Hello everyone

jack2k6

Junior Member
Hello everyone, I am jack. I have some questions regarding islam/muslims and i would appreciate if i am given some straight answers.

1. Why is it that muslims deny the Holocaust without even giving a second thought ? It's a known fact that the Holocaust DID happen, but yet muslims deny it ? Any particular reason behind it.

2. If islam allows democracy, then why is Saudi Arabia ( considered the heart of muslims ) governed by pure-dictatorship, no one has given a single vote in Arabia in entire history ( as far as i know ).

3. When someone is about to embrace islam, muslims welcome him open heartedly (which is fine), but when someone is about to leave islam then he must be killed/stoned because thats the biggest blasphemy. Why isn't anyone allowed the leave islam in a similar manner he/she is welcomed to islam. ?

(I didn't intend to offend anyone, but if i have done so, then i apologize for it)

Peace,
Jack
 

Karima

Junior Member
Asalamualikum,

Very interesting to know......

Why is it that muslims deny the Holocaust without even giving a second thought ? It's a known fact that the Holocaust DID happen, but yet muslims deny it ? Any particular reason behind it.

Are you kidding that there are those who really do not believe the Jews were persecuted? Schindler's List is non-fiction...for those who might want to learn about what happened. Also, Auswitch, a short non-ficiton book is interesting to read....I read it in highschool and could not believe how horrible humans were treated....just because they were jewish.

Salam
 

shadykan

Junior Member
Salam Jack

ANd welcome to this web site, don't hesitate to ask questions and people will do their best to answer you.

First, I want to say that I am NOT a scholar, what I know is very limited, so God forgive me if I say something wrong.

I won't use the Qu'ran or any Islamic reference, I let more educated people do that. But I can answer some of your questions using some logic.

Firts of all, it is really important, I think, to differentiate Islam and Muslims. I personnaly, and honestly, think that Islam is PERFECT, no doubt about it, it's a religion a justice and peace, and justice for everyone !!! But, I don't think that muslims are perfect !!!

When a muslim does something wrong, people should judge the person NOT the religion, even if he pretends to do it in the name of God.

Let's get to your question !

2. If islam allows democracy, then why is Saudi Arabia ( considered the heart of muslims ) governed by pure-dictatorship, no one has given a single vote in Arabia in entire history ( as far as i know ).

What do you mean by "The Heart Of Islam"?
Saudi Arabia is a Holy Land for muslims, that is where our Prophet (Peace be upon) lived and where he received the divine message, and every muslim (if he can afford) must accomplish the pilgrimage in Mecca. But I do not think that the people who govern this country are any Holy or sacred, they (in my opinion) do NOT represent Islam. I don't want to judge or criticize them, because I am not an expert, but i can say that there are a lot of non-islamic things going on there, like corruption, their relations with the US government, etc etc...

What you say about Saudi Arabia can be used for any other country...

Bush invaded Iraq in the name of God, nobody criticizes Christianity but Bush!!!
Hitler killed millions of jews, nobody condemned the Bible !!!
Sharon is responsible for the massacres of thousands of palestinians, nobody accused the Torah!!!

I may have not really answered your questions, but I hope you get the point.

But you're right to ask questions brother, we're all looking for answers, nobody's perfect !!!

And if you really want to have someone as the example of what a muslim should be, just take Prophet Muhammad (SAW) Peace Be Upon Him.
 

shadykan

Junior Member
Somebody actually denies the Holocaust ever happened?
Wow, I don't know if they're muslims, but for sure a part of their memory is missing!!!
 

aliff

Junior Member
Assalamu A'laikum,

1. Why is it that muslims deny the Holocaust without even giving a second thought ? It's a known fact that the Holocaust DID happen, but yet muslims deny it ? Any particular reason behind it.

I do know of some muslims who denies the holocaust, but i am a muslim and i strongly believe the holocaust did happen and there are many like me. ( Just have a look at the current jewish population of the world ~0.4% <= This figure kinda explains that the holocaust did happen). Also, there are many non-muslims as well who denies the holocaust, so the idea that the denial of holocaust is limited to just some muslims is not true.


About your 2nd point...

A few days ago, a saw a video where 'George Galloway' issued exactly the same issue that while Iraq was invaded for dictatorship, Bush and his administration maintains excellent relationship with the Saudi kings, despite the fact that Saudi runs in a dictatorship. Even a member of Saudi royal family is named 'Bander Bush' because of his relationship with bush. The issue is like brother shadykhan previously stated, even though its a holy country for the muslims, there are many non-islamic things that goes on there.. !

edit: Israel is considered holy land of the Jewish people, but some of the actions of Israel has nothing to do with the teachings of Torah :)

wassalam
 

Saifullah

New Member
1. Why is it that muslims deny the Holocaust without even giving a second thought ? It's a known fact that the Holocaust DID happen, but yet muslims deny it ? Any particular reason behind it. .

I am a muslim and i belive in the holocaust ,Yes i belive the Holocaust did happen .just because the president of Iran denies or some muslims deniy it .so it doesnt mean that the entire muslims as a whole will deny the holocaust ,There are somany facts and proof's that the holocaust did happened Jews were killed in the Gas chambers and concentration camps Holocaust is a Fact . Just like these very few muslims there are also few christians and athiests who deny the holocoust.

2. If islam allows democracy, then why is Saudi Arabia ( considered the heart of muslims ) governed by pure-dictatorship, no one has given a single vote in Arabia in entire history ( as far as i know )..

Saudia arabia is not just a country it is a Kingdom ,Ruled by a King and it has been a kingdom for hundreds of years ,They are the owners of their land so the question of having a democraticaly elected president or a dictatorship dosent arises .Since the land belongs to the King ...The king is the one to decide that who will rule his country after he is dead and it is obvious that his sons will take his place.

3. When someone is about to embrace islam, muslims welcome him open heartedly (which is fine), but when someone is about to leave islam then he must be killed/stoned because thats the biggest blasphemy. Why isn't anyone allowed the leave islam in a similar manner he/she is welcomed to islam ?.

Hello .right now i dont have a good answer for your question ,Hope you can wait cause i'll search some islamic forums to find your answer and give you a good reply .

Till then sing with me

Well one of these nights bout 12 o'clock
This old world is gonna rock
Pharaoh's army got drownded
 

Wiseguy74

Junior Member
Islam.....Often Times A Misunderstood Religion.

Hei Jack,

islam/muslims......Often time people misunderstood Islam with Muslims. These are two different things and should be judge on its own account. Below are the Fatwa's (a legal pronouncement in Islam made by a scholar capable of issuing judgments on Sharia - Islamic law) on similar questions asked by different indivisuals on www.islamonline.net

1. Why is it that muslims deny the Holocaust without even giving a second thought ? It's a known fact that the Holocaust DID happen, but yet muslims deny it ? Any particular reason behind it.

Answer: It is the duty of Muslims to side with the oppressed and persecuted regardless of their religion, race, or ethnicity. Almighty Allah says, (O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity; and let not hatred of any people make you swerve from justice. Deal justly; that is nearer to God-fearing. Fear Allah. Allah is Aware of what you do) (Al-Ma’idah 5: 7).

Therefore, Muslims must condemn the holocaust, genocide, or murder of any people, regardless of their religion, nationality, or race.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

As Muslims we are not allowed to condone the holocaust, genocide, or murder of any people, regardless of their religious, ethnic, or racial affiliations. Almighty Allah says, (For that cause We ordained for the children of Israel that whosoever kills a human being for other than (the crimes of) manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind) (Al-Ma’idah 5: 32).

The fact that the victims are Jews does not make any difference. Islam does not fault the father for the crime of his son; nor is the husband faulted for the sin of his wife or vice versa. As Allah says, (Each soul earns only on its own account, nor does any laden (soul) bear another’s load) (Al-An`am 6: 164). Each person, therefore, is responsible for his/her own deeds. So targeting an entire race or ethnic group as it was done by Hitler is a crime against all of humanity, not just against the Jews. In the same vein, we must affirm this as a universal, ethical imperative, for Allah’s laws are universal, applicable to all times and places. Holocaust or genocide practiced against any people must be condemned. It is the duty of Muslims to side with the oppressed and persecuted regardless of their religious, racial, or ethnic affiliations. Allah says, (O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity; and not hatred of any people make you swerve from justice. Deal justly; that is nearer to God-fearing. Fear Allah. Allah is Aware of what you do) (Al-Ma’idah 5: 7).

In light of the above, we must condemn the holocaust, genocide, or murder of any people, regardless of whether it is targeted against Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and regardless of whether they are Jews, Arabs or Palestinians, or black or white, yellow or brown, etc. This is God’s immutable law as revealed to all of His prophets from Adam to Muhammad, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all).


2. If islam allows democracy, then why is Saudi Arabia ( considered the heart of muslims ) governed by pure-dictatorship, no one has given a single vote in Arabia in entire history ( as far as i know ).

Answer: First of all, we would like to highlight the fact that pluralism is something known to Islam and Muslim scholars a long time ago. Islam does not say that only one party should run the affairs of the whole state or seize power; rather, it leaves the matter to be determined according to the rules of As-Siyasah Ash-Shar`iyyah (Shari`ah-Oriented Policy) that vary according to time and place. Muslim scholars accept the articles of the democratic system that cope with the teachings of Islam.

Making this concept clear, here is the fatwa issued by the eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, vice President of the European Council for Fatwa and Research:

“To claim that Islam advocates monocracy is untrue. It is well-established that since the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, Muslims have known different political parties that have constituted in shaping political structure of the Muslim societies.

The Emigrants (Al-Muhajirun) and the Helpers (Al-Ansar) acted as if they were two parties, still they were far remote from enmity known among the fans of each party. They (the Emigrants and the Helpers) differed concerning choosing the Caliph. This was the first political difference of its kind occurring among Muslims. Each party demanded that the Caliph was to be chosen from among them. This is not far different from the demand of any contemporary political party.

Yet, the emergence of real partisanship was remarkable after the assassination of Caliph `Uthman ibn `Affan, may Allah be pleased with him. The assassination itself was a form of a military coup against the ruler, another act that can be carried out by a political party.

Later, the Kharijites appeared during the reign of Caliph `Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, and were known as a political party as well as a sect. Many dynasties that appeared later including the Abbassyds, the Turks and the Mamlukis were no more than political parties taking power.

In fact, forming political parties or gatherings that call for political legal goals is completely Islamic. Muslim activists who hold the view that Islam allows one party are very few and even have no effect on the mainstream. Muslim activists who can win elections all believe in pluralism within the framework of Islam. In case those peaople come to power, there will be no fear of any political despotism.

As for the true concept of democracy, it is not our main concern. We, Muslims believe in pluralism and political freedom as part and parcel of Islamic teachings. It is worth stressing here that we accept the articles and the principles of democracy that cope with the teachings of Islam and reject those principles that are non-Islamic. Our main reference is Islam when deciding whether to accept or reject any new ideology.”

3. When someone is about to embrace islam, muslims welcome him open heartedly (which is fine), but when someone is about to leave islam then he must be killed/stoned because thats the biggest blasphemy. Why isn't anyone allowed the leave islam in a similar manner he/she is welcomed to islam. ?

Answer: It is absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam advocates killing people who choose to leave Islam. To kill anyone who chooses to follow a religion other than Islam is against the fundamental teachings of the Qur'an. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of the Qur'an that is clearly stated. Thus, if apostates cause no harm to the Muslim community and do not call for spreading hostility towards Islam, they should not to be punished; rather they should be advised kindly and wisely to learn the truth about Islam.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following:

Freedom of conscience is one of the fundamental rights of humans enshrined in the Qur'an; it is therefore, absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam allows putting people to death just because they convert to another religion.

Even a casual reader of the Qur'an will not fail to be impressed by its emphasis on the freedom of conscience as a cornerstone of its moral structure. To cite a few verses as follows:

[There shall be no compulsion in religion. Distinct has now become the right way from [the wayof] error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing] ( Al-Baqarah 2:256)

[If it had been your Lord's will, all who are in the earth would have believed. Will you, then, force the people to become believers?] (Yunus 10:99)

[And if they surrender themselves unto Him (i.e. God), they are on the right path; but if they turn away – behold, thy duty (O Muhammad,) is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures.] (Aal `Imran 3:20)

[Hence, pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Messenger, and be ever on your guard [against evil]; and if you turn away, then know that Our Messenger's only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him].] (Al-Ma'idah 5:92)

[But if they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, know that] Wehave not sent thee to be their keeper: thou art not bound to do more than deliver the message [entrusted to thee] .] (Ash-Shura 42:48)

I should further state that all of the moral teachings of the Qur'an are based on the notion of moral responsibility, which entails the freedom of choice. Therefore, to state that one must be put to death for choosing to disbelieve would only undermine the entire moral edifice of the Qur'an.

Furthermore, the Qur'an does not allow anyone to harm those who are leaving in peace, no matter what religion they hold on to. This principle has been clearly stated in the Qur'an as follows:

[Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.] (An-Nisaa' 4:90)

In pursuance of this policy, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) issued clear directives to his soldiers never to disturb those who are engaged in any form of worship. The policy of living and letting others to live is firmly enshrined in the following verses:

[Say: O disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship, Nordo you worship what I worship. ... to you your religion, and to me, mine.] (Al-Kafirun 109:1-3, 6)

In full conformity with the above teachings, neither the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) nor any of the four rightly guided caliphs who succeeded him were in the habit of hunting down people and executing them for merely changing their religions. Rather, they refrained from doing so except in rare cases involving treason. Treason, however, is another matter. The punishment for treason in the Qur'an is as strict as it is in the Hebrew Bible. But it must never be confused with mere change of religion.

In conclusion, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam advocates killing people who covert to another religion.

If you have any further comments, please don't hesitate to write back!

May Allah guide us all to the straight path, and guide us to that which pleases Him, Amen.

Regards
Farooq
 

Asude

New Member
Hello Jack,thanks for your message.For "Justice",we have to teach to each other what we know.As people,we have this responsibility.Islam is the last religion sent for all people,not for only muslims.Islam is "life"and "truth" and it provides us to have right knowledge.We should learn Islam from right sources. It is perfect because it was sent by Allah.We can't evaluate it according to people's attitudes.Because we may do wrong things if we don't know Islam or if we make do only with hearsay.I mean people's faults don't show Islam's faults.Because Islam is faultless.But people are not faultless.I want you to think these sentences for the answer of your first question.In your second question,you have talked about democracy.Firstly,I want to say that Muslims are responsible for verses in Qur'an,not for most of people's votes.I mean,the majority is not our criterion.In Islam,there isn't any kingdom or sultanate.So Suudi Arabia can't mirror all muslims. Muslims choose right person to keep alive Qur'an's verses.It is important what Allah wants from us.According to this,we should choose our leader,according to this,we should live. And for your last questions,I can say that there is no coaction in Islam.We can't suppress anyone to accept Islam.We are only responsible for telling Islam.To accept Islam is up to them.And also we can't kill them when they leave Islam.Already.if they had assimilated Islam,they hadn't left it.We know "to kill innocent someone is like killing all people."There is only way to learn the truth:to read Qur'an.I advise you to read it without being late for us.:SMILY126:
 

jack2k6

Junior Member
@Wiseguy74 and @all

Thanks for the quick replies. FYI: i have been reading the Holy Quran. Here are a few things i came across (in some sites) which suggests otherwise. I would appreciate some clarification:

Bukhari 9:57 "Who ever changes his religion, should be killed !"
Quran 9:29 suggests that muslims should fight the dis-believers until they agree to pay tax (Poll-tax) for being disbelievers to muslims.


Peace
Jack.
 

Tahar

Junior Member
Muslims don't deny the holocaust

I am a Muslim and I don't deny the holocaust. Muslims have nothing to gain from denying it did happen. Actually, in the beginning of the Nazi genocidal campaign, they thought they were doing it with the Catholic church's blessings. Muslims or Islam has nothing to do with those heinous crimes.

Lately, more information is coming out about the heroic role prominent Muslims have played in saving the lives of countless Jews from Nazi persecution. There is Paris's main mosque Imam, among many countless other heroes, who hid Jews and issued countless fraudulent IDs to cover their identities to make them look like Muslims. There is a recent article in the sunday times magazine about how many Jews had a lucky escape during the Holocaust - all because Arabs risked their own lives to rescue them.

You can read the rest of the article here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2469952.html
 

Wiseguy74

Junior Member
Hei Jack,

Here is another verse, "Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, dis-believers) where ever you find them." [Al-Qur’an 9:5]

Again, often times Islam is a misunderstood religion.

It will always makes us confuse if we will take these verses out of their own context. Below is the description of the verse I mentioned above by Dr.Zakir Naik-President Islamic Research Foundation. India.

Context of verse is during battlefield:

Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this chapter. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 9:5]

This verse is quoted during a battle.


Example of war between America and Vietnam:

We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.

Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle:

Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, "Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.


Shourie jumps from verse 5 to verse 7:

Arun Shourie is one of the staunchest critics of Islam in India. He quotes the same verse, Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 in his book ‘The World of Fatwahs’, on page 572. After quoting verse 5 he jumps to verse 7 of Surah Taubah. Any sensible person will realise that he has skipped verse 6.


Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer

Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur’an 9:6]

The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world.


Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace:

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.


Besides, have you ever wonder if Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality than why it is that Islam is athe fastest growing religion in America, Europe and in the rest of the world? Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers? If there is no women rights in Islam than why is it that 4 out of every 5 western converts to Islam are women. The growth of Islam in the last decade is almost 235%, far more then any other religion.

I tell you why???...... It is the unique features of Islam that have won millions of followers. Islam is a practicle religion. It makes no distinction between the spiritual and secular life, Infact it is a complete way of life and is present in every field of human existence - Idividual and social, material and moral, economic and political, legal and cultural, national and international.

Nothing ‘ll change in our society unless we begin to understand each other and demonstrate broadly that people of different faiths can live together in peace and harmony and be a united force for the good by tackling the common social problems.

When Christians, Jews, Muslims and the other religious faiths can peacefully coexisted side by side in an inspired cultural exchange of the science and arts and can create a cultural of tolerance for almost 700 years (8th- 15th centuries in Spain) than why can’t now??....


I am glad that you are reading a book- The Holy Quran and my advice to you is that don´t give up on it rather try to read it with more understanding. The fact that Islam happens to be the fastest growing religion in the world, it also happens to be the religion about which people have maximum number of misconceptions.

THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION. TRUTH STANDS OUT CLEAR FROM ERROR. (Al Quran - 2:256)


Regards
Farooq
 

Abdul-Raheem

Signing Out.....
Hello,

You shouldn't go about categorising muslims like that. First of all, just because some muslims deny the holocaust, it doesn't mean we all do. Secondly, there are many Christians who openly deny the holocaust. Does that mean all Christians do so as well? My point precisely.
 

cell

New Member
is anybodu knows Russian???i have something for u

:salam2:
i have a great article about Holocaust.The author О.А.Platonov is a russian specialist and he gave all evidences that there was no holocaust genocide and in references of his book u could find several french authors.i wish i could have it in English.:(
but I want to send names of scholars who wrote books or articles about "tragedy" maybe u could find something in the net about them and their works:
Manfred Reder
Wilhelm Chterlih
F.Dupra
Rober Forisson
Fred Leihter


p.s.excuse me if i have written names wrongly coz they were written in russian.
take care
 

ibn azem

Super Moderator
Staff member
:salam2:

Panyamayash rusky?

Ne panyamayam rusky :). That's the words I know in russian sister!
I think there's people who speak russian here too, I'm sure smeone mentioned that!

wassalaam.
 

shadykan

Junior Member
:salam2:
i have a great article about Holocaust.The author О.А.Platonov is a russian specialist and he gave all evidences that there was no holocaust genocide and in references of his book u could find several french authors.i wish i could have it in English.:(
but I want to send names of scholars who wrote books or articles about "tragedy" maybe u could find something in the net about them and their works:
take care

Is it wrong typing or did you really mean he gave evidence there was NO holocaust?

Weird ...
 

shadykan

Junior Member
Well apparently, you're right, Oleg Platonov is a Holocaust denier!!!

Would you accuse Russians of denying the holocaust? I don't think so!!

The point is, do not hold a community responsible for what a few people of the same race, colour or religion ... do.

Everybody is responsible for their own deeds!!!

Salam
 

wayofthesalaf

New Member
Apostasy in Islam

Apostasy in Islam

The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This case of apostasy can be found in the most authentic book of Hadith (Bukhari) and is reported by more than one reliable chain of narration (stronger isnad). The hadith is as follows:

Jabir ibn `Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin pledged allegiance to the Apostle of Allah for Islam (i.e. accepted Islam) and then the Bedouin got fever whereupon he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. He (the Bedouin) came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. Then he (the Bedouin) left (Medina). Allah's Apostle said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good." [Sahih Al-Bukhari. Vol.9, hadith 316, pp. 241. Similar hadiths narrated by other chains of narration include Hadiths 318, P. 242; 323, p. 246.]

Some argued that perhaps the man in question wanted to be relieved of his oath (bay`ah) not to leave Madinah. This argument lacks any textual or other support. In fact, the wording of this particular hadith clearly indicates that the subject of the oath (bay`ah) was to willingly accept Islam. Thus, his request to be relieved from that oath meant that he wanted to leave Islam. This incident took place in Madinah when Muslims were living in an independent Islamic "state," where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had full authority to implement Shari`ah law.

If indeed the "revealed" prescribed punishment for apostasy is death, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have been the first to carry out the punishment. In fact, he did not even prescribe any punishment at all against that Bedouin, nor did he send any one to arrest him as an "apostate," imprison, or ask him to recant or even reconsider his decision as later jurists prescribed. Nor is there any solid ground to claim that this and other similar hadiths were "abrogated." In fact, these Hadiths are in conformity with the Qur'an and consistent with its central value of freedom of conscious and rejection of any compulsion in matters of faith (Al-Baqarah 2:256).

The above described event is compatible with one of the conditions of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted. The Prophet stipulated that the condition that if a Muslim were to migrate to Madinah to join the Muslim community there under the leadership of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wished to leave Islam and go back to his or her previous religion, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was obliged to let the person return to Makkah.

This happened before the final victory over the Makkans and the Prophet's victorious return to Makkah. However, one would have expected the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to have refused this condition so that he could have been able to punish any potential apostate. It is interesting to note that some scholars who argue for capital punishment if someone commits apostasy justify that by the imperative of safeguarding the Muslim community and its political entity from disintegration and defection from the faith. Such justification would have been more relevant at the time the Prophet readily accepted that condition of the treaty since Muslims were even more vulnerable and still relatively insecure.

Another hadith goes as follows:

Abdullah narrated that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "“The blood of a Muslim who professes that there is no god but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas (retaliation) for murder, a married person who commits adultery and person who has abandoned his religion, while splitting himself off from the community." [Al-`Asqalaani, Ibn Hajar. Fath Al-Bari Bisharh Sahih Al-Bukhari (in Arabic). Vol.12, Baab Ad-Diyaat, hadith 6878, p. 209.]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) speaks here of three capital crimes, the third of which is committing apostasy and parting with the (Muslim) community. By merely committing apostasy and parting peacefully with the Muslim community without committing any act of treason justifies the death penalty, then why did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) let the man in the first hadith cited above go unharmed? Would that show that parting with the community refers to coupling apostasy with joining the enemies who were at war with Muslims at that time?

One version of this second hadith quoted above is quite revealing and may help answer these questions. `A'ishah, the Prophet's wife, narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said the following:

"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: a married person who commits adultery; he is to be stoned and a man who went out fighting against God and his Messenger; he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land and a man who murders another person; he is to be killed on account of it." [Al-Azdi, Abu Dawud Sulaiman (died AH 275), Sunan Abu Dawud (Arabic) , Vol. 4, hadith 4353, P. 126.]

This version is quite similar to Al-Bukhari's version above with respect to two categories of capital crimes; adultery and premeditated murder of an innocent person. However, the third category in Al-Bukhari's version is described here more explicitly as "fighting against God and His Messenger" an act that is inconceivable to be committed by a Muslim and is a clear indication of apostasy as the hadith deals with one who is a Muslim in the first place.

The expression used in this version of the hadith is identical to the following expression used in the Qur'an:

The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: this is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. [Al-Ma'idah 5:33]

This verse, and hence the description in the above hadith, does not relate to apostasy itself but rather to hiraabah, or organized crime involving murder, armed robbery, and other acts that terrorize the public. It is up to the court to determine the type of punishment suited to the degree of gravity of their offenses. It is a reasonable conclusion as such that the third category mentioned in Al-Bukhari's version refers to apostasy coupled with these other crimes some of which are capital crimes. This was regarded as a viable possibility by great Scholar of Islam Ibn Taymiyah.

Ibn Taymiyyah explaining the aforementioned hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) inferred that the crime referred to in the hadith under discussion is that of high treason (hirabah) and not apostasy. The Prophet’s saying about apostasy is a short statement pronounced within the context of war conditions. Muslims were greatly affected to see one of their companions desert his faith and join the ranks of disbelievers. They were not sure if they should kill him or spare his life because he was a Muslim once. The Prophet, peace be upon him, explained that one who abandons his religion and deserts his fellows should be killed. Regrettably, people of the subsequent generations have taken the Prophet’s saying out of its historical context and generalized it. In so doing they deny one of the basic truths of Islam: the freedom of faith…The saying is related to the case of the Muslim who deserts his Brothers and joins the enemies of Islam. Such a person will either be killed or kill someone else.

In other words, this hadith does not state the ruling concerning those who merely apostatize from Islam; but states the ruling on those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and it is established that the latter must be killed, be they Muslims or non-Muslims. Hence, it is not valid to base the view that the punishment for apostasy is the prescribed death penalty upon the Prophet's permission to shed the blood of the Muslim "who abandons his religion and the Muslim community" as mentioned in this hadith.

Ibn `Abbas narrated that the Prophet said,

"Whoever changed his religion, then kill him". [Sahih Al-Bukhari, op. cit., Vol. 9, hadith 57, p. 45.]

This hadith is perhaps the most quoted one by those who are of the view that apostasy is a capital crime. This argument could have been more convincing if this were the only hadith on this topic. It raises a number of questions as to how it may be interpreted in view of the following statements:

1. The absence in the Qur'an of any earthly punishment for apostasy in spite of its mention in many places in the Qur'an.

2. The consistent and repeated affirmation of freedom of conscious and freedom of faith and worship in the Qur'an.

3. The hadiths in Al-Bukhari discussed earlier show that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself did not carry out any punishment on the man who committed apostasy in Madinah and left the town.

4. There is no authentic hadith that narrates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) carried out capital punishment for apostasy during his lifetime.

5. The expression "kill him" does not necessarily signify a mandatory command. In fact, one of the basic principles of Islamic jurisprudence is that the command verb could mean a mandatory command (such as prayers, zakah, and fasting). It could refer to an optional act (like optional night prayers). It could also mean permissibility of an act and several other meanings. It is the presence of corroborating evidence or lack thereof that determines the proper contextual meaning. In the light of the evidence discussed above, the Prophet's command here seems to refer to the permissibility of capital punishment, when apostasy is coupled with a capital crime such as waging war against the community.

References to Actions and Interpretation of the Companions of the Prophet and the First Generation (the Tabi’een) After Him (peace be upon him).

Included in the books of Hadith are actions of the Prophet's Companions, the books contain either their explicit statements of what the Prophet said or their actions which are presumed to be based on what they learned from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). While the place of consensus (ijmaa`) of the Prophet's Companions as a source of Islamic Shari`ah has been debated, it is a valid source especially if there are other supporting evidence. However, the Prophet's direct words and actions are of higher authority since only the Prophet was the recipient of revelations in matters of faith.

It is important to note that `Umar, a famous Companion of the Prophet, was disappointed when he learned that an apostate was killed. When asked what he would have done in that situation, he suggested that the apostate should have been detained and given an opportunity to reconsider his decision. He did not speak of any time limit, which may negate the notion of mandatory capital punishment. The same view was held by Ibrahim An-Nakh`i and Sufian Ath-Thawri, two members of the first generation after Prophet Muhammad. Some scholars argue that apostasy, in the early days of Islam, was considered in the context of security and war situation.

Conclusion

The preponderance of evidence from both the Qur'an and Sunnah indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment. In the context of the besieged early Muslim community, apostasy was a major threat to the nascent Muslim community. Taking a passive attitude towards it would have jeopardized the very emergence of the Muslim community. This may be one reason why the consensus of scholars is that apostasy is an offense (in the context of an Islamic society) is an offense. However, there are wide divergences of views about its suitable punishment. We can conclude that the issue of the penalty prescribed for apostasy is dependent on the public interest of the nation. Therefore, there is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation. On the other hand, if a group of apostates endangers the security and interests of the Muslim community, then the Muslim ruler should consider them to be a danger and threat to society.

Therefore the punishment was not for Apostasy alone, but for Apostasy accompanied by hostility and treason, or was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community, which is regarded as capital crimes, as they are in most West countries.

 
Quran 9:29 suggests that muslims should fight the dis-believers until they agree to pay tax (Poll-tax) for being disbelievers to muslims.

Look my Dear I don't know your religion , you may be Jew or christian so you should know if there are tribute before Islam

read with me

tribute before Islam


New testament

Matthew

17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.


Matthew

22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.


Romans

13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake
13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.


Old testament

2 Samuel

8:2 And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts.


2 Chronicles

24:9 And they made a proclamation through Judah and Jerusalem, to bring in to the LORD the collection that Moses the servant of God laid upon Israel in the wilderness.


Joshua

16:10 And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.


2 Kings

17:3 Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents.


Judges

1:35 But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries.


Judges

1:28 And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out.
1:29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them.
1:30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries.
1:31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob:
1:32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out.
1:33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Bethshemesh and of Bethanath became tributaries unto them.


1 Kings

4:21 And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.


Deuteronomy

20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.



Tribute in the Islam

regarding the verse you commented,the four monthes period is not for the christians or jews,it was for unbeleivers{only} at the time of Muhammad pbuh,there were a treaty between them and Muhammad pbuh giving them the right to stay as unbeleivers in makkah and giving them the right to worship their idols in makkah but for this chapter of Qur'an was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad pbuh ,it came with the final instruction regarding treating the nonmuslims,the unbeleivers were given the choice to revert to islam or to leave the muslim lands or to fight,then the christians and jews were mentioned given them the choice of reverting to islam or to stay as they are but paying jizyah{taxes}or to fight.the jizyah{taxes}are taken to secure the christians and jews in the muslim lands,as you know the islamic nation is a religeous nation.the security of such religeous nation is the deuty of muslims only and it is not expected from the christians or jews to secure the islamic nation and it is unfair to force them to defend the islamic nation,the muslims are sacrficing their money and their ownselves to defend the islamic nation,the christians and jews are just asked to sacrifice some of their money{jizyah}to share in securing the islamic nation that secures them as citizen having the same rights of the muslms in the nation.
The problems that raised by the missionaries and orientalists is the imposition of tribute or jizyah on all non-Muslims. This institution has been so misinterpreted that the non-Muslims feel that it is some kind of religious-based discrimination against them. This is not the case. All the jizyah amounts are to be a financial obligation placed upon those who do not have to pay the zakah.

It is obvious that the jizyah is simply a technique used by Islamic governments to make sure that everyone pays a fair share. If the term jizyah is too offensive to non-Muslims, it can always be changed: `Umar ibn Al-Khattab levied the jizyah upon the Christians of Bani Taghlib and called it sadaqah (alms) out of consideration for their feelings.
The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold, in his Call to Islam, states
This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.'
In his covenant with the people of certain cities near Al-Haira, Khalid ibn Al-Walid recorded "If we are able to protect you, we deserve the collection of jizyah."

The seriousness with which the Muslims took their covenants with the non-Muslims is well illustrated by the following incident. During the reign of the second caliph, `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the Roman emperor Heraclius raised a huge army to repel the Muslim forces. It was thus incumbent upon the Muslims to concentrate their efforts on the battle. When the commander of Muslims, Abu `Ubaydah heard this news, he wrote to his officials in all conquered cities in Syria and ordered them to return the jizyah which had been levied in those cities. He also addressed the public saying, "We are returning your money because we know that the enemy has gathered troops. By the terms stipulated in the covenant, you have obliged us to protect you. However, since we are now unable to fulfill these conditions, we have returned to you what you paid to us. We shall abide by the terms agreed upon in the covenant, if Allah helps us to rout the enemy."
Thus, a huge amount was taken form the state treasury and returned to the Christians, making them very happy. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders. They exclaimed, "May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property."

The jizyah was also imposed on Muslim men who could afford to buy their way out of military service. If a Christian group elected to serve in the state's military forces, it was exempted from the jizyah. Historical examples of this abound. The Jarajima, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty.

When the Islamic conquests reached northern Persia in AH 22, a similar covenant was established with a tribe living on the boundaries of those territories. They were consequently exempted from jizyah in view of their military services.

Other examples are to be found during the history of the Ottoman Empire. The Migaris, a group of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the jizyah for undertaking to watch and guard the mountain ranges of Cithaeron and Geraned (which stretch to the Gulf of Corinth). Christians who served as the vanguard of the Turkish army for road repairs, bridge construction, and so on, were exempted form the kharaj (land tax). As a reward, they were also provided with some lands, free of all taxes.

The Christians of Hydra were exempted when they agreed to supply a group of 250 strong men for the Muslim naval fleet. The Armatolis, Christians from southern Romania, were also exempted from the tax, for they constituted a vital element in the Turkish armed forces during the 16th and 17th centuries. The Mirdites, an Albanian Catholic clan who lived in the mountains of northern Scutari, were exempted on the condition that they would offer an armored battalion in wartime. The jizyah was also not imposed on the Greek Christians who had supervised the building of viaducts that carried water to Constantinople, nor on those who guarded the ammunition in that city, as just compensation for their services to the state. However, Egyptian Muslim peasants exempted from military service were still required to pay the jizyah.
read also

The Fair Logic of jizyah

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...kAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016702
 
Top