Execution of Converts Under Islamic Law

Hi.

As you all are aware of the case of the Afaghani convert in the news. I decided to make a topic to discuss this aspect of Islam.

We all agree(muslim&nonmuslim) that the treatment of the convert (if he is killed) is intorlerant and must be abolished by today's standards. So this thread's purpose is not to discuss the morality of the practice, but to focus on the origins of the practice, how it came into effect, and its purposes.

This is my take on it:
At the time of the early islamic state,  people's religion is what defined their identity and their responsibilities in society. It could be compared to the "citizenship" aspect of modern countries. When an individual obtains a "citizenship" in a country, that individual recieves rights as a citizen as well as duties towards that state. be it voting, taxation, military service(<--important), and others.

So at that time, a conversion of religion would completly change the status of that individual's rights/duties in that society, much like losing citizenship in a modern country.

For example: a law requiring all male citizens between the age of 18 to 30 to serve in the military for a certain time(the nation is at war). A group of men decide not to join by "getting rid of" their citizenship, and avoid the draft by claiming that they are not citizens, and thus not obligated to join. In other words, this can be considered treason, and punished by death in most instances.

After the death of mohamad, the muslim state in Arabia began to disintegrated in some aspects, with few people abandoning islam and claiming they are not part of the islamic state anymore. (anyone perhaps confirm this) So the obvious choice for Abu-bakr was to fight those "converts" because their actions amount to "treason" status.(?)

This situation reminds me of the american that joined that taliban(perhaps also mean rejecting US citizenship), and fought the americans during the afghan war. When captured, many americans demanded him to be executed on the charges of treason. Any similarities?

Your thoughts.

I have a question though. Is the rule of executing converts derived from the Hadith or the Quran? Which Hadith or which verse?


-S.G

Pretty good question and mostly without any preconcieved bias Super Goat (^_^) . Though many moslems may have a difficult time differentiating between religious theology from the religion of the Quran.

I won't go into a historical discussion as to how muslims obeyed the rule of God or not. History is filled with the inclinations of men whose desires were their own and not necessarilly our Lord's.

Instead I will leave you with these Quranic links of appropriate suras.

- 

10:99

And had your Lord willed, all the people on Earth in their entirety would have believed. Would you force the people to make them believe?

2:256

There is no compulsion in the system;

18:29

And Say: "The truth is from your Lord, so let whomever desires believe, and whomever desires reject."

88:21	So remind, for you are but a reminder.
88:22	You have no power over them.

88:26

Then to Us is their judgment.

The Quran does not mention death for apostates. Look for it. It is not written there. So how did this notion come about? For starters much of the practice of Islam has been corrupted just as were previous religions. Scholars can debate such intentions. Debate merits of various  dogma even.

An Islamic prophet's duty was essentially to bring the good news of God, warn and become role models. Certain prophets recieved laws to lead the believers. Some came with clear books in order to continue the practice of monotheistic faith. 

The focus here is to understand the original and grasp the changes that have entered the system. Changes brought about by the followers of any given religion.  By comparing the Quran to past and present muslim sectarian belief systems and practices can we begin to understand and appreciate the significant differences that have come about over the ages.

Since it is not from the Quran the most likely place to look for apostasy and its consequences would be the hadiths. Man's ingenious limitations are boundless.

Edited by Seko

Originally posted by Super Goat (^_^) After the death of mohamad, the muslim state in Arabia began to disintegrated in some aspects, with few people abandoning islam and claiming they are not part of the islamic state anymore. (anyone perhaps confirm this) So the obvious choice for Abu-bakr was to fight those "converts" because their actions amount to "treason" status.(?)

You're talking about the "Khawarij."  They were the ones who refused to pay zakaah after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon Him,) during the reign of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (rAa).  They did not reject Islam nor convert out of it, but only refused to pay zakaah; which is one of the five pillars of Islam.  According to the Caliph's ijtihaad, the act amounted to rejecting Islam, since you do not become a Muslim until you have accepted the five pillars of Islam.

Originally posted by Super Goat (^_^) This situation reminds me of the american that joined that taliban(perhaps also mean rejecting US citizenship), and fought the americans during the afghan war. When captured, many americans demanded him to be executed on the charges of treason. Any similarities?

I'm not sure I agree with the comparison here.  John Walker Lindh, aka American Taliban, did not renounce his American citizenship, nor did he fight against the Americans.  He joined the Taliban before the American invasion to fight against the Northern Alliance. 

Originally posted by Super Goat (^_^) I have a question though. Is the rule of executing converts derived from the Hadith or the Quran? Which Hadith or which verse?

I said in an earlier post regarding this matter that the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for those who "turn their back on Islam."  It leaves it to the Hereafter.  I also gave an example of a person who converted out of Islam during the days of the Prophet (peace be upon Him), in Medina, and was met with no harm or indignition.  Scholars who promote for the extreme measure of executing an apostate rely on a hadith, which has been proven to be inauthentic by contemporary hadith scholars.

Originally posted by Super Goat (^_^) I also don't think that this situation is only related to religion, it could also be between communism and capitalism. For example, a person in a communist society all of a sudden decides that he will no longer practice communism because he no longer believes that it is compatible with his ways of thinking, so how do you think he should be dealt with by a communist society?

Intellectual freedom of thought is about being able to have your own ideas, independently of what the system tells you to think. It's not about Islam or Communism, it is about anything: you must be able to be yourself and follow your own convictions, whichever.

May I also ask: what are your views on people such as that captured american-Taliban fighter. Should he be executed for treason, or be allowed to live in the U.S like nothing had happened and at the same time maintaining allegiance to the Taliban. Surely he seized to "feal american" when he defected to the enemy side, so should he be welcomed back?

I think he must be judged for his actions, not for his beliefs. Also notice that you are not talking about a convert to Islam or Communism or whatever but about a (supposed) terrorist. As you probably know there are a lot of US citizens that are Muslims or Communists and (fortunately) they are not persecuted for their beliefs (at least not normally).

Why should I defend Spain if I don't feel Spaniard However, you never were "spaniard," am I correct? This is more of a situation when an individual is already part of an entity, and breaking away from it.

You are wrong: technically I'm as much Spaniard as a Kurd of Dyarbakir is Turkish. But the question is why the system has to be over the person. Is it the system for the people (democracy) or the people for the system (autocracy)? I think that a system that is not able to satisfy the needs of the individual up to a reasonable level is a blood-sucking tyranny. We are not ants, we are human beings!

Prsn41ife, you are free to post any opposites that you think you can find in the Quran. Since this thread is about apostasy tell me where it is written to kill or even harm an apostate.

About the autenthic islamic law every people can visit this site: http://www.ogrish.com ===> http://www.ogrish.com/archives/execution/beheading/ - HORROR !!!

Enjoy, if you can. I cannot.

Beheading is an excution  and its legal in saudi arabia to force the law.

some countries prefere hanging or shooting or lethal injection... etc. they all cause death.

people whos punishment is death are executed. whats Horroring about that?

 

 

well the beheading in Saudi Arabia is not applied on people who commet adultery.

adultery's punishment in islam has lots of conditions which (mostly) rarely meet, one of those are to bring 5 witnesses. (where you will find 5 witnesses?).also for unmarried couple the punishment is slashes and also require conditions and ONE of those conditions is the witness thing.

the Beheading is only for people who killed another human being and its proven that he/she did or participated in the killing.

again seems like the phopic western media is spreading the wrong info about the middle east.

 

 

 

Originally posted by DayI what has this todo with Islam?

Watch some of the movies: they cry "ALLAH AKBAR" while they perform their bloodly job ===> they are thinking that this "heroical" cutting of heads will convert them into GREAT ISLAMIC WARRIORS and after their death they will go to the islamic paradise and there they will f**k many beautifull young wimen. Cutting heads was a favorite action of the turkish soldiers and bashibozuks in their wars against the christian peoples: from the antiquity - up to the end of the turkish kemalist revolution in 1922 year. Many pictures testify this.

This is the vile reality in the Muslim Near East(except today`s Turkey).

Originally posted by azimuth Originally posted by The Chargemaster Originally posted by DayI what has this todo with Islam? Watch some of the movies: they cry "ALLAH AKBAR" while they perform their bloodly job ===> they are thinking that this "heroical" cutting of heads will convert them into GREAT ISLAMIC WARRIORS and after their death they will go to the islamic paradise and there they will f**k many beautifull young wimen. Cutting heads was a favorite action of the turkish soldiers and bashibozuks in their wars against the christian peoples: from the antiquity - up to the end of the turkish kemalist revolution in 1922 year. Many pictures testify this. This is the vile reality in the Muslim Near East(except today`s Turkey). oh whats happening today?! you are trolling "The Chargemaster", and i wonder from where you got this ignorant information? read my comment on your post earlier its an execution. and consider this as an unoffical warning to you for trolling. for more info about AE rules and Code of Conduct please visit AE meeting hall forum and check the related stcky topic. thnx.

OK,OK. NO PROBLEM. I PROMISE THAT I WILL NOT POST MORE IN THIS THREAD. DON`T WORRY MORE ABOUT THIS.

BUT ONE FINAL QUESTION: WHAT MEANS YOUR SIGNATURE?

Edited by The Chargemaster