Apostates, the felons of Islamic Sharia

Apostates, the felons of Islamic Sharia

Although I am an Agnostic and Deist, I am not preaching Agnosticism or Deism; being an ex-Muslim my aim is the liberation of the common Muslims from serfdom of theocracy, a lifetime of servitude. I am doing what I can, which obviously is not much, to prod the poor Muslims to move on the war against ignorance.

Personally, I rejected the claims of my ex-religion 'Islam' because it does not base on reason or logic, totally irrational. I have explored my mind to go beyond imagination and absurdity to reality. I cannot follow any sort of religion, blind faith or concepts which is not compatible with the reality we know. I believe in promoting the right to education, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, altruism, real knowledge, and truth. It allows me to see every person foremost as a fellow member of humanity and traveling the same path of life alongside us.

Between 632 and 633 AD, Soon after the death of Mohammed, a series of widespread military campaigns were launched by the first Caliph Abu Baker against Arabian tribes who committed apostasy in the interior of the Arabian Peninsula. Those battles are known in Arabic as the Ridda Wars and in English as Wars of Apostasy.   
Before Muslims, their forerunner monotheists performed in the same manner. This is the reason that number of heretic Christian sects, Gnostic Christians, Ebionites, Arians, Marcionites, Cathars, Albigenses and Waldenses are now history; because modern Pauline Christianity successfully accomplishes to eradicate those heretics. They were all accused of Heresy and Apostasy.

Arabic word ‘Murtad’ means Apostate and ‘Irtidād’ means ‘Apostasy,’ in Islamic Sharia laws it is equal to treason. The punishment prescribed by the Islamic Sharia for apostasy is death. Further, In Sharia, apostates defined as two types: First, Fitri Apostate and second Milli Apostate.

1.   Fitri Apostate: means a person whose parents are Muslim then he rejects Islam. The Arabic term ‘Murtad Fitri" implies that the person has apostate from the faith in which he was born. In this case, the apostasy is like the treason against God; he/she has to be killed even if repents. If he/she repents, then there is a hope that Allah may accept repentance and may be forgiven in the hereafter, but still has to go through the execution, the legal punishment prescribed by Sharia laws for treason in this world.

2.   Milli Apostate: means a former non-Muslim who converted to Islam and then, later on, he/she rejects Islam. In this case, the apostasy is like the treason against the Muslim community. He/she will get a second chance: if accused repents, then he/she will not be killed, but it does not repent, then has to be killed.

According to my understanding,  If I was born in a Muslim family and was brought up as Muslim, it means that Islam was not really my choice and they are my parents who imposed Islam on me, would not it be wrong to forbid me from exercising my freedom of consciousness and freedom of thoughts?

The classic argument from radical Muslims who support the penalty is of ‘Treason.’ In fact, it is an absurd argument. The concept of ‘Treason’ and ‘Traitor’ is associated with the country, not with religion, concept or ideology. Traitor of the country can bear severe consequences, possibly life sentence or in the worst scenario death penalty. But religion and country are absolutely two different cases; my place and country of birth was not my choice and I cannot change my place and country of birth, but I can change my beliefs which I was not born with at all.

Another argument for the justification of the death penalty for apostasy from Muslims is according to the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah:

The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, “There is no child who is not born in a state of fitrah, (nature) then his parents make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian.” Narrated by Bukhari, 1292 and Muslim, 2658.

This argument is as foolish as this hadith, it has absolutely no logical or natural basis and impossible to be true. Quran is the only source of guidance for all Muslims, not the fabricated Sharia laws. So does anyone know whether the Quran really does prescribe the death penalty? It is very interesting that the Quran does speak of apostasy more than a dozen times but does not speak of apostasy laws or any punishment, no judgment on apostates is mentioned in the Quran.  

Furthermore, according to Islamic Sharia, apart from the Death Penalty for the apostates and heretics, the punishment for Apostasy and Heresy includes state enforced:

1.     Annulment of his or her marriage,
2.   Seizure of the person's children and property with an automatic assignment to guardians and heirs.

Islam is divided into two main sects, a first majority Sunni and second minority Shia sect and both prescribe Disinheritance and Execution for an Apostate, according to their Sharia Laws. (At least, on one evil they are united). Both use the name of the Quran but no one follows it. Muslim masses remains stuck in the manmade, counterfeit, number two Islam which consists of Hadiths and Sunnah. Quran is just for recitation and chant purpose only.

There is not any commandment in the Quran to create a pile of ludicrous and absurd books to add to Gods laws, which God forgot. There is no doubt that the Quran does say ‘Obey God and his messenger.’

And obey Allah and obey the Messenger and beware. And if you turn away - then know that upon Our Messenger is only [the responsibility for] clear notification. Quran 5:92   

And obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away - then upon Our Messenger is only [the duty of] clear notification. Quran 64:12

It is obvious from these Quranic verses that Muslims must obey God and his Messenger BUT the messenger’s sole duty is to deliver the message and the message can only be Quran. Hence, Obey the Message (Quran) that the Messenger delivered. In fact, Messenger being as a first Muslim was also following the same Quran.   

So-called and self-declared IMAMS, Mullah, and Muftis hijacked "Obey the Messenger" to mean eat dates because the Messenger liked dates and to brush teeth with Miswak instead of a brush and ride a camel because the prophet of Islam did. How does this have anything to do with ‘Obey Allah’?

“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger” does not mean obey God and Bukhari, Muslim or Nasai; they were not the messenger. God or Messenger did not ask them to write or compile the Stories and attribute towards prophet of Islam and bound Muslims forever to follow their absurdity. They were not authorized by God or prophet of Islam. These anecdotes and fables (Hadith and Sunnah) were compiled 250+ years after the death of Messenger in very controversial circumstances. Messenger did not follow Bukhari, Muslim or Nasai, but only Quran

Why gullible Muslims do not study History, whether they like it or not, they will discover that their self-proclaimed Imams, Mullah, and Muftis have done to Quran in the same old fashion as the Jewish Pharisees did to the Torah, added the Talmud, oral Torah and changed Gods laws and added to his words.  

Say, "Have you seen what God has sent down to you from provisions, then you made some of it forbidden and some lawful?" Say, "Did God authorize you, or did you invent lies against God?" Quran 10:59

You shall not invent lies about God by attributing lies with your tongues, saying: "This is lawful and that is forbidden." Those who invent lies about God will not succeed. Quran 16:116

The gang of self-proclaimed scholars has no right to decide on behalf of Islam what is good or bad ‘Sahih.’ It is same as bevies of Romans & Christians in the Council of Nicaea 325AD, decided, what gospels will and would not be included in the New Testament Bible.

Now, what about the Sunnah (the established way)? It is true that the word "Sunnah" is mentioned in the Quran a few times; but only for God, never used for the Sunnah of Messenger. For example:

This is God's Sunnah (the established way) with those who have passed away before, and you will not find any change in God's Sunnah. Quran 33:62

The word ‘Sunnah’ is not used in the following verse, but the word “Hikmah”; which means wisdom, not Sunnah. This has nothing to do with following the Sunnah of the prophet of Islam.

.... and what was sent down to you of AL KITAAB (the book) and AL HIKMAH (the wisdom), He warns you with it. Be conscientious of God and know that God is Knowledgeable in all things. Quran 2:231

Now, look at evident Quranic verses, against adding anything in the Islam on the name the Hadith or Sunnah as the words of God:

 [Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters. Quran 6:114

And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and injustice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing. Quran 6:115
Sunnah and Hadith are mere conjecture and guessing.

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, (conjecture) and they are not but falsifying (guess). Quran 6:116

The messenger said, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran." Quran 25:30

And indeed, they were about to tempt you away from that which We revealed to you in order to [make] you invent about Us something else; and then they would have taken you as a friend. Quran 17:73

They are not but [mere] names you have named them - you and your forefathers - for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance. Quran 53:23

Among the people, there are those who accept baseless hadiths to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution. Quran 31:6

A Muslim reader probably wondering, how can we pray Salat (Prayers) without Hadith and Sunnah? Please ask the question that how to perform Salat WITH Hadith and Sunnah? In fact, all Hadith and Sunnah followers are praying around the globe in so many different ways. There is not even a single Hadith which tells you to step by step, start to finish, how to pray Salat; they are not only confusing but completely contradictory.

As a matter of fact, when Muslims follow Sunnah and Hadith they cannot pray with each other, but due to this addendum, they can slit each other’s throats very happily and officially, with the hope and desire of paradise with 72 virgins. 

But if they follow only Quran, they will find that there are only five things that entail Quranic Salat/prayers: 1- Ablution 2- To face the direction of Qibla (Mecca) 3- To commemorate God alone 4- To recite any verse from Quran and 5- To stand, bow and prostrate.

As a principal, anything else which is not mentioned in the Quran is not important at all. A number of rake, how to curled toe, the position of hands are not the issue to God, but the intention and sincerity. Being a Muslim, a follower of Islam, just follow the Quran only, because the Messenger was also following the Quran only, not the Mr. Bukhari and his books. 

The minutiae available in the disguise of Hadith, Sunnah, and Sharia Laws are for those who want to become more than Muslim.

Note: Personally, I Do not believe in a divine revelation.

Quranic Islam simply based on following axioms and a Muslim is a person who believes and practices in these:

1.     Belief in the one God, eternal, creator, and sovereign.
2.   Belief in the prophet of Islam as the final Prophet and all Biblical Prophets.
3.   Belief in the Day of Judgment and the Hereafter.
4.   Belief in the Angels.    

Simple words, there is no slot for the Hadith and Sunnah. Because they are just a collection of fables and most of them are fiction in nature, attributed to the Prophet of Islam, could only acceptable as part of the history. Reliability, authenticity, and accuracy of the details of the history are always ambiguous, and suspicious. Just vague memories of the century when the Muslim nation was divided into different sects and creeds which caused a schism in the Muslim nation. Amid such schism, when the Muslims were slitting each other’s throats, how can we trust the honesty and rectitude of historians, the Bukhari, Abu Dawood, Al-Nasaai, etc...

Originally, Islam is attached with only Quran. Quran gives general guidelines for a balanced and successful life but details are left open to the followers to implement according to their era, time, specific culture and circumstances. 

In the real Islam, a Muslim can read and understand the Quran without any problem. On the other hand, in the current number twoJuggernaut Islam’ which is the just replica of the original Islam, Muslims cannot afford to understand Quran without the huge horde and massive army of conjuror Imams, Mullahs, and Muftis.

In this type of Islam God is unreachable to the common Muslim masses without the holy custodians and contractors of Islam; they have no choice but blindly following them.

Islam should segregate from the history of Muslims, these are two different things. Facts are intermingled with fiction and due to intermingling two entirely different things, Muslim apologists need to defend Islam; actually, they defend Muslims’ history, what they did in the past. They waste their energy in defending the atrocities of Muslim rulers and Imams. Most of the criticisms, raving, and ranting on Islam are actually criticisms of the way of Muslims behaved in the history, and not of the axioms of Islam themselves.

In original Islam, there is no space for unsubstantiated Sharia laws that originally obtained from Hadith and are deliberately attributed to Islam. Almost all Capital Punishments are due to absurd Sharia Laws to eliminate the Apostates, freethinkers, and Liberals such as Avicenna.

My foes and friends usually asked me: Do you know Islam more than the Muslim Scholars who have dedicated their lives to Islam? Obviously, the simple and true answer is NO, I am neither Mufti, Mullah nor rhapsodist savant nor a theologian, and I am just an average common man. But I see Islam from an unbiased point of view, without any attachments to a particular sect. Without any prejudice, mystification, mythology or political ambitions, and I have not any mercenary motives or any desire for megalomania. I am also not hidebound or narrow-minded and this is the alibi I have a better ability to reason than them. In the meantime, I never claimed that I am impeccable.

By the way, there are scholars in every religion, idolater, monotheist, polytheistic even nihilistic, they also dedicated and devoted their lives to their inherited religion or ideology. It does not make them right.

You, the reader of this article, would be a follower one of these sects or ideologies and probably very much assured that the rituals taught in your sect are bona fide and certified.

It is almost impossible to segregate true and false stories out of these Hadiths. And I am confident that Muhammad was a much better person than what the Hadith and Sunnah writers deliberately portrayed him. 

According to them, we have to believe that Muhammad, ‘the Prophet of Allah’ who delivered the Quran, was, Sexist, Racist, Violent, Child Molester etc.; the whole idea is a complete surreal. According to these Hucksters and their composed Hadith and Iliads, women, in puritan Muslim societies still regarded a chattel, utterly nauseating.

Please do not construe this as any criticism, the truth is always bitter and fraught with anguish and pain. But whether one accepts or rejects Hadith and Sunnah; as a matter of fact, they are not part of Islam. If they were meant to be, God should mention explicitly in the Quran. It is all heresy.

According to Muslims’ own belief, “Allah protected the Quran but no other book,” then why Muslims are following Hoax, the bizarre hadiths, and so-called Sunnah and Hoaxers.

This is not to say that the Hadith or Sunnah books are worthless, they certainly have value as many other history books do, but their contents cannot be taken as absolute truth from the God; they are written by some people.

And this is not the only case of Islam only, religion has throughout the human history, constantly been bloated with more and more additions by its honchos, typically intended to control the masses and give said religious doyens more power, authority and of course wealth. 

As a matter of fact, religions are always in conflict with liberty, human rights, modernity, the Enlightenment, moral goodness, and democracy.

In my opinion, the authentic religion should be candid, logical, and focused on the prosperity of humanity and also for the rest of the creation of God.

The perfect religion should be without any mysteries, paradoxes, irrational requirements, and or long and terribly convoluted explanations. In a pure and simple religion, there is no place of hypocritical, autocratic, imperious and overbearing religious so-called leaders who strive utmost to ensnare the vulnerable in their egocentric nets of dogma.

Dear reader, nature or God whatsoever you say, gave us the faculty and ability of logic and reason, hence it should be pursued above any book that attributed to God. The eventual and paramount force that determines belief is the innate human faculty and ability for logical reasoning.  

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 18 and European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10, freedom of religion and belief is a basic accepted human right in all over the civilized world. But In the Muslim world from Indonesia to Mauritania, government authorities and vigilantes punish cruelly those who transgressed from Muslim beliefs. His/her basic human rights are readily overridden when they come into conflict with Islam and Sharia laws.

It is shameful even to mention that in the 21st century, there are more than dozen countries where Islam is the dominant religion, apostasy is illegal, and the death penalty is legal, except one, India. It is not allowed there to change your religion. Anyone who dares to heresy in these countries, will not punish only by social estrangement and alienation but finally with torture and the death penalty, either by government or mob.

This is the list of such countries: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and astonishingly, India as well. Change of religion is taboo and it is Illegal in some provinces of India such as Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and others, despite the Constitution. 

In India, regretfully, change of religion never be seen as a purely individual matter when one religiously defined community is at war or armed standoff with another. One of the greatest triggers for intolerance, violence, and strife in Indian society.

 Although Judaism and Christianity today is friendly with apostasy, their harrowing and worrying history regarding heresy and apostasy due to Deuteronomy 13:6-11, is equal in brutality, barbarity and utmost savagery to the worst elements of Islam.  

In above mentioned 12 Muslim countries their governments and radical Muslim population are strongly inclined to spread fear, angst, and terror against anyone who even slightly divert from the mainstream Islam, questioning or doubting that Islam is actually the true religion. Indeed it is an effective curb on apostasy. Even just a rumor would put the life also in danger.

Life would become more difficult if the alleged apostate or blasphemer has property or a successful business. In most cases, either they killed by the mob or by members of the family. In these countries all legal avenues are closed for such criminals; ostracization, violence, intense social pressure, and life threats are a daily routine.

If any alleged apostate or blasphemer arrested, then he/she will be killed in the place of confinement either by the co-prisoners or by any radical staff member of the jail. Even if they are freed by the Supreme Court because of the false charges, but still they are not able to enjoy freedom in Pakistan.

Nearly all the alleged blasphemers and apostates have sought asylum abroad to live a life of freedom and peace which was not possible in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; a country which was separated from India on the name of Islam. Apostates from Islam and blasphemers cannot enjoy their right to live freely in Pakistan because apostasy is treason in Islamic Sharia Laws, for which the penalty is death.

In these Muslim countries, liberal and moderate Muslims have often labeled apostates because they are abandoning Sharia laws and Islamic fundamentalist culture. If the state hesitates or fails to execute apostates and blasphemers, then, anyone loyal to Allah is entitled to carry out Allah's punishment. They perform this holy duty because lynching and mob violence are accepted culture and norm, sponsored by government and judiciary of these Muslim countries. This is because jihad can be waged against even Muslims, those who do not completely uphold Islamic Sharia laws.  

As well as risking their relationships with their families that had deteriorated, apostates also have to deal with the massive psychological challenge of abandoning a concept they have carried since childhood.

In Pakistan, eminent High Court Judges and Religious Leaders have urged the common public to execute blasphemers and apostates on the spot. These Islamic Sharia zealous followers are trying to return Muslim Societies to the Seventh Century. One of them is a prominent Judge of the Lahore High Court, Justice Nazir Akhtar.

He publicly announced that there is no need for legal proceedings for apostates and blasphemers. Anybody accused under blasphemy or apostasy charges should be killed on the spot by Muslims because this is the religious duty of every Muslim. These loathing remarks of a distinguished judge appeared in the national print media of Pakistan, Urdu language newspaper ‘Insaf’ and ‘Khabrain’ dated 28 August 2000. Lahore High Court, Justice Nazir Akhtar further declared, "We shall slit every tongue that is guilty of insolence against the Holy Prophet.”

These are the religion and totalitarian regimes, allying themselves with kings and rulers, they created the concepts of Blasphemy, Heresy, and Apostasy, to remind people of the Dark Ages. Torturing and burning Heretics, Apostates, and Blasphemers under the banners of God, Religion, and Sharia.

Every human has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, the thought is not a crime, and disagree with religion should not result in imprisonment, violence, and execution. Sharia-based Islam and Muslims have a genuine predicament with the acceptance of basic human rights when it comes to freedom of belief. 

Whether they like or not, as a natural phenomenon, Western culture and the Enlightenment will encroach Muslim societies; militarily, culturally and, above all, intellectually.  

The Muslim extremists, who insist to live in the Seventh Century, they should learn few lessons from their own religion, when they claim they love Islam: Under the Constitution of Medina, approved by the Prophet of Islamin 622 CE; Muhammad in the Seventh Century Medina, accepted Jews as equal members of the Muslim Society. According to the Quran, “Allah gave the Promised land to the Children of Israel as an eternal inheritance.” 

I still not understand why the issue of Israel as a Jewish State is the very core of the Muslim-Israeli conflict; there is no substratum for declaring a Jihad against Israel or against Jews. Muslims’ religious apartheid, is incongruous with the insight of 21st Century world pattern.

They will also find that Seventh Century Muslims took seriously the Quranic injunction 2:256 that there is to be no compulsion in religion. Furthermore, they can also broaden their horizons by finding a practical implementation of Quranic verses 2: 62 and 5:69 because there were no Sharia Laws in the seventh Century. This is the reason that it was possible for the Seventh Century Muslims to recognize the goodness in righteous Christians and Jews. In absence of Hadith, Sunnah, and Sharia Laws, this is also possible in the 21st Century.

Finally, there is no place of barbaric Sharia Laws in the age of the Enlightenment. 21st Century Muslims have a challenging task, Will they ever are able to reform and modernize and join the 21st Century?

Want to send your comments? Feel free to write, even if it happens to be a curse and not a greeting:islamvsislam@hotmail.com    

Popular Posts