I Am Enjoying Being A Muslim

Give me one verse please.

@Madeleine: Come on, really?

Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Quran (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."

Then there's the Hadith.... This is why apostasy is punishable by death in every single country, that implements full Sharia.

@Northwest: Thank you for your respond.


Who are they?


This surah (9) talks about the disbelievers of Mecca and their breaking of treaty with the Muslims. It seems that you forgot to include the verse right before this one [9:10]:

@Madeleine: that is NOT the point. The point is that those who broke their word, and went back to their religion are to be killed. If this were not the case, then the Hadith, and even now, all the pure Muslim countries, would not have the death penalty for apostasy. That is even the case for Egypt.

@Northwest: I don't understand how did you come up with this interpretation for the verses. The disbelievers of Mecca were never believers.

@Madeleine: Initially, I was not commenting on apostasy. I was commenting on [Quran 2:256]: "There is no compulsion in religion".

I said that this is contradicted, by other verses. Specially, those dealing with what to do with those who do not choose Islam, or who revert.

If indeed there is no compulsion if religion, then why was Islam forced on those who were not believers (or out to death), and why is it that EVERY SINGLE country, that applies Sharia law, hands out the death penalty to apostates?

There is a discrepancy here, and if indeed Qur'an 2:256, is the standard that should be followed, then all those countries that apply the death penalty to apostasy, need to eliminate it. This is especially true for Saudi Arabia. Where you live.

@Northwest: Respectfully, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preach Islam for 13 years in Mecca where Muslims were persecuted, so logically he couldn't be able to use force. Then after his immigration to Medina, there were Jews and idol worshipers living with Muslims, even though he was the leader and had authority, were they forced to accept Islam? Moreover, the verses you mentioned is talking about the disbeliever in Mecca, not because they refused to accept Islam, but because they fought the Muslims and broke the treaty. In the same surah (9) we find verses talking about disbelievers who had treaty with Muslims and DID NOT break it, so Muslims were ordered to keep peace with them, and to even PROTECT them.

[Quran 9:4]:

There's no contradiction in the Quran.

@Madeleine: We go back and forth on this all day. I've read the Qur'an. In Arabic. There are two prophets, and two behaviors. One is for Mecca and the second is for Medina. Peaceful means were employed for one, and total warfare was employed for the other.

I also read history, and it differs, in a lot of places, from what's described in the Qur'an and Hadith. The alliances in Medina, were a lot more complex that meet the eye, and the back and forth is not one sided, as in it's not a simple case of some of the Jewish tribes, reversing their alliances. It was related to a dynamic of power between the new Muslim power and the old Jewish power.

The bottom line is: if it's so clear that apostates are not to be harmed, why is it that it's the law in ALL the countries that apply full Sharia Law, and those who apply criminal Sharia law? Try posting to a public blog in Saudi Arabia, that you're converting from Islam to Christianity, and see what happens.

@Northwest: My point was to clarify that there is no verse in the Quran that says someone who changes his religion should be put to death. There's a hadith mentioned this, but scholars differ in interpretation.

I'm 36 years old and during my lifetime, I have never came across a case where someone was put do death by government for leaving Islam.

@Madeleine: but there is, and I quoted it. I will quote some more if you like. It doesn't matter if they broke their word, what matters is that the verses prescribe death, and it is supplemented by Hadith.

Saudi Arabia, does not specify what specific laws were used, for nearly 50% of death penalty cases, that's up to judges who do not have to justify their actions. The law is on the books.

@Northwest: Again, I just quoted you a verse where Muslims were commanded to fulfill their treaty with disbelievers because they did not fight Muslims. So it's very clear that fighting against disbelievers should be for security reasons, not religious.

Death penalty is applied by most countries in the world and for different reasons. No country is ever asked to justify its law. Most countries kill those who commit treason against their countries. So they are killed for political reasons.

@Madeleine: Yes, what you did, is confirm that there are contradictions, and it's wide open to interpretation. This points to multiple authors, and an evolving work, as Islam started to spread out.

The death penalty is not applied by most countries.

As of 31 December 2015, of the 195 independent states that are UN members or have UN observer status.:[8]

58 retain it in both law and practice.

31 have abolished it de facto, namely, according to Amnesty International standards, that they have not executed anyone during the last 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions.

6 have abolished it, but retain it for exceptional or special circumstances (such as crimes committed in wartime).

103 have abolished it for all crimes.

This however is not the point. The point, one more time, is that if the Qur'an says that there is no compulsion in religion, and yet, the Sharia law, which is derived from the Qur'an, Hadith and Ijtihad, then having the death penalty, under Sharia law, for those who left Islam, is contradictory.

You're also mixing up politics (treason) with religion (Islam). They are not the same.

@Northwest: I would like to start from your last point. Politically, religion ruled countries in the 7th century. Someone who changes his/her religion and joined another was seen as treason.

There is no verse in the Quran that commands Muslims to kill someone changes his/her religion. You gave me verses that have nothing to do with this issue. As for Sharia, there's no black and white in the Islamic law. Not all scholars agree with the position of killing someone who leaves Islam.

@Madeleine: You know very well, that Sharia is a combination. The basics are set in the Qur'an, and the Hadith can prescribe a remedy. If you want to treat the 7th century as a special period, then I would agree.

The 7th century perspective does not apply to today. I am concerned with today.

While the Qur'an does not prescribe a punishment for apostasy, from a modern perspective, it does define what apostasy is (in several verses).

It is the Hadith, that is used to justify today's Sharia rulings on apostasy, and that would be death. You continue saying that not all scholars agree with Capital Punishment, but the fact is, that today, ALL countries that apply the Sharia agree that IT IS up to Capital Punishment. Which means that a person may not get the death penalty, but it is the maximum sentence that can be applied.

I've had this same argument, with people who are on the opposite religious spectrum, and it always boils down to this: Islam, through the application of Fuqh, to Sharia, can reform, without violating any religious edicts.

If Saudi Arabia followed the Qur'an, there would be no death penalty for apostasy, and women can have their freedom.

@Northwest:
I would like you to explain this point more please.