I think you should consult an imam or a scholar because this is a delicate topic, stuff like this is often used to show religion as barbaric.

The following are answers from three different scholars.

Quote:

[size=18][url=http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/abd... Hakim Murad[/url][/size]

HOW DOES ISLAM DEFINE APOSTASY? IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MUSLIM TO CONVERT TO ANOTHER FAITH? HOW CAN LAWS AGAINST APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY BE RECONCILED WITH THE KORANIC INJUNCTION OF “NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION”?

Traditional human communities believe that truth leads to salvation, and error to damnation. It is probable that very many religious people in a variety of denominations still believe this. Historically, religiously-faithful princes have therefore seen it as necessary to use the coercive power of the state to forbid apostasy. One of the most powerful and persistent manifestations of this understanding in history was the Inquisition, which was definitively abolished in 1834. Protestant countries also respected this drastic principle; in fact, the first converts to Islam in Britain were impaled on stakes. In a Hindu context, ‘apostasy’ was often classified as violation of caste rules and boundaries, and similarly drastic consequences could follow. After the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1253, Buddhists who converted to Islam were routinely put to death.

The four canonical schools of Sunni Islamic law, and also most pre-modern Shi’a jurists, recommend similarly drastic penalties, although the judge is enjoined to ‘look for ambiguities’ in order to avert the death penalty wherever possible.

The Ottoman Caliphate, the supreme representative of Sunni Islam, formally abolished this penalty in the aftermath of the so-called Tanzimat reforms launched in 1839. The Shaykh al-Islam, the supreme head of the religious courts and colleges, ratified this major shift in traditional legal doctrine. It was pointed out that there is no verse in the Qur’an that lays down a punishment for apostasy (although chapter 5 verse 54 and chapter 2 verse 217 predict a punishment in the next world). It was also pointed out that the ambiguities in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) suggest that apostasy is only an offense when combined with the crime of treason. These ambiguities led some medieval Muslims, long before the advent of modernisation, to reject the majority view. Prominent among them one may name al-Nakha’i (d.713), al-Thawri (d.772), al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090), al-Baji (d. 1081), and al-Sha’rani (d.1565). The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.

Among radical Salafis and Wahhabis who do not accept the verdicts of the Ottoman or the Azhar scholars, it is generally believed that the majority medieval view should still be enforced.

The best discussion of the controversy is the book by Mohammed Hashim Kamali, “Freedom of Expression in Islam” (Cambridge, 1997).

Quote:

[size=18][url=http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/tar... Ramadhan[/url][/size]

HOW DOES ISLAM DEFINE APOSTASY? IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MUSLIM TO
CONVERT TO ANOTHER FAITH? HOW CAN LAWS AGAINST APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY BE RECONCILED WITH THE KORANIC INJUNCTION OF "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION"?

In the Islamic legal tradition, “apostasy” known as “ridda” is related to changing one’s religion and its injunction is mainly based on two prophetic sayings (ahadith) both quoted in sahih Bukhari (9,83 and 84): “The one who changes his religion, kill him” and another tradition noting that among the three categories of people who can be killed is “the one who leaves the community”. The great majority of the Muslim scholars, from all the different traditions and throughout history, have been of the opinion that changing one’s religion is prohibited in Islam and should be sanctioned by the death penalty.

Nevertheless we find, in very early studies and writings, several Muslim scholars having a different approach. The jurist Ibrahîm al-Nakha’î (8th), Sufyân ath-Thawrî (8th) in his renowned work on the prophetic tradition (Al-Jâmi’ al Kabîr, Al-Jâmi’ al-Saghîr) as well as the hanafi jurist Shams ad-Dîn as-Sarakhsî (11th) – among others- hold other views. They question the absolute authenticity of the two prophetic traditions quoted above. They also argue that nothing is mentioned in the Qur’an pertaining to this very sensitive issue and add that there is no evidence of the Prophet killing someone only because he/she changed his/her religion.

The Prophet took firm measures, only in time of war, against people who had falsely converted to Islam for the sole purpose of infiltrating the Islamic community to obtain information they then passed on to the enemy. They were in fact betrayers engaging in high treason who incurred the penalty of death because their actions were liable to bring about the destruction of the Muslim community and the two prophetic traditions quoted above should be read in this very specific context.

In light of the texts (Qur’an and prophetic traditions) and the way the Prophet behaved with the people who left Islam (like Hishâm and ‘Ayyash) or who converted to Christianity (such as Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh), it should be stated that one who changes her/his religion should not be killed. In Islam, there can be no compulsion or coercion in matters of faith not only because it is explicitly forbidden in the Qur’an but also because free conscious and choice and willing submission are foundational to the first pillar (declaration of faith) and essential to the very definition of “Islam”. Therefore, someone leaving Islam or converting to another religion must be free to do so and her/his choice must be respected.

One might hope that anyone, be she/he a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim or anything else, would show as much respect towards the religious or spiritual community she/he is leaving as the latter must express towards her/him.

Quote:

[size=18][url=http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/mus... Ceric[/url][/size]

How does Islam define apostasy? Is it permissible for a Muslim to convert to another faith? How can laws against apostasy and blasphemy be reconciled with Qur’anic injection of “No compulsion in religion”?

The issue of apostasy is one of those issues where the Muslims should have realized the historic significance of the Qur’anic announcement of the following fundamental principles of human freedom and dignity:

1) There shall be no compulsion in religion.

If it were only for this loud and clear statement of the Qur'an, it would be enough to appreciate the venture of Islam in human history. In it a reasonable man recognizes the foundation of religious freedom which is considered today to be one of the most fundamental values of our common civilization. Should I remind you that as recently as September 27, 1480, the Spanish sovereigns Ferdinand and Isabella issued an order to establish in their kingdoms tribunals to judge cases of “heretical depravity”, to become known as the Spanish Inquisition. This fact of history Professor Benzion Netanyahu brings to our attention in this way:

The royal decree explicitly stated that the Inquisition was instituted to search out and punish converts from Judaism who transgressed against Christianity by secretly adhering to Jewish beliefs and performing rites and ceremonies of the Jews.

My intention here is not to embarrass any person or religion, but to show the significance of the testimony of Stanford Shaw the Jewish author, who has this to say about a political as well as moral legacy of Islam:

"Neither the people of the Republic of Turkey nor those of Europe and America fully realize the extent to which Turkey, and the Ottoman Empire which preceded it, over the centuries served as major places of refuge for people suffering from persecution, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, from the fourteenth century to the present. In many ways the Turks historically fulfilled the role subsequently taken up by the United States of America beginning in the late nineteenth century. "

I have quoted this witness not to justify all the actions of the Ottoman Sultans, but to demonstrate that it was due to the above mentioned short, but very powerful Qur'anic statement of the seventh century, that the Muslim scholars developed the concept of the protection of five fundamental rights of what we call today “human rights” of each and every person: the right to life (نفس), the right to religion (دين), the right to freedom (عقل), the right to property (مال) and the right to dignity (عِرْض).

It is quite regrettable that the modern Muslim intelligentsia has failed to pick up on this doctrinal and historical foundation of an Islamic avant-garde for human rights to build up social, political and moral institutions in the Muslim world that would guarantee the development of a genuine democratic system.

2) There shall be no priesthood

It was the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who challenged the monopoly of the clergy on the spiritual truth and eschatological privilege by declaring that لا رهبانيّة في الإسلام “There shall be no priesthood in Islam.” This is not to be understood though that there shall be no scholars or intellectuals to interpret Islam both as the transcendental meaning of human life and the immanent manifestation of human history, but rather it should be taken as a protest against the manipulation with human destiny in the name of religion in the sense of mediation between God and man. It is in the light of this protest against the notion of the clerical domination over the human souls that we have to appreciate the Prophet Muhammad's historic abolishment of the social and political privileges of the ancient clerics whose raison d'être had been based on a vague and doubtful mythological foundation. Bearing this in mind, is it not paradoxical, to say the least, to think of Islam as a religion of theocracy. Of course, the religion that came to cancel the institution of old theocracy cannot be accused of creating a new one.

Unfortunately, some self-proclaimed Muslim scholars and political leaders are not good witnesses to this obvious claim because of their clear tendency to subdue Islam to their narrow-minded view of a wide range of spiritual, moral as well as political possibilities that the great religion like Islam holds in its bosom. And, in spite of the fact that we are constantly reminded in the Holy Qur'an that no one, but God Almighty, is in charge of the final way to Paradise or to Hell, some irresponsible people like to play the role of God by designating some people for the Hell and some others for the Paradise. Fortunately, this kind of bigotry Islam has successfully survived in the past and it will, I am sure, survive in the future.

3) There shall be no discrimination

Finally, one of the reasons that I am in full capacity as a Muslim of the European origin is the universal declaration of equal rights that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had delivered at one of his Ceremonies on the hill of Arafat when he said:
كلكم من آدم و آدم من تراب, لا فضل لعربي علي أعجمي, و لا لأعجمي علي عربي, ولا لأبيض علي أسود و لا لاسود علي ابيض, إلاّ بالتقوي.

"You are all children of Adam, and Adam is from clay. Let there shall be no superiority of an Arab over a Non-Arab, nor shall be superiority of a Non-Arab over an Arab, and there shall be no superiority of a white over a black or a black over a white man, except by good character."

I don’t know whether the American Baptist minister and the leader of the civil rights movement Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has been aware of the above mentioned universal declaration of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but I do know that we are all in a desperate need today to listen to those divinely inspired messages. Of course, I am aware that my power is too frail to be King's voice, but my heart is full of hope to have Martin Luther King's dreams today as his were yesterday that my three children will one day live in a world where they will not be judged by the faith of their heart but by the content of their character.

I believe that the faith of Islam is too strong in the hearts of Muslims to be obsessed and disturbed by those who lose their faith. Of course, the crime of treason should be dealt with in accordance to the just laws of the land.

Next time i have any problems like this im going straight to beast.

Salam

I do not believe that God ordered us to kill a muslim who converts to Buddhism.

God is Kind and Merciful.

Creator of the Universe allows freedom of conscience.

Omrow

Is it aposty or apostasy? :?

Salam

I can understand that how one can be punished for an apostrophe;
but i cant see how one can be executed for an apostasy.

Omrow

"Alisha" wrote:

Is it aposty or apostasy? :?

apostasy.

"Ya'qub" wrote:

Quote:

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - "[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

Bukhari (84:58 ) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."

So what do I tell a non-Muslim who sent this to my friend?

Yaqub, mate, quote this from the Quran.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion...." (2:256, or something like that,)
It really doesn't take Einstein to work this one out. Those Ahadith aren't very reliable now, are they?

"Courage" wrote:

Yaqub, mate, quote this from the Quran.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion...." (2:256, or something like that,)
It really doesn't take Einstein to work this one out. Those Ahadith aren't very reliable now, are they?

Yes they are reliable. Traditionally in Muslim states. If you apostated then the scholars would interview you, if you had reasons for apostating then they could try to help you. Only if you were apostating [b]for the fun of it or had no real argument[/b] and after that refused to return to the fold were you executed.

"Ya'qub" wrote:

"Courage" wrote:

Those Ahadith aren't very reliable now, are they?

err...Bukhari not accurate?

in that case we can't ever know pretty much anything from the life of the Prophet (saw), and we completely lose the source of Islamic knowledge which is the Sunnah, leaving just the Qur'an as our sole source?

Well no, they contradict the Quran. Any Hadith that does that loses quite a bit of its reliability, doesn't it. I'm not saying that Bukhari is generally unreliable, he's probably the most reliable. But the the big BUT is, that it contradicts the Quran in this situation.

ahadith can never contradict quran. the words of Nabi and the kalaam of Allah (swt) will never contradict! what you've just done Courage is a what a lot of muslims do, hence this situation in the ummah. when we take a hadith, we must look at the background of that hadith, what situation it was said in, to whom it was said, whether if there is another hadith about the same situation and so forth. likewise with quran, when the ayah was revealed, where it was revealed and whether if there is a specific hadith about the ayah.

thats the very reason why we need scholars/teachers. see what happens when people try to say this hadith means so and so!

may Allah (swt) give the ulema long healthy lives! ameen thuma'ameen!

We Shia Muslims believe that our 12 Imams taught us that any Hadith or saying that goes against the teachings of Holy Quran must be thrown against the wall.

Our Ayatollahs tell us not to accept any information as true if it contradicts the Book of Allah.

No matter which other book it is, if it is against Quranic verses, then we Shias never believe it as true. God's Quran is number one source for us. All other sources - books as well as teachers - are checked against it for credibility and authenticity. That is what Prophety Muhammad taught and all or sinless and perfect twelve Imams( peace be upon them all).

This is the only real and true religion from God.

www.al-islam.org

"Ya'qub" wrote:

There are many times where ahadith seem to contradict one another, or contradict the Qur'an, or even parts of the Qur'an seem to contradict each other.

Thank God for Imam Shafi'i RA ! He is famous RA for the work he did on ironing out [u]apparent[/u] contradiction in our primary texts.

Quote:

Noor is right in terms of taking note of place, time and context of each revelation, and the need for scholars, but I disagree with part of what she said. It wasn't said explicitly, but was more implied - forgive me if I've understood you

...

Whilst scholars [b]are [/b]important, they are not the only ones who should try to decifer/find meaning within religious texts. Allah (swt) has blessed us all with the capacity for reason, and we should use it. We shouldn't just be recepticals for scholars' lessons, we should try to find our own meaning from the Qur'an too. When you read the Qur'an, then Allah (swt) is talking directly to you; in YOUR time, place and context. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is universal and true to all times, and it is unreasonable to suggest that scholars have been throught the same individual experiences as us. I think that the Qur'an has different types of lessons - some are for scholars to learn from and issue fatawa and so forth, while others are for us all (Muslim and even non-Muslim) to read individually and reflect on privately by ourselves.

The Qur'an speaks, who is listening?

There is an ayah in The Qur'an that says "[The Qur'an is] a guidance for those who have Taqwa." There is a saying that "only the Ulema fear God SWT" The true scholars are the people of Taqwa.

Ayat in the Qur'an teach us, that many are guided and many are misguided by it. According to the scholars it is kufr to attribute a meaning to the ayaat from your own desires.

[u]Well if you accept that, how can common people reflect on the Qur'an?[/u]
Go to the scholars, go to the books of Tafsir and let them explain the meanings, then reflect on their significance.

Don't let your exercise of "reflecting on The Qur'an" be a problem solving exercise! (thoughts: [i]okay so by way of elimation this means that that isn't that [/i] ) . If I tell you The sentance I mentioned earlier:

Quote:

The Qur'an speaks, who is listening?

means that, not everyone has the hearing, not everyone has the ability to understand. Not everyone has had their heart opened to The Qur'an as Sayyidina Abdullah ibn Abbas RA did when he said, "If I lost a camel I would not go searching outside for it, I would look in The Qur'an." The Qur'an speaks but only the pious true scholars really hear.

You might not have got that understanding the first time around, but now I've given commentary so you can understand it. Does this mean you can't reflect on that statement anymore, because I've explained it?

No way! Reflect on the significane, on the beauty, on [size=18][b]THE UNDERSTANDING YOU HAVE FOUND[/b][/size]. Did you know the Arabs have the same word for 'finding' something as they have for 'ecstacy' How cool is that?

So understand and reflect away!

"Ya'qub" wrote:

my point is that we should read [b]many[/b] commentaries/explanations, and then use these to ask Allah (swt) what He means by a particular verse, rather than listen to one commentary [b]telling [/b]you what He means.

don't we always ask Allah (swt) to guide us? to guide us to the ones He has guided?

shall add later.

food time

"Ya'qub" wrote:

Whilst scholars [b]are [/b]important, they are not the only ones who should try to decifer/find meaning within religious texts. Allah (swt) has blessed us all with the capacity for reason, and we should use it. We shouldn't just be recepticals for scholars' lessons,[b] we should try to find our own meaning from the Qur'an too. [/b]When you read the Qur'an, then Allah (swt) is talking directly to you; in YOUR time, place and context. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is universal and true to all times, and it is unreasonable to suggest that scholars have been throught the same individual experiences as us. I think that the Qur'an has different types of lessons - some are for scholars to learn from and issue fatawa and so forth, while others are for us all (Muslim and even non-Muslim) to read individually and reflect on privately by ourselves.

tried, tested and failed. i speak for myself. of course i understand and take in the less complicated ayat of the qur'an like backbiting, zakah, jannah etc, that yah i can understand and reflect upon that but the more complex ayat no way can i figure out what they mean. take surah al-fatiha an example, many of us will read the verse 'sirat ul mustaqeem' as the straight path meaning islam, guide us to islam and keep us on the straight path. but what is the path? one scholar has wrote a whole book of tafsir on surah al-fatiha, scholars say the path in fact means the Prophet (saw), somehow the root of that word means the Prophet (saw), it also means the scholars. now only an educated person who has studied classical arabic will be able to interpret that.

"Ya'qub" wrote:

So...a scholar said that the way to the Straight Path is with a scholar, so it must be true, right?

well yeah. if he has studied the text inside out, there is no way he can be wrong.. right? some people believe some don't.

Quote:

I'm just concerned with the fact that many Muslims follow scholars as if what they say is indisputable. Whereas the lessons and teachings within the Qur'an and ahadith vary when put into different contexts.

they're more educated in matters of quran, ahadith, seerah, fiqh etc. if i didn't follow a scholar by now, i would have probably issued my own silly fatawa and invented my own fiqh!

Quote:

So why is this relevant? Because the scholars here have not grown up in modern-day Britain. How many renowned scholars are there who know about teenage/young people's lives? Very, VERY few.

Allhamdulilah my shaykh.

"Noor" wrote:

...if he has studied the text inside out, there is no way he can be wrong.. right?...

Wrong. Scholars are human just like us, and they are prone to mistakes unlike the Prophet (pbuh). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them because...

The Prophet (pbuh) said, “Scholars are the heirs of the prophets” [Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi].

"MuslimBro" wrote:

"Noor" wrote:

...if he has studied the text inside out, there is no way he can be wrong.. right?...

Wrong. Scholars are human just like us, and they are prone to mistakes unlike the Prophet (pbuh). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to what a Shaykh says because...

yah duh i know that. but if 10 other scholars are saying that, they're probably gona be right. and a shaykh is much, much more than just a teacher.

I'm sure humans can reach a stage of ego being kamila (complete) meaning Allah (swt) has bestowed these awliyah Allah (friends of Allah (swt)) with the ability to not comitt mistakes - emphasis on this being a blessing from Allah (swt), i'll try me best to get a reference!

The phrase goes along the lines, Prophets (as) cannot commit a mistake whereas humans ie awliyah Allah are protected from it....

Are you confusing 'mistake' with 'sin'?

Humans may be able to get to a place where they do not commit sins but they are not Ma'sum, nor are they free of mistakes. Not every mistake is a sin. That does not mean it won't be costly, or plain wrong.

oopsie my bad, sin it is :oops:

awliyahs cannot commit any sins cz they have completely submitted to Allah (swt), their limbs are unable to commit any haram. they have conquered the nafs

The reason I say this is because Musa (as) killed someone by accident and that was his mistake.

Can't be a sin coz Prophets (pbut) are protected from them.

"Noor" wrote:

awliyahs cannot commit any sins cz they have completely submitted to Allah (swt), their limbs are unable to commit any haram. they have conquered the nafs

I disagree. They are not Ma'sum. Only Prophets and children are.