©2002 - 2019 Site developed by TheReligionofPeace.Com
All Rights Reserved
Any comments can be directed to the Editor.
About the Site
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
All Rights Reserved
Any comments can be directed to the Editor.
About the Site
A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى), in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwa is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be binding, depending on the status of the scholar. This small collection of online and other fatawa and published opinions by Shariah authorities on apostasy from Islam will be expanded. See the “Resources” pages as well for organizations and encyclopedic websites with many more articles, books and specific fatawa.
________________
Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) and president of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS). “Apostasy Major and Minor,” 2006.
________________
Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) and president of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS). “Apostasy Major and Minor,” 2006.
“…Muslims are to seriously resist individual apostasy before it seriously intensifies and develops into a collective one. That is why the Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed…”
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) and president of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS). The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam ,1960. Reprinted 2006.
Apostasy from Islam after willingly accepting it and subsequently declaring an open revolt against it in such a manner which threatens the solidarity of the Muslim community is a crime punishable by death. No one is compelled to accept Islam, but at the same time no one is permitted to play tricks with it, as some Jews did during the Prophet’s time:
A party of the people of the Book say, ‘Believe in what has been revealed to the Believers’ at the beginning of the day and reject it at the end of it, in order that they may turn back (from Islam). (3:72)
The Prophet (peace be on him) limited capital punishment to these three crimes only, saying,
The shedding of the blood of a Muslim is not lawful except for one of three reasons: a life for a life, a married person who commits zina (adultery), and one who turns aside from his religion and abandons the community.
In any of these instances, the death penalty can be implemented only by the proper authority after due process of law prescribed by the Shari’ah; individuals cannot take the law into their own hands, becoming judges and executioners, since this would result in absolute chaos and disorder. However, the judge may turn the murderer over to the victim’s next-of-kin to be executed in his presence so that their hearts may be eased and the desire for revenge extinguished. This is in obedience to the saying of Allah Ta’ala…
…And whoever is killed wrongfully, We have given authority to the heir; but let him not go to excess in killing (by way of retaliation), for indeed he will be helped. (17:33)
________________
Abul Ala Mawdudi, founder of Jamaat-e-Islami party: “The Punishment of the Apostate According To Islamic Law.” Translation 1994, from the Urdu edition (Murtadd ki Saza Islami Qanun men) published in 1963:
…In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari’ah.
Nevertheless there is one aspect of this matter where I see some complication. It has to do with the fact that our community order has remained extremely feeble and remiss for a long period of time. Among the past several generations every generation has failed badly to provide adequate Islamic education and training to the next generation. Particularly in the past era of enslavement our national insensitivity reached the point where hundreds of thousands carelessly, and thousands consciously, surrendered their children to infidel education and training. That is why the proportion among us of those inclined to rebel and turn away from Islam has increased to a dangerous level and keeps on increasing. If at some time in the future an Islamic order of government is established, the law of executing the apostate is implemented and all those within the confines of Islam are compulsorily imprisoned who are recognized as Muslims by birth because they are children of Muslims, no doubt in this situation the fear will arise that a very great number of hypocrites will be included in the social order of Islam who will pose as a permanent threat for every kind of treason.
In my opinion its solution – and God conforms us to rectitude – is to notify the Muslim population in the area where an Islamic revolution occurs that people who in belief and practice have defected from Islam and wish to remain as defectors should formally disclose their non-Muslim identity and leave our social order within a year from the date of the notification. After this period all those who are born of Muslim lineage will be considered to be Muslim, they will be subject to all Islamic laws, they will be compelled to perform the religious duties and obligations, and then whoever steps outside the fold of Islam will be executed. Following this announcement utmost effort should be made to save as many sons and daughters born of Muslims as possible from the lap of kufr. Then whoever cannot be saved by any means should be cut off and cast away, sadly but firmly, from his society forever. After this act of purification a new life for Islamic society may begin with only those Muslims who are dedicated to Islam…
________________________
Dr. Jamal Badawi, professor at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. “Apostasy in Islam – Any Change in the Contemporary Context?,”2006.
“…An apostate is one who embraces Islam, or in some other opinions, who is born a Muslim, and then decides to leave Islam. As for dealing with him, there are different opinions about dealing with the apostate. Most scholars are of the opinion that he should be informed and asked to recant. If after clarification he insists on his position then he should be executed. Other scholars are of the opinion that since the Qur’an affirms freedom of religions, apostasy is left to the individual as real accountability will be in the Day of Judgment. Still other scholars, while considering apostasy as an infraction and a potential threat to the stability and integrity of an Islamic state, they do not find decisive and definitive evidence that the apostate should be executed. At most he may be subject to a discretionary punishment depending on the harm to society caused by his apostasy…”________________
Dr. Sano Koutoub Moustapha, professor of jurisprudence and its principles at the International Islamic University, Malaysia. “Lina Joy’s Case and Religious Freedom” [Lina Joy was a Muslim who converted to Christianity in Malaysia and sought legal recognition of the conversion].
“Surely, Islam prohibits its followers from denouncing it or reverting to other faiths either secretly or openly. But if one wishes to revert or denounce it, he or she should not make use of that decision to harm or hurt the feelings of followers of Islam by making that announcement openly and in public. To Muslims this is culturally seen as an offence to their feelings and culture… As far as I know punishments on apostates are only meant for Muslims who accepted freely all teachings of Islam including punishment for apostasy. In other words, there is no contradiction between freedom of religion and passing a punishment on apostasy thus, the punishment is considered as a part of teachings of Islam. For instance, all Muslims are required to perform daily prayers and fast the month of Ramadan, etc. If a Muslim doesn’t practice these teachings then he or she shall be subject to punishment because of violating teachings of Islam in regard to prayers and fasting. If he or she is punished because of that, one should not accuse Islam for not allowing freedom of religion; instead he or she should be blamed because of dishonoring his or her words which consists of full submission to the wills of Allah. The same thing goes to those people who wish to dishonor their words of accepting Islam as their faith and religion; they should respect their words and stand for it. If they don’t do so, then they shall be subject to punishment for dishonoring their word and violating the ruling which doesn’t allow Muslims to change their religions…”__________________
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, professor at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, “The Punishment of Apostasy in Islam,” Part I 2006, and Part II 2007.
“…At some point the death penalty for apostasy was widely accepted among Muslims and many of us feel that what our earlier generations accepted must be correct and must be accepted by us also. Since such extraneous influences can mislead us, let us first try to free our minds from them… Qur`an 4:88-91: The four verses, 4:88-91, when carefully examined, also show that the Qur`anic perspective conflicts with the death penalty for apostasy. The first two verses state:
“Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites? God has cast them backward (arkasa) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom God has made to go astray? And he whom God has made to go astray, you will not find for him any way. They wish that you reject faith as they have done, so that you all become the same. So take not protectors/friends from them till they emigrate in the way of God. But if they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither protectors/friends from them nor helpers. (4:88-89)”
This passage begins by talking about hypocrites, that is, people who had declared themselves Muslims but in their hearts had decided not to believe in the teachings of Islam. The demand that they should do hijrah fi sabil allah (emigrate for the sake of God) shows that they are not the hypocrites of Madinah but are living among non-Muslims in Makkah and possibly elsewhere. Verse 98 of the same surah shows that these people were not doing hijrah despite the fact that they were able to. The reason for their not doing hijrah was their hypocrisy. Makkan non-believers who had persecuted Muslims for years, would not have tolerated in their midst any true Muslims. They would have accepted among them only those “Muslims” who had stopped taking their “Islam” seriously and felt more comfortable among non-believers, hostile to Islam, than among Muslims. These hypocrites pretended to be Muslims because they wanted to be secure from both sides (see 4:91). And Makkan non-believers did not force them to publicly renounce their “Islam” because they found them useful for gathering information about Muslims or for some other subversive actions against the ummah. In order to defeat these hypocrites in their game and force them to clearly choose between Islam and kufr, God commanded them to do hijrah. Their obedience to this command meant that they had chosen Islam and their disobedience meant that they had chosen kufr. Those who chose kufr in this way became apostates, since previously they called themselves Muslims. Thus the verses are a source of guidance for us regarding the way the apostates are to be treated. At first sight the words “seize them and kill them wherever you find them” would suggest that they are to be killed. But this is quickly seen to be wrong if we read the next two verses:
‘Except those who join a group between you and whom there is a (peace) treaty or those who approach you with their hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their own people. Had God willed he would have given them power over you and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you but give you (guarantees of) peace, then God has opened no way for you against them.
You will find others that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation they give in to it. If they do not withdraw from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace, nor restrain their hands, seize them and kill them, wherever you find them. In their case We have provided you with a clear warrant against them. (4:90-91).’
These verses clarify the command “seize them and kill them.” The apostates who rejected Islam by failing to emigrate as commanded by God are divided into three categories:
1) Those who ally themselves with a group with whom Muslims have a peace treaty;
2) Those who want to keep neutrality, committing themselves to peace with both the Muslims and their own people who had not accepted Islam;
3) Those who provide no real guarantee of peace to Muslims and by all indications ally themselves with non-believers engaged in hostilities towards Islam.
2) Those who want to keep neutrality, committing themselves to peace with both the Muslims and their own people who had not accepted Islam;
3) Those who provide no real guarantee of peace to Muslims and by all indications ally themselves with non-believers engaged in hostilities towards Islam.
…Thus according to the Qur`an the apostates are to be treated like other kuffar: If they want to live in peace with the Muslims, they are to be left in peace and if they assume a hostile attitude, then they are to be treated accordingly….
The third type of apostate is one who leaves Islam and then engages in hostile actions against Islam and Muslims, e.g. knowingly engages in propaganda against Islam and Muslims blatantly ignoring facts that he is expected to know well, passes secrets to the enemy, takes part in fighting against the Muslims. Such an apostate can be punished by anything from exile to death…”
MY NAME IS BOSCH AND I’M A RECOVERED MUSLIM
From Muslim to Islam Critic and Mohammad Cartoonist.
December 14, 2018
Author's note: This article was originally published under the title Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West at Front Page Magazine in December, 2011, and I’ve made a few updates and changes for this version. It’s the most popular article I’ve ever written, by the fact that it was shared more than any of them, and I’ve been told by a good amount of readers that it made them rethink some of the issues that we’re dealing with during this war.
My Name is Bosch and I'm a Recovered Muslim
....that is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t. But that doesn’t mean we should consider lax Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially as devout Muslims wage war on the West, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim will go jihad until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is. In the toilet.
So while I understand that most Muslims aren’t at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us. Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing an enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they’re free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”. Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The unicorn Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that he represents more than a freak occurance. The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists”, It was hijacked by a very small minority of “moderates” who are ashamed of being part of such an immoderate religion, leading them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.
In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit, as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim by our standards is a bad Muslim or a non-Muslim by Islamic standards. Decent people who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better than it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it.
And this leads us to accept into our culture stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West. In the name of distinguishing the enemy from Muslims who ignore Islam and so mean us no harm, far too many Western commentators have avoided using the name “Islam” for the enemy’s ideology, and instead have decided to create their own pet names for the threat we’re facing, terms that are alien to the enemy. Terms such as: Islamic Fundamentalism. Islamic Extremism. Islamic Totalitarianism. Islamofascism. Islamonazism. Political Islam. Bin Ladenism. Radical Islam. Militant Islam. Islamism. Jihadism, etc., etc., etc....
We didn’t use terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them. And it’s no accident that those who are most informed about Islam are also most critical of it, while those least informed are least critical. But then there are those who, in their study of Islam, have become so enamored with their subject that they lose sight of what islamis, and often write about what they hope Islam might be. They seem preoccupied with doing their part to save Islam’s reputation from devout Mohammad impersonators, and thus they sell out the truth that we need to know in order to begin to win.
“The Muslim world” (as if it’s a different planet) is where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice. Islam means submission, not peace. Islam, not any alleged deviant form of it, means misogyny, censorship, Jew-hatred, homophobia, wife-beatings, beheadings, honor killings, pedophilia/“child marriages”, murdering infidels, etc. This is evil, and Islam sanctions every bit of it, but we’ve been told that we must respect “one of the world’s great religions” because it’s a religion. Following 9/11, the only thing George W. Bush knew about Islam was that it was a religion, and that apparently was a good enough reason for him to exonerate it as he did. And his advisor on Islam, David Forte, told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, that “Nothing this evil could come from religion.” But 9/11 did come from a religion. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was an act of faith.
And Bush saying “Islam is peace” shortly after 9/11 gave the enemy a gift they couldn’t have foreseen. Here was the one man who was charged to defend America from their attack, and here he was defending the very religion that motivated the attackers. Honesty is the best policy in general, and when it comes to war, it’s a moral imperative to find out the truth, to tell the truth and to act on the truth, no matter what sacred cow is killed in the process. And so a big part of why nearly 3,000 victims of jihad on 9/11 haven’t been avenged is because of respect for religion, even for a religion that calls for our destruction.
Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc.
And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least. I often hear that we should be working with the Muslim world. Working towards what? As Ayn Rand writes, “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” Any time we spend “working” with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction, consciously or not.
While it’s true that jihadists don’t represent most Muslims, they do represent Islam. But then why don’t most Muslims engage in jihad? Like in any culture, heroes are a small minority, and that goes for Islamic culture as well. The jihadists are Islam’s heroes; they are the ones most dedicated to following Allah’s commands and they’re celebrated in the Muslim world for it. They are also the only ones to whom Islam guarantees paradise. And their rarity was made even clearer when we learned that only the pilots of 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. Our enemy knows that it’s tough to get even hardcore Muslims to sacrifice their lives for Islam, but they don’t want us to know that. Just as they don’t want us to know that behind their boast that they love death is the fact that they hate life.
And while Muslims who blow themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims are a small minority, Muslims who would explicitly condemn them are an even smaller minority. And while I think that Muslims are mere sheep to their Jihadist wolves, there are also too many Muslim cheerleaders for jihad. How many Muslims celebrated 9/11? Far too many. Even in my own lax Muslim upbringing in America, there was an omnipresent Jew-hatred and misogyny. Some members of my family admired Adolph Hitler, who I refer to as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel.” Regarding misogyny, the birth of a girl became a day of mourning for Muslim women in my family; they understood the suffering girls would endure under Islam, even in America.
Though we say we’ve been at war for almost 17 years, we haven’t even begun to fight the war the way we should be fighting it. And those calling for a change within Islam during this war would be surprised at how much Islam can be changed through an honest war on our behalf. You can’t make a violent religion like Islam non-violent by argument, but only by greater retaliatory force against state sponsors of jihad terrorism, and by fighting the ideological war with the truth as our only guide.
The future of Islam and the well-being of Muslims is said to be of importance to us. Post-9/11, the defense of our culture, our values, our very lives has been optional, but our defense of Islam has been absolute. It began with Bush’s “Islam is peace” and it continues with Obama, who said in his Submission Speech in Egypt in 2009, in front of members of The Muslim Brotherhood, “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt that way about America. Even Trump, whose fans think he’s like Geert Wilders on Islam, called Islam a “great” religion and embarrassingly sword-danced with the Saudis in Saudi Arabia.
We can’t be both for Islam and for the West. This enemy is fully on their own side and fully against us and they’ve made themselves believe that they’re the good guys and that we’re the bad guys, and our actions have done nothing but turn their hatred of us into an ever-deepening contempt. Before we see the enemy for what it is, we need to see ourselves for what we are. Only then can we, with full moral conviction, make them pay for what they’ve done, achieve victory, and make jihad a bad memory.
Our problem is not “Islamophobia”, but Islamophilia. It is this uncritical, uninformed, absolute defense of Islam by Western elites after 9/11 that I refer to as Islamgate. It’s a scandal for the ages that few involved would ever admit to being part of. Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of the Muslim world has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “The Muslim World” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s Big Lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or even guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of that, as they do of all of the policies our sanctimonious politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well-being at the enemy’s expense for a change.
In the end, I care about Islam and the Muslim world as much as the Muslim world cares about America and the West. We’ve tried everything since 9/11 except real war. War is the answer to Jihad.
February 15, 2017
Clip No.
5955
Saudi Cleric Advocates Offensive Jihad and Death for Apostasy: Liberalism and Coexistence Null and Void
Saudi cleric Sheikh Ayman Al-Anqari cited various hadiths in support of his claims that "coexistence in the sense of freedom of religion... is null and void" and that there are two kinds of Jihad: offensive Jihad and defensive Jihad. The punishment for apostasy, he said, "is one of the greatest punishments in Islam." Al-Anqari's lesson aired on the Saudi Al-Ahwaz TV channel on February 16.
Ayman Al-Anqari: "The problem with the issue of coexistence lies in its distortion to the point that it involves distortion of the Islamic rules. For example, they tell you that coexistence means freedom of religion. You are supposed to let people be heretics, deny the existence of Allah, curse Allah, curse His Prophet, and curse Islam. This is called liberalism and freedom of religion. Or take, for example, the abolition of the punishment for apostasy. They say that the punishment for apostasy should be abolished because it runs counter to coexistence. The punishment for apostasy is immutable, and it is one of the greatest punishments in Islam. According to the hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas in the Bukhari compilation, the Prophet Muhammad said: 'Whoever changes his religion – kill him.' Therefore, coexistence in the sense of freedom of religion, heresy, denying the existence of Allah, and the rejection of the punishment for apostasy in Islam as something that runs counter to the freedom to choose one's religion – all this is null and void.
"Coexistence in this sense is null and void, rejected, and unacceptable. In addition, denial of the notion of offensive jihad is propagated by the defeatist, rationalist, modern school of thought. They tell you that there is only defensive jihad in Islam. No. The texts in the Quran and the Sunna mention two kinds of jihad: offensive jihad, when [Muslims] have the ability to wage it, and defensive jihad. Allah said: 'Fight the ones who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day.' Allah made fighting and jihad contingent upon the existence of heresy. According to the hadith narrated by Buraida in the Muslim compilation, the Prophet Muhammad said: 'Raid for the sake of Allah, fight those who reject Allah.' Allah made fighting contingent upon the existence of heresy. This means offensive fighting – of course only under certain conditions, like the ability to do so, for example."
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire