Talk:Apostasy in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Advice: When editting this article think of No true Scotsman. If you are not getting the message of that or wish to portray a point of view that oversimplifies as such cite a source. gren 09:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Make sure to keep these up to date with the best of information from here noting how long each of them should be. We do not want to flood any of those pages with information from here and I made this page because it does deserve to have a decent length. gren 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I believe this article has a horrible point of view. To give it any validity cite sources referring to the Sunni madhhabs, Shia Imams declarations (and a link to how their power is derrived), cite views from Liberal movements within Islam. Also cite the Qur'an sura 2, ayat 256 "no compulsion" to make the argument as many have done that it is not a punishable offense. But, do not just make this article a laundry list of what the author thinks counts as shirk and not have any reputable source to back it up.... and please, get legitimate sources, online is not the best means for this. gren 03:09, 20 Apr 2005 (GMT)

I disagree with this evaluation. While some sentences could be reworded, the factual content is generally correct. Citing sources in English is on the whole difficult, because much of the relevant literature has not been translated from Arabic for the simple reason that any reputed jurisprudent would have to be fluent in Arabic anyway. However, it is significant that the penalty of death for (unrecanted) apostasy is common to the four major schools of Sunni law (Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali), and to Shia law. It may be Politically Correct to disbelieve this, but no one to date has been able to provide evidence that these schools disagree on this particular issue. rudra 04:11, 05 Aug 2005 (GMT)

On further reflection, I think there is a different problem with the section on penalties. It fails to distinguish between penalties according to Sharia, and penalties according to civil/criminal codes, which practically all nation states have. The actual practice in countries which declare themselves Islamic is often a mixture, where not all legislated codes are derived from Sharia sources. The term "traditional society" in the article thus blurs the distinction seriously. Penalties according to the maddhabs, as representative of the traditional or orthodox viewpoint, are facts which can be stated and verified. So can legislation in Islamic countries. But they should probably be treated in separate paragraphs, with some material to indicate that a distinction exists. rudra 05:41:02, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV / apostate as contestable word

The very word, 'apostate' has a pejorative connotation. Are we falling into the language of critics of dissidents within Islam by using the word 'apostate'?

No i do not, we are not labeling these people this, we are reporting what is happening to people who get labeled this.Hypnosadist 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly Relevant Qur'an

  • Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path. Al-Baqarah, 256.
  • Those who blasphemed and back away from the ways of Allah and die as blasphemers, Allah shall not forgive them. An-Nisa, 48.
  • Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path. An-Nisa, 137.
  • So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them capitive and besiege them and like in wait for them in every ambush At-Tawba, 5.
Note: In context they speak of a specific group. Relatively crappy page with some relevant quotes

[edit] Sources to mention

If you can gather information from any of these sources with good citations that would be very helpful.
  • Direct Qur'an quotes (those who just quote Al-Baqarah 256... ? or does that go into liberal...)
  • Direct hadith quotes (denote whether commonly accepted by Sunni or Shia, etc. - if there is a context give it)
  • Sunni madhhab rulings (Hanafi, Shafi, etc.) - Hudud crime? but not always (depends on school/judge)... because there is so much depth involved. Chances to repent, etc. all must be discussed for balance and therefore reserach galore... if anyone has good sources.
  • Shia rulings... (no idea..)
  • Various sects throughout histor; Mu'tazili, Ashari, Ahmadi, etc.
  • Liberal sects of modernity.
One easily accessible source of law according to the Shafi'i school is The Reliance of the Traveller by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Masri, translated with an introduction and subject index by Nuh Ha Mim Keller.rudra
The following are usually the texts that give the Islamic laws on Apostasy. These are available in translations. The key parts of these are also available on the net. I will try to track down the URL.
  • Ahmad ibn Naqib, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.
  • Imam Ibn Anas Malik, Al-Muwatta: The First Formulation of Islamic Law.
  • Rahman Doi, Shar'ah: The Islamic Law.
  • Alhaji Ajijola, Introduction to Islamic Law
  • Adbul 'Oudah, Criminal Law of Islam, Volume II.
  • Adbul 'Oudah, Criminal Law of Islam, Volume IV.
  • Mohamed El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law: A Comparative Study.

And then ofcourse the hadees by the various scholars: Al-Bukhari,Imam Muslim,Imam Abu Dawud, Ibn-I-Maja. Nickbee 05:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

[edit] "Defined"

I think there is a danger in saying "apostasy in Islam is defined as" because, as far as I know there is no definition... and if there it it would be in the form of a Qur'anic quote. Apostasy in itself means rejecting ones faith and people have various perception on what constitutes rejection. To some it may only be when you deny it in your own words and to others it can be acting in a way deemed "incongruous with Islam". We must not portray Islam to be monolithic because there is great variance in thought... not only among different sects, but among individuals. By the same token Islam does not define sharia, people define it for certain schools... my POSC teacher talked about "sharia law says" and we must first find out which school of sharia (if any) you follow before such a statement can be made. The same goes for apostasy since it, and its consequent punishment (or lack thereof) is defined by what school of belief you follow. gren 07:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Reliance of the Traveller

The Subject Index in Keller's translation has the following entries:

Apostasy (ridda), o8.0-7

  • acts which constitute (see Unbelief)
  • consequences of committing (see Apostates)
  • insanity as an excuse for, k13.1

Apostates

  • annulment of marriage of, m7.4, m8.7, o8.6
  • execution for unbelief, f1.3, o8.2
  • killing, no expiation for, o5.4, o8.4
  • --, no indemnity (diya) for, o4.17, o8.4
  • --, permissibility of, e12.8
  • --, no retaliation (qisas) for, o1.2(3)
  • make up missed fast-days after returning to Islam, i1.3(3)
  • make up missed prayers after returning to Islam, f1.1
  • meat slaughtered by, j17.2
  • Muslim marriages with, unlawfulness of, m6.7
  • zakat due from, h1.2

The index entry for Unbelief is large. Section o8.7, titled "Acts That Entail Leaving Islam", enumerates 20 specific cases, and ends with "There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it." rudra 04:33, 05 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Here is the section from Keller's book (page 595):

o8.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)

(O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, "Trim your nails, it is sunna," and he replies, "I would not do it even if it were," as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.) o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to he killed. o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. o8.3 It he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties). o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die). o8.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: o8.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17). o8.6 (A: If a spouse in a consummated marriage apostatizes from Islam, the couple are separated for a waiting period consisting of three intervals between menstruations. If the spouse returns to Islam before the waiting period ends, the marriage is not annulled but is considered to have continued the whole time (dis: m7.4).)

ACTS THAT ENTAIL LEAVING ISLAM

o8.7 (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

(1) to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah; (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief; (3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as "Allah is the third of three," or "I am Allah — unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:))), for these latter do not entail unbelief; (4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace); (5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1); (6) to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat; (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it; (8) to mockingly say, "I don't know what faith is"; (9) to reply to someone who says, "There is no power or strength save through Allah": "Your saying 'There's no power or strength, etc.' won't save you from hunger"; (10) for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, "This is through the decree of Allah," to reply, "I act without the decree of Allah"; (11) to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also "kafir"); (12) when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, "La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah" (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah)), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it; (13) to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr); (14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma', def: b7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4); (15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: 'Ala' al-Din 'Abidin adds the following:

(16) to revile the religion of Islam; (17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah; (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens; (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-'Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24).)

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.) — Nickbee 05:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

[edit] Non-Traditional

Mu'tazilite and Liberal movements within Islam seem to be rather related to Sunni Islam... however should they be put under the Sunni section? They are not the classical viewpoints of Sunni Islam but they are related... or should they go in a section about "others"? I am not sure how to deal with any of this... but we must show what various groups believe because Islam itself does not have an exact answer. We can cite Qur'an at the top for a basis of what the Qur'an says and that could not fit into a section but to cite hadith (which is commonly done) has to be separated into Sunni and Shia because they accept other hadith. Some reject hadith some of the traditional hadith... but, are they considered Sunni? gren 07:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion versus science

What about cases where modern scientific discovery contradicts the Koran?, e.g.:-

  • The Koran (and the Christian Bible) have creation timetables, but the modern geological timetable and the astronomical universe history say otherwise.
  • The Koran says that the embryo in the womb develops from a bloodclot, but modern embryology says otherwise.
  • The Koran (and the Bible) says that Man and the animals were created, but the modern discovery of evolution says otherwise.

Anthony Appleyard 06:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The Quran has no creation timetables as in Bible . According to Quran , the universe was created in 6 epochs or 6 events , not in 6 days . & universe isnt 7000 years old . And there is no such thing as a geocentric model of Universe described in Quran
  • ITs not blood clot , its translated as a leach like clinging mass .
  • Quran says Humans were created . About animals , Quran says nothing . Evolution ( excluding humans ) is not against Islam Farhansher 21:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC).

Made some modifications , added Quranic verses , deleted some incorrect information , added a fatwa link .Farhansher 21:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan?

Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death.

It doesn't make it clear whether apostasy itself is punishable by death in Pakistan or not. It appears as if only blashphemy is punishable but the use of the word "also" suggests apostasy is punishable too. What is correct? If the law is unclear, or if there is any controversy in Pakistan, then the article should say so.

lets you loose sleep over it.... the laws in pakistan say nothing if some one abandons his faith (by faith i mean islam)... because its felt that such a pathology is extremely improbable.

however, there are those who openly claim to be atheists like dr. pervez hodhbhoy etc. and have an almost quasi-celeberity status... in these however, it is presumed that they never were Muslims at any point in their life.

Other groups like the Ahmedis and Mirzais purporting to be Muslims were declared outside as outside of Islam in the constiution long ago.

[edit] Nickbee's edits

I'm not sure it's differentiating from the disbelief (kufr as you mention) and apostasy (irtidad)... which are different. Your paragraph didn't make it clear where the Mawdudi quote came from... so it was a little confusing to me. Your quotes for the Afzal ur-Rahman section seem to be hanging... you have to start sentence quotes but don't close them off. If you could clean that up some that'd be good since I don't have the sources. It could probably be made more compact since it does go talking about just plain kafirs often. And, the hanging Qur'an quotes... are they used by the people?

As for "parallels in some other religious systems" -- many traditions have had apostasy laws of some sort. That is the parallel. Rreading apostasy will show some of the parallels. gren グレン 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In all the fiqh, apostasy, blasphemy, and heresy are linked under "Kufr". Irtidad is a Hadd offence while the other two are ta'zir offences. Maududi is specifically talking about irtidad in that passage and not disblief. I have tried to clean it up according to your suggestion. Thank you for correcting some of my typos and punctuation. I have to figure out the editing here and writing first in an editor offline first. I will learn as fast as I can. I have to see how to quote the online sources and how to qoute the books. Different pages seem to have slightly different styles. The Maududi quote is from The punishment of the apostate according to Islamic Law by Abul Ala Maududi. Translated by Dr. Ernest Hahn 1994. Nickbee 04:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

Simple kufr is not apostasy and that is what I was questioning. What you wrote says, 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, which leads me to believe they weren't Muslim in the first place which just makes the unbelievers and not apostates. At the end it talks about apostasy but, it states [h]ere "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants" which through me off a little... is that what the book says? Only half of it is a quote. Hmm, were you "209.76.108.207" -- someone reverted that as vandalism... and, it surely wasn't vandalism. In any case, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Cite_sources which, I really need to read too... it will make any citations you do go more smoothly (and with footnotes too). I still think your quote needs a little cleaning up... I'm just not exactly sure how. gren グレン 06:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I tried inserting the URL link to the copy of the translation that I found on line. The whole point of the entire quote is to show that the "convenent breaking" according to Maududi can only mean apostates. Thank you for the cite_sources link. Nickbee 17:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

Consistency in spelling could be helpful. Mawdudi, Maudoodi and Maududi can be found on the net, and none is obviously wrong. If Google hits were a criterion, Maududi wins. rudra 05:17:05, 2005-08-06 (UTC)


I tried making the introduction more direct and took out the verses of the Quran (although their references are still there) because 1) they are redily available and 2)they were not complete verses from recognized translations. I do have a question about the remark in the paranthesis about "whom God loves" and who love God fighting to protect their beliefs and hence punishing apostates: If this is from the Quran, then a reference would be nice. If it is not from the Quran, then it should not be given as it is and should be changed.

Nickbee 17:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Parentheses in translations of the Quran are the same as italics in the Bible: they indicate words or phrases interpolated to complete the meaning in the translation language, but which do not correspond to actual words in the original text. rudra 01:49:50, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

[edit] Starting on the Penalty of Apostasy Section: Please offer suggestions

Below is my attempt at starting the section on the Penalty for Apostasy in Islam. I would like any suggestions and ideas. This section is difficult and will need work. After this section I think another section of example of recent apostates around the world and status of different countries should do for the page. Input?

Penalty for Apostasy in Islam.

There are many scholars who have unequivocally stated that the penalty of Apostasy in Islam is death. Dr. A. Rahman I. Doi in Shariah: The Islamic Law (A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998, p. 265-267) states, "The punishment by death in the case of apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisproudence". Alhaji Ajijola in Introduction to Islamic law ( International Islamic Publishers, New Delhi, India, 1989 p.128) states that Apostasy is a Hadd sentence and the penelty prescribed is death. Adbul Qadir Oudah, a prolific Egyptian Shari'a scholar in Criminal Law of Islam (Translated by S. Zakir Aijaz, Kitab Bhavan,New Delhi, India, 1999 (Improved edition), Volume II. p. 258-262; Volume IV. p. 19-21, ISBN: 81-7151-273-9 ) states that the view advocated by the jurists belonging to all the four madhabs of Islam is "According to the Shariah taking 'murtad's' life is an impunitive act or one exempt from punishment. Hence if some one kills him, he will not be deemed as wilfully guilty." The legal issue between the different schools being when a muslim can act against an apostate without the sanction of the organised state. In 'Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri's Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a (Vol. 5, pp.422-440) (Translated from the Arabic)First English Edition (Villach): 1997: the claim is "All four imams (the founders of the four schools of Islamic law) -- may Allah have mercy upon them -- agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt -- may Allah forbid it -- must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. The hypocrite and heretic (zindiq) who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed.


There are liberal scholars as well who have argued that Apostasy carries no earthly punishment and that the Quran only warns the apostates of punishments in the hereafter. S.A.Rahman,a former Cheif justice of Pakistan (Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986) ISBN:068618551X) examined and concluded that there was no death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Quran. Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed (Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam,Ashgate Publishing, (March 30, 2004),ISBN: 0754630838) argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam and with the modern concept of the freedom to choose one's religion. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment. Mirza Tahir Ahmed (Murder in the name of Allah, Lutterworth Press 1989, ISBN:0718828054), the spiritual leader of the Ahamdis, a self proclaimed muslim sect, but enforced into apostasy by being declared non-muslims in many muslim countries, concludes his book by "Apostasy which is not aggravated by some other crime is not punishable in this world. This is the teaching of God. This was the teaching of the Holy Prophet. This is the view confirmed by Hanafi jurists,26 Fateh al-Kadeer27 Chalpi,28 Hafiz ibn Qayyim, Ibrahim Nakhai, Sufyan Thauri and many others. The Maududian claim of consensus, concerning the tradition they hold to be true, is a mere fiction."

With the exception of a few muslim countries, notably Iran and Saudi Arabia, the modern muslim states are not founded on Islamic law. They owe their existence to a combination of European colonial policies and secular nationalist ideology. The majority have a written constitution and the laws it spells out are considered to be primary and to take precedence over all other laws including Sharia, Which means, in practice, that muslim countries aim to harmonize the laws of the modern constitutions and those bequeathed by the Islamic Sharia, by no means an easy task. A consequence of this is that the death penalty is rarely carried out today in most muslim countries, but there remains an overwhelming sense of outrage among many Muslims when another leaves Islam. An example of the need to reconcile the constitutional penal code with the Islamic Sharia is the infamous blasphemy laws of Pakistan. In 1980, under President Zia-ul-Haq’s leadership, the Federal Shariat Court was created and given jurisdiction to examine any existing law to ensure it was not repugnant to Islam [1] and in its early acts it passed ordinances included five that explicitly targeted religious minorities: a law against blasphemy; a law punishing the defiling of the Qur’an; a prohibition against insulting the wives, family, or companions of the Prophet of Islam; and two laws specifi-cally restricting the activities of Ahmadis, who were declared non-muslims.

Under traditional Islamic law (according to Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri's Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a i.e Apostasy in Islam according to the Four Schools of Islamic Law (Vol. 5, pp. 422-440) First English Edition (Villach): 1997) an apostate may be given upto three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. There are difference between the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the penalties with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and in the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between "Murtad Fitri", an apostate who was born of muslim parents, and "Murtad Milli", an apostate who had converted into islam initially. Some additional penalties and considerations that are mentioned are that a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatize, an under age apostate is imprisoned till he reaches maturity and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword. As mentioned earlier that these are rarely ever carried out in toto at present as examples of Apostasy give below show and also underline the problem in harmonizing the constitutional law and Islamic law in the various countries.

Examples of Apostasy in the recent past

To be continued.....

Continuation: Apostasy in the recent past

An accurate number of muslims rejecting Islam is currently impossible to obtain because the ex-muslims are very loath to reveal their apostasy even to friends and families because of fear of retribution and retaliation even when they are living in the west. The greatest threat to apostates in the Muslim world derives from private individuals who take punishment into their own hands, and states which are complict by their silence towards these individual crimes. An example among many is the case of a Bangladeshi Murtad Fitri Christian evangelist who was stabbed while returning home from a film version of the Gospel of Luke (When Muslims Convert by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross,Friday, March 04, 2005, Commentary Magazine 2005). Bangladesh does not have a law against apostasy, but apparently some muslims felt outraged enough to kill. There are reports of 200,000 muslims who have turned away from Islam in Britan alone, ( Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family by Anthony Browne), and facing abuse, violence, and even murder at the hands of their previous co-religionists. There are similar reports of violent intimidation of those electing to reject Islam in other western countries [2].

Apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Mauritania at present, In 1980 Pakistan incorporated into the penal code making any disparaging remark against any personality revered in Islam as an offence. In 1986 the law was extended to specifically include “Penal Code 295-C: Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. In October 1990, the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) ruled that “the penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet … is death and nothing else”. In their 1996 report on Pakistan Amenesty International stated that these laws have been extensively abused to harass members of the religious minorities such as Christians and Ahmadis and that "In all the cases known to Amnesty International, these charges have been arbitrarily brought, founded solely on the individual's minority religious beliefs or on malicious accusations against individuals of the Muslim majority who advocate novel ideas. The available evidence indicates that charges were brought as a measure to intimidate and punish members of minority religious communities or non-conforming members of the majority community and that the hostility towards minority groups appeared in many cases compounded by personal enmity, professional envy or economic rivalry or a desire to gain political advantage" [3] An example of the passions and the feelings of extreme outrage that are evoked within the muslim community is provided by Amenesty international's 2005 Report on Pakistan: Samuel Masih, a 27-year-old Christian, was arrested in August 2003 and charged with having thrown litter on the ground near a mosque in Lahore. This was deemed an offence under section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which provides up to two years’ imprisonment for defiling a place of worship. Samuel Masih was held in a Lahore prison but transferred to hospital in May, suffering from tuberculosis. He died after his police guard attacked him in the hospital. The police officer stated that he had done his “religious duty” [4]. Other examples of persecution of apostates converting to Christianity have been given by the Barnabas Fund ( Barnabas Fund: The Application of the Apostasy Law in the world today ) from Kuwait, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, and Bangladesh. Barnabas Fund report concludes: "The field of apostasy and blasphemy and related “crimes” is thus obviously a complex syndrome within all Muslim societies which touches a raw nerve and always arouses great emotional outbursts against the perceived acts of treason, betrayal and attacks on Islam and its honour. While there are a few brave dissenting voices within Muslim societies, the threat of the application of the apostasy and blasphemy laws against any who criticize its application is an efficient weapon used to intimidate opponents, silence criticism, punish rivals, reject innovations and reform, and keep non-Muslim communities in their place." Similar views are expressed by the 'non-religious' International Humanist and Ethical Union (See: The fate of Infidels and Apostates under Islam).


What are the reasons given for the Death penalty for Apostasy?


Nickbee 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

[edit] Starting Justifications of the Death Penalty.

Explanations for the death penalty.

Many of the reasons for the death penalty for apostates given by Islamic scholars are examined by Abu Ala Maududi The punishment of the apostate according to Islamic law and he summarises the most likely objections against the executions of the apostates as:

  • This idea is against the freedom of conscience. How can it be right to offer an apostate the gallows when he has decided to leave Islam?
  • A faith which people maintain because of the fear of death cannot be genuine faith. This faith will be manifestly hypocritical chosen to deceive in order to save one's life.
  • If all religions approve of execution for apostasy, it will be difficult not only for Muslims to embrace another religion but also for non-muslims to embrace Islam.
  • It is contradictory to say on one hand "There is no compulsion in religion (Quran 2:256)" and "Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve (Quran 18:30)", and on the other to threaten to punish by death who renounces Islam and moves to reject Islam.

Maududi claims that the misunderstaning and criticism arises because of a "fundamental misconception" about Islam. He states, "If Islam is truly a "religion" in the sense that religion is understood at present, surely it would be absurd to prescribe the penalty of execution for those people who wish to leave it because of their dissatisfaction with its principles." and "It is not only a "religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true ordering of life before death." Maududi is reiterating the claim of "Deen" in that Islam is a complete way of life which includes all matters relating to the functioning of a State as well as matters relating to individual conscience. It is because Islam incorporates within its realm the responsibilites of an organsied state that it treats muslims as members of an organsied state and apostates as traitors. Maududi considers the threat of execution as not forcing someone to stay within the fold of Islam but as a way of keeping those who are not truly committed, out of the community of Islam. Maududi rejects the third criticism because unlike other religions which are free to exchange beleivers, Islam is "on whose ideas and actions society and state are constructed" cannot allow "to keep open its door that would spell its own ruin, the scattering of its own structure's parts, the stripping away of the bonds of its own existence". Maududi also rejects the charge of contradiction. In his words: "There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an 2:256) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion.[2] And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.

Essentially the same arguments are skected by the Shi'i Islamic author Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi in the brief article Apostacy (Irtidad) in Islam, relying upon the opinions of some of the earlier scholars of Islam. Since the Muslims ascribing to the liberal movements within Islam disagree that death penalty is an appropriate punishment for Apostasy, it makes little sense for them to offer reasons justifying the death penalty. Nickbee 18:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Nick, you can't just add in long quotes. You have to summarize. I tried to do that but Karl Meier here just blindly reverts and stalks me. I'm going to bring in some other people on thisHeraclius 16:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that you should make any false accusations about me stalking you. It was only a matter of hours after I edited Ma malakat aymanukum, (an article that you have never edited before) before you showed up and reverted my edit. Also, there is nothing wrong with me opposing your drive by reverts. I think, most editors would agree to that. Or maybe, would you like that I start an RfC regarding these issues? -- Karl Meier 17:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit, I merely made it more accurate. You can keep calling my reverts "drive-by" but honestly no one knows what you mean by that. This article has too many long quotes and I tried to summarize it. Threatening me with an RfC is just changing the subject and avoiding the conflict here.Heraclius 17:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think people know what that is. It's the unexplained PoV reverts, that you make much too many of. And I see that you have also started calling people (such as Nickbee) strange names... An RfC sure seems warranted to me... Anyway regarding the Ma malakat aymanukum article, it's not your latest edit I am talking about. It was your first. -- Karl Meier 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I called Nickbee Nick the Socialist because that's the name I know him by on another website. I have no idea how you can describe that as a personal attack, and believe me no one would buy it. Once again, you can threaten me with an RfC and get all your SIIEG member friends to sign it but there is little to no evidence for one. G'day.Heraclius 17:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not know you from any other website. I considered it a personal attack, and I chose to ignore your juvenile behavior. You called me Nickbee the socialist from FFI. I checked and there is no nickbee at FFI.

Why don't you tell me what your problem is with quotes first. I think quoting here is appropriate.

  • I have read wiki's policy and I don't see that the quoting is against wiki's policy.
  • I have put the article up and asked for suggestions and modifications before it even appeared on the page.
  • I have incorporated changes that people have suggested, and I am not averse to making changes that you think should be made, but please talk first.
  • I will go through the changes you have made and I will incorporate the ones that I agree with and the rest we should discuss, before you start threatening and reverting whole sale. Nickbee 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

To get the ball rolling.

[edit] Revision of 4:01, 16 August 2005

Heraclius, your revision of 4:01, 16 August 2005. My statement is backed by the scholars I had quoted who said that the four fiqh agreed about the death penalty. I have cited them making that statement. What is your source for making the claim whether the different fiqh had disagreement about it. The only disagreement has been whether women apostates need be killed or imprisoned for life or till they recanted. So please provide a source that supports your claim. Nickbee 20:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A better wording seems to be that there is no consensus on the issue, but the death penalty for apostacy is a majority position in all fiqh - ie, being pro/contra death penalty doesn't depend on which school a scholar belongs to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.2.58 (talk • contribs) . (October 2, 2006)

[edit] Revision of 4:02, 16 August 2005

You have deleted all the secondary sources that are in print and put in your opinion. Why? The sources I provide are from books on Islamic law written by Islamic Jurists. What are your sources that support your claims. Nickbee 20:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of 4:07,16 August 2005

You have deleted information that makes it explicit what is the persecution that is taking place. Why do you object to those quotes and how does that contravene Wiki's policies? Nickbee 20:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Let's start with the first paragraph. Can you start by sourcing it? There needs to be a source that unambiguously states "all four fiqh agree about the death penalty punishment".Heraclius 01:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Dr. A. Rahman I. Doi in Shariah: The Islamic Law (A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998, p. 265-267) states, "The punishment by death in the case of apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisproudence". Alhaji Ajijola in Introduction to Islamic law ( International Islamic Publishers, New Delhi, India, 1989 p.128) states that Apostasy is a Hadd sentence and the penelty prescribed is death. Adbul Qadir Oudah, a prolific Egyptian Shari'a scholar in Criminal Law of Islam (Translated by S. Zakir Aijaz, Kitab Bhavan,New Delhi, India, 1999 (Improved edition), Volume II. p. 258-262; Volume IV. p. 19-21, ISBN: 81-7151-273-9 ) states that the view advocated by the jurists belonging to all the four madhabs of Islam is "According to the Shariah taking 'murtad's' life is an impunitive act or one exempt from punishment. Hence if some one kills him, he will not be deemed as wilfully guilty." The legal issue between the different schools being when a muslim can act against an apostate without the sanction of the organised state. In 'Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri's Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a (Vol. 5, pp.422-440) (Translated from the Arabic)First English Edition (Villach): 1997: the claim is "All four imams (the founders of the four schools of Islamic law) -- may Allah have mercy upon them -- agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt -- may Allah forbid it -- must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. The hypocrite and heretic (zindiq) who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed. Nickbee 02:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so attribute the claim to that one author. Don't just state it with no source.02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, I thought that was the summary section. It summarises what is in the page. The four references are in the page. It is the first paragraph of the penalty section. I think the references should go at the end of the page, then the reference in the summary can go in as in a footnote style, and do not have to be repeated again and again. I will work on that. Nickbee 02:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

[edit] Revision of 1:20, 17 August 2005

Heraclius, you have commented out the following: "There is no definition and consequent punishment that span all Islamic views but the concept of how to deal with apostasy is traditionally a matter of hudd under sharia law and varies over the different schools of thought throughout the history of Islam. Although there is a consensus in the four Fiqah (Schools of Jurisprudence) that an apostate should be killed, most muslim countries rarely carry out the death penalty at present. please source this"

Because it is not a random and large change, I am not reverting it in good faith so we can begin a conversation. This was there before I expanded and cleaned the page up. This is a summary section and hence the information should be in the rest of the page. The definition issue is dealt by showing the list of what qualified for the Shafi fiqh. These lists have changed over the years. There are different lists. At present Iran considers insult to Khomeni as blasphemy while Saudi law does not say anything about that. The jurists that I have mentioned have all said that apostasy is a matter hudd. That is how the Pakistani and Saudi Shariat Courts have defined it as well. The law books that I have quoted from Islamic jurists all state that the four Imam's agree that there should be death penalty. The rarity of the death penalty is stated by Amnesty international. So what exactly do you want sourced? Nickbee 01:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, from your comments above under the 4:07 revision, I take it you accept the sources and hence I have restored your commented out sentence. Nickbee 18:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of important information

I reverted Heracilius most recent changes to the "According to Quran" section, because they deleted some information that I think is important and interesting for the readers of this article. We should in my opinion not just mention the specific PoVs that important scholars have, but also why they hold these PoVs regarding this subject. To use their own words, where they explain why they hold these views, is in my opinion a excellent way to do that. -- Karl Meier 12:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia. That means writing in a concise, pithy way that gets to the point. I didn't delete any PoV's, I merely made them more concise and easy to understand/read. I did, in fact, also remove the long quote from the anti-death penalty author, so I am not just POV pushing and deleting information. The quotes from the authors are at the websites provided.Heraclius 15:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and inform the readers about the different important PoVs that exist. But it is also equally important to make our readers understand why these PoVs exist and what arguments they are based on. In your version we don't get any explanation of why Mr. Maududi "argued that Sura 9 verses 11 and 12 of the Quran sanction death for apostasy." and we don't get to know why Mr. Rahman concluded "that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter....". I really think the readers would appriciate some background information on these views. Such important information should in my opinion not be excluded just to make the article shorter. -- Karl Meier 16:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No heraclius you absolutely delete relevant information. Please support your claim on writing style by wiki policy pages. You do not make them concise. You censor views. There is much evidence to your selective editing and trying to impose your biased pov. Nickbee 15:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you're being a bit paranoid here. If I am indeed "censoring views", then I also censored the pro-Muslim view by cutting out that quote as well. I urge you to accept this style of writing. If you don't, then I guess I'm going to have to be forced to go your way and just add large, rambling quotes to every section.Heraclius 15:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
All right, have it your way. I guess it's time to add paragraphs and paragraphs of quotes.Heraclius 16:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Heraclius, why don't you answer Karl's point about how does one explain why Maududi argued that Sura 9 &11 advocate the death penalty? It is not rambling but appropriate quoting of the original so the reader gets to see the words of the original author as well. He then understands the context much better. So where does it say that showing the "why" of facts is against wiki policy. Please do not be destructive. Nickbee 16:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Calling me destructive is a personal attack. Nickbee, I am really trying to accomodate your POV here. If you truly want to include long, rambling quotes, then I guess I will have to do the same.Heraclius 16:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, please don't make any false allegations. Nickbee is simply asking you to abandon any kind of destructive behavior, and that is not a personal attack. -- Karl Meier 16:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No, he said "please don't be destructive". That poisons the mood and is a personal attack. I don't think anyone here is being "destructive".Heraclius 16:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Heraclius, please try to wrap up the objection on the Din page. I have posted suggestion there. I did post request for third opinion but no one has responded so far. What is the next step? Shall we call for an RFC for that page or mediation? Nickbee 17:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I have no more to say to you on the Din page. You just won't take no for an answer even when presented with Wiki policies that contradict your paragraphs. I have called for third opinions as well. You can place the article on RfC if you want and see if anyone responds, though I doubt many people will be interested.Heraclius 17:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am replying to the above on the Din page to keep the conversation about that page in one place. Nickbee 17:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Ibn Baz

Heraclius, here is a short bio of ibn Baz[5]: bu 'Abdullaah Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez ibn 'Abdullaah ibn 'Abdur-Rahmaan Aal-Baaz was born in the city of Riyadh in Dhul-Hijjah 1330 A.H./1909 C.E.

He memorized the Qur.aan in his early age and then he acquired knowledge from many of the great scholars of the Kingdom. Some of his teachers were Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Lateef Aal-Shaykh, Shaykh Saalih ibn 'Abdul-'Azeez Aal-Shaykh and the eminent Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem Aal-Shaykh who, in his time, was the Muftee of Saudi Arabia. Shaykh Ibn Baaz accompanied the eminent Shaykh and learned from him for about ten years. Thus he gained his religious education from the family of Imaam Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab.

Afterwards Shaykh Ibn Baaz was appointed as a Justice and he worked for fourteen years in the judiciary until he was deputed to the education faculty. He remained engaged in teaching for nine years at Riyadh Islaamic Law College, Riyadh Religious Institute. Then he was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Islaamic University, al-Madeenah; but shortly afterwards, he was made the Chancellor with all the administrative powers. Later he was appointed President of the General Presidency of Islaamic Research, Ifta, Call and Propagation, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

He held the position of Grand Muftee of Saudi Arabia, the Presidency of many Islaamic Committees and Councils, the prominent among these being: Senior Scholars Committee of the Kingdom, Permanent Committee for Islaamic Research and Fataawa, the Founding Committee of Muslim World League, World Supreme Council for Mosques, Islaamic Jurisprudence Assembly Makkah; and the member of the Supreme Council of the Islaamic University at al-Madeenah, and the Supreme Committee for Islaamic Propagation, until he passed away on Thursday 27 Muharram 1420 A.H./May 13 1999 C.E. May Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala) have Mercy upon his soul, aameen.

You didn't need to give me that bio. Citing him would have been fine.Heraclius 18:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Heraclius you added: Spoken or written renunciation of Islam is apostasy, however, displayed disloyalty or blasphemous acts can also be deemed apostasy. The concept has parallels in some other religious systems, particularly monotheistic ones such as Excommunication in Christianity and the Inquisition . What does excommunication and Inquistion have to do with Apostasy and then Apostasy in Islam? And how can they be examples of montheistic ones? If you want to show how Apostasy was and is treated in Christianity or Judaism, you can start another page; it probably already exists. Nickbee 18:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Excommunication is basically declaring someone an apostate etc. Anyways, I have added a POV tag to this page, as it quotes too much from Islamist writers and the death penalty and other sections don't give too much of the opposing view. Please don't remove this tag. Both of you have 3 reverts so far and one more removal will bring one of you over th 3RR.Heraclius 19:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's has been obvious today, that you are very eager to remove relevant and sourced information, only because you disagree with it. -- Karl Meier 19:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My changes speak to the contrary. I had summarized quotes from both pro and anti death penalty writers.Heraclius 19:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Heraclius, I will not remove your tag. Please look up the definition of Excommunication. How I am citing from Islamist only. I have cited S. A. Rahman, The book by the Saeed's, and I have even cited the Tahir Mirza who is considered a non-muslim by most muslims because he is an Ahamdiyya, but I have quoted him and his book? Why don't you tell me the secondary sources that have been left out? I really will appreciate that. In your summaries you remove content that explains. Nickbee 19:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


You include SA Rahman in one sentence, but you put in essays from Mawdudi and Ibn Warraq. Don't worry though, I will add more info from Rahman.Heraclius 19:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that as long as it is relevant information, Heraclius. The idea is not to push a particular POV but to give accurately all the views on the subject. Which view has been left out? Why don't you find additional sources? I have read Rahman's book, and he will go into discussion of each verse. Look I did not make all those Sheiks for the last 1000 years or so say all those things. Look how much I have quoted the "non-muslim" Ahamadiyya leader. Nickbee 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nick, your last edit broke the 3RR. I urge you to revert yourself or I will report you. I didn't delete anything, I just moved it down. Please actually look at the changes before reverting me. This was your edit summary You call deleting everything cleaning :up? Please try to work co-operatively. Do not behave so disruptively. Please
This was my edit [6]
If you look closely you will see that I didn't delete a thing. Nick, you are acting very paranoid right now and I am sensing alot of hostility. You are not even examining my edits before reverting. Please do not personalize this and try to calm down. We still have a long ways to go on this articleHeraclius 04:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I find Heraclius' performance over the past few days quite transparently aimed at pushing an apologist POV. His very first edit, changing "consensus" to "varies widely" with respect to the views of the major maddhabs on punishment, made the rest of his activities quite easy to understand. He will not accept quotes because they are "rambling", he will not accept summaries because they are not "sourced", he will only claim "concision" when substituting his favored misrepresentation of the facts. If S.A Rahman is the best he can do when it comes to backing up his own editorial legerdemain, as opposed to the many sources cited by Nickbee one wonders whether he has any grasp of the subject at all. Who is he to be getting involved in a subject he cannot even discuss? 70.107.107.210 02:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


I am not personalising this at all Heraclius. I do not mind. I just wish you would discuss before you proceed to make changes. You are correct that the changes you made last time were far fewer than what they looked. Being new at editing with Wiki editor, and all that red on both sides with the right column empty, it looked an awful lot of changes. Your critique is helpful, although a bit nagging at times. It will only make the page more robust. But I do have a suggestion that we talk first about the change you want. And I promise you that I will entertain your suggestions with an open mind. But you have to first define the difference between "orignal" research and "summarising" someone else's work. You do not like any summary but you donot like quotes either. Nickbee 04:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

All right, so you are saying that you agree with my clean up edit? I will be making the same edit later on tomorrow, just to give you a heads up. The reason I commented out your original research was because there was no source. It's not that I don't like one or the other. Anyways, just please in the future look at my edits before reverting. That is why I called your behavior paranoid, it's as if you were just reverting when you saw my name.Heraclius 05:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, you said "many" liberal scholars opposed the death penalty. That is not true. I have not been able to find many. S.A. Rahman, and Tahir Mirza are the exception. I have traced Mirza claim on couple of the old scholars he mentioned and they are for death penalty, but only quibble about the circumstances when it should be applied. So if you want the "many" please make a list of atleast 10 names. The names of scholars who support the death penalty is literally in the hundreds, starting with the founders of the four fiqh and the Shi'i as well. You wrote: "The views about the penalties for apostasy vary from Muslim to Muslim. There are many scholars who have unequivocally stated that the penalty of Apostasy in Islam is death, and there are many liberal scholars who have argued that apostasy carries no earthly punishment." What is accurate is "The views about the penalties for apostasy vary from Muslim to Muslim. There are many scholars who have unequivocally stated that the penalty of Apostasy in Islam is death, and there are a few liberal scholars who have argued that apostasy carries no earthly punishment."

If you can find more scholars who opposed the death penalty then we should definately include them and their statements. I searched hard, and have even asked many liberal muslim journalists and could not come up with any. Even S. A. Rahman does not cite any in his book! Nickbee 16:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to source weasel words such as "few", so let's just state the disclaimer without any.Heraclius 21:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heraclius Change of 5:11 22 August

Heraclius, you are attempting to creat a symmetry between those who state the position of the Sharia as decided by the Imams of the four fiqh and those who are arguing against the generally accepted position of the death penalty. It is not weasling with words as "few". There literally are only a few, unfortunately a very few, who have argued against the death penalty for the apostates under Islamic law. Please give me a list of more than 5 or 6 and we will not talk about a few. But any book on Islamic Law or Sharia will contain the statement of the death penalty without any supporting arguments. Rahman's book is an argument against the death penalty. So is the newer book by the two Saeeds. Do you understand the difference between "state" and "argue"? I have not reverted your changes but I urge you that try to see the difference and please revert the change on your own. As it stands, it is misleading and akin to lying. Nickbee 18:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

The best way is to mention both opinions in the first sentence without any weasel words or qualifiers. You yourself have said that the death penalty is rarely carried out, so what's the problem here?Heraclius 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Nickbee, I think you need to be a bit more lenient here. The article as it stands is largely how you've wanted it.Heraclius 02:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I made another change to the Qur'an section. It shouldn't be "Most Muslims believe", but instead "There are no verses that unequivocally state there is a punishment." This is the truth since there aren't any verses that say "kill an apostate". Now, there might be verses that can be interpreted that way, but the statement still stands as factual and neutral.Heraclius 02:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you know there are no verses that unequivocally state anything? That by definition is original research. Where is your source for this statement? I do not want to argue whether a verse is unequivocal or not. Many Jamiat Islami memebers conside 9:11,12 to be very very unequivocal. So I think Most muslims is accurate and your introduction is biased and interpreting original sources. Nickbee 04:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Nick, by unequivocally I mean without ambiguity. If I say "Kill apostates", that is an easily understood statement. I have another improvement to make to the Qur'an section, but I will let this version stand for now as a gesture of good faith.Heraclius

[edit] "Legal Opinion" Image

There is an image of a Arabic letter, with the caption "legal opinion". What is this, could someone who understands Arabic expand on it and perhaps update the caption? Thanks Mustaqbal 11:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Contact the user who uploaded it in the first place: Orientalist --Kripkenstein 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I have contacted the user and still am waiting for an answer. In the mean-time, an anonymous user dropped me a line and translated the text (a bit roughly, but intelligibly), and I will put a quote of the text on the caption of that image. --Kripkenstein 21:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Orientalist#Legal_opinion_on_apostasy_in_Islam

[edit] Apostasy in the Recent Past

Irishpunktom removed this section with the summary 'rv per consensus'. I'm new here, but I don't see such a consensus on this talk page. The material seems timely, and looks to be sourced. What in particular are the objections to including it? Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the material may be moved to Blasphemy#Blasphemy in Islam. The creation of a separate article Blasphemy in Islam may also be on the agenda. Pecher Talk 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cleanup

The page needs to be cleaned up in regards to the use of quotations and italics and quotations within quotations. POV needs to be addressed as the only reasons one should oppose the death penalty for apostasy in Islam are given by a proponent (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi). The headings also need to be cleaned up. Hyacinth 19:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Apostasy in the recent past" has been marked with cleanup for duplicating content already in the article. Hyacinth 07:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"POV needs to be addressed": I disagree. S. A. Rahman, Abdullah Saeed, Hassan Saeed and Qur'an alone Muslims are cited. Given that their's is a minority position, that should be enough. --tickle me 14:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

I find the section headings on this page unclear. It almost seems like they were vandalized so I assume there was a big rewrite that neglected to update the headings appropriately. "According to critics" doesn't indicate whether these "critics" are critical of apostasy, the death penalty for apostasy, Islam, or what. It only discusses the work of one person (Ibn Warraq) and doesn't seem critical. "Death penalty for apostasy" comes after three sections discussing the death penalty for apostasy ("According to Hadith", "According to Tafsir", and "According to critics"). "Reasons for the death penalty" also comes after these three sections which also gives reasons. Hyacinth 18:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Rulings

As a result of this debate, a section of the article Islamic Rulings was supposed to be merged here. Since it is not obvious how to do it, I have created Apostasy in Islam/temp, where material can be taken from. Regards. - Liberatore(T) 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The material is completely unsourced, so it does not look like there is anything useful to take. Pecher Talk 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
/temp deleted after prod elapsed. Deizio talk 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an and hadith quotes

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes, so verses and hadith cannot go alone, but their relevance and interpretation by scholars must be explained. There is no place in this article for unexplained quotes. Pecher Talk 10:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This does not justify removing the Qur'anic verses, most of them have a clear meaning unless they are picked out the context. You can always add the neighbor verses, or explain their context; but one should not remove them. I am sure it is interesting for many to see the relevant qur'anic verses. Finally, if we don't want to quote any qur'anic verses, we should not also quote any biblical verses and so on. Why don't you then clear up other articles first? Let's start with dhimmi article which nobody besides us are editing it. --Aminz 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aminz and Pecher

What's going on here? I'm new to this page. Help me understand what this dispute is about.Timothy Usher 10:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A brief review suggests that Aminz added some material in the wrong place, the introduction, Pecher reverted on the ground of original research, then Aminz did likewise to unrelated pages. The solution was and is to talk things over on this page. Aminz' material is not without value, nor does it clearly constitute original research, but it doesn't belong in the introduction. Feedback?Timothy Usher 11:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor made this change: [7]. I checked and found it was not supported by the citation, and changed it back, keeping the citation partly to try out the template I had been working on. "No verse in the Qur'an explicitly prescribes an earthly penalty for apostasy" might be seen as original research, but I think it is narrow enough that it is not. Something like Pecher's later formulation is clearly not original research: "Most Islamic scholars, with the exception of those from the Shafi'i school, believe that Qur'anic verses that deal with apostasy directly do not prescribe any earthly punishment for it." The quotes that I retained and templated should go under Qur'anic reference rather than in the introduction.

Then Aminz added some good material with citations (that I haven't yet had time to look at). Pecher, maybe recognizing that the intro had got too long, set out to reorganize some things. Aminz objected to some of the changes, and because we're all on a hair trigger this month, an edit war here was only narrowly avoided when Aminz' and Pecher's good sense prevailed. Unfortunately there was some spill-over onto another page, which we should really try to not let happen. The pages are edited individually by different groups of editors. It's disruptive to try to use edits to one page to prove a point about another. Let's all take it easy and assume good faith. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's especially reprehensible to choose Passover for a point attack now, on the Passover eve, when the article is featured on the Main page. Pecher Talk 14:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It was accidental. I apologize because of the coincidence of my edits with Passover eve. --Aminz 07:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, please have a look at Pecher's version of the article [8]. Especially notice the image which is moved to the top and some sections removed ... For the sake of God, please let me know what was wrong with my reason for reverting his edits :"please discuss changes one by one on the talk page before making significant changes to the article". I didn't expect this to be the beginning of a revert war. But anyway, my 3RR limit was exhausted and Pecher lastly added the "original research" tag to the article even without discussing why the tag should be there. I couldn't revert it back, so I thought a little bit aiming to understand the logic behind this addition and I ended up with the following theorem:
  • Anyone can add tags to the articles before discussing it on the talk page.
Good!
Now, I wanted to test my theorem and get Pecher's feedback. So, I picked the "passover" article and added some tags to it. Surprisingly, I saw that Pecher reverted it back!!!! This seemed to me as a sign of dishonesty! I was even sadder when I saw Timothy's discrimination in removing the tag from one article but leaving it alone on the other one (See Golden rule for further information).
I would like to hear Pecher and Timothy's explanation. If I have been wrong, your comment will help me to correct myself, so I'll appreciate your comments. thx. --Aminz 21:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You and Pecher agree that your tagging of Passover was meant to prove a point. Let's focus on the edits you're proposing here.Timothy Usher 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine. This is the practical solution. Timothy, I know that you are working in good faith.
I plea No contest to the above charge. --Aminz 21:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be away from the computer for a while, but I wanted to highlight the earlier BBC link further down the page, and also a BBC page on Islam. These might be/link to some sources we can all agree on. Tom Harrison Talk 22:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I also will be away from the computer for a while. I have a meeting with my advisor tomorrow and I am doomed. --Aminz 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to intro

Aminz's additions to intro were not only misplaced, as Timothy Usher has pointed above; I don't understand this rush to stuff the intro with lots of "good news" that Islamic law does not demand death penalty for apostasy despite all the evidence to the contrary. These additions are essentially original research because even those claims that were referenced were actually sourced to extremely poor unacademic sources on the subject where lots of reliable, academic sources are available. Instead of reliable sources, we have answering-christianity.com, islamicperspectives.com, and Persian BBC with an article in Farsi (!). Sorry, Wikipedia will be an object of universal ridicule if we stuff the intro of the article with gossips scooped from random websites only to convince the reader that death penalty for apostates is not mandatory in Islam, just weeks after the whole world witnessed the case saying quite the reverse. Pecher Talk 15:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the BBC on What Islam says on religious freedom. Tom Harrison Talk 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with Pecher's reading of the intro. The intro said: 1. All five schools of Islamic jurisprudence prescribe it. 2. The penalties imposed in Islam for apostasy is a controversial topic debated by scholars. 3. A few Shia jurists such ... and 4. This view is shared by a few Sunni scholars as well 5. No verse in the Qur'an explicitly prescribes an earthly penalty for apostasy. 6. Islamic scholars such as Dr. Ahmad Shafaat believe that ...
My understanding of the intro is that the majority of scholars believe in something but it is controversial and debated among Muslims. THIS IS THE TRUTH; not that all Muslims think apostates should be killed.
Now, regarding your second point: My references were reliable enough, to my mind. 1. BBC Persian is fine and I don't believe I need to find an English reference. 2. See Ahmad Shafaat. There you can see 2_1. he is an Islamic scholar 2_2. Islamic Perspectives is his official website. 3. Regarding "answering christianity", see [9] and Muslim scholars.
I think this is enough to prove that some Islamic scholars think that way. --Aminz 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"some Islamic scholars think that way" Are you talking about Ahmad Shafaat, an "Islamic scholar" with a Ph.d. in mathematics who teaches Decision Sciences and Management Information Systems? You can't be serious. He is just a non-notable writer on Islam-related topics, one out of many, and nothing qualifies him as a sufficient authority to be cited on Wikipedia. Ditto for answering.christianity.com, which is an anonymous, nonnotable website. Regarding BBC Persian, please read WP:V and WP:RS again, your edits must be verifiable by other editors; in addition, BBC may be a source for current events, but not on Islam in general or apostasy in Islam in particular. Pecher Talk 16:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I maintain that the BBC's page on religions is a perfectly good, if brief, source for basic information. We could say, citing this as a reference:
Every adult Muslim must make the Hajj once if he can afford it and is physically able.
Similarly, What Islam says on religious freedom is a reliable source for a statement like:
There is no specific verse in the Qur'an that prescribes the death penalty for apostasy. The execution of apostates is justified by reference to various hadiths.
With any source we have to be careful not to demand of it more than it can give us. For careful legal definitions of exactly what constitutes apostasy, or fine points of Islamic theology, we need to consult the work of recognized scholars. But remember, we are writing a general-purpose encyclopedia. Careful legal definition and fine points of theology may go beyond the limit of what we can provide the reader in an editable wiki.
I agree that the article in Farsi is necessarily of limited utility to most readers of the English Wikipedia. Tom Harrison Talk 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Farsi link: 1. wikipedia does not say it is NOT prohibited to use non-english sources. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English

2. I tried to find English source but wasn't able to find any. The unofficial website of Montazari is incomplete. (See http://www.amontazeri.com/) I tried my best but couldn't find it.

3. The BBC persian article is an interview with Montazari. I consider the quotes reliable.

4. I don't agree that Shafaat or the director of answering christianity are not scholars. Moreover these ideas are not just strange specific ideas on the part of some particular scholars. I have heard these from different peoples but those were the sources I was able to find. In any case, the quotes are also interested because of their content. I know if I want to add the fact that almost all the relevant Qur'anic verses are Medinian, I will be accused of "original research". So, I'll be defending my current position.

5. I expect the same standard should be applied to all wikipedia articles. If my edits are original research, then by the same standards, "In Israel, Passover is a 7-day holiday", in the passover article, should be original research. Can you please explain to me why "In Israel, Passover is a 7-day holiday" is not an original research (note that it is not referenced). thx. --Aminz 00:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"I don't agree" is not much of an argument; if you have evidence suggesting that a person teaching decision sciences is an Islamic scholar, show it. Pecher Talk 12:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispute the content of the article in Persian, it's just that I can't read it, nor can most other users of the English Wikipedia. I don't say it must be removed, but it would be better to have an English-language source, or a published translation. Which quotes are from the BBC Persian article?
I'm afraid consistency is the last thing you'll find here. There's not just a double standard, there are a million standards - one for each article. It's the nature of a wiki that each page is edited by whoever takes an interest. Unidentified flying object is full of nonsense, because many of the people who choose to work on it are UFO true-believers. Some people have tried to improve it with only limited success. It's not that they disagree with Wikipedia's policies; We all agree that NPOV is good, and Original Research is bad. We just disagree about whose POV is neutral, and what constitutes Original Research. Tom Harrison Talk 01:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Tom, I remember I saw a website that was referencing to the BBC interview with Montazari. But we will still have the same problem since one may argue that that website is not reliable either. I should say that Montazari (and his students I guess) are famous for issuing un-common fatwas. I was not surprised to see that fatwa. It is a fact that all five schools of Shariah believe that apostate should be killed. But it is another fact that the issue is controversial (debated more recently). I believe that as time progresses more and more scholars will believe that the apostate should not be killed. Montazari in that interview restates the Quran only Muslims argument and adds that it is not improbable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad when Islam was still partial, and some Jews and Christians purposely entered Islam and deserted it later to create confusion among the Muslims as shown in the following Quranic verse "A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say: Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).” (Quran 3:72)" Something you can also find in the answering christianity website.--Aminz 02:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The existence of this controversy should be included, keeping in mind not to give it undue weight. Readers should know that all schools prescribe it, and also that there are a significant number of people who'd like to change this.Timothy Usher 06:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree but can you please let me know why the current intro gives undue weight to the controversy. I tried to use the words "All five schools", "a few scholars". --Aminz 06:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was only responding to your comment. Your intro was fine. I have edited for style.Timothy Usher 06:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


I had removed the statement in the intro because of use of weasel words in it. The statement is:
"Although 'some writers' have recently tried to prove that apostasy should not be punished by death in Islam, such views did not receive acceptance from 'mainstream Muslim scholars'".
According to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words:
"Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):

  • "'Some people' say..."
  • "'Mainstream scholars'/scientists/researchers..."
  • "Some feel that..."
  • "Critics/experts say that..." "

Furthermore, the article on Wikipedia's policy on "weasel words" says that the following questions should be answered: "Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have? Why is this of any significance?" --Jibran1 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ideally we should avoid such words, but it's not so easy to get rid of them when you cannot easily identify those "some" or "many" as a group. Like any other rule, [[WP:AWW] must be interpreted with a dose of common sense. For example, see today's featured article (no less) Sverre Sigurdsson the intro of which says: "Many consider him one of the most important rulers in Norwegian history." Pecher Talk 19:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jibran1 for the point. It is not a good thing in general that an editor wants to push his POV to the article before discussing it on the talk page (AFTER objection of other editors to his edit); and later another editor objects to his POV on the talk page. I hope this would not continue anymore. --Aminz 19:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some points

Timothy, you removed the word "out of enemity" from Montazari's quote. But in his interview he emphasizes on this. As Montazari puts it, the apostates are DEFINED as those who change their religion out of hostility towards Islam, with the motivation to attack Islam. I wish the article was available in English. The title of the interview is:"Ayatollah Montazari: Every change of religion is not apostasy". As I can understand the article, it says that Montazari does believe that the apostates must be killed but does not agree with the commonly-understood definition of apostate. --Aminz 06:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd thought "who desert Islam out of enemity, in order to attack Islam." somewhat redundant. To say they're leaving in order to attack Islam suggests enmity, in my reading. Is there a third category of those who leave in order to attack it, but for some reason other than enmity, to whom another rule applies?
Feel free to change it, as you know what Montazari is saying better than I do.Timothy Usher 07:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Please see [10]

It says: "A while back when the apostasy case first surfaced I did a search about apostasy and came across the Iranian cleric who is out of favor with the regime, Ayatollah Montazeri's opinions on this subject. According to him (a significant Shi'a religious authority), a simple reversion of belief when grounded in an informed and educated decision to leave Islam (and when not undertaken out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community- essentially similar to sedition and treason) is not apostasy at all. (See "Ayatollah Montazeri: Not Every Conversion is Apostasy".) I found Chaplain Yee's comments mirroring the position taken by Ayatollah Montazeri, and I found both somewhat reassuring. Yet the case in Afghanistan has demonstrated that when conservative temperaments flare and blood needs to be spilt, there are always ways to bend the rules..."

thanks --Aminz 07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

The tags bother me. Can we at least remove the "clean up" tag? --Aminz 07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The clean-up tag was added by Hyacinth who seems not editting the article recently. Can we remove it? --Aminz 07:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It feels so good to sink superfluous text.Timothy Usher 10:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes :) --Aminz 10:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing {{totally disputed}} tag

It seems me that the article is quite neutral now. What about removing this tag? --Xorox 10:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag should remain since some editors such as Pecher have disputed the content of the article.Aminz 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salman Rushdie

Salman Rushdie is listed among notable apostates in this article, but in fact, he is not. The fatwa calling for his death penalty was issued for blasphemy, not apostasy. I have never seen reliable sources calling him an apostate; on the contrary, he considers himself a Muslim (or, at least, he writes so in his articles), although he calls for a major reform in Islam. Pecher Talk 19:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Pecher for the information. Interesting. I think based on the alledged blasphemy, Khomeini issued a fatwa that he has become apostate and should be killed. Aminz 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Something interesting! There has been some Mystics in the history of Islam who have been condemned as apostates (such as Mushtagh or Hallaj). But nowadays, people have a very positive view about them and think they were misunderstood, or were taken out of the context, at their time. This would be an interesting addition to the article I believe! --Aminz 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A few suggestions

1) We hammer out some compromise on the minority opinion paragraph of the introduction, perhaps by including the cited specifics as per the Aminz version, but adding again that these haven't been met with broad acceptance, as per Pecher.

I agree. That is another fact after all. --Aminz 06:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with "minority opinion" is that it is not sourced to reliable sources. Answering-christianity.com is certainly not a reliable source. Pecher Talk 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
At some level, I agree that Answering-christianity.com is not a reliable source. But I think the reliability should depend on what we expect from the link to tell us. That website repeats the opinion of Montazari and the author is Sunni. In the BBC link provided by Tom, we can see the same reasoning again. I just wanted to add that Montazari's idea is not a pure Shia belief (not something like shia ritual purity) and it also shared by a few Sunni scholars. Finally, if answering christianity is not reliable, answering islam will also be unreliable, Ali Sina's (former Muslim and a critic of Islam) website will also be unreliable... I personally do not like to clean up all quotes from those websites since in many cases, I feel they are telling what is widespread among people and with high probability valid references could be found.
In any case, I'll try to find a new reference as soon as I get free from school work. Maybe Tom's BBC reference can help me find the particular sunni scholars who say that. thx. --Aminz 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Your logic is correct: faithfreedom.org run by Ali Sina is most certainly not a reliable source. Neither is BBC on Islamic law; as WP:RS said: "Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities?" BBC may be useful for current events, but not on Islamic law. Pecher Talk 21:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
But what if BBC interviews with a specialist? Is that reliable? I think BBC should be honest in representing the information.
In general I guess BBC should provide references for its information on the Islamic Law. We can at least ask them for reliable references.--Aminz 21:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
An opinion expressed in a BBC interview (even if its text is available in English, which should not be impossible) is not binding upon a scholar or his followers because it's neither a work of sharia literature describing the rules of law (furu), nor a response to a question relating to a specific issue (fatwa). Pecher Talk 22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The opinion (POV) of a Shia jurist reflected in any of his interviews is equivalent to his fatwa. There is one difference between Shia jurists and ordinary scholars: When an ordinary scholar says “it seems to me that this is true”, there is no binding on him to follow his POV, BUT for Shia jurists, exactly the reverse is true. According to Shia-ism, the personal opinion of Shia jurists is exactly their fatwa. Moreover, if one reads that interview in its context, Montazari is restating the Quran only Muslims argument, adding that it is not improbable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad when Islam was still partial, and some Jews and Christians purposely entered Islam and deserted it later to create confusion among the Muslims as shown in the following Quranic verse "A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say: Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).” (Quran 3:72)
The context of the interview is clearly about his fatwa on apostasy. Unfortunately the book of his fatwas is not available online. I see the evidences convincing enough to prove Montazari's view--Aminz 23:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What's the source for the statement "The opinion (POV) of a Shia jurist reflected in any of his interviews is equivalent to his fatwa."? Anyway, we still have the problem that other editors cannot verify what Montazeri says. Pecher Talk 08:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Which part of the sentence? "The opinion (POV) of a Shia is his fatwa" or "his POV's reflected in any of his interviews". In any case, the BBC persian article clearly flatly that this is the fatwa of Montazeri about apostasy. Here is the persian text:"آيت الله منتظری از مراجع شيعه در پاسخ به استفتايی در باره تغيير مذهب از اسلام به ديگر مذاهب گفته است که حکم ارتداد شامل کسانی که پس از تحقيق تغيير عقيده می دهند نمی شود."
Please ask a persian friend to translate this word استفتا for you. It reads: "estefta" which is requesting for fatwa. Also, here is another link that refers to the bbc persian link http://safrang.blogspot.com/2006/03/another-view-on-apostasy-in-islam.html . I didn't made this up. I am not covering any truth. --Aminz 10:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the word استفتا is originally arabic. You can instead ask anyone who knows arabic. --Aminz 10:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Leaving everything else aside, I think we should accept that Aminz has given us an accurate translation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't see Aminz translating anything except for one word "estefta", can you? Pecher Talk 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The title of the article is: "Ayatollah Montazeri: Not Every Conversion is Apostasy" The first bolded sentence in the article is the one I quoted above. My word-by-word translation is:"Ayatollah Montazeri one of the shia marja in response to an "estefta(request for fatwa)" regarding changing religion from Islam to other religions has said that punishment for apostasy does not include those who change their religion after doing research".
Pecher, to be honest, I feel you have 0% of trust in what I say. I feel your main goal here is to tease me. Okay, I will from now on have 0% trust in all you say. --Aminz 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher wrote:"The point here is not trust or distrust; we just have policies that must be followed. BTW, you have already amply demonstrated that you have 0% trust in all I say on the mediation page by endlessly asking for ever more sources to meticulously sourced material and fighting over one word "humbled"."

If those are examples of my 0% trust, then now I have minus trust:D. To be serious, all I was asking you in the mediation page was "to say "source A says so"" rather than "A is so". Something that you never agreed. As to the word humble, I still think that "being in the state of subjection" is a more accurate translation of the word as is clear from the three famous Muslim translation. This has nothing to do with having trust, according to my definition. Now here is why I felt you don't have any trust in what I say: I pointed out to the word "estefta" in the text. I didn't want to deceive people here. My point was clear within its context and the talks we already had: the article is contains the fatwa of Montazari.

Pecher wrote: "Here, you keep inserting statements from sources that you have agreed are unreliable, such as answering-christianity.com, all just to revert my edits."

Honestly, wasn't the main controversy about the montazari quote in intro? Had you only removed the answering islam quote, or asked me to remove it till I can find a better source, I would have agreed with you. I have removed it from intro in the new version. --Aminz 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher wrote: "To be sure, a reasonable and cooperative editor should have started by translating the entire article from Farsi, not confining himself to just one sentence after many days of wrangling."

1.Having a persian reference is not against wikipedia policy, so a reasonable and cooperative editor should not necessarily have started by translating the entire article from Farsi.
2. I am busy in real life.
3. My english is not good.--Aminz 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher wrote: " Then, what you have translated is entirely at odds with what you have written: you've written that "A few Shia jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri do not hold a reversion of belief in itself to constitute apostasy, but define apostasy as deserting Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community", but you have translated that "punishment for apostasy does not include those who change their religion after doing research. I can't see anything in common between these two statements.".

1. Well, have a look at my original translation. I mentioned "doing research" there.
2. I translated that sentence because of the word estefta. You are making a quick judgement. The article has more than one sentence. Please let me know what conclusion I should make from this judgment? --Aminz 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher wrote:"In addition, you have never brought a source saying anything about "a few jurists", just about Montazeri himself, which is not surprising, since Montazeri is at odds with all the other clerics in Iran and is clearly acting against the consensus."

Fine, This has been corrected in the new version. I can not see how this could justify moving the whole sentence from intro.--Aminz 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher wrote:" Why do you believe then that a rogue cleric deserves a place in the intro alongside the consensus opinion? Why are you so itching to stuff into the intro as much as possible "good news" that someone believes apostates should not be punished no matter how marginal these opinions are? Pecher Talk 22:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)"

Because the intro is supposed to summerize different views/definitions/punishments of apostasy. --Aminz 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
We cannot give the same attention to one rogue opinion as to the consensus view. Pecher Talk 07:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, I looked up in the dictionary for the meaning of the word "rogue"; all the meanings were bad. If it doesn't have any other meaning, please stop offending people or their opinions. I like and respect Montazari so much. --Aminz 07:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no policy prohibiting me from using the term "rogue" on talk pages. You may like and respect Montazeri as much as you wish, but you should not push his POV into the article. Pecher Talk 08:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, "rogue" means nothing here beyond "off on his own", not following the regular expectations. It's not derogatory in this context.Timothy Usher 08:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Timothy. Pecher, I am making the intro NPOV by adding a POV. --Aminz 08:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As many people have already told you, you're giving undue weight to a minor opinion. Pecher Talk 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Only you and tickle me has told me. 2. Why I am giving undue weight? I think the sentence "These minority opinions haven't been met with broad acceptance." and the first paragraph adjust the weight. --Aminz 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You're giving undue weight because you stuff into the intro the opinion of just one, single scholar, who is at odds with the rest of the Shi'a establishment and whose opinion is aginst the consensus. What you're doing is effectively turning Wikipedia into a collection of oddities, which no one will take seriously. Pecher Talk 09:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
1.Please note that this one, single scholars, is the most senior shia jurist and holds a significant religous authority. Though he has had conflicts with the government but he, as a marja, has lots of followers in Iran.
2.Also, I think mentioning the existence of minority views (which also includes some modern writter as you mentioned) in the intro will be interesting to reader, especially the Muslim readers. Please note that we have written that these are minority views. --Aminz 09:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
My version of the intro, if you cared to notice before reverting everything I write, contained a general mention of the existence of dissenting opinions with the comment that these minority views. You, however, continue to push into the intro the views of just one single scholar. Note that WIkipedia is not a soapbox from which Montazeri could profess his beliefs. Pecher Talk 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There is one important shia jurist and many typical scholars and writers and finally a minor sect. I can not agree with your edit for two reasons:
1. One can not summerize all these people into the category of some typical modern scholars and writers.
2. Montazari has a different definition of apostasy. I think making distinction among people within that small group and their views is informative.
3. You removed the name of Montazari from the article.
4. Even in your other edit, you put Montazari at the end of article AFTER the views of Ahmadiya sect.

--Aminz 10:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)





2) We move the Hadith section above the Quran section - yes, I realize Quran is more important in theory, but in jurisprudence, it's often not, and such is the case in this instance. The majority opinion is really about Hadith, so these should be highlighted.

I believe "I realize Quran is more important in theory, but in jurisprudence, it's often not,"is both true and untrue. I can argue for both sides. Timothy, I can reason for having the Qur'an section first; but I think will eventually lead us nowhere. Timothy, please let me ask you an honest question; my PERSONAL opinion will depend on your answer to this question. Had Qur'an prescribed death punishment for apostasy rather than Hadith, were you still making the above argument and wanted us to have the Hadith section first? If your answer is yes and you were still making the same argument in that situation, I will have no personal objection with this change. --Aminz 06:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I admit that yes, I might have suggested the Quran section to be first, but only because I cannot imagine a world where this would be the case, where it wouldn't also be the first thing cited in jurisprudence.
Let me think about this more.Timothy Usher 08:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this could be roughly compared with the jewish oral law and jewish written law. Maybe not? --Aminz 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, please note that many editors may object to this. I may personally compromise but the article does not belong to me. --Aminz 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aggressively indifferent to the order of the sections, though placing hadith before Qur'an indeed somewhat unorthodox. Pecher Talk 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

3) It should be made clear in the introduction that despite wide juridprudential agreement upon this penalty, it is nowadays very rarely undertaken in practice, in large part, perhaps, because most Muslim countries aren't ruled by the judiciary. Pecher's version might be seen as suggesting that if a Muslim living in a Muslim country leaves Islam, he'll most likely be executed, which in the main isn't true - the exclusive focus on jurisprudence makes the situation seem much worse (from a liberal perspective) than it really is - but he'd be right if he said that the solution isn't to create the illusion that there is more jurisprudential disagreement than there really is.

To be honest, I should say I don't know. In Iran, if someone publicly declares(by publishing a book, giving a talk,...) his conversion; he/she will be in danger(especially if he/she does so with the motivation of people leaving Islam). --Aminz 06:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the rule of the judiciary.Timothy Usher 08:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Any feedback?Timothy Usher 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro should state nowadays apostates can be executed in some countries that have implemented sharia or parts of it, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Afghanistan. However, regardless of the country, apostates face grave danger from their relatives and neighbors (the article talks about it briefly). In addition, apostates face other persecutions, if not necessarily execution, as the article says in the section "Apostasy in the recent past". Pecher Talk 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this addition. It should be only added that “public” apostates face persecution (at least it is like that in Iran e.g. see Hashem Aghajari) --Aminz 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The twisted thing about the Aghajari case is that his "apostasy" was from state ideology, not from Islam generally. This is rather an abuse of sharia (however abusive it might already be) to serve state interests.Timothy Usher 22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, we believe it has been "apostasy" was from state ideology, Montazari believes so, Soroush believes so, Khatami the president of Iran at that time believes so HOWEVER the court that initially condemned him considers him to be an "apostate" from Islam. Have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2430139.stm --Aminz 22:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Contrasting the five madhaabib with the few dissenting views in the introduction distorts issues by giving undue weight. Besides, answering-christianity.com, a one man advocacy website whose mantainer has no academic reputation at all, is no authoritative source. It's unwarranted to use it allegedly portraying views of "some Sunni scholars". It's also improper citing the Quran Alone Muslims in this respect: their number is unknown and there's no reason to believe that the've any influence or relevance on just one Islamic society that would match the 5 madhaabib's. --tickle me 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Quran Alone Muslims must be exempted immediately from all sorts of terrorism including this apostate rule. We dont want people to get confused and in the end think we are same too. People should know that there are Quran Aloners out there who have nothing to do with (H)Islam(Hadith islam). Jonny K
Okay, but isn't there someplace in the article this can be mentioned? It looks like it's either compromise or revert war. I agree with Aminz that sourced dissent should be presented, but also appreciate the concern about undue weight.Timothy Usher 22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Montazeri belongs to the paragraph describing dissenting opinions in the "Punishment for apostasy" section. Pecher Talk 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Would you accept *any mention* of dissent at all in the intro, if not the full body of Aminz' text?Timothy Usher 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, with the qualification that these are fringe views that have not affected the consensus among scholars. Pecher Talk 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Guys, I am busy now and can not get into discussion now; but God of justice will judge you soon.(He will also judge me) I compromised a lot on the concern about undue weight and think that the last version of intro didn't have undue weight. But I feel you guys will never be satisfied until transform the article to what you want. You may make me tired and eventually take over the article but God will judge all of us soon. --Aminz 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see you've used at least one very dubious source in your insertion in the introduction. More scholarly sources would be helpful for starters. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This was something I commented above about it. "At some level, I agree that Answering-christianity.com is not a reliable source...I just wanted to add that Montazari's idea is not a pure Shia belief (not something like shia ritual purity) and it also shared by a few Sunni scholars...That website repeats the opinion of Montazari and the author is Sunni...In any case, I'll try to find a new reference as soon as I get free from school work. Maybe Tom's BBC reference can help me find the particular sunni scholars who say that." Tom's link contains the view of other sunni scholars.

Note the usage of the word "a few"; my agreement with addition that "adding again that these haven't been met with broad acceptance" --Aminz 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's an extreme minority view, it wouldn't belong in the introduction. Jayjg (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As it was, Montazari was the only scholar mentioned in the intro, and was given the most space, despite representing the minority opinion. This is unencyclopedic and highly POV, and I've reverted it to the previous text (still probably too long), while keeping the reference to Montazari for those who are interested.Timothy Usher 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Aminz, I see why you don't like the wording of the dissent clause, but by reverting without dealing with the very valid objections of other editors, you're guaranteeing your text won't stick. Try rewording instead, with the following principles in mind:

1) Don't mention any names - the rest of the intro doesn't have any. If you mention one, it makes it seem like the only one, and then we ask, well, what makes him so uniquely important? While if you mention several, you're compounding the length problem...2) Don't mke this paragraph any longer than it was in the other version - it was already too long.

You can't reasonably expect the introduction to give more space, and hence weight, to the rebuttal than to the mainstream view. There's a whole article in which you can place your text. Here, focus on saying what you want to say briefly.Timothy Usher 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How is this? --Aminz 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Thank you.Timothy Usher 01:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for Compromise

Would you guys work it out already? It doesn't have to be perfect. Reasonably acceptable to both parties and stable is enough. The alternative is more edit conflict, arbitration, etc., etc. Think of all the energy we could be redirecting towards other articles.Timothy Usher 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shafaat/islamicperspectives.com

Shafaat/islamicperspectives.com: Again a second class, one man advocacy website of no proven reputation. Who is Dr. Shafaat and what's his standing in academia? This is a case of a personal website used as secondary source. Besides, this applies too: just because someone claims to be a PhD this must not be true, and what did he study anyway? No indication given. This is not a suitable source. --tickle me 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, could you please let us know if
1. Is it okay to quote from Ahmad Shafaat?
2. If not, is it okay to quote something which could be easily checked. The quote reads:"Dr. Ahmad Shafaat states that "almost all the verses that refer to apostasy are found in surahs said to be belonging to the Madinan period when the Islamic state had been established and penalties for crimes could be prescribed and applied. Only 16:106-109 appears in a surah identified as Makkan."[1]"
It is easy to check if the verses belong to the Madinan period or Makkan period.

Thanks, --Aminz 03:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to write, "Shafaat says." While he is not an Islamic jurist or a professional Islamic scholar (or whatever the correct term is), he is not just some random guy either. If he is articulating a position others share, it would be reasonable to point the reader there for an accesable summary of that position. On the other hand, if he's saying something that no one else is saying, it probably would not warrant inclusion, but if it did include it we would need to make clear that it is just his opinion. Depending on how heavily we rely on him as a reference, rather than as just a useful external link, we might need to describe his background and qualifications. That's my take; I hope it's helpful. Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The new version is fine with me, if it is fine with everybody let's keep it. thx. --Aminz 05:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To tired to fight, however, the overall poor quality of Islam related articles won't improve if standards for references are that low. "he is not just some random guy either": Why not? So far, we know nothing about his background or qualification. "If he is articulating a position others share" ...we might not need him in the first place, as common viewpoints are likely to be articulated by reputable sources elsewhere. If these can't be found at the moment, it should be warranted for the sake of WP quality to wait till they are found, editing later accordingly. --tickle me 15:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we do know something about his background. According to Ahmad Shafaat, "In 1968 he was awarded a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Australian National University. He is on the Business faculty at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada where he is the Assistant Director of Decision Sciences and Management Information Systems and teaches a course by the same name." In other words, he is one of the leading Islamic authorities nowadays. Pecher Talk 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said he was a leading Islamic authoritiy, but if he has articulated in an accesable manner the opinons of those who are, then the link is useful. That said, I tried just now to find some information about him, and was not sucessful. As a result, I made some changes to our article on him at Ahmad Shafaat. Tom Harrison Talk 15:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks everybody! I agree that we should not quote from Shafaat some of his personal opinions that is not shared by any professional Islamic scholar. What about the new version? What is quoted from Shafaat could be easily checked in 5 minutes. So, I think we can add the reference(?). thx --Aminz 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Question

What about http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm ?

One thing interesting about this site is that it says:

A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred.

So, it true, the sentence in the intro should be revised. thx. --Aminz 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, qualifies religioustolerance.org as a reliable source? Pecher Talk 08:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this Artical gives a false impression to the religion of Islam, posess a horofied picture that someone who turned away from Islam is punishable by death. This is something which totally against the Basic Principals of Islam what we learn, I think there are some confussion, becasue the openions of some misleaded so called scholars who put there own political and religious point of view in order to get something should not allow to put as a official versoin of a religion, who say for example that killing of a inocent man or women is equal to killing all mankind. There should be more about the teaching of Islam to clear this Artical further so a clear picture imarge. phippi46 20:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"This is something which totally against the Basic Principals of Islam what we learn" I would advise you to take a visit to the middle east, you'd be surprised at how many people strongly believe (are prepared to die for) that one should be killed for converting from Islam to any other religion. JHJPDJKDKHI! 19:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an alone Muslims

The edit summary says "Verified true, notability previously established. RVK" Where is the citation? Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • For what, the notability or the Accuracy of the statement?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
For the accuracy of the statement - the kind of citation we could put in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'is in Egypt

These two articles discuss a somewhat neglected issue, which are entirely relevant to this article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/f2921ec68c9633ca1f8777847036e1f1.htm http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/May/middleeast_May69.xml&section=middleeast&col=
Perhaps someone could include something?
Matarael 08:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4:88-4:90

"Ibn Warraq also quotes commentaries by Baydawi (died c. 1315-1316) on 4:89 as "Whosoever turns back from his belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel". Verse (4:89-90) reads:"

This is a prime example of a quote taken out of context. Verse 4:88 clearly establishes that the subject is the Hypocrites (not Muslims, but hypocrites) and then verse 89 says that if they openly or secretly reject faith, then kill them out and out. A hypocrite's apostasy during a time of battle (verses 88-90 establish said context) is tantamount to high treason; and death is the obvious and universal treatment in such a situation.

THIS MUST be edited in the article and i'd rather leave it to someone else who knows how to do good edits.

-AHMAD.

[edit] Former Muslims

Why is there a list of former Muslims, but none for former Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus.....?

[edit] The contradictory nature of sharia astounds me.

Can anyone else see how completely absurb sharia law is in the following sentence.

"In Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed."


So... it's ok for muslims to threaten other muslims with death if they convert to another religion but these people are saved the death penalty if the people trying to convert the muslim to another religion are threatening the muslim with death.

Are the muslims here trying to say that threatening one with death if they don't convert to another religion is a bad thing? It's standard practice in Islam.

And besides they still think it's ok to threaten someone with death to 'keep them locked into the muslims faith, yet it's not ok for another religion to threaten a muslim with death if he doesn't convert. And they have the nerve to talk about double standards as applied to everything they complain about.

JHJPDJKDKHI! 18:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are confused welcome to the real world. Muslims ALWAYS use a double standard. Did you see any of them protesting the forced conversion of the 2 Fox reporters? I didn't. But if a Christian group forced 2 Muslims to convert what would have happened? Riots and terrorism of course. Islam worships death.

[edit] Request

 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

Can someone make a map of which Muslim countries have a law imposing the death penalty on apostates, or non-Muslims? 137.22.15.104 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this isn't always clear because there is often a tension between the secular state and Islamic courts within it and there is also the problem of de jure law and de facto law do not go hand in hand. It should be possible to find decent criteria to make such a map about. gren グレン 05:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

So, I was browsing JSTOR as I tend to and I found two articles that may be of interest.

  • Bernard Lewis. "Some Observations on the Significance of Heresy in the History of Islam" Studia Islamica > No. 1 (1953), pp. 43-63
  • Rudolph Peters. "Apostasy in Islam" Die Welt Des Islams > Vol. 17 Issue 1/4

Both of these may prove to be of use to anyone wishing to expand this article. gren グレン 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Apostates

Under the notable apostates section, I see that we have this entry about Dhabihu'llah Mahrami. From what I can tell by his description, he was never actually a Muslim. So should he even be in the section, considering it's titled "notable apostates"? BhaiSaab talk 16:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He was however charged, persecuted and killed for Apostasy. See the US State info article that states "Mahrami, a former civil servant who lost his job in a purge of Bahai following the 1979 Iranian revolution, was arrested in 1995 on charges of apostasy, or abandoning Islam. He was sentenced to death for his religious beliefs in 1996." And from the a Congressional Taskforce "Mr. Zabihullah Mahrami was called before the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Yazd on August 16, 1995, and questioned about his adherence to the Bahá'í Faith. The Court held several meetings with Mr. Mahrami in an effort to persuade him to renounce his beliefs. He refused and was charged with apostasy. " [11] Similar statements can be found at the Washington Post [12], Amnesty International [13]. His death was confirmed in 2005. [14]
But the fact is he was never a Muslim, and therefore not an apostate. Is that correct? BhaiSaab talk 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether bahais are apostate or muslims or completely a different religion is part of the reason for their persecution (see their article on wikipedia for a more complex answer to that point). The "crime" that they are accused of is saying that mohammed is not the KEY (last) prophet. As he was imprisioned and then killed for being a apostate, that is enough to make him an apostate in my view.Hypnosadist 17:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Apostates have renounced a religion. This guy never did that. BhaiSaab talk 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
But he was charged, imprisoned and killed because Baha'is are seen to be apostates of Islam just for being Baha'is, regardless if they have actually changed their religion. -- Jeff3000 22:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There are varying definitions of apostasy and in the article apostasy I and others eventually decided not to care about definitions when compiling a list of apostates, but list everybody who was labelled an apostate by a notable source. 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"Mr. Mahrami was a former Iranian civil servant who lost his job after the government found that his was a Bahá'í.[3] Adherents of the Bahá'í Faith are persecuted in the Islamic Republic and are denied employment.[4]
My God, is it just me or does that sound like Nazi Germany, onlyu not the Jews this time? JHJPDJKDKHI! 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Material for a religous comaprision: Catholic Canon Law Says Catholics Can Kill Protestants --Striver 00:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

more: false oath is no perjury, so killing is no murder, according to canon law, when heresy and heretics are to be purged out. --Striver 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone believe that that is actually a credible source?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but in any case, here you got another one: What's incredible about the case being argued in a San Francisco federal court, besides the media keeping the case away from the public eye, is the Pope's attorney had the audacity in a November hearing to claim the Vatican was justified in partaking in mass murder as it was "permissible under international law --Striver 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what multiple completely unreliable sources proves, but it certainly isn't anything that is important. The home page of your last website asks users to "Donate NOW" in order to "to continue to expose the dirty work of the Illuminati and their secret societies". Come on man, get real.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's just something i just stumbled on while listening to an audio, im sure a few minutes of googling can reveal more reliable sources. --Striver 08:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes by all means please provide more sources, if they as humorous as the last one this should be quite an entertaining day.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first two bullets in "Apostasy in the Recent Past", namely the ones starting with "In 1980 Pakistan..." and "Samuel Masih, a 27-year-old Christian..." - what do these cases have to with apostasy?74.12.3.251 15:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faithfreedom

How do we know that this website is reliable? What about the testimonies?--Aminz 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, please discuss this here. --Aminz 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It is as reliable as some of the other external links. [15],[16],[17], [18],[19], [20], These sites are about as reliable as faithfreedom.org. Now how do we know it is accurate, well we don't. We really don't know anything is accurate when we think about it.--Sefringle 09:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, you are right and I have always opposed all these websites. This is also confirmed by [[21]].--Aminz 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I am also removing the sources I mentioned above, because they are just as reliablie as faithfreedom.--Sefringle 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. These websites are not reliable except http://www.islamonline.net/ one. Because it is directed by a Muslim scholar. --Aminz 06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Tell me how islamonline.net is any different from faithfreedom.org, other than the fact that they are on opposite extremes.--Sefringle 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Islamonline is official website of a Muslim scholar who has credentials at least. Faithfreedom is directed by Ali Sina(if he exists) who doesn't have any degree in Islamic studies whatsoever. --Aminz 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No, a scholar is the mantainer of the website, but a lot of the articles are not written by him. So it cannot be concluded that it is a scholar unless the particular article was written by the owner. For example, the link on this page was to a list of articles. That is unscholarly and inappropiate for this article.--Sefringle 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The articles are written by his students, true. And they are not necessarily reliable for usage inside wikipedia but to my standards that's considerably more reliable than Ali Sina's website which, to my mind, virtually writes any nonsense. --Aminz 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Articles written by his students are not scholarly, so they are also nonsense.--Sefringle 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do Muslims justify their double standard?

Whenever a christian wants to convert to Islam, the christians are supposed to accept it. But whenever a muslim wants to become a christian, muslim do not show the same tolerance that they themselves demand. How do muslims justify this double-standard? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.196.249.166 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Religious folks aren't exactly known for being logical, understanding people. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a debate forum. Xizer 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Amen brother Xizer! Hypnosadist 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/p/o/Talk%7EApostasy_in_Islam_cadd.html"