I created a thread earlier on capital punishment for apostasy, and it was removed. I’m going to assume I did not word myself properly, so I apologize for that. I’ll try to be more diplomatic.
The general stance, on here, is that there is no punishment for apostasy (no compulsion in religion), but there is capital punishment for treason, ie an apostate who is critical of the religion he renounced.
This is my take on it,
When you need to ban criticism of your religion with laws, you are basically admitting that your religion’s theology and teachings are weak, and they need to be protected from scrutiny. If you are so convinced of the veracity of your religion, let others criticize it openly, and then refute their points with words. No need for anyone to be physically punished or killed. Its really not more complicated than that.
Those who defend capital punishment for “treason”, would they also defend capital punishment for Christians who convert to Islam, and later on elaborates on why they left Christianity and joined Islam? That would be “treason” too.
^ I think that would only be applicable if the state gvmt is Islam. Islam isn’t just a religion but also a system of gvmt… if a man is publicly going against the gvmt, he is subject to their laws on treason. Take Snowden as an example.
Otherwise, apostasy isn’t ‘punishable’ in Islam, i believe.. it would be more of a personal sin than a state sin… punishment lies with Allah/in the Hereafter.
The Snowden comparison is fallacious, he exposed what was deemed as classified information. Even then, many are opposed to prosecuting Snowden, and view his actions as positive. Some even want to nominate him for the Nobel peace prize. And just because something occurs in the west, it doesn’t automatically make it morally correct. I support Snowden for speaking out, in any case.
And there is no omniscient God guiding Americans, their system consists of man made laws. Surely an omniscient god must be able to create better laws than mere human beings? Basically the Islamic government would be admitting that the theology and teachings of their religion are so weak, that any criticism of it by those who renounced the religion, needs to be punished with death. Despite the fact that the same people believe there is an omniscient god behind the theology of their religion. Surely that’s self-contradictory, no?
Then you have the other negative consequence of it, the one which nurtures mindset as such, that people start believing their religion is worth killing and dying for. Could that be one of the reasons why there are so many in the muslim world who are directly quoting scripture while committing atrocities against the non-believers?
Once you pander to such a mindset, you got no one but yourself to blame when people start killing others in the name of religion. You don’t see as many christians doing the same. So perhaps the christian nations are onto something wrt tolerating criticism of religion, and let the church refute such claims with words?
My point is simple, put down guns and knives, utilize the power of the pen, it will benefit you more.
So other religions aside of Islam will be viewed as enemies in an Islamic state? Isn’t that a problematic mindset in itself? You are not waging war against a nation by criticizing the political system of a country. In most secular democracies, political systems are openly criticized all the time.
Would a single person in here, who is a proponent of capital punishment for apostasy/treason, condone a Muslim convert being killed for renouncing Christianity and then speaking out about why he left Christianity and became a Muslim? I think most here would call such a ruling Appalling. But when we view it from the opposite direction, suddenly people are able to condone it.
Many US States, for example: Ohio, Nevada,Arizona, California, Florida ,etc have the death penalty. Countries like Brazil, China, Israel,India, Maldives, Singapore, and Russia are among other countries who have the capital punishment and have not abolished it.
Capital punishment is authority of the state-government to pronounce, authorize, permit and execute. Individuals, or groups of non-state, non-authorized persons cannot pronounce and execute capital punishment on behalf of the state.
A Mullah, priest, sadhu, magician, political leader would want to eliminate the other faith in order to improve his own business, and influence. Islamic law does not permit injustice and turning religion into business. Individuals killing each other over ethnic, religious, gender, sexuality, property, ego is ill advice and prohibited in Islam.
Finally, as other have pointed out the definitions of “treason”. If an Islamic state exists, and an enemy of the state has been proven of serious charges after a fair trial, then public capital punishment can be implemented. It must be noted, that the principles of mercy and forgiveness rules above all in Islam. So, one government may decide to abolish it, or be lenient with it. Changing one’s religious believes does not make one enemy of the state.
Are you facing difficulty comprehending definition of treason?
Treason =/= criticism
If a person leaves Islam and actively engages in activities akin to treason, he/she can be liable to punishment of death. Not very unfair, I would say.
@BigdaNawab , I am not opposing death penatly in itself. I’m opposing why someone who renounces a religion, and then subsequently criticizes said religion, needs to be killed, and not be refuted with words.
@kakaballi , so you would condone it if a muslim convert was subjected to the same type of punishment in a christian or hindu country? Or would you conveniently say, “but that’s not part of their religion”?
And you are also of opinion that Islamic theology and teachings are so weak that any dissent against those, needs to be punished by death? And if not, why can’t you refute such criticism with words, instead of physical punishment?
When you need to ban criticism of your religion with laws, you are basically admitting that your religion’s theology and teachings are weak, and they need to be protected from scrutiny. If you are so convinced of the veracity of your religion, let others criticize it openly, and then refute their points with words.
No difficulties comprehending anything, apart from people condoning barbaric penalties for dissidence, and then they are unable to comprehend why their religion is viewed as barbaric, or why so many are killing by directly quoting scripture from said religion. Perhaps time to put such archaic mindset behind?
I think my response should have no clarified Islam’s position. No point is worrying and discussing some random person’s personal position on some topic. wont do your peace any good.
If Ali said in Sweden, I don’t want democracy, I want communism, then he went ahead and criticized democracy. Would it be ok to put him to death? Why is it then ok to put Ali to death, if he says I want Hinduism, and not Islam, then he goes ahead and explain why Hinduism cater more to him than Islam.
Basically, whats being claimed is that in an Islamic state, eventually everyone needs to become muslims, for the islamic state to function optimally and peacefully. And then we wonder why so many are working to turn muslim nations into nations consisting of only muslims.
Belief is not something you can control, either you believe, or you don’t.
Yes, but we are not discussing the literal definition of the word treason here, are we? Because religion and state are one and the same in this instance. How do you commit treason against a religion? By saying you prefer trinity/polytheism over tawhid, and then explain why you prefer trinity or polytheism over tawhid? Or by saying that you don’t think the Quran is infallible, criticize the Quran, not believe in Muhammad as a prophet, perhaps scrutinize Muhammad’s life with intent to criticize aspects of it, scrutinize and criticize Islamic theology and so on.
Please elaborate. I find your take on this interesting. Of course millions of muslims (perhaps the majority?), and many scholars define “treason” as simply renouncing the religion, or to put forth criticism against the religion. But if your take is that pure criticism/dissent is not regarded as punishable, and should be refuted with words, then we are on the same page. Even if your opinion will be in minority, I do support such a proposition.
There is a difference in committing treason against a state and putting lifes at risk or exposing classified information which might put lifes at risk, than commiting treason against a religion and putting others afterlife at risk.
There is empirical proof of this life, there is no empirical proof of afterlife. That’s purely based on belief. And even then most secular democracies in the western world don’t even have death penatly. The US is perhaps the only nation which does.
But then again, we need to define, how you can commit “treason” against a religion? We will need examples to refute how “treason” is defined by (perhaps) the majority of muslims.
Nothing wrong with discussion, if I’m wrong then I’m wrong. And I did not make any claims about what Islamic scripture says or not. Nor do I have any malicious intent. All I’m saying is that muslims should embrace complete freedom of religion, because we see the positive effects of it in nations which have embraced complete freedom of religion.
I meet and converse with all types of imams, some are conservative, some are liberal. Religion is dynamic and not static, because eventually its defined by human beings.
Find a source that says that the treason has to be against religion. If you put ‘treason’ in the title of the thread, you should know what it means as well.
If you do not know the ruling regarding when capital punishment is applied, you are just basing all your arguments on hearsay. If you go by what certain maulvi said, then 99% of muslims would be declared non-muslims if it were up to them.
Per my understanding, it is treason against ‘people’ that attracts capital punishment. If you leave the people, collaborate with enemy to damage the people you left, you are actively involved in treason which is punished heavily in ANY society.
Simply leaving Islam and then criticizing Islam does not attract capital punishment.
I’m not asserting what the Islamic ruling on the issue is. The reason I put treason in the title of the thread is because apostasy to (perhaps) the majority is equated to treason. I created a similar thread a week back, and I don’t think I put treason in the title there, but rather asked when it is permissible to kill apostates.
There are mainly three views on apostasy, and their prevalence is in the following order.
1. Apostasy in itself is punishable by death. 2. There is no punishment for apostasy, but renouncing Islam and then criticizing it is punishable by death. Because that can be equated to treason, since it threatens the integrity and stability of the muslim community and the state.
**3. **There is no such punishment for renouncing religion in Islam.
If you read my OP, you will see that I’m directly addressing those who hold stance number 2. I even put the word treason in quotes. I’m not basing my arguments on hearsay, the very reason why apostasy carries such a stigma and threats of violence in the muslim world, is because the majority holds view number 1 or 2. If they did not, there would be no issue wrt apostasy in muslim nations.
And that is the stance people should hold. So I’ve got no issues with that. And I see no reason to assert what the Islamic ruling on this issue is, because its up for interpretation. And I will always be supportive of the more humane interpretation. If you hold such a stance, my trying to convince you otherwise, would be completely counterproductive to what I’m trying to convey here.
The above definition is incomplete or an important aspect is implicitly stated. Treason is doing something against the interest of a country while still being its citizen or still under a pledge of allegiance.
The closest group, from a religion’s perspective, that can be termed as a traitor is group of munafiqeen. Who, apparently, are still muslims but do things that are contrary to their beliefs. Will anyone tell me how many munafiqeen were executed during the lifetime of the holy prophet (pbuh)?