Apostacy 101

Quote:
Malaysian switched at birth wants to switch religion

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - A Malaysian Muslim man switched at birth in a hospital mix-up wants to change his name after being reunited with his ethnic-Chinese biological family and become a Buddhist.

In multiracial Malaysia, ethnic Malays, who are mostly Muslim, form a majority of the population of roughly 26 million, while ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians account for about 25 percent and 8 percent respectively.

Sales executive Zulhaidi Omar, 29, was raised in an ethnic Malay family, and discovered his true origins only after a Chinese woman at a supermarket where he worked noticed his features were similar to those of her father, newspapers said.

"The girl who was always looking at me was actually my elder sister who suspected that I was her brother because of my striking resemblance to our father," the Star newspaper quoted Zulhaidi as telling reporters.

Now Zulhaidi wants to renounce Islam and take a Chinese name.

Whether Muslims can convert to another faith is a tricky legal question in Malaysia, where Islam is the official religion, although freedom of worship is a constitutional right.

Ethnic Malays are deemed to be Muslim from birth, but the country's highest civil court has yet to rule on whether they have the right to convert to another religion.

The family was also contemplating a suit against the Batu Pahat hospital over the mix-up that split and traumatised it, the New Straits Times newspaper added.


The reason I quoted this is the situation is somewhat similar...
while its not exactly a forced conversion, its forcing someone NOT to convert.

Apparantly in Malaysia there is a queue of people wanting to change their names to Christian name away from Muslim ones, but they're not allowed to.

Is it my imagination or does the Qur'an not say "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256)

Are people ignoring this or am I grossly misinterpreting something?

[size=24]EDIT BY ADMIN[/size]

Topic split from [url=.

"Ya'qub" wrote:
Quote:
Malaysian switched at birth wants to switch religion

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - A Malaysian Muslim man switched at birth in a hospital mix-up wants to change his name after being reunited with his ethnic-Chinese biological family and become a Buddhist.

In multiracial Malaysia, ethnic Malays, who are mostly Muslim, form a majority of the population of roughly 26 million, while ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians account for about 25 percent and 8 percent respectively.

Sales executive Zulhaidi Omar, 29, was raised in an ethnic Malay family, and discovered his true origins only after a Chinese woman at a supermarket where he worked noticed his features were similar to those of her father, newspapers said.

"The girl who was always looking at me was actually my elder sister who suspected that I was her brother because of my striking resemblance to our father," the Star newspaper quoted Zulhaidi as telling reporters.

Now Zulhaidi wants to renounce Islam and take a Chinese name.

Whether Muslims can convert to another faith is a tricky legal question in Malaysia, where Islam is the official religion, although freedom of worship is a constitutional right.

Ethnic Malays are deemed to be Muslim from birth, but the country's highest civil court has yet to rule on whether they have the right to convert to another religion.

The family was also contemplating a suit against the Batu Pahat hospital over the mix-up that split and traumatised it, the New Straits Times newspaper added.


The reason I quoted this is the situation is somewhat similar...
while its not exactly a forced conversion, its forcing someone NOT to convert.

Apparantly in Malaysia there is a queue of people wanting to change their names to Christian name away from Muslim ones, but they're not allowed to.

Is it my imagination or does the Qur'an not say "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256)

Are people ignoring this or am I grossly misinterpreting something?

Perhaps not misunderstanding something, but you are [i]overlooking[/i] something - the issue with the Sikh and Hindu girls was about forced [i]conversion[/i], the issue with the Chinese boy from your article might be an issue of [i]apostacy[/i], whether it is apostacy appears to be the question.

I'm a bit surprised you don't know about apostacy in Islam "irtidad," all five schools of fiqh forbid it and punish it with death (for males). I consider it a non-sequitur, since I look at joining a religion and leaving another as all part of the same game, but muslims apparently consider these separate issues. I've never really understood their thoughts on the interrelatedness of iritad and compulsion in the grand scheme of religion.

actually, the MAXIMUM punishment for aposty was execution, and was not applicable in all cases. Anyway, as far as I know, there is not a country on Earth that applies 'shariah law' to its full extent, least of all Malaysia.

Plus you must remember these rulings were made many hundreds of years ago, for a situation far from how we live now. Imam Shafi'i changed his fatwas when he went moved in Egypt, because he acknolwedged that Egyptian society was different to where he'd come from, and so the same rulings were not valid. That was over a distance of a few hundred miles. Imagine how different his fatwas would be if he was living in the modern world.

Don't just do something! Stand there.

"Ya'qub" wrote:
actually, the MAXIMUM punishment for aposty was execution, and was not applicable in all cases. Anyway, as far as I know, there is not a country on Earth that applies 'shariah law' to its full extent, least of all Malaysia.

No, the [b]required[/b] punishment is execution. Unless you can demonstrate they are crazy, in which case there is no crime, or in the case of women there is a possibility life imprisonment, possibly as a nod to chivalry. It seems like every time I point out obvious errors in Shariah muslims say "well, there are no countries where it is implimented fully, if Shariah was fully implimented then everything would be perfect." Your promise of a future utopia serves as an evidentiary IOU.

Quote:
Plus you must remember these rulings were made many hundreds of years ago, for a situation far from how we live now. Imam Shafi'i changed his fatwas when he went moved in Egypt, because he acknolwedged that Egyptian society was different to where he'd come from, and so the same rulings were not valid. That was over a distance of a few hundred miles. Imagine how different his fatwas would be if he was living in the modern world.

While you are busy imagining that it would be good for you to remember Islam is the Qur'aan, Sunnah and five acceptable schools of Fiqh - especially the Hanafi. So muslims have impressed upon me, [b]I'm[/b] not going to mix and match which of the above are "true Islam" or "better dated" to come up with a picture that looks more attractive to me - as muslim apologists very often desire me to. Nor would it be proper for me to, I'm not a muslim - it's your religion I'm simply judging by what you (collectively) have presented to me, it does you no good for me to define Islam on my own terms, or to indulge you in suspending reality so I can't come to a negative conclusion.

Capital punishment for apostates is part of Islam, until a majority of sources and practicing muslims say otherwise - at which point capital punishment for apostates[i] was at one time[/i] part of Islam. Either way it's a non sequitur if muslims actually believe there is no compulsion in Islam.

Well, there is no compulsion, yes and absolutely, but technically and correctly, apostates are not with[b]in[/b] the folds of islam, and so, I guess, are treated like rebellious infidels upon whom there is no mercy, and upon whom the punishment ordained by the shariah is death. There is no contradiction here, like you perceive there to be.

Death as the punishment for apostates is not mentioned in the Quran (notwithstanding the Quran mentions apostacy, it does not prescribe any punishments for it..) and though there are hadith which cite death as a punishment for an apostate; there are equally other ahadith informing us that death was not a punishment for an apostate..

Ultimately the question of converting to or apostizing from it is between that person and Allah swt.. we all have free will.. just as we cannot force a person to become a muslim, neither can we force a person to stay as one.

May Allah shine sweet faith upon you this day and times beyond. May your heart be enriched with peace, and may your home be blessed always. Ameen.

This has nothing to do with forcing the religion of Islam on to anyone, it is about implementing the shariah, and for a self-declared apostate in a muslim state this involves the removal of their head, as God, Great and Glorious is He, so pleases.

Wait.

I wanna know more.

Evidences please from Amal and Berachia.

I have not really looked into this, but it is something I should have done so.

From what I understand:

Amal says it is not from the Qur'an and there are contradicting ahadith.

Berachia says it is from the qur'an.

I want one of you to get to the bottom of this.

please. Blum 3

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

"Berachia" wrote:
Well, there is no compulsion, yes and absolutely, but technically and correctly, apostates are not with[b]in[/b] the folds of islam, and so, I guess, are treated like rebellious infidels upon whom there is no mercy, and upon whom the punishment ordained by the shariah is death. There is no contradiction here, like you perceive there to be.

If there is no compulsion in religion then there is no compulsion in religion. "None," "zero" - "lacking the presence thereof." Threatening to take somebody's head for not coming into the fold of Islam (as you said yourself, they are from outside Islam), is the definition of compulsion.

Clear contradiction.

"Berachia" wrote:
This has nothing to do with forcing the religion of Islam on to anyone, it is about implementing the shariah, and for a self-declared apostate in a muslim state this involves the removal of their head, as God, Great and Glorious is He, so pleases.

What is the relevance of the ostensible purpose? By ordering their death unless they convert Shariah places undue compulsive pressure on the former muslim to apostacize against their new religion and become a muslim again. That's compulsion. If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck and flys like a duck then it is a duck.

Ok, I have split the topics.

I have also been given two links to read.

[url= and [url=.

I will comment once I have read them.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

There is no compulsion within the religion[b](of Islam)[/b]. If God, Infinitely Wise, Great and Glorious is He, removes from the heart the faith of a believer who then openly declares this calamity, then in a Muslim state it becomes incumbent upon the community to relocate the apostate's head from its shoulders.

The apostate could consider beforehand a slightly less unsettling relocation, that of moving to a non-muslim state where the shariah does not overbear.

Compulsion just does not come into it.

"Be a Muslim or we will kill you"

That's compulsion. You seem to think it makes a difference that the person was once a Muslim, that might be all well and good for Islam - but reality imposes a different standard. When you make sweeping statements like "there is no compulsion in religion," then threaten to kill people over accepting your religion - you're contradicting yourself.

com·pel[kuhm-pel] verb, -pelled, -pel·ling.
–verb (used with object)

1. to force or drive, esp. to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2. to secure or bring about by force.
3. to force to submit; subdue.
4. to overpower.
5. Archaic. to drive together; unite by force; herd.
–verb (used without object) 6. to use force.
7. to have a powerful and irresistible effect, influence, etc.

Note how none of these definitions are dependent upon the target of the compulsion, it doesn't matter if you are an ex muslim, jew or smurf, if somebody acts in a manner to force or drive you to do something (threatening to kill you meets that definition) they are compelling you.

You can gild your language as much as possible, you're giving me a text book description of compulsion.

There is no compulsion [b]with[/b]in [b]Islam[/b]. An apostate is not within the religion of Islam.

Berachia, please back up your points.

just repeating it is not enough.

From the two links, what I have garnered is that Execution is the limit, not the minimum.

The first link does not consider ahadith, but says the Qur'an does not allow for the killing of two types of apostate.

The second link does consider ahadith, and that mentions the execution of apostates, but also mentions other punishments such as imprisonment, exile etc.

Safe as to say, that there is no Islamic state atm, so the islamic punishment - whatever it is - cannot be carried out.

Otherwise you get to the stage where many muslim groupings do not believe other Muslim groupings to be Muslim. There would be open bloodshed.

Well... there is. Look at Pakistan where are driveby shootings at mosques in some places.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

"Berachia" wrote:
There is no compulsion [b]with[/b]in [b]Islam[/b]. An apostate is not within the religion of Islam.

So Islam does not compel muslims to... what?

i don;t think it's as clear cut as we think. i myself thght the overall opinion was apostates are executed but there are different views. Some scholars are of the view that ppl should be left to repent and if they don't God will deal with them on judgement day, and what punishment could be worse than this?

There are another bunch of scholars who implement the ahadith in which it's said apostates should be given 3 days to repent and thereafter be executed if they fail to do so. Women are usually exempt from this they're imprisoned.

there are others who say apostates should be left alone, however if they are reviling the faith then they should be executed.

However from what we see in muslim countries they all appear to apply execution no question :?

Amal is correct theres no single statement in the Quran referring to the punishment for apostasy, although it's mentioned. But the shariah is derived from both the Quran and ahadith.

yep we had this discussion on another forum a while back.. here is an ex revival members view on it... and I agree with a large part of it.

"shant reveal who" wrote:
Well if you want to know what the Quran says about apostates, you'll find that it mentions that final judgement and punishment is with Allah swt. There seem to be no direct punishment given within the Quran.

But there is clear hadith on the subject about apostacy in Islam. It makes sense as it can amount to treason. Its like having a body which has one bad cell of cancer, if its intention and purpose is to affect all around it, surely for the best of the body it must be killed. That to me is the wisdom behind the hadith. Because we all know how the thinking of one man can influence so many and in the process cause loads of fitnah and death to many thousands.

To my knowledge only a Caliph can make that decison and under a leadership that fully adopt the Shariah as well. It aslo should be used as a deterence rather then something for wide use as well.

How and when it is used today is wrong e.g Afghanistan. As it's a punishment used as a last resort to protect the Islamic state, which is not applicable to the time we live in presently.

[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]

Quote:
Islam does not compel people to join it nor does it force anybody to accept or to leave any other religion, but [b]it places great importance upon conviction for those who embrace it[/b].

Besides, Islam does not call for the execution of apostates who do not proclaim their apostasy or call for it. Rather, it leaves the punishment for the hereafter if they die in the state of apostasy, as Almighty Allah says, [And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter; they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein.] (Al-Baqarah 2:217). However, this type of apostate may receive a discretionary punishment in this world.

[b]The death penalty with regard to apostasy is to be applied only to those who proclaim their apostasy and call for others to do the same.[/b]

- Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, from admin's link.

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

Shows that I should actually fully read what I link to. Blum 3

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

"khan" wrote:
yep we had this discussion on another forum a while back.. here is an ex revival members view on it... and I agree with a large part of it.

"shant reveal who" wrote:
Well if you want to know what the Quran says about apostates, you'll find that it mentions that final judgement and punishment is with Allah swt. There seem to be no direct punishment given within the Quran.

But there is clear hadith on the subject about apostacy in Islam. It makes sense as it can amount to treason. Its like having a body which has one bad cell of cancer, if its intention and purpose is to affect all around it, surely for the best of the body it must be killed. That to me is the wisdom behind the hadith. Because we all know how the thinking of one man can influence so many and in the process cause loads of fitnah and death to many thousands.

To my knowledge only a Caliph can make that decison and under a leadership that fully adopt the Shariah as well. It aslo should be used as a deterence rather then something for wide use as well.

How and when it is used today is wrong e.g Afghanistan. As it's a punishment used as a last resort to protect the Islamic state, which is not applicable to the time we live in presently.

If by some chance that is Yuit please send him my thanks and blessings for that article on parenting he sent a number of years ago - It's been one hell of a guide over the last couple months. That's a big deal - kids don't come with a handbook.

speaking of yuit - where on earth is he? :?: been a while since he last posted here... lilsis and angel must have chided him into getting a job. Biggrin

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

"*DUST*" wrote:
speaking of yuit - where on earth is he? :?: been a while since he last posted here... lilsis and angel must have chided him into getting a job. Biggrin

Bradford muslims.com or something like that - it's his website. I miss Yuit, which is terribly ironic since I was such a massive jerk to him.

nope it was written by Sef, can't remember his Revival Login.. Lol

you can contact yuit on

[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]