybody a muslim thinks that is an enemy, i.e., non-believers in the Muslin faith
I think that the evidence shows that this has been used to murder anybody who does not agree with a certain point of view.
Even the "Apostasy Wars" that were fought after the death of the Prophet were actually wars against dissenters who refused to conform to the law of the state and began an organized rebellion, which were tantamount to treason at that time. In fact, these were wars to protect the safety of the state and to ensure the supremacy of the law governing everyone living within the borders of the Muslim state during that time."
Can you tell me if this law was seperate from Muslim law?
If it was not, then how is diffrerent from killing people for their religious beliefs?
The history of Muslim majority countries show this to otherwise.
So, please reply with facts not propoganda.
"There is more evidence that the Prophet did not kill or punish anyone for leaving Islam, as there is no allocated hadd, in a hadith. A Bedouin came to the Prophet and asked to take back his pledge of allegiance, i.e. to leave Islam. The Prophet was addressed three times and did not answer until the man left. The Prophet did not harm him in the least, but said, "Truly, Madinah gets rid of its filth exactly as fire removes the filth of iron." (Al-Bukhari"
"gets rid of its filth" SOunds like a call to arms to me, i.e. get rid of him, ???
The issue remains is why is there so much brutality in "Apostasy Wars" and in the las 1400 years, which has to be justified.
"In short, there is no clear evidence in Islam to say that a person who leaves Islam has to be killed"
What do yuo mean by that?
Are you implying that you have ANY JUSTIFICATION, to kill some one who does not agree with yuor set of beliefs?
BTW, the usual abuse techniques that you have used below will not answer the question or stop the questions.
RE:Why is it that if a Muslim chooses to convert to another religion, he has to be killed? I am not sure about my facts, but I have always wondered about this Question by Sara
by Truth Finder on Apr 12, 2007 10:42 PM Permalink
In incidents when the Prophet commended the killing of some people, it was because they had committed an offense to the Muslim community, threatening its safety, or because they had killed someone and were killed themselves in retaliation. Therefore, killing them had nothing to do with their apostasy.
Could you read it again and again above paragraph and it is good to imporove your reading properly and in context and you can understand it. It clearly said the killing of some people nothing to do with their apostasy. The political reasons.
The Indian Government killing thousands of Naxals for what? It is not the religion. Due to rebellion against the government and threat to the safety of Indians
After seeing all messages it is clear that they do not have anything to defend. Just posting copy-material from anti-Islam and anti-Muslim Jewish, Christian and Hindu propagannda sites.
THEY ARE SICK, BIASED, THEIR SYSTEM SAFRONIZED, INFECTED, STUCKED, CORRUPTED, HANGED AND SERIOUSLY DAMAGED REPORTED.
They have no capability to speak, they do not have background, knowledge and study of Indian History, Culture and devlopment.
LOST INTELLIGENCE , WORST CONSCIENCE CASE. NO TREATMENT POSSIBLE ONLY WAY TO THROUGH THEM ALL INTO DUST BIN. DAMN WASTE
RE:They Lost the Game - Aurangzeb was the greatest King of India
by raghav bhatt on Apr 14, 2007 02:39 PM Permalink
YEH! ONLY YOU PEOPLE ARE BUNDLES OF ALL GOODS , ALL THE OTHER KAFFIRS(HINDUS, CHRISTS, JEWS ETC) ARE HEAP OF BAD THINGS, FINE CONTINUE. IF YOU CONTINUE TELLING SUCH LIES THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THEY WILL BE CONSIDEED AS TRUTH.
RE:They Lost the Game - Aurangzeb was the greatest King of India
by Jeffrey Mittal on Apr 12, 2007 09:18 PM Permalink
From what you posted above, the people reading this are to presume that it is ONLY you who knows what is right.
All I see is prejudice, lack of tolerance and a fantical belief.
That my fellow "truth finder is not the search for truth but more appropriately "truth distortion" or "truth suppresion"
This is what you, mike, rafi and other trainees in the brain washing school of naik are doing.
This technique of repeatedly cutting and pasting the same propaganda so that other posts get pushed back so many others who don't have the time, cannot get to the previous post, is spamming at its worst.
This tells me that you want to suppress the truth and not even allow others to discuss it.
The other thing that I notice is that you jump on any post that contradicts your point of viewq and immediatly report it for abuse, so that then others don't get a chnace to reead it.
That is "truth suppression"
The people reading this sequence of events are smart enough to understand you devious techniques.
So, give up the facade of your "truth finding" and recognise the you are abusive, intolerant and full of hate.
