I've ran across some former Muslims that say that the punishment for Apostasy in not death. They have claimed that the Qu'ran never suggests the death penalty for those that leave the Islamic faith. I tried to corner one of them to get a reason why they say this. I gave some examples and why I reject the notion, but I didn't get a refutation. I'm happy to hear it, I simply don'e know except for what I can read on my own. So if anyone can tell me why this is wrong, please do so.

My reading:

"But if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever you find them” Chapter 4 Verse 89
In Hadiths spoken by Mohammed, "If somebody discards his religion, kill him.’” Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260 Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’” Vol. 9, Book 84, Number 57

Historically it's noted that in the time of Mohammed thousands were killed for leaving Islam. If this wasn't what he wanted, why did he not correct the behavior?

This is a wiki quote under the Execution section. "some jurists, scholars and writers of other Islamic sects, have argued or issued fatwas that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars"

It seems pretty clear to me, but what am I not understanding?

Views: 349

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I did hit reply too soon and immediately edit the phrase "thanks for explaining why you hate americans" in in lieu of "thanks for the tangent on foreign stereotypes" because while I often type these things with a smile, that does not come through in writing. However, there is clearly underlying animosity in many of your comments towards various groups of people. Pointing this out is not ad hominem, nor is implying that many people are unaware of their own hivemind stereotypes on foreigners.


I never said any criticism of americans is hateful anti-Americanism. I said the original comment did not warrant the response. It didn't. It was nothing like the examples you gave of ignorant American behavior.


Bored now. Moving along...

It should sting extra, though I could go completely overboard and call you Flemish. ;)

At least one labeling error on the map. The Jordanian (I believe also Lebanese) legal system is based heavily on the Napoleonic code and sharia is "only" practiced in family court.

Business and criminal law is secular.


Thank you, and good god I'm sorry. I can't imagine how much you must have to bite your tongue. I hear that in a lot of Islamic countries, that within homes and even in many neighborhoods, it's much more laid back than in city centers where the show of force is really put on. Has that been true in your experience?

This terminology "an islamic country" is highly suspicious.

A country where Islam is the state religion can be classified as an Islamic country. And an Islamic state would be a nation that follows Islamic Law. 

Personally I think we need to be careful not to confuse religion - an abstract idea - with international geography, which is more closely associated with race.

Religion is an abstract idea, but there are specific religions with their own specific ideas. And since there are nations which have a specific state religion, you can associate religion with those countries.

Out of the 4 nations you listed, only Turkey is secular, the rest have islam as the state religion, so they can be listed as muslim or islamic nations.

Yes. It is a country with a huge majority of its population islamic, but its a secular country. Just like India, a huge majority of the population is hindu, but the country(on paper) is secular.

So a country that is almost exclusively populated by muslims and is full of mosques doesn't count as an islamic country?  That is a ontradiction of reality.

Is the US a christian nation? Is India a hindu nation? NO. Similarly Turkey isn't an islamic country. Islamic law isn't followed nor is islam the state religion. So by definition Turkey isn't an islamic country.

Turkey isn't an islamic nation in any discussion. Its laws are secular, doesn't matter what religion the majority of its population follow, they will be treated by state law, not religious law.

Repeatedly stating that Turkey is an islamic state won't make it one.

The fact is that according to islamic laws the punishment for apostasy is death, as stated in the hadith. It is irrelevant if some or even many muslims don't follow this part of their religion. That it is there in the religion & is still practiced in many places is what the debate is about.

Hear, hear! :)

@Jared - Specifically:

Turks an an Islamic nation, meaning Turks are generally Muslim.

Turkey has a secular state, meaning the Turkish government is irreligious.

Sometimes keeping the terms nation, state, government, country etc. apart is quite useful.

Remember the Turkish constitution is only a few clicks away: "The Constitution asserts that Turkey is a secular (2.1) and democratic (2.1), republic (1.1) that derives its sovereignty (6.1) from the people."

Compare and contrast to Sharia in Saudi: "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital."


After all it is LAW (as you put it) that every US child is taught to say out loud every day that the US is one nation "under God".

But which god? Does it spefically say yahweh or the christian god? 

Saying that death is the penalty for apostasy in Islam is an inconsistent argument which can't be backed up.

It is a part of the religion which is still practiced in many places. To say it isn't a part of the religion because most believers don't choose to follow it is wrong. While I agree it is not representative of a majority of the muslims in the world, it is still a part of the religion.

Apostasy from xianity: 
6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (6:4-6)
It is impossible for fallen-away Christians to be saved. (Didn't the author know about confession or the finality of being saved?)

BOM: 4 Nephi 3

Is it possible to fall from grace?
(Jehovah's Witnesses)
JWs use these verses to justify their cruel treatment of apostates (exJWs).

6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

I think it is reasonable to say that 'one nation under God' doesn't mean 'one nation under Thor'.

@ Jared - In my opinion, not many people in the US make a big deal out of the "under God" thing in the US pledge of allegiance. Many Americans kind of have a 12 step program aspect to their attitude toward the term. By this I mean, it seems this portion of the pledge is generally looked upon as an metaphorical utterance that people equate with "being united in believing in goodness." 


Of course people do take it to task because, technically, it conflicts with separation of religion and state. This, of course, is understandible.


We are all in flux here. It is hard to take a wide lense snap shop of what is going on in anywhere in the world because things are changing so rapdily these days.  


*Note:  My above expressed opinions are not set in stone and may change within a 24 hour period.

That's fine.  As the US is not a Christian country, you won't have any trouble persuading your legislature to repeal this particular requirement of the pledge.  It's obviously an anomaly for what is, after all, a secular state.  When do you think you'll be able to get the legislation through - let's say end of July?


@ Jared - The US pledge of allegiance has been banned in schools in some parts of the US (not anywhere in the south, however). I forsee this trend will continue, but as for the US Bible belt... oh I'd give it a rough guess of, by the end of July (in the year 2035).


The point is, as atheists, we tend to delight in pointing out the rediculous technicalities in all of the so called holy books. As far as debating among ourselves about how followers of a certain holy book interpret or pay attention to certain technicalities, in said holy book; it can turn into quite a complexity of observations and opinioins.


Sometimes I take the rather apathetic view that things will work out eventually and lend themselves toward good sense and logical problem solving, and sometimes I see things that convince me we are all doomed.


I am quite of two minds about many things. I don't feel comfortable with that, and am striving to form firmer opinions. That's why threads like this one catch my attention. They make me think.


© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service