Comments on: Freedom of Religion and Apostasy in Islam

By: Maram

Maram — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:25:51 +0000

An interesting article indeed. I observe that most matters pertaining to religion can be deciphered by human logic. It is thru this that Islam wins in relation to other religions! Islam appeals easily to simple human logic!
Any issue that our simple logic finds difficulty to fathom will require a good revisit in our analysis of it. Irrespective of whether they have been discussed before by respected ulamas. They are humans, are they are not infallible? Even prophets make mistakes, and immediately corrected by Allah swt. Wallahuallam.

By: L

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:48:44 +0000

I also find it interesting (and frequently point out to non-Muslims with “issues”) that a similar situation exists in the Qur’an (and the Sunnah to the best of my knowledge) regarding hijab. Although there is almost universal agreement on the obligation of hijab on each woman, there is no punishment for not wearing it. Furthermore in the verses dealing with women’s covering, it mentions that Allah is forgiving and merciful. I’d like to see this explored by you in the future.

By: Muslimerican

Muslimerican — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:58:53 +0000

As-salaamu alaykum.

Br. Salmaan, you asked, “What exactly is it about our times that should exempt a murtad from the punishment that the classical scholars reached ijma on?”

This does not appear to be the case, actually. A number of jurists and leaders throughout history have taken the position outlined in this article.

They include:

Hadrat Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz [d. 97 AH/720 AD]
[popularly known as Umar II and regarded as part of the Khulafa-i-Rashidoon]

Ibrahim al-Nakha’i [d. 95 AH]
[a leading jurist and traditionist among the generation succeeding the Companions]

Sufyan al-Thawri [d. 161 AH]
[known as 'the prince of the believers concerning Hadith' (amir al-mu'minin fi'l-Hadith) and is the author of two important compilations of Hadith, namely al-Jami' al-Kabir, and al-Jami' al- Saghir]

Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi [d. 389 AH]
[An eminent Hanafi jurist and author of al-Mabsut]

Abu Al-Walid Al-Baji [d. 474 AH]
[a noted Maliki jurist; a contemporary of Imam Ibn Hazm]

Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi [d. 1273 AD]
[Eminent Malike Scholar of hadith and fiqh]

Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi [d. 1355 AD]
[Maliki scholar and author of Qur'anic commentary Bahrul Muhit]

And Allah knows best.

By: Yus from the Nati

Yus from the Nati — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:49:48 +0000

You do raise some interesting points as re: the double standard of fatawa and going against majority and/or established ijma'a (if there really is one on these matters? Allahualam)

However in defense of the brother who wrote this piece. I'm sure this is either 1) a snippet or 2) a summarized essay? in regards to this issue...no?

I mean I'm sure there is a paper out there outlining the Usuli principles used, when, why, how, history, blah blah. and if not...then I'm sure the brother (h) who wrote it, would KNOW those concerns you have listed above.

Allahualam

By: Salmaan

Salmaan — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:08:22 +0000

what the article fails to touch on at all is WHY there is an apparent need to review this topic in our times?

What exactly is it about our times that should exempt a murtad from the punishment that the classical scholars reached ijma on?

The whole premise the author began with was that "if they reviewed it in their times, so must we in ours!" - yet he fails to specify or establish any concrete reason as to why he makes such a statement.

Further he gives absolutely no reason or understanding as to why or how, when the greatest ulema of the nation of muhammad have reached ijma on an issue, it is actually permissible (or advisable!) to break with the ijma of scholars who without doubt were greater scholars than the author himself.

Its ironic that when groups break with ijma of the classical scholars on issues such as the impermissibility of rising up/revolting against the leader of the state (mentioned by imam nawawi in his sahih muslim [i believe]) everyone is up in arms about this fringe groups who dont know our religion and contravene the ijma and you dont see any modern jurists writing articles to disagree with this ijma from the classical ulema yet when its a topic such as the execution of murtadeen - which the vast majority of our greatest ulema agreed upon - every is suddenly willing to challenge the ijma of the classical imams on the issue.

Lastly, do you really think the classical ulema neglected this possible meaning or understanding when they formulated their opinions and fatawa on the issue? Do you really think the most eminent and qualified shuyukh of our nation missed this possible interpretation of the evidences and on what basis does the author disprove the validity of the classical opinion for use in our times and put forward his own opinion?

Seems rather lacking an article if you ask me.

By: Yus from the Nati

Yus from the Nati — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:40:50 +0000

Is he applying the following the usuli principle?

"At-Tasees awla min at-ta'keed".

AKA

"Establishing a new meaning (with seemingly repetitive phrases) is given preference over reaffirming the same meaning"?

By: Pensive

Pensive — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:49:35 +0000

as-salamu 'alaikum,

Yes I would definitely like to see the raised question responded to. Ok, what has piqued my interest is the issue whether punishment for apostasy is a 'hadd' or 'ta'zir'. Can we get more material, information on this issue?

(also, what is the opinion held by SH. al-didou on this issue?)

Jzakum Allahu khairan.

By: J

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:43:36 +0000

Wa alaykum as-salam, Imam Suhaib.

May Allah [swt] reward you for your bravery in posting this.

Fi aman Allah

By: HR

HR — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:46:22 +0000

Asalam WR WB
Based on the above, 'while joining the ranks of the enemies of the Muslim community.'
Two questions naturally occur:
1. would the countries who are attacking the Muslim lands today be considered its 'enemies'?
2. joining the ranks would not necessarily imply militarily, but also economically, socially?

By: abu majeed

abu majeed — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:54:24 +0000

As-Salamau alaikum,

Very thorough in gathering the texts and their indications. To someone of less knowledge,. like myself, it is quite convincing. All though we know of others more knowlegable than the
author who don't see it that way. This opinion seems more reasonable in addition to its scholary depth. We all know that if someone left Islam in say Saudi Arabia, but never voiced it
then there would be no punishment. The question remians what if somoene left Islam and voiced it or even called others to leave it and called toward a different religion, but as a
peaceful member of the Muslim state?