• Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

What the Quran Says about the Apostates of Islam? “Just Kill Them”

E-mail Print PDF

The Quran’s ultimate command for dealing with the apostates of Islam is to kill them. And Allah arrived at His final decision of killing the apostates in a step-by-step process as situation permitted with Muhammad’s rising power…

In Sharia Law, one who openly leaves Islam is given three days to repent and re-embrace Islam. If he/she doesn’t, he/she must be killed.

The fact that punishment for decisively leaving Islam is death by beheading has been a settled and traditionally practised matter from the beginning of Islam to the present time. But in the face of Western influence and criticisms, some apologists of Islam in the 19th century started raising doubts about the "death punishment" for apostasy in Islam. About this, Abul Ala Maududi, the greatest and most influential 20th-century Islamic scholar, says:

To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. Doubt about this matter first arose among Muslims during the final portion of the nineteenth century as a result of speculation. Otherwise, for the full twelve centuries prior to that time the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it. The whole of our religious literature clearly testifies that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate's execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Khulafa'-i Rashidun), the great Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet, their Followers (Tabi'un), the leaders among the mujtahids and, following them, the doctors of the shari'ah of every century are available on record. All these collectively will assure you that from the time of the Prophet to the present day one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative, and that no room whatever remains to suggest that perhaps the punishment of the apostate is not execution.[i]

Maududi wanted to kill the doubts about Islam’s command of “death punishment” for Muslim apostates for once and for all, but didn’t succeed. In the face of mountainous odds, Islamic apologists – who are permitted by Islam to lie and deceive, i.e. to exercise Taqiyya, for the good of Islam – would not let the matter settle. A few of today’s small-time Islamic apologists – opposing the 1400-year-old Islamic tradition, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and opinions of the stalwart scholars of Islam in all of its history – have taken up the Islamic dispensation of lying and deceiving to deny the undeniable: Punishment for apostasy in Islam is death!

In today's age of globalization, more and more Muslims around the world face the gallows for leaving Islam. Among them is the well-publicized case of Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, an ex-Muslim and convert to Christianity, who has been given death penalty for leaving Islam. Such incidents attract condemnations, particularly from the West, which brings bad name to Islam. When the infidel world is overwhelmingly powerful as compared to the Islamic world, the survival and spread of Islam, particularly in the West and other kuffar-dominated countries, depends on its being portrayed as a peaceful and civilized religion. And the apologists of Islam, armed with the Islamic sanction of Taqiyya, perform this job very well – at least they try to – by engaging in all kinds of lies and deception in an effort to prove that Islam does not sanction death for apostasy.

I will refer to two Islamic scholars’ recent attempts to deny that Islam commands death for apostasy. One such Taqiyya tactician is Mozambique-born Imam Mahomed Yiossuf Mohamed Adamgy, who lives in Lisbon, Portugal. The other is Bangladesh-born Islamic scholar and Sharia expert Hasan Mahmud, who lives in Canada.

Imam Mahomed Yiossuf Mohamed Adamgy: Learning of the death penalty given to Iranian ex-Muslim and pastor Yousof Nadarkhani (33), Evangelical Christians from Portuguese-speaking Brazil (where people have little idea about Islam) sent queries about whether Islam truly ordains death penalty for leaving Islam. Imam Adamgy wrote an article in response in Portuguese. A reader of islam-watch.org from Portugal translated a section of his article into English and forward to us. Imam Mohamed Adamgy writes:

"There is no compulsion in religion…the fact that a person leaves the Islamic faith, exchanging it for another represents a serious sin. However, this does not violate, in any way, the Islamic Law. The Quran repeatedly condemns those who trade the Islamic faith by another, warning them of the severe punishment that awaits them on the Day of Judgment. However the Quran never determined a worldly punishment for apostates. Consequently, if a Muslim wishes to change his faith he can do it. Belief, by definition, emanates from the heart of the person. Islam leaves no room for doubt as to say that faith is a matter of choice and personal conviction; consequently, no compelling power can be used to force a person to adopt a particular faith or prevent he/she from changing of creed."

He then quotes several verses from the Quran, namely 2:256, 10:99-100, 39:41 and 88:21-22, to show that Islam allows complete religious freedom and choice. He also charges that the propaganda that Islam ordains death penalty for apostates is a lie, born out of Islamophobia of the Westerners.

Hasan Mahmud: On 6 March 2012, scholar Hasan Mahmud, on the sideline of a friendly meet-up, engaged an unprepared Ibn Warraq, the ex-Muslim author of "Why I Am Not A Muslim”, into a debate on whether Islam accords death penalty to the apostates of Islam. Ibn Warraq, defending the motion, clearly lost to Hasan Mahmud’s denial that Islam approves death punishment for leaving Islam (See the video).

In the debate, discussing a few relevant verses of his choice, scholar Hasan Mahmud claimed: "The Quran address the issue of apostasy, but nowhere it says, ‘kill the apostates’ …not the Quran.

In this article, I will outline in detail what the Quranic verses command about dealing with the apostates of Islam, taking the contexts and circumstances of their revelation into consideration. I will also address the lies and deceptions these Islamic scholars use in their denial of Islam's sanction of earthly punishment to Muslim apostates.

The Quran on the Punishment for Apostasy from Islam

It is a well-known fact that when Prophet Muhammad was weak in the early part of his prophetic mission in Mecca (610-622), he could not resort to violence to spread Islam, neither did Allah reveal verses sanctioning Muslims’ engagement in violence during that period. But after he moved to Medina, where he found a secure refuge and soon grew strong in the power of arms, Allah started showing verses of Jihad to take up arms, and Muhammad, accordingly, took to violence to deal with his critics and to impose Islam on unwilling tribes and communities of Arabia. Exactly the same modus operandi applies to the matter of apostasy from Islam. There are a number of verses in the Quran revealed at different time-points that deal with apostasy. Those verses revealed when Muhammad was weak only curse the apostates and warn them of punishment in the afterlife, but verses revealed after the Muslim community in Medina became powerful, namely after the battle of Badr, sanction harsh earthly punishments for apostates.

Apostasy in Mecca

The earliest case of apostasy from Islam arose about five years after the start of Muhammad’s prophetic mission (i.e. ca. 615 CE), when Muhammad, failing to attract the Meccan polytheists to Islam in substantial number, started insulting their religion, tradition and ancestors. This aroused opposition to Muhammad's preaching of Islam in Mecca, and family members of the converted Muslims started convincing and pressuring them to return to the faith of their forefathers. The Meccans were able to seduce a few of Muhammad's disciples back to Paganism, which – according to greatest Islamic historian al-Tabari – was ‘a trial which shook the people of Islam…’ Fearing ‘that they will be seduced from their religion,’ Muhammad ‘commanded them to emigrate to Abyssinia,’ says al-Tabari (VI:45). Under this situation, Allah revealed the first verses, namely verses 16:106-10, referring to apostasy from Islam:

Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

This because they love the life of this world better than the Hereafter: and Allah will not guide those who reject Faith.

Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed. Without doubt, in the Hereafter they will perish.

But verily thy Lord, - to those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions, - and who thereafter strive and fight for the faith and patiently persevere,- Thy Lord, after all this is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

The last verse clearly refers to the first Muslim hijrat (emigration) to Abyssinia in 615, and Maududi also gives the same timeline of the revelation of these verses. Obviously, Muhammad was very weak at this time, and could not incite violence against those apostates, who were seduced away from Islam by their family members in Mecca. So, the verses only warn about the horrible hellfire punishment in the afterlife to discourage his disciples from falling away from Islam.

Apostasy in Medina

Next, after his emigration to Medina in 622, Muhammad faced the possibility of losing his disciples on a few occasions, and Allah revealed verses for dealing with each case as situation permitted.

1) Verses 47:25-26: Muhammad's adoption of Jihad violence and unwilling disciples as apostates

After arriving in Medina, Muhammad tried to instigate his followers to engage in violent Jihad against the Pagans of Mecca, which, says the Quran, will help lessen their hardships and open to them the gates of paradise (Quran 47:4-6):

47:4: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

47:5: Soon will He guide them and improve their condition,

47:6: And admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them.

It appears that before these Jihad verses were revealed, Muhammad was already pushing his disciples to take the path of violence to lessen their hardships, to which some of his peace-loving followers were opposed. They had refused to engage in violence pointing to absence of Allah's command. As a result, the above verses, sanctioning violent Jihad, readily came down. But even after these Jihad verses came down, some of his disciples – afraid that violence may cost their life – were unwilling to participate in Muhammad's project of Jihad violence. Referring to this, Allah revealed verse 47:20:

Those who believe say, "Why is not a sura sent down (for us)?" But when a sura of basic or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein, thou wilt see those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with a look of one in swoon at the approach of death.

And targeting those few disciples, who wanted to follow the Quran only partially excluding the violent part, Allah revealed verses 47:25-27:

47:25: “Those who turn back as apostates after Guidance was clearly shown to them,- the Evil One has instigated them and busied them up with false hopes.”

47:26: “This, because they said to those who hate what Allah has revealed, "We will obey you in part of (this) matter"; but Allah knows their (inner) secrets.”

47:27: “But how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, and smite their faces and their backs?”

Those of Muhammad's disciples, who had said, "We will obey you in part of (this) matter", have been called apostates in these verses for not wanting to follow Allah's commands completely. Allah says, they were guided by the Evil One (i.e. Satan), and angels will punish them by smiting their faces and backs.

Only a few months after Muhammad's emigration to Medina, Muhammad was not yet that powerful at this time, and could not incite direct violence against those half-believers of Islam, many of whom where native Medina residents (ansars), which would have been counter productive. They were, anyway, part of his community, but only opposed to engaging in violence as Muhammad had wanted. So, in order to coax them into engaging in Muhammad's desired Jihadi violence, warning them of the horrible punishment of hellfire in afterlife was the best policy at this time. And that's Allah reflected in these verses.

2) Verse 2:217: Nakhla Raid in holy month and possibility of apostasy

Another mention of apostasy comes in verses 2:217:

….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.

This verse was revealed after the raid of Nakhla in the holy month of Rajab, in which eight disciples of Muhammad plundered a Meccan caravan that resulted in death of an attendant of the caravan. Violence and bloodshed in the holy months were prohibited and observed in Arabia. So, the Nakhla bloodshed in the holy month aroused strong criticism of Muslims in Medina, putting Muhammad in a very difficult situation. He initially tried to distance himself from it, putting the blame on the disciples, who perpetrated it. This left those disciples, headed by Abdullah ibn Jahsh, hearted-broken and dejected. Ibn Ishaq writes, "When the apostle said that, the men were in despair and thought that they were doomed. Their Muslim brethren reproached them for what they had done.” (Ibn Ishaq, p. 287-88)

But his community in great hardship, Muhammad needed the booty, and also needed his disciples to take part in future Jihad raids (ghazwa). And Muhammad realized that putting the blame on Abdullah and company would discourage his followers from taking part in future Jihad raids. So, he justified the condemned holy-month violence by revealing verse 2:217, which says:

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter…

After revealing this verse, Muhammad accepted the booty and distributed among his disciples: "And when the Quran came down about that and God relieved the Muslims of their anxiety in the matter, the apostle took the caravan and the prisoners… God divided the booty when He made it permissible and gave four-fifths to whom God had allowed to take it and one-fifth to God and His apostle.” Muhammad also gave Abdullah the honorific of Amir al Muminin (Commander of the believers).

Nonetheless, this condemned holy-month violence raised the possibility that some of his disciples, especially from amongst those of Medina (ansars), who even reproached the 8 raiders, could have left his religion. So, warning them, the verse concluded: "…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.

Power of Muhammad was still not firmly established in Medina, at least not yet tested. Muhammad's opponent Abdullah ibn Obayi, Islam's hypocrite par excellence, was still powerful. Under this situation, inciting direct violence particularly against his Medinan disciples could result in civil war and turn suicidal for Muhammad's mission. So, giving warning of Allah's horrible punishment in the afterlife was still the best policy to discourage anyone from leaving his camp. And like a master tactician, that's what Allah did.

3) Verses 5:54-56: Jewish criticism and exposure of Muhammad’s creed and the possibility of apostasy

Another mention of apostasy in the Quran comes in verses 5:54-56:

O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.

Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).

As to those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- it is the fellowship of Allah that must certainly triumph.

Maududi suggests that Surah 5 was revealed after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah in 628, but at least three lines of evidence suggest that it was revealed even before the revelation of above-discussed verse 2:217 in December 623:

a) Introduction of Jewish rituals into Islam: It is well known that after Muhammad's emigration to Medina brought him in close proximity to Jewish community for the first time, he adopted a number of Jewish rituals and precepts, such as ablution before prayers, circumcision, and prohibition of eating swine meat (pork) etc. And verse 5:3 introduces prohibition of eating swine meat, while verse 5:6 introduces ablution before prayers into Islam. These Muslims started practicing soon after arriving in Medina, not 6 years later in 628.

b) Muhammad’s attempt to draw Jews to Islam: After arriving in Medina, Prophet Muhammad tried to draw the Jews and Christians (and other monotheists, e.g. Magians and Sabaeans) to his creed on the ground that he was only preaching the perfect version of the Abrahamic monotheistic creed, from which the Jews and Christians had deviated. So, in this Surah, verses 5:13 talk about how the Jews have forgotten the context and a good part of their Scripture, while verse 5:14 talk about how the Christians have forgotten or neglected a part of their Scripture. And on these grounds, Allah call the Jews, Christians and other monotheists to Islam in verse 5:69: "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This call to the Jews to embrace Islam could only occur before he finally decided not to invite them to Islam anymore in verse 2:120: "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.

And the revelation of verse 2:120 predated the revelation of verse 2:217 in Dec 623 after the Nakhla raid. Therefore, Surah 5 was certainly revealed even before the Nakhla raid. Moreover, Allah would not be stupid to invite the Jews to Islam after Muhammad had already exterminated or exiled all Jews of Medina and those of Banu Mustaliq by 627.

c) Jewish criticism and mockery of Muhammad’s creed: The Meccan Pagans didn't have any idea of the concept of Abrahamic Monotheism, and failed to criticize Muhammad's theological doctrines. But the Jews, especially their learned rabbis – certainly more knowledgeable than Muhammad about Abrahamic creeds and doctrines – were able to criticize and expose many inaccuracies that Muhammad had uttered about the Jewish and Christian faiths in his divine verses. They even mocked his creed. Muhammad had no answers to those criticisms and mockery. In this Surah, verse 5:57-58 makes mention of the Jewish criticism and mockery of Allah revelations, and advises his disciples to stay away from them: "O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed). When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding.

And Muhammad was duly worried that the incisive criticism of his creeds by the Jews, which exposed many flaws in his verses and portrayed him as a fake prophet, might convince some of his disciples to turn away from Islam. So, verses 5:54-56 were revealed warning his followers of the hellfire punishment in the afterlife to dissuade them from leaving Islam. The fact that these verses were revealed as a warning against the possible apostasy instigated by the Jewish criticism of his creed is confirmed by the fact that the very next verses (5:57-58) talk about the Jewish mockery of Muhammad's creeds and warn his disciples against associating with them.

At this very early stage in Medina, Muhammad was in no position to incite violence toward his followers, many of them native residents of Medina, should they leave Islam. Warning them was all he could do, and that's what Allah obligingly did in verses 5:54-56.

4) Verse 3:85-91: A Medinan Apostate's repentance and re-embracing of Islam

During Muhammad's time, there were very few cases of apostasy – four according to scholar Hasan Mahmud, but probably a few more. Verses 3:86-91 in Surah Aal-Imran deal with such a case of Medinan apostate:

How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust.

Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind;-

In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be (their lot);-

Except for those that repent (Even) after that, and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.

As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers.

Maududi interprets that these verses talk about the Jewish scholars, who understood that Muhammad’s message was true, but refused to say so and embrace it. But it most likely deals with a Medinan Muslim convert, who had reverted to polytheism before repenting and re-embracing Islam. Ibn Kathir relates the story as below:

Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn Abbas said, "A man from the Ansar embraced Islam, but later reverted and joined the polytheists. He later on became sorry and sent his people to, 'Ask the Messenger of Allah for me, if I can repent.’ Then,

كَيْفَ يَهْدِى اللَّهُ قَوْمًا كَفَرُواْ بَعْدَ إِيمَـنِهِمْ﴾  (How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief)… was revealed and his people sent word to him and he re-embraced Islam.''

These verses also threaten only afterlife punishment to this apostate, no punishment in this world. Timing of the revelation of this verse as well as specificity of the case must be considered to understand why Allah showed leniency toward that apostate. According to Maududi, these verses were revealed immediately after Battle of Badr (March 624), i.e. less than two years after Muhammad's emigration to Medina in June 622. It was still very early time for Muhammad, who was in effect a refugee in Medina, to incite violence against his Medinan converts (ansars), who were Muhammad's main base of support and power there. Moreover, the verses were directed at the specific case of this apostate's proposal to repent and re-embrace Islam. So, the question of commanding to kill him doesn't arise, as repentance within three days and re-embracing Islam is allowed in standard Islamic law. So, it's understandable why these verses shows leniency toward that apostate.

5) Verses 4:88-89, the decisive verse for dealing with the apostates of Islam

Verses 4:88-89 are the decisive verses in the Quran to deal with apostates. It commands killing of apostates, if they do not re-embrace Islam. But none of the deceptive apologist scholars of Islam – namely Hasan Mahmud and Mohamed Adamgy as well as others – who want to portray that Islam doesn't punish apostates, would ever mention these verses in their discussion of apostasy. Here are the verses (Maududi's translation):

4:88: How is it with you that there are two opinions among you concerning the hypocrites,whereas Allah has turned them back (to their former state) because of the evils they have earned? Do you desire to show guidance to him whom Allah has let go astray? You cannot find a path for him whom Allah has turned away from the right path.

4:89: They really wish that you should also become disbelievers, as they themselves are so that both may become alike. So you should not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allahand if they do not migratethen seize them wherever you find them and slay them and do not take any of them as friends and helpers.

The meaning of these verses are crystal clear on their own. Verse 4:88 says that Allah has turned some Muslims away from Islam, and because of this action of Allah, those ex-Muslims now "wish" that other Muslims also be like them. Allah, after turning them away from Islam, now commands them to come back to Islam. If they don't, Muslims are commanded to seize and kill them in verse 4:89 in saying "So you should not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allahand if they do not migratethen seize them wherever you find them and slay them."

According to Maududi, in this Surah, verses 1-28 deal with issue of the Battle of Ohud (March 625), verse 47 gives final warning to Banu Nadir before attacking and exiling them in August 625, and verse 43 introduces tayammum or ablutions with dust in absence of water during the attack on Banu Mustaliq in 627. Muhammad's military power was tested and firmly established in Medina, especially after he succeeded in exiling the Jewish tribe of Banu Qainuqa in mid-624 CE. So, at the time of the revelation of this verse, when Muhammad was attacking and exiling or mass-slaughtering one Jewish tribes after another from Medina and beyond, he could deal with individual apostates as he wished. And, we see him to command death for apostates in verse 4:89.

6) Verses 9:11-14: Commanding killing of apostates

Another set of verses, revealed later than 4:89, that relate to apostasy are:

9:11: But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

9.12: And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief – surely their oaths are nothing – so that they may desist.

9.13: What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.

9.14: Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.

These verses were revealed at the height of Muhammad's power during the hajj pilgrimage in 631 CE, a year before Muhammad died. They were directed at the Pagans of Mecca. The preceding verse of sword, 9:5, gave Meccan Pagans the option of embracing Islam or death. And these verses (9:11-14) are saying: If under the threat of death as per verse 9:5, they embrace Islam and keeps Islamic rituals and obligations, they should be embraced as their Muslim brothers. But should they, after embracing Islam, turn renegades and start criticizing Islam, their leaders, who incite such apostasy, should be punished by the hands of Muslims. Maududi has this to say about these verses:[ii]

A. The Proof from the Qur'an for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate

Here I wish briefly to offer proof that will quiet the doubt in the hearts of those who, for lack of sources of information, may think that perhaps the punishment of death did not exist in Islam but was added at a later time by the "mawlawis" (religious leaders) on their own.

God Most High declares in the Qur'an:

But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (9:11,12)[1]

The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9, God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God's religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period, they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword. In this connection, it was said: "If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants". Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be "confessing Islam and then renouncing it". Thereafter the meaning of "fight the heads of disbelief" (9:11,12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy.[2]

So, verses 9:11-12 and 4:89 – the last verses revealed in the Quran concerning apostasy – clearly call for killing the apostates of Islam.

Ignorance or Deception? Muslim scholars’ use of wrong verses to discuss apostasy in Islam!

Another notable tack the apologists of Islam apply in the discussion of apostasy – either out of deliberate deception or utter ignorance – is their use of wrong verses to show Islam's treatment of apostates in a softer or humane light. Such verses can be categorized into two types: a) verses totally unrelated to apostasy; b) verses that concern the hypocrites, not apostates.

a) Unrelated verses in the discussion of apostasy

Let us take a look at a few such verses cited by Mohamed Adamgy (2:256, 10:99-100, 39:41 and 88:21-22):

  1. Quran 10:99-100: "If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.
  2. Quran 39:41: "Surely We have revealed to you the Book with the truth for the sake of men; so whoever follows the right way, it is for his own soul and whoever errs, he errs only to its detriment; and you are not a custodian over them.
  3. Quran 88:21-22: "Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish. Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs.
  4. Quran 2:256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Amongst these verses, the first three sets have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of apostasy from Islam. Only the last verse, 2:256, the most quoted Quranic verse by Islamist apologists, deserve some attention, although it doesn't relate to apostasy, i.e. a Muslim's deserting Islam. Deceptive apologists quote only the first part of this verse: "Let there be no compulsion in religion”. But the whole verse gives a rather different or confusing impression. Without taking the context of its revelation, it is difficult to grasp its true meaning. Ibn Kathir relates the circumstances under which this verse was revealed as follows:

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said that before Islam, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, ‘We will not abandon our children’. Allah revealed,

﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)''

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,


قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ:

«وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا»

("Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'')

So, this verse was revealed on the occasion of Muhammad's exiling the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir in 625 CE. And it dealt with what to do with the children of the ansars (Medinan Muslim converts), who were being raised by those Jews and were about to be taken far away to be raised as Jews. And when the ansar parents didn't want their children to be taken away for raising them as Jews, Muhammad revealed this verse clearly mandating that Jewish religion must not be forced upon those Muslim children. So, this verse has nothing to do with the issue of a Muslim's leaving Islam. It exclusively addresses the issue of imposing another religion upon Muslims.

b) Use of verses concerning the hypocrites in the discussion apostasy from Islam

Another set of wrong verses Islamist apologists use in the discussion of apostasy from Islam actually deal with the hypocrites, not apostates. Hypocrites were those Muslims, whose leader was Abdullah ibn Obayi, who embraced Islam outwardly, but were not sincere and steadfast in engaging in every command of Allah and Muhammad. In front of Muhammad, they claimed allegiance to Islam; but on Muhammad's back, they used to mock and ridicule him. And, they often abstained from joining Muhammad's violent Jihad expeditions.

First, I will discuss two verses in Surah 9, namely 9:66 and 9:74, which Muslim scholars frequently use in the discussion of apostasy, although they actually deal with the hypocrites. Let me quote verse 9:66 with preceding and following verses:

9.64: The Hypocrites are afraid lest a Sura should be sent down about them, showing them what is (really passing) in their hearts. Say: "Mock ye! But verily Allah will bring to light all that ye fear (should be revealed).

9.65: If thou dost question them, they declare (with emphasis): "We were only talking idly and in play." Say: "Was it at Allah, and His Signs, and His Messenger, that ye were mocking?"

9.66: Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.

9.67: The Hypocrites, men and women, (have an understanding) with each other: They enjoin evil, and forbid what is just, and are close with their hands. They have forgotten Allah; so He hath forgotten them. Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and perverse.

Reading verse 9:66 along with the earlier and previous verses obviates the fact that it talks about the hypocrites, not apostates.

Similarly verses 9:74 also refer to the hypocrites, not apostates of Islam, which becomes clear if read it along with the preceding verse:

9.73: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

9.74: They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.

These verses were revealed at about the time of Muhammad's Jihad expedition to Tabuk in 630 at the height of his power. At that time, he could deal with any issues freely as he wished. But these verses do not talk about apostates of Islam, but about the hypocrite Muslims, and those Muslims, who didn't join the Tabuk expedition on various excuses. Until this time, Muhammad had to bear with the hypocrite Muslims of Medina, because a couple of difficulties prevented him from dealing with them as he wished.

First: Those hypocrite Muslims never openly said that they left Islam. Instead, they openly maintained that they were Muslim. And Muhammad had prohibited shedding the blood of Muslims, which carried mandatory death penalty, unless it happened by accident.

Second: Abdullah ibn Obayi, the leader of the hypocrites, was not only powerful, but also highly respected by both the Pagans and Jews of Medina and beyond. So, dealing harshly with Obayi was difficult, especially when Muhammad, in effect, was a refugee in Medina. Taking harsh measure against Obayi could have been even suicidal for Muhammad, as it could set off a "civil war" in Medina – where Obayi and his followers would have joined hands with the Jews, whom Obayi tried to defend every time Muhammad attacked them. And that's why verse 9:66 says: "If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you” – meaning that although Muhammad was unable to punish the powerful ones, such as Obayi, among the hypocrites, but he would certainly punish others, the weak ones, among them. Now that Muhammad had become the most powerful king in Arabia, he decided to punish at least some of the hypocrites, and Allah revealed a verse accordingly. Maududi's comment on these verses, quoted below, obviates the same reality:

This Command enunciated the change of policy towards the hypocrites. Up to this time, leniency was being shown to them for two reasons. First, the Muslims had not as yet become so powerful as to take the risk of an internal conflict in addition to the one with the external enemies. The other reason was to give enough respite to those people who were involved in doubts and suspicions so that they could get sufficient time for attaining to faith and belief. But now the time had come for a change of policy. The whole of Arabia had been subdued and a bitter conflict with the external enemies was about to start; therefore, it was required that these internal enemies should be crushed down so that they should not be able to conspire with the external enemies to stir up any internal danger to the Muslims.

So, verses 9:66 and 9:74 do not deal with apostasy from Islam per se, although reading them in isolation gives such an impression. They were directed at the hypocrites, aka the non-steadfast and doubtful Muslims. And even if these referred to apostates, they certainly talk about punishing ("crushing down" in Maududi's words) the weak ones among them in this world.

Verse 4:137 – A wrong verse scholar Hasan Mahmud used as his "trump card"

Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief, - Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way. (4:137)

In the debate with Ibn Warraq, scholar Hasan Mahmud used verse 4:137 like a "trump card" to prove that Islam does not approve any earthly punishment for apostasy whatsoever. Referring to this verse, he said:

"When someone accepts Islam and leaves Islam… then again embraces Islam and again leaves Islam, and increases his disbelief, his everything will be doomed and he will be punished [in afterlife], this and that… So the Quran gave an apostate to come to Islam… (but) Sharia law of killing apostates does not give this right to the apostate... When a Muslim leaves Islam, again embraces Islam, again leaves Islam… this is a cycle, which the Quran allows to an apostate. Where this verse will stand, if we kill the apostates? Does a dead body come back to Islam?"

First, scholar Mahmud seems to be unaware of the fact that Sharia law gives an apostate three days to repent and come back to Islam. Then only, they will be killed.

Second, from the reading of verse 4:137, it in no way seems to deal with the classic issue of someone's leaving Islam decisively. The next verse, which Mr. Mahmud deliberately left out of mention, clarifies what it actually deals with:

Q 4:138: "To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty.”

So, this verse exclusively deals with characteristics of the hypocrites; it doesn't talk about apostates at all. To interpret this verse, Ibn Kathir even gave the title "Characteristics of the Hypocrites and Their Destination”, as I quote him below:

Characteristics of the Hypocrites and Their Destination

Allah states that whoever embraces the faith, reverts from it, embraces it again, reverts from it and remains on disbelief and increases in it until death, then he will never have a chance to gain accepted repentance after death. Nor will Allah forgive him, or deliver him from his plight to the path of correct guidance. This is why Allah said,

﴿لَّمْ يَكُنْ اللَّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلاَ لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلاً﴾

(Allah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (right) way). Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that his father said that Ahmad bin Abdah related that Hafs bin Jami said that Samak said that Ikrimah reported that Ibn Abbas commented;

﴿ثُمَّ ازْدَادُواْ كُفْراً﴾

(and go on increasing in disbelief), "They remain on disbelief until they die.'' Mujahid said similarly. Allah then said,

﴿بَشِّرِ الْمُنَـفِقِينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُمْ عَذَاباً أَلِيماً ﴾

(Give to the hypocrites the tidings that there is for them a painful torment.) Hence, the hypocrites have this characteristic, for they believe, then disbelieve, and this is why their hearts become sealed.

Apostasy from Islam in the context of the Sword Verse (9:5)

Quran 9.5: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

This verse clearly says that unless the unbelievers "repent, establish regular prayer and pay regular charity (zakaat)" – that is, they embrace Islam and openly practice it – Muslims must make every effort to seize and kill them. Maududi in his comment related to verse 9:5 (& 9:11-12), quoted above, says: “[unbelievers] were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period, they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period, nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword.

Therefore, the holy Quran commands that if a non-Muslim does not embrace Islam and openly practice it within four months, he/she must be killed. Then, what should happen to a Muslim, who leaves Islam and become a non-Muslim? When the Quran has commanded that non-Muslims, such as the Hindus, should be killed after giving a four-month period to embrace Islam, should it let a non-Muslim, who apostatized from Islam, walk away scot-free?

Commonsense as well as tradition say that if the Quran calls for killing a normal non-Muslim, such as a born Hindu, it should punished a non-Muslim born out of apostasy from Islam with greater severity. For example, the Saudis even hire Hindus from India and Christians from the West to employ in well-paid and respectable jobs in Saudi Arabia. But they kill a Muslim, if he/she leaves Islam, and becomes Hindu, Christian or atheist.

Discussion of the apostasy-related Quranic verses in this article, taking the circumstances of their revelation into consideration, establishes beyond an iota of doubt that Allah, like a master tactician, in a step-by-step process, arrived at His ultimate decision that the punishment for apostates of Islam is death. So, what the Quran says about apostasy from Islam? "Kill the Apostates"!

[Read the next part of this article:  What Was Prophet Muhammad's Command about Apostasy? Kill Whoever Leaves Islam! ]

[i] Abul Ala Mawdudi (1994) The Punishment Of The Apostate According To Islamic Law, Trs Syed Silas Husain & Ernest Hahn (Original in Urdu “Murtadd ki Saza Islami Qanun mein”, Islamic Publishers Ltd., Lahore, 1963), p. 12

[ii] Ibid, p. 13

Further reading:

1) Ibn Kathir's Tafseer of the Quran

2) Abu Ala Maududi's Tafseer of the Quran

Comments (63)Add Comment
What Allah actually ment
written by Salladin , April 07, 2012
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Allah ment: ......, then fight and slay the muslims wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them etc..."
Isn't Allah great?
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 07, 2012
Allah ment: ......, then fight and slay the muslims wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them etc..."
Isn't Allah great?
The answer would have been "yes", if all Muslims of the world turn non-Muslims and all kuffars turn Muslims.
written by MAlem , April 07, 2012
Can you point out the place with the Quran says "Just Kill Them" as you put in quotes, as I cannot find it anywhere.

Saladin so you are now indicating you know what Allah meant, thus in doing so are confimring his existence, that is much appreciated since many on this site have doubted the existence of him all along
written by vbv , April 07, 2012
If the qiuran or Allah did not prescribe any punishment or death to apostates ,why do muslims mete out imprisonment, execution, torture and inflict painful death , loot the possessions of the apostate or seperate him/her from family ? Then, obviously the muslims are not following islam ,they are not being guided by this spook Allah ? After all, even Allah did not authorise these morons to 'punish' or murder the socalled apostates. It is in the domain of Allah to deal with such socalled apostates in the socalled "Hereafter" . Obviously the socalled islamic scholars, mullahs and the common muslims have lost out on the guidance of this spook Allah , and they should be the first to face the wrath of this Allah ! Hahahahahahahaha!!!!.
written by vbv , April 07, 2012
Phew ! Reading this muslim 'holy' book is nauseating, disgusting ... It always gives a disconcerting feeling that "Big Brother is always watching over you and breathing down your neck ... even when you are in your bedroom making love to your wife..... surely an indiscrete and nosy spook this is that will make other mafia goons look pedestrian nincompoops when it comes to ruling the minds of their zombie serfs and goons. It certainly did not elevate my spiritual sense ,but always of an indecent malevolent spook who wants to control you ,stifle you and imprison your mind , make you an abject slave....... all the negatives that you can think of. Allah does not come out as a saviour in times of personal distress or personal misfortune , but a mafia gangster who could not care less about you but just wants you to stick to the mafia manualof dos donts and threats and consequences if you don't. No room for creativity or free thinking or free speech ,but always a lurking fear that if Allah does not get you by the scruff of your neck ,the momins certainly would and make you pay for the transgression. That is islam bans music, literature, sculpture,works of art poetry etc and damns them as "haram" . Apostasy is just the tip of the iceberg , the whole of islam is nothing but regimentation of all aspects of your life to make you a compliant mindless zombie where you walk with the herds , lose your individuality and the zest for free life.
@ Mr Khan
written by Muslim and proud , April 07, 2012
Islamic apologists – who are permitted by Islam to lie and deceive, i.e. to exercise Taqiyya, for the good of Islam – would not let the matter settle.

Mr Khan,

It's time to put your 'credibility' to the test.

Please can you provide references as to how Taqiyya is linked to lying and deceiving for the "good of Islam"?
written by vbv , April 07, 2012
This goes to show that islam totally lacks spirituality. Spirituality requires free thinking , a broad mind to experience the beauty, philosophy of existence, of Universe as it is ( not the muck of bogus creation in Bible or Quran) ,to allow fresh ideas and knowledge to flow in ( not stifle by religious dogmas and certainties of a primitive mind that has closed its doors to reality and knowledge) ,even to experience the beauty of Daffodils like William Wordsworth did ,or the minds of great scientists like Stephen Hawkings, Carl Sagan, Einstein,etc, who were not imprisoned by the insularness and bigotry of religion. That is why we do not have many scientist ,thginkers , philosophers, poets,etc amongst muslims. Those intellectuals who have become great thinkers,scientists,etc are far too few, as majority wallow in ignorance and superstition under the control of mullahs/imams/ayatollahs,etc.
written by vbv , April 07, 2012
Only scepticism and doubt makes human minds to probe Nature and Universe. Islam will not allow that because it will go against Muhamad and his Allah's words of a flat Earth ,with mountains as pegs to prevent it from shaking , Sun setting in a murky muddy pool and waiting under Allah's throne waiting for Allah's command to rise again, Adam and Eve rubbish, not to speak of the stupid tale of Noah and his boat,etc. If we were to believe all that idiotic tales unfit for human consumption ,we would not have made any progress at all. There would be no automobiles, mobile phones, Televisions, Satellites, Rockets for space exploration, even the coomon amenities of life like a refrigerator, blender,microwave-oven, airconditioners ,incadescentlamps ,etc and also the generation of elctricity to run all of them, the raliways , aircrafts,,etc. Islam and sharia do not even belong to stone-age : it is even far below that , a state of utter ignorance and fear of an unknown spook who is always watching you from the sky above you ,waiting to mete out terrible punishments should you fail to pray five times a day and believe in all the stupidities that he is mouthing in a mere 6,000 verses. He has not spoken now for nearly 1,400 years..Perhaps he has run out of imagination ,or the humans are becoming smarter and more intelligent( a fact of evolution) that he cannot fool people or literally "put the fear of God " in them anymore. The Holy Books that he is supposed to have mouthed is very poor and small output from such a magnificent creature that is supposed to have created everything. Surely the "creator" god is having a very large mouth compared to his peanut sized brain. Some "god" indeed ,this monotheistic spook that has emanated from the minds of self-seeking, hallucinated scoundrels as an instrument of power , oppression and easly pelfs and comfortable living. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
it's like this
written by bundypig , April 07, 2012
they use all of the west's inventions so indirectly, they take us as friends. I dont know of one single thing that islam has created or advanced, they just use kaffirs stuff, so they must be sinning against mo and his creation allah...or else with the knowledge that allah has, knowing about the muddy swamp and the sun hiding under a throne and everything revolving around earth...he would have made them superior in every way, instead, well just google pakistan or afghanistan to see the way they live. They come to our shores and in some weird way think they had something to do with our advances, you gotta laugh at them, if they weren't so dangerous.
Islam is vile
written by ex muslim , April 07, 2012
Islam is totally senseless therefore it should be destroyed!
written by Proud Infidel , April 07, 2012
"Please can you provide references as to how Taqiyya is linked to lying and deceiving for the "good of Islam"?"

M&P, if you have to ask that question, you don't have enough information about islam to be a Muslim, much less defend it. Now I know why you fail every time you speak about your political system disguised as a religion.
Off with their heads! - the Red Queen
written by Tanstaafl jw , April 07, 2012
"Whosoever changeth his Islamic deen (religion), kill them!" - Mohammed
written by Malem , April 07, 2012
You are almost as amusing as Duh, and will likely last as long with your dribble, good luck with that.
written by Malem , April 07, 2012
By the way, I speak the most proper arabic, only in Egypt will you find such my lad.
written by someone , April 07, 2012
Abdul Muthaleb have as many children as 19 children. 13 people were male and the rest were women.
Prophet's father was the youngest.
These twelve are the prophet's uncle:
1. Haris ,ia merupakan paman Rasullah yang tertua.
2. Abu Thalib,nama lengkap beliau Abdu Manaf
3. Zubair, Kuniyah nya adalah Abu Haris
4. Hamzah ,Kuniyahnya Abu `Umarah dan Abu Ya`la
5. Abu Lahab nama lengkapnya Abdul Uzza
6. Ghaidaq
7. Muqawwam
8. Dhirar
9. `Abbas
10. Qusam
11. Abdul Ka`bah
12. Hajal dikenal juga dengan Mughirah.Among all the Prophet's uncle Hamza who converted to Islam only and Abbas.
Saidina Hamzah to Islam in the year to two years kenabian.Ada yangg also said that he converted to Islam in the sixth prophetic.
He received his Asadullah (the Lion of God).
With regard to the degree that the Prophet once said والذى نفسى بيده إنه لمكتوب عند الله فى السماء السابعة حمزة أسد الله واسد رسوله'' It's a controlled substance for the sake of my soul, it is written in the seventh heaven that Hamzah was the Lion of Allah and His Messenger lion.''
In another hadith he said:'' As good as well my uncle is Hamza''.
He was full moon following the war and martyrdom in the war when he saw the bodies Saidina Uhud.Pada Hamzah, the Prophet menangis.Pada when he was 59 years old martyr and was buried along with his brother Abdullah bin Jahsh children in one grave.
The Saidina Abbas is the youngest of his own uncle Abu kuniyah Fadhal.
He is younger than the prophet about 2 or 3 tahun.Beliau including tribal leaders of Quraysh to Islam and the conquest of Khaibar but he menyembungikan Islam and his new show he was on when the Islamic conquest of the city Makkah.Rasulullah often pray for him and his children and grandchildren.
He died at the time of Usman bin Affan Saidian caliphate Ra in the year 33 H at the age of 88 years and is buried in the Baqi `.

His aunt: 1. `Atikah 2. Umaimah 3. Baidhak ( Ummu Hakim) 4. Barrah 5. Shafiyah 6. Arwa Shafiyah.

Read more at: http://mursyidali.blogspot.com...d-saw.html
Copyright mursyidali.blogspot.com Under Common Share Alike Atribution
written by VRM , April 07, 2012

Of course Apostates Should Be Killed
Bassam Zawadi
In conclusion, the Muslim should keep his head up and confidently say:


Thanks ZAWADI,you are shameless but honest( at least on this topic), unlike disgusting apologists who are shameless liars.

written by vbv , April 07, 2012
Muhamad did not kill the man who killed his uncle . Why? Because his uncle Hamza was not a muslim , an arab pagan, and the murderer was a muslim - a cronie of Muhahamad. But Muhamad murdered hundreds in the case of Bai Quaraiza ,the jewish tribe and taken their women and children as slaves. What about the murder of a pregnant woman and a female poet, not to speak of hundreds he has put to sword in Medina and other places. He was mrciful on in Mecca becajuse it involved his own tribe and relations. What about the war on apostates that muslims under Abu Bakr killing tens of thousands in Arabia to prevent them from leaving islam? What about the hundreds of thousands who had been murdered in Persia( of today's Iran) which forced thousands to come to India ( who are known as parsis here) to preserve their culture and heritage. The parsis in India have been resident for over a thousand years and are still following their faith , 'zoroastrianism'. What about millions butchered ( over 80 million atleast ) in their conquest and rule in India and also millions taken as slaves ??? Not to speak of millions of hindus and sikhs butchered in 1947 when India was partitioned .This was worse than the holocaust suffered by the jews. Surely you cannot sweep all this under the carpet and pretend this arab supremacist cult was a peaceful one. If any religion was peaceful only Budhism and Jainism can lay claim to it, for they were truly peaceful and eschewed violence of any kind , and this is historically proven. They never fought wars to impose their dogma by force or tried to debunk and destroy other cultures. They just put their perspective to anyone who was interested and tried to reason out why their faith was a logical one without issuing threats on behalf of any monster of an imaginery "god" that if you dont submit you will burn in Hell forever. These two are atheistic faiths like confucianism or Taoism. Monotheistic cults have committed the most violence in all the history of humanity for the "glory of their socalled 'god'".And they have the blood of millions of humanbeings on their bloody hands ,including their genocides in the american continents and slavery of blacks in Africa.. Worse they are unrepentant and arrogant.
written by someone , April 07, 2012
Muhamad did not kill the man who killed his uncle . Why? Because his uncle Hamza was not a muslim , an arab pagan, and the murderer was a muslim - a cronie of Muhahamad. But Muhamad murdered hundreds in the case of Bai Quaraiza ,the jewish tribe and taken their women and children as slaves.
written by someone , April 07, 2012
vbv you don know the right story about wahsyi, tell us about bani quraizha? why they was punished. you know the right story??

hey were convicted of treason to Islam in which they have pledged allegiance to help each other, but they betrayed the Battle of the Trench. the person they are attacking Islam and Islam in the back when the allied forces of Islam under siege from makkah. Islam does not kill children and women, and parents, they just punish the traitors who took up arms and fight against Islam.
this true story in islam
@someone: Stay on the topic
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 08, 2012
Please focus your discussion on apostasy in Islam. Hamza's case has nothing to do with apostasy, i.e. leaving Islam.

All unrelated posts would be deleted.
written by vbv , April 08, 2012
Oho , since when did Muhamad become a head of a sovereign nation that you talk of treason and execution ? Muhamad was a cheat , a self-proclaimed prophet ? What political authority does he have to kill anyone on the pretext of a socalled treason ? A prophet or a politician ? Only an intemperate politician or a tyrant will resort to murders. A prophet or a godman should have the power to convinve people with persuasive talk of what is right and what is wrong ? The very fact that Muhamad indulged in wars and war-crimes makes him a dubious candidate for 'prophethood'. Only a man who is incapable of moral persuasion will resort to such barbaric acts of murders, massacres ,taking women and children into slavery, rape and plunder. And Muhamad was guilty of all these barbaric and immoral acts . Therefore he does not qualify to be called a 'prophety'. Not that I believe in the concept of 'prophets', godmen, divine messengers , saints, clergy, mullah, imam, padres ,gurus and whatnot : all of which are inventions of hallucinated, self-seeking, power-hungry,evil-minded and vicious scoundrels who carry out their nefarious intents with a fake holiuness , a pasted benign-smile masking their evil ,selfish and vindictive mindset. And Muhamad was certainly vindictive and evil .
written by lonely , April 08, 2012
thanks mr M.A Khan for ur information
written by Arvind Raje , April 08, 2012
If these apologists are to believed for their sincerity, why do they remain silent when fanatical authorities condemn apostates to death and carry out executions where they can? Why not raise the issue on a World forum and shame / pressure the fanatics?

Sorry, make that only pressure. Fanatic Muslims feel no shame, they feel a sense of honour in carrying out such a barbaric act and sincerely believe that they are earning points to be redeemed on the day of judgement.
MA Khan
written by someone , April 08, 2012
I just said that the apostate after the Prophet Muhammad died, they fight against Islam led musailamah who raised himself to be a false prophet, so they fought for trying to undermine Islam that has just evolved.

When the Prophet Muhammad's Hijrah to Madinah a lot of people who converted to Islam makkah flee to Medina, then their families are in makkah asked the Prophet Muhammad in order to restore those who have converted to Islam in order to return to Makkah, the Prophet Muhammad allowed them again to makkah. This morality of the prophet Muhammad. no prophet Muhammad to kill them.

the problem is we have to get a balanced and correct information is not cornering, so that people know the truth of Islam and to think positively about Islam.
written by Salladin , April 08, 2012
Again someone, you are evading the question. I was talking speciffacly about Hamza and Muhammad. If you want other stories it's ok. Did you know Abdullah was almost sacreficed to Hubal? Did you know that ka'ba was baitulllah before Muhammad and after? Did you know Muhammad prayed for six years to a pagan shrine full of other Gods than Allah (624-630 AD), meaning shirk.

Hijra? no such evidence ever. Arabs called the time that supposed to be hijra, the year of the arabs. The first time they called it hijra is somewhere in the 9th century when they wrote and invented many ahadeeth.
To Someone
written by Archpagan , April 08, 2012
Why did Muhammad require sword to propagate, protect and prevent 'treason from Islam'? The reason is very simple: he was on a very weak moral ground as his falsehood, chicanery and lecherous behavior were too much glaring to people around him. They were justifiably unwilling to accept him as reveler of Allah's message. Had Muhammad been an honorable, saintly and knowledgeable person, he could have easily convinced his fellow men to accept him as Allah's messenger. As he had no such quality or character, Muhammad had to act like mafia war-lord/bandit to propagate his so-called 'divine message'.

Einstein or Newton did not require sword to propagate or protect the laws of nature discovered by them. Rather, people now flock to learn their theory. But, in the case of Muhammad people in Shoddy Barbaria, Papistan etc are lashed into mosque to say namaaz. All these point to the fact that Koran is false whereas Law of Gravitation and Relativity are true. A worm living on shit can find fragrance, but to men it stinks. You live on that stinking shit name Koran.
Salad u din
written by Rzq , April 08, 2012
Do you make this rubbish up as you go along kaffir??
"Again someone, you are evading the question. I was talking speciffacly about Hamza and Muhammad. If you want other stories it's ok. Did you know Abdullah was almost sacreficed to Hubal? Did you know that ka'ba was baitulllah before Muhammad and after? Did you know Muhammad prayed for six years to a pagan shrine full of other Gods than Allah (624-630 AD), meaning shirk.

Hijra? no such evidence ever. Arabs called the time that supposed to be hijra, the year of the arabs. The first time they called it hijra is somewhere in the 9th century when they wrote and invented many ahadeeth"
mr khan islamic law 101
written by rzq , April 08, 2012
The Qur’an states: “…Take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does He command you, so that you may learn wisdom” (6:151). Key words here are “by way of justice and law.” It is clear that capital punishment can be applied by a court as long as it is justifiable and lawful, which fall under two crimes: intentional murder and Fasad fil-ardh, or spreading mischief in the land. The term “spreading mischief in the land” is generally interpreted as crimes that affect a community as a whole and destabilize society. These include treason/apostasy, terrorism, land, sea and air piracy, rape and adultery.
During the time of war, if one were to abandon his Muslims by committing treason and declaring himself as an apostate and then fight against Muslims, it would be valid to punish the individual with the death sentence.

mr khan continued
written by rzq , April 08, 2012
This is what the quran say about apostacy without it being linked to teason.
In Surah 4: 137, the Qur’an reads, “Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe and again deny the truth and thereafter, grow stubborn in their denial of the truth, God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way.” With this passage it’s evident that even after rejecting Islam twice, no punishment is prescribed for the apostate.Dr. Maher Hathout, a leading American Muslim spokesperson, underscores in his recent book “In Pursuit of Justice: The Jurisprudence of Human Rights in Islam” that while apostasy may be a sin in the eyes of God, it is not considered criminal behavior.

Here are some more refernces for your deficient understandings
Subhi Mahmassani, an Islam scholar and jurist from Lebanon, has observed that the death penalty was meant to apply not to simple acts of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. The Prophet never killed anyone solely for apostasy. This being the case, the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith but to punish acts such as treason, joining forces with the enemy and sedition. [Arkan Huquq al-Insan fi l-Islam (Bases of Human Rights in Islam), Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li-l-Malayin, 1979, cited in Kamali, as above]
Executing a person because of conversion to another faith or out of faith clearly contradicts the Qur’an, the ultimate source of Islamic law. Without the apostasy being linked to treason that leads to a matter of national security or security of a Muslim community, capital punishment cannot be permitted.

mr khan continued 2
written by rzq , April 08, 2012
The question now remains, if Islamic law prohibits capital punishment for apostasy, where did Muslims get the idea that it is valid? In Josef Van Ess’s book “The Flowering of Muslim Theology” he observes this issue and the first execution of someone who spoke ill of the Prophet Muhammad. Dating back to the 8th Century, Syrian scholar Muhammad Ibn Said Al-Urdunni was executed for statements he made about the Prophet Muhammad. Al-Urdunni stated that, although Prophet Muhammad was the last prophet, if Allah wanted, He would and could create another Muhammad. He simply was stating that Allah, the Almighty, has the ability to do whatever he wants, which includes creating another Muhammad. It is as unknown as to whom exactly made the final decision to charge Al-Urdunni with apostasy, but the Syrian government issued the death sentence for disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad by even imagining that there could be another prophet after him. The intentions behind the Syrian government are unknown, however, one is to assume that they could have been trying to set an example for Muslim citizens—if Al-Urdunni is executed, people will not dare to speak ill of the Prophet.

So apostacy when it is not liked to treason does not require any punishment. The first case was the above and some jurists are in a bit of a mix up such as Saudi cleric Nasser al-Omar

saladin, archpagan
written by someone , April 08, 2012
Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet Isa (jesus) the same as an enemy of his people. the gospel jesus said a prophet is a characteristic feature of the enmity of his people. and the gospel says that the prophet Muhammad fled to Medina (medina where the descendants of the prophet ismail theme) in the pursuit of swords and arrows and the ferocity of war read Habakkuk and Isaiah 21). madina the prophet is welcome. with water and bread. I say to you read your book. prophet muhammad came from the mountains paran (arabia) _

Isaiah 21 (14) To the Thirsty [Dedanites] bring water, O Inhabitants of the land of theme [in Arabia]; meet The Fugitive with bread [Suitable] for him.

this is your gospel
written by Taliban , April 08, 2012
ISLAM=Stupid, Lazy, Rubbish, Problem, Lie,  Barbarian, Dirty, Ugly, Noisy, Crazy, Oppress, Violent, Behead, Horror, War, Boom, Politic, Womanizing, Pedophilia, Polygamy, Fanatic, Evil, Terrorist
written by bundypig , April 08, 2012
things I found out through reading hadith about the great prophet...

Abu-Dawud Book 1, Number 14: Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: When the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) wanted to relieve himself, he would not raise his garment, until he lowered himself near the ground.

Abu-Dawud Book 1, Number 22: Narrated Amr ibn al-'As: AbdurRahman ibn Hasanah reported: I and Amr ibn al-'As went to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He came out with a leather shield (in his hand). He covered himself with it and urinated. Then we said: Look at him. He is urinating as a woman does.........

Abu-Dawud Book 1, Number 6: Narrated Zayd ibn Arqam: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: These privies are frequented by the jinns and devils. So when anyone amongst you goes there, he should say: "I seek refuge in Allah from male and female devils."

Abu-Dawud Book 1, Number 40: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When any of you goes to relieve himself, he should take with him three stones to cleans himself, for they will be enough for him.

what a joke this man was, and to think that over a bilion people believe him surely makes you wonder what inbreeding does to a group mentality
To Someone
written by Archpagan , April 08, 2012
Before trying to convince us try to brush up your English first; poor lad/lass. What you wanted to say is that characteristic feature of a prophet is enmity from his fellow-men. If so, all apostates from Islam should be called prophets! I am a hardcore pagan/Hindu. So, I have no gospel please.
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 08, 2012
When the Prophet Muhammad's Hijrah to Madinah a lot of people who converted to Islam makkah flee to Medina, then their families are in makkah asked the Prophet Muhammad in order to restore those who have converted to Islam in order to return to Makkah, the Prophet Muhammad allowed them again to makkah. This morality of the prophet Muhammad. no prophet Muhammad to kill them.
Where do you find such information? Quote a Sahi hadith, original Sira or the Quran as your sources. Else such lies will deleted out.
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 08, 2012
You have not read my article for sure. then you will know that verse 4:137 does not talk about apostates. Read also next verse 4:138 to see that it talks about the "hypocrites". You may also refer to Ibn Kathir's Tafseer of verse 4:137-38 to understand whom this verse addresses.

You are repeating the lies and deceptions of scholar Hasan Mahmud and his likes, which I have exposed in this article.
Mr khan
written by Rzq , April 08, 2012
You got any rebuttals for me???
We both know I'm right!
written by Salladin , April 08, 2012
You're lost completely someone. Who told you that Muhammad is from Paran mountains or whatever. Where do you get these stories. Is this what they believe in Indonesia? Jee! You haven't told a single interesting thing so far. It's all rubbish, sorry to put it this way. Muhammad is one of the hashim clan wich is one of the quraish family. Muhammad is Quraish and his nephew Ummaya was his enemy who in the end won the war and that's why Ummayad's were the boss (historical) and after them the Abbasids. Now you're following what the ommayad's and abassids constructed long time after Muhammad was gone and believe you're following Muhammad. Why do you think Uthman was killed and by whom? Learn the early islamic history first, cause it seemes muslims do not know the written facts. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it is surely what is written by muslims themselfes.
written by Salladin , April 08, 2012
When Muhammad died many muslims went back to their former religion (christian and jews). Abu bakr then fought against those who were muslims and left. Ridda wars speaks volumes and there were three in total in the 7th century and all after Muhammad. Both sides claimed to follow allah and called the other kafir. Who is right and who is right? the one who won like always are the ones who write history. But it doesn't really say a bit about the truth. Muslims fell for this and believe they are following God/Allah. It's their right, but is it true because they claim they follow Allah and that the rest are kuffar? ofcourse not, but they are not guuided so they will never know this divine truth.
written by Malem , April 09, 2012
But you said in earlier posts he didnt exist, now you say he did exist! Ok so at leat you proved your own question incorrectly correct......
written by Salladin , April 09, 2012
Playing a fools game uh. Bukhari said Muhammad married a girl who was 9 years old. He was 52/53 years old. You said you're a muslim and muslims believe this. Muslims believe the sahih hadith. Why don't you believe it Malem? and why do you call yourself a muslim? You're not according to the majority. So you are a kafir correct.....
written by Malem , April 09, 2012
I corrected you and other earler but here we go again. READ the Quran, that means pick it up , open it and read it. You will see that ir prohibits anything but the Quran. Allah put all in the Quran and there is no need for man to invent anything to help it. I do want to thank you though for proving the existince of Muhammed, it helps me with my discussion with you, since you are now answering your own questions.
@ Mr Khan
written by Muslim and proud , April 09, 2012
Let's put your "credibility" to the test:

5) Verse 4:89, the decisive verse for dealing with the apostates of Islam

Mr Khan, did you even bother to read 4:90.4:91 and 4:92?

Allow me to educate you, again.....

(4:89) They wish that you should disbelieve just as they disbelieved so that you may all be alike. Do not, therefore, take from them allies until they emigrate in the way of Allah, but if they turn their backs (on emigration), seize them and slay them wherever you come upon them. Take none of them for your ally or helper,

(4:90) unless it be such of them who seek refuge with a people who are joined with you by a covenant, or those who come to you because their hearts shrink from fighting either against you or against their own people. Had Allah so willed, He would certainly have given them power over you and they would have fought against you. If they leave you alone and do not fight against you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them.

(4:91) You will also find others who wish to be secure from you, and secure from their people, but who, whenever they have any opportunity to cause mischief, plunge into it headlong. If such people neither leave you alone nor offer you peace nor restrain their hands from hurting you, then seize them and slay them wherever you come upon them. It is against these that We have granted you a clear sanction.

Read all 3 verses above carefully with your eyes open.
@ M & P
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 09, 2012
The meaning of verses 4:88-89 has been explained, which is self-explanatory and crystal clear. Addition of verses 4:90-91 doesn't change anything.
written by Salladin , April 10, 2012
Correcting me? Malem Malem Malem. How could i be corrected by someoe who is not a muslim and has nothing to offer except telling others that muslims are not real muslims because of believing in hadith and sira's. You're not considered a muslim by your own brothers Malem. Muhammad cannot be prooven Malem wich is a fact. I don't care if he existed or not, it's not my messenger but yours. You never tell something substantial. You have to convince muslims of your view, not me. I wonder why you're telling "kuffar" that hadith and sira's are not true. Are you ashamed Malem? I would be if i was a muslim.
written by malem , April 10, 2012
Yes I corrected you as you were in error. I do not tell anyone they are not or that they are muslim, that is for them to determine. I was ASKED about Sharia etc. I pointed out Allah in the Quran prohibits anything but the Quran, period. That is not my opinion it is the word of Allah, there is no higher authority, not even you Salad. You proved Muhammed and do it constantly. By referencing him, by questioning him, by blaiming him for certain acts your are proving he must exist and for that all the Muslims thank you for helping the argument.
written by someone , April 10, 2012
written by Editor, M A Khan, April 08, 2012
When the Prophet Muhammad's Hijrah to Madinah a lot of people who converted to Islam makkah flee to Medina, then their families are in makkah asked the Prophet Muhammad in order to restore those who have converted to Islam in order to return to Makkah, the Prophet Muhammad allowed them again to makkah. This morality of the prophet Muhammad. no prophet Muhammad to kill them.
Where do you find such information? Quote a Sahi hadith, original Sira or the Quran as your sources. Else such lies will deleted out.

MA Khan, you can read (download) Story of Sahabah in the book written by Muhammad Zakaria charity fadhail al kandahlawi (experts of hadith and Quran hafiz juz 30) or the Story of Sahabah written by maulana muhammad yusuf al kandahlawi.
MA Khan
written by someone , April 10, 2012
3. The Truce of Hudeybiah and Story of Hadhrat Abu
Jandal and Hadhrat Abu Basir (Radhiyallaho anhuma)
In the 6th year of Hijrah, the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe
wasallam) along with his companions left for Mecca to perform
Umrah. The Qureysh heard of the news and decided
to resist his entry into Mecca even as a pilgrim, and so he
had to encamp at Hudeybiah. The devoted Sahabah, 1 400
in number, were however determined to enter, even if it
involwd an open fight; but the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe
wasallam) viewed the matter differently and in spite of the
Sahabah's eagerness to fight, entered into a treaty with the
Qureysh, accepting their conditions in full.
This one-sided and seemingly ungraceful truce was a
very bitter pill for the Sahabah to swallow, but their devotion
to the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe wasallam) would not
allow them to demur, and even the most valiant man like
Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallaho anho) could not but submit to
his decision. According to one of the articles of the treaty,
converts to Islam during the period of the truce were to be
returned, but not so the deserters from Muslims to
Hadhrat Abu Jandal (Radhiyallaho anho) a Muslim in
Mecca, was suffering great persecution at the hands of
Qureysh. They kept him constantly in chains. On hearing
about the arrival of the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe wasallam)
in Hudeybiah, he escaped somehow and managed to
reach the Muslim camp at a time when the truce was about
to be signed. His father, Suhail (till then a non-Muslim)
was the envoy of Qureysh in the negotiations for the truce.
He smote Hadhrat Abu Jandal (Radhiyallaho anho) on his
face and insisted on taking him back to Mecca. The Prophet
(Sallallaho alaihe wasallam) represented that, since the
truce had not till then been written, its application in Abu
Jandal's case was premature. Suhail, however, would not
listen to any argument and was not inclined to leave his
20 Stories of the Sahaabah
written by Salladin , April 10, 2012
I pointed out Allah in the Quran prohibits anything but the Quran, period.

Yes, you allready said that. And yes Ulama's and all kind of experts of islam do not agree with you. I'm not going to listen to one individual who makes his own islam. Your argumant is with the majority of muslims. How come you don't understand this simple fact. The rituals of prayers are not explained in qur'an but nearly every muslim prayes the same way. Where did they get this idea?
Salladin is right even i do not agree with him in total!
written by Sunni Muslim , April 10, 2012
I'am a sunni muslims and this is what i think is the summary of islam has been since ages.

The Holy Quran remains the Primary source of legislation, the Hadiths/Sunnahs is the second layer/source of legislation, whilst the Edicts are the third layer/source of legislation. For further information, the hadiths are actual sayings and acts of the Prophet Muhammad,pbuh, which are inspired by Allah SWT!

So, if a Muslim were to accept only the Quran for sole reference & reject the Hadiths and the edicts, he no longer can call himself a Sunni Muslim.

The Quran-only movement is not that widespread yet. The followers are mostly those who question the verity of the various hadiths and traditions of the Prophet. But they fail to realise that the Quran doesn't really teach them how to perform (in detail) your daily solat or prayer, your Ramadhan fasting, the zakat or tithe, the marriage rituals, etc. These are then explained through the hadiths or sunnahs.
Apostates are traitors to dar al-Islam
written by Yibel , April 11, 2012
Islam is a political entity, a totalitarian system that is all encompassing. Every aspect of one's life is subjected to rules/laws that cannot be changed. The worship of a blood-thirsty pagan stone god whose every whim must be obeyed

Shari'ah law ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2) o2.4
"...The following are NOT subject to retaliation:
"Muslim for killing a non-Muslim" or a "Jewish or Christian subject" ... "FOR KILLING AN APOSTATE" and "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring"

Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The BLOOD of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (APOSTATE) and leaves the Muslims."

In Muhammad's words: "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and SLAUGHTER as we SLAUGHTER, then their BLOOD and PROPERTY will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them..." (Bukhari 8:387)

In addition, the importance of holy war (jihad) in Islamic teaching takes precedence over other religious activities. Mohammed taught that acting as a SOLDIER of Allah is as good as if one perpetually "observes fasts" and "stands in devotion" every night. While Islamic teachers in the West will play up the Muslim duty of zakat, the giving of alms to the poor, the ahadith teach that giving of one's wealth to support jihad earns even greater rewards.

"He who supplies provisions (to mujahids) in Allah's path and stays at home is entitled to seven hundred dirhams for each dirham (spent in Allah's cause) and he who himself fights in Allah's path and spends (money) for the same cause, is entitled to get for every dirham (the reward of) seventy thousand dinars." And "He who kills (a person in jihad) is entitled to his belongings."
Want something that a non-believer has? Just get out your sword (or AK-47), wage jihad, and take it! Nevermind those laws of God like, "..thou shalt not murder....thou shalt not steal....thou shalt not covet..." (Exodus 20:13,15,17)
written by Rzq , April 11, 2012
Pathetic! This guy is copying Spencer's argument about honour killing.
Here is the rebuttal:

In a pathetic attempt to prove Islam sanctions honor killings, the loons have dredged up  ”Reliance of the Traveller,” a classical manual for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence written over 600 years ago. A convoluted interpretation of select passages has gone viral, and is now routinely cited on the pages of hate sites and in comments on numerous articles related to honor killing.
Yibel quotes a section of The Traveller says certain crimes, including the killing of one’s offspring, are not subject to retaliation, implying Muslim parents have a free pass to murder their children under Islamic Law, which is a bold faced LIE. Retaliation is a form of reciprocal justice, lex talionis, commonly known as “an eye for an eye.”
A crime that is not subject to retaliation can still be punished by other means. Restrictions on reciprocal justice in the Qur’an were meant to reduce blood feuds and the cycle of vengeance. The concept of retaliation is also found in Jewish and Christian scriptures, and like honor killing, traces back to the ancient Code of Hammurabi.
Even if The Traveller sanctioned honor killing (which it doesn’t), it would be the interpretation of one Islamic cleric who lived centuries ago, and not a formal part of Islamic Law. Sharia is drawn primarily from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and neither sanctions honor killing.
written by Rzq , April 11, 2012
The Qur’an  forbids the killing of children, expressly in 6:151 and 60:12, and implicitly in 2:49, 7:127, 7:141, 14:6, 28:4, and 40:25. 
Compare that to the bible
In fact, numerous verses in the Bible recount the killing of children, and stipulate harsh punishments, including the death penalty. The following is not a comprehensive list:
Exodus 21:17
17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
Leviticus Chapters 20 and 21 also stipulate harsh punishments for dishonoring parents and committing adultery:
Leviticus 20:9-13
9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Leviticus 21:9
9 If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.
Deuteronommy (13:6-10) says if your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” … You must stone him or her to death. Death by stoning is also the punishment stipulated for a “stubborn and rebellious” son in 21:18-21.
In Judges (11:30-40), Jephthah killed his young daughter (and only child) by burning her alive to fulfill his vow to God, in exchange for a victory in battle.
In 2 Kings (2:23-25), when youngsters made fun of the Prophet Elisha’s bald head, he called down a curse “in the name of the Lord,”and two bears came out of the woods and tore 42 of the youths to pieces.
written by Rzq , April 11, 2012
Stick to drinking fire water!!!
written by Malem , April 11, 2012
Will you at some time list the verse in the Quran that states as you quoted "just kill them"?
written by Rzq , April 11, 2012
Don't hold your breath!
Everytime his lies get caught out he goes walk about for a few days.
But you can hope ......
Quite odd
written by Malem , April 11, 2012
I got replies to the other posts quickly, this one however nothing. I guess jsut reposting the same false information is easy to do, but difficult to defend.
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 11, 2012
You should know that the Hudaibiyah treaty had a condition that during it's duration, if any Quraish join Muhammad's camp -- Muhammad have to return them to their family. After the treaty, one or two Quraish fled from Mecca and joined Muhammad in Medina. When the Quraish sent representatives to Muhammad for taking them back, according to condition of the treaty, Muhammad refused to return them -- and thereby broke the treaty.
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 11, 2012
I got replies to the other posts quickly, this one however nothing. I guess jsut reposting the same false information is easy to do, but difficult to defend.
Are you referring to me, because I didn't reply to your query:
Can you point out the place with the Quran says "Just Kill Them" as you put in quotes, as I cannot find it anywhere.

I advise my readers, which you have certainly noticed, to ignore some the commenters on this board. You are not excluded from that group.

When a verse mentions daughters, you quickly see that it means granddaughters, great granddaughter and more, however idiotic it may. But your mind won't work in similar way when a verse say, "but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them", which simply means just kill the apostates -- nothing less. One even doesn't need to think to realize that's exactly what it means.

To remind you: if you next time see that I didn't respond to one of your particular comment, it is because the comment was too stupid and didn't want to embarrass you as much as I didn't want to waste my time.
written by MALEM , April 12, 2012
Are the guidlines of posting (i.e. not insulting others etc..) just applied to those presenting opposing views? I ponder that after being called stupid in your reply. As you stated above you inserted your own interpretation and opinion in the above article. I must also add that it says no where in the Quran, what you put in quotes so that assertion would be false. In terms of the previous verse of 4:88, the hypocrits in this case are the people whom falsely stated they were Muslims in order to bring harm to Muhammed and the followers of Islam. When one presents a false claim of being with you, and in turn uses that to bring harm to you, they would likely be considered soemthing like a spy and be dealt with accordingly. Remember there is no compulsion in Islam, that is actually IN the Quran, unlike the quote you made up. Hope I did nto embarrass you as that was not my intent, nor is it to call you any names
I don't call you or anybody "stupid"
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 13, 2012
Don't repeat that accusation again. I don't do that.

In another post, I gave a definition of what would require one to be a stupid. If you can refute my definition, I will withdraw it with an apology, which I have promised.

If my definition is correct, then I have nothing to say any more. And I won't tolerate anybody of accusing me of calling anybody stupid, which I didn't.
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 13, 2012
I must also add that it says no where in the Quran, what you put in quotes so that assertion would be false. In terms of the previous verse of 4:88, the hypocrits in this case are the people whom falsely stated they were Muslims in order to bring harm to Muhammed and the followers of Islam.
There is no such thing as harming Muhammad in those verses:
4:88: How is it with you that there are two opinions among you concerning the hypocrites, whereas Allah has turned them back (to their former state) because of the evils they have earned? Do you desire to show guidance to him whom Allah has let go astray? You cannot find a path for him whom Allah has turned away from the right path.
4:89: They really wish that you should also become disbelievers, as they themselves are so that both may become alike. So you should not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not migrate, then seize them wherever you find them and slay them and do not take any of them as friends and helpers.
These verses say, Allah sent some people stray from Islam, and they wish that other Muslims will also be like them. And just for this, they are commanded to be killed. Insinuating anything other than this will amount to lying and deceiving, aka holy Islamic taqiyah.
editing note
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 13, 2012
I did some editing of this essay, to remove speculation about verse 4:88-91, which makes the article stronger and concise.

As a result, some of the comments concerning that deleted part of the essay became irrelevant. Those comments were removed to keep consistency with the current article.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

Last Updated on Saturday, 14 April 2012 05:09  

About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy