One religion’s apostate is another religion’s martyr


“Whoever changes his religion (Islam), kill him”

— (Bukhari)

“The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas (retribution) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

— (Bukhari)

The case of the apostate facing trial in Afghanistan, with the remote prospect of being sentenced to death, has brought swift reaction from the West. It is truly amusing to see the heads of European states reacting to the possible death of one man while they find it easy to aid the murder of thousands of Iraqis. What kind of twisted moral barometer causes such a reaction in one case, but not the other?

This week we learnt that American marines murdered 15 members of an Iraqi family in cold blood, including a three year old child. No problem, say the leaders of Europe, but the trial of the Afghan apostate is too much for them. You can’t kill an apostate, but kill as many Muslims as you need to improve the balance sheet of the party donors! This is the source of their moral barometer, as the apostate case is opposing secular values of freedom of religion, while the occupation and murder of Iraqis is conforming to secular interests of spreading freedom and democracy!

Many individuals in the Secular West find it hard to understand that capital punishment prescribed for changing religion, because religion has no importance in the West, it is reduced to one of personal taste, and the principle of freedom of religion facilitates easy apostasy. Of course this is also rooted in European history, where religious intolerance by the Church was immense.

In Islam, society is supposed to be governed by religion; where apostasy is the secular equivalent of treason not a matter of personal choice for Muslims. Many Christians and Jews have jumped on the anti-Islamic bandwagon, and have joined hands with their secular colleagues, without realising that such penal codes also exists in their religions.

I wish someone would tell these Zionist-Christians and the Muslim moderates that: freedom of religion is not a religious notion, it is a secular notion. Can the God of any religion say to its subject, believe in me as long as you are happy, but if you are not happy then move over to the next religion? In that case the religion is clearly stating that it does not hold the ultimate truth. If a religion does not have conviction in its own values, its followers are certainly not going to have conviction either. Now what kind of religion is that?

As expected, the moderates have responded by giving dubious interpretations to claim that the law of apostasy is not part of Islam, and to look acceptable, they promote the idea that Muslims have freedom of religion. Do they? I thought once you subscribe to Islam you are bound by the laws of Islam, so where is the freedom. The world is divided between the sick moderates and healthy radicals. These sick moderates work hard to make Islam appealing to non-Muslims, in such a manner that it becomes fully compatible with liberal democracy. What is the significance of Islam, if it is interpreted to make it compatible to everything else?

Their (moderates) view is not shaped by Islam but as a result of the media onslaught; for them the problem of negative representation of Islam can only be solved by representing it correctly, which translates to satisfying the hostile critics. So they ‘reinterpret’ the Quran, which in turn is used to remove and/or reinterpret the clear evidences from the Hadiths, hoping they would arrive at a point, when the attack from the West would cease. Not true, the west does not need an excuse to attack Islam and Muslims, as the recent cartoon incident showed, and they need even less of an excuse to murder Muslims, as the murder of the Iraqis continues to demonstrate. In fact the West has been demonising Muslims, for centuries, and it has nothing to do with the conduct of the Muslims or even the values of Islam.

Unable to defend the Islamic penal code, moderates start to deny sound evidences from Hadiths, take selected verses out of context and offer an explanation that negates centuries of scholarship, going back to the companions of the Prophet (SAW). The majority view of the Scholars (Ulemas) is that: apostasy is punishable by death, but there is a minority view which says it is only punishable by death, if the apostate has committed actions of a belligerent nature against the Islamic state and the Muslims.

The moderates raise the Quran, as evidences from the examples (Sunnah) of the Prophet (SAW) are very clear on this issue, as is the early examples of His companions. So let us look at how they provide a false interpretation using the Quran, with a few examples.

They selectively quote the verses and one of the most popular one is from the Chapter of Baqarah: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256, AL-Quran). But if they looked further they would also see the verse: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, he will be the looser in the hereafter” (3:85, Al-Quran). One of the basic rules in interpreting Quranic verses is that you must take into account all the verses on the same theme, so that they synchronise and are consistent, and not contradictory.

If Muslims have freedom of religion to apostasise according to the first verse (2:256), as the moderates argue, but clearly they do not according to the second verse (3:85). This verse clearly states that by apostatising they would be the losers, meaning they will be in hellfire, punished. Hence to apostasise is an illegal act (Haram). So how does Allah (SWT) say in one place you are free to choose any religion and then tells the Muslims if you choose another religion you will be punished, surely that would be a contradiction? You can not be free to choose if the only choice you have is Islam!

Of course many would have deduced that the two verses, are not addressing the same category of people, or addressing the same subject. The first verse (2:256) is in only addressing the non-Muslims as rationally only they have the choice to accept or reject Islam but not the Muslims. But once the non-Muslims accept Islam, they are bound by its rules and the verse 3.85 becomes applicable to them. Just like you are free to join the army but once you join you can’t walk out freely, you are bound by the rules.

The moderates partially cite verses where Allah (SWT) is informing that we are ‘free’ to do what we like on earth, while they omit that we will be held accountable for our actions because our choice is supposed to be exercised in a particular way – well in that case there is no real freedom. In this sense neither Muslims nor non-Muslims are free to choose anything other than Islam. As verse (3:85) clearly states, no choice except Islam. In fact even according to the verse (2:256) the non-Muslims they only have a choice because Allah (SWT) has not compelled them through the Sharia laws to become Muslims, they should enter Islam willingly. As the sentence after “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), states: “truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Taghout and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.” clearly pointing out, if they do not choose Islam they will be accountable and face the consequence in the hereafter.

The moderates in fact make the confusion between freewill and having the freedom to choose legally per the Islamic law, i.e. a legal permit. They selectively cite verses like 2:256 and this: "Say (Muhammad it is) truth from Lord of all. Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." [18:29] to claim that we have freedom of religion as Muslims. Nope, we are not free to choose we have the ability to choose! The idea of freedom in the verse 18:29 is clearly referring to freewill; it is a description of the reality that we have been given the ability to exercise our freewill; this ability to exercise freewill is not a legal permit. Hence, it is not evidence of permission from Allah (SWT), for Muslims to apostasise using the bogus claim that Islam caters for freedom of religion!

If the Muslims had the right to apostasies by making dubious interpretations of selected verses, and proclaiming freedom of religion, then they would have the right to do anything else, by that same argument. Therefore, we can take another example, we as Muslim have the ability to use our sexual organs in anyway we please as Allah (SWT) has given us the ability and free will (not the right) to use it in any way we please and commit fornication. But clearly we do not have the right from Islam to do that, as Allah (SWT) has prohibited adultery.

Apostasy is one thing, trial and execution of the apostate is another matter entirely. This can only be done by a legitimate Islamic State, the Caliphate. The defendant has to be brought and tried by an Islamic court. Clearly in the absence of the Islamic state, this is neither possible, nor permissible. For sure if a genuine Islamic state existed, the Afghani apostate would not have returned as an apostate from Germany, as he would know the consequence.

This means that he knows that he will not face the penal codes, as the rulers in the country –” Karazai & Co are the biggest apostates and criminals according to Islamic laws; because, they aided the Kafir (American forces and its allies) to murder their fellow Muslims, in Afghanistan. Those rulers nether have the Islamic legitimacy, nor do they have the backbone to make decisions that are not approved by their anti-Islamic masters; indeed they would appear first before any convened Islamic court, if there was real justice. The whole episode is nothing more than a tragicomical theatre piece!