Why did Islam succeed where Christianity failed?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
81

Listen up compulsion, the discussion is not, was not, will not be about someone’s perfect vision of their religion but actual historical events.

I’m sure that anyone could point out the lack of factual basis for most of your assertions but its pretty tedious and probably a waste of time. (hint READ some f’ing medieval poetry – the brothers and sisters knew how to party, the good old franks colonial rule this past century did not suddenly cause a bizarre drop in morals etc. etc. etc.)

Go away.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NO Compulsion in Islam *

82

We should remember that Sassanid Persia had an organized state religion (Zoroastrianism) for more than three-quarters of a century before Constantine I’s Edict of Toleration. The sources indicate that Christianity (not to mention Judaism and Sabianism) had made considerable inroads in Mesopotamia and Iran before Ardashir I established Zoroastrianism, and organized pogroms against pagans, Christians, and proselytizing Jews (although the bulk of the Jewish population in Babylonia seems to have been largely left alone on a live-and-let-live basis). Two amusing AH conjectures relevant to this thread are:
[list=1]
[li]What if Alexander Severus (contemporary of Ardashir) had etablished an organized Roman state religion the way that Julian the Apostate tried over a century later?; and[/li][li]What if Yezdigerd II had actually converted to Chrstianity (and prevailed against the Zoroastrian rivals who surely would have arisen) in the 5[sup]th[/sup] century?[/li][/list=1]

83

I think you need to read that chapter more carefully. The penalties described were NOT levied against Jews who merely left the faith. Rather, they were imposed on people who caused the Jews to worship the “gods of foreign lands” (as the NIV puts it). This penalty was admittedly harsh, but after all, the neighboring nations worshipped such gods as Moloch through human sacrifice–child sacrifice in particular–and other abominable practices. (See http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/17/01713000.htm and http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/sect42.htm for details.)

Because this situation was unique to the Israelites of the Old Testament, this practice is not carried over to the New Testament – just as the ceremonial laws were not, or laws pertaining to attire and custom (which were meant to distinguish the Israelites from their Moloch- and Baal-worshipping neighbors.)

Now, one might question the propriety of capital punishment for such an offense; however, the point remains. Deuteronomy 13 does NOT prescribe the death penalty for merely leaving the faith.

84

Dear No Compulsion,

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board, and to our lively little discussion! To respond to some of your questions:

  1. I do not know very much about the Quran or the Sunnah. If you tell me that neither of these texts calls for the death of anyone leaving Islam, then I will believe you. However, it appears that a number of Islamic nations have indeed imposed just such a penalty. Whether or not it was justified under Islamic principles doesn’t much matter – the apostates ended up just as dead.

  2. As for growth rate, this has already been explained. Perhaps I can put it more simply:

· World Islam is growing because the populations of Islamic countries are growing.

· Those countries are growing because they are poor.

Even if there was no religion anywhere, in any country in the world, the poor nations I listed would still grow at a faster rate than the rich countries, and by the year 2020 would have a larger percentage of the world’s population, regardless of faith.

(I would also like to clarify: I never said Islam is only growing in poor countries. I merely mentioned poverty as a primary factor.)

I cannot comment on the role poverty plays in the growth of Islam in the US, though I would not be surprised to learn that it is a factor. (Some poor Americans have converted, out of a sense that mainstream society – including mainstream religion – has let them down.) However, I believe the primary reason Islam is growing in the US is that we have seen a tremendous increase in immigration in the past decade or two. Many of these immigrants come from some of the poor nations I mentioned. (Some are also well-educated and wealthy. Others come to the US as students.) In any event, I believe most of the increase we see in Islam in America is due to Muslims from other countries coming here – and secondarily, having large families.

(By no means am I anti-large-family; I am simply trying to lay out the demographic terrain.)

A second important point: one must always be skeptical about the phrase “fastest-growing.” It often means a lot less than it seems. Consider the following example (with numbers I just made up, but which illustrate the point):

· In the 1990 census, there were about 260 million Americans. 200 million listed their religion as “Beruangism;” 1 million identified themselves as “Beckerites.”

· The year 2000 census counts about 280 million Americans. 220 million follow “Beruangism,” and 2 million are “Beckerites.”

Thus, we can say that Beruangism has more total followers: 220 million to 2 million.

We can also say that Beruangism had more net growth: 20 million additional followers, as opposed to 1 million new Beckerites.

But, in RATE of growth, the Beckerites appear much stronger. They grew 100% in the past decade, while Beruangism grew only 10%.

The moral of the story: things that are described as “fastest-growing” are very often starting from a very low baseline, so that tiny growth in real numbers appears to be massive growth when translated into percentages.

  1. Please note that this thread is about how and why Islam spread between 612 and 1500. Discussions of today’s growth rates are not really applicable, and continued harping will earn us both the sobriquet of “troll.”

I hope I have answered your questions, and that we can return to the topic at hand – why did Islam spread to the middle, near, and far East while Christianity did not?

Peace,

85

JubilationTCornpone:

So, Deuteronomy 13 doesn’t mandate the death penalty for “leaving the faith”, but only for “worshipping the gods of foreign lands”? This strikes me as splitting the hairs awfully fine. Certainly infant sacrifice is an evil practice, and that is an oft-used argument of Biblical apologists discussing Deuteronomy 13. However, the text itself doesn’t say “Death to those who practice infant sacrifice or entice others to do so”, it says “Death to anyone who worships foreign gods or entices others to do so”. So far as the actual text of Deuteronomy 13 goes, we could be talking about the Care Bears Gods. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 13 has been cited by Christian thinkers to justify coercion in matters of religion: see Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty by George Gillespie (1613-1648), and, as I noted earlier in this thread, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which demands the suppression of heresy and blasphemy by the state, and cites (among other chapter and verse) Deuteronomy 13. ( Of course, other Christians have disagreed, and your mileage may vary. But there is a tradition within Christianity of religious coercion rooted in Deuteronomy 13 among other passages, so it’s hardly irrelevant to the question of compulsion in religion, which somehow or other was relevant to or was dragged into the question which this thread was actually started to discuss.)

NO Compulsion in Islam:

I see. When discussing Islam, I shouldn’t make any reference to the stated beliefs and actual practices of large numbers of people who identify themselves as Muslims, but only to your stated beliefs. What I said, of course, was that “some Muslims maintain that there is compulsion in religion”. That is hardly a lie. I am also aware that the Qur’an itself is not the source of the supposed saying of Muhammed, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him”, but that hasn’t stopped those Muslims who believe in compulsion in religion from citing it.

86

Now, now, guys. Let’s cool down. This was not supposed to degenerate into a religions debate!

Allow me to bring in another point of view, regarding the death penalty for leaving Islam. First, the theory only INDIRECTLY belongs in this discussion. It may explain why people do NOT leave Islam, but doesn’t explain why people embrace it in the first place. Do you guys agree?

In fact, as I look at it, it may deter people from embracing Islam in the first place! “You’re gonna become a Muslim, you’re gonna stay a Muslim till you die!” I mean, what if I want to change my mind? If at all, the penalty may function to screen off people who are half-hearted or intend to change their minds later on. What do you guys think?
Anyway, according to the info I got (straight from a well-respected scholarly board), the death penalty is actually tantamount to “grand treason.” In the words of the Prophet (losely translated), the death penalty goes to “he who leaves his faith AND takes a different path from the (rest of) society.” In other words, someone who not only leaves Islam but also the interests of his society.

Let me draw a fictitious example, say from Chechnya (for the lack of another clearer example). Suppose a Muslim Chechen fighter decides to convert to Christianity, but also decides to stay on the Chechen side and fight along with his people. According to Islamic law (i.e. ideally!), he does not receive the death penalty; instead, his “brothers” are instructed to try and win him back (the word is “istitaaba”, meaning “seeking forgiveness for him”).

But if he decides to convert to Christianity AND join the Russian side, he DOES receive the death penalty as a traitor.

Of course, this is poorly understood in most Muslim societies and states, which is why the man will probably be killed anyway. This ignorance also explains why the fundamentalist/extremist sites have so much to say. BTW, I’m yet to check on whether this was the case back between AD 700-1500, the period we are discussing.
Now, could someone please do us all a favor and post a summary of all theories discussed so far? I mean, a list of “likely factors” and “likely NON-factors” would go far in putting us back onto the original topic.

I’ll try to do that myself, let’s see.

87

First of all, the penalty was not for merely worshipping other gods. It was for enticing others to worship other gods. It’s one thing to do this yourself; it’s another thing to drag a slew of people along with you.

Second, there is a VERY substantial difference between leaving the faith and worshipping foreign gods. One can become an atheist, for example, without worshipping these foreign gods. Similarly, one can develop erroneous theological beliefs–beliefs which violate orthodoxy–without clearly following some foreign god. The proscription in Deuteronomy 13 was specifically against worshipping the gods of foreign nations, for these nations were engaged in child sacrifice and other abominable, inexcusable practices.

88

Yes, it doesn’t explain why people embrace Islam. The question, however, is why Islam grew so quickly – and its virtually zero attrition rate is directly related to that topic. (Net growth = increase - attrition)

89

Well, the gods that were worshiped back then were national gods, weren’t they? Yahweh was the god of Israel, Dagon the god of the Philistines, Chemek the god of Moab, etc. So, if you worship foreign gods, and encourage other people to do so, isn’t that treason?

Now can we get back to why Islam spread?

90

I have one suggestion, well maybe more than one:

(1) The period 700 to 1500 is, well, too large. Expansion after 642 through to 900 or so is of a different character from that of say the Ottoman period expansion. And then you have to talk about each region according to its specifics.

(2) Redefine the thread to focus on Islamic expansion from 642 to 1000 or so in the Mediterranean world, which would be the real comparision with Cece’s comments. I mean look at in context. Would you seek A SINGLE reason for Xtian expansions and contractions through 2000 years? Well, some might, but I don’t think a good scholar would.

91

One important issue which does not seem to have been discussed here is the FINANCIAL aspects of the religious conquests of the regions involved.

Christianity: 10% (minimum) “taxation” in the form of tithing was pretty much required of all Christians during the time of their initial spread through Europe and Asia Minor - this was on top of any regional taxes levied by your local leader (King/Lord/Chief).

Islam: 10-15% flat tax rate on all militarily conquered peoples with one minor exception: Anyone who converted to Islam was exempt from ALL taxes and tarrifs.

Although it cost more to become a Christian, most of the early growth in Christianity was among the slave/peon class; 10% of nothing was hardly a major setback.

In contrast, most of Islam’s early growth was among the burgeoning middle classes (skilled craftsmen, merchants, etc.) who found that the exemption from taxation improved their chances of competing successfully in the free market supported (and militarily enforced) by the Islamic system.

'Nuff said.

92

Having read through half of the posts on this thread, I thought that as a muslim I must add my say because I feel some issues are being prioritised over others. I apologise if these points have been made out, but like I said, I only read through the first half. I’m not trying to start a religious war here, I’m merely trying to point out the logic behind the Islamic way of thinking so that you can understand why we think what we think. I could preach all day about the teachings of Islam, but I’ll try to keep this brief and to the point.

This topic mainly revolves around Islam taking hold by way of conquests and how the world has been evolving over the past few hundred years. It’s almost like it’s being portrayed that muslims are muslims by fate, and not by choice. True, most muslims today are born into Islam, but there are also a lot of people who revert to Islam also (we say revert, because according to Islam everyone is born a muslim, but they choose other faiths instead).

By this fact alone, it would seem obvious that because we’re not killing everyone who’s not a muslim, all that stuff about those who leave Islam are supposed to be punished by death is poppy-cock! I’m pretty sure it’s not Islamic law, it’s most likely domestic law which have some pretty harsh punishments of their own. Besides, if there is any punishing to be done, it will be done by Allah the Almighty in the afterlife. Your life on this earth is short and temporary, and your bodies are rented from Allah. No-one has the right to take your life, not even yourself. Suicide is a great sin, as is murder (regardless of the reason). Even mercy killings in situations where, for example, someone is born horribly disfigured and it would be kinder to end their life are not allowed, because their soul is complete. Only Allah has the right to take life, because your life belongs to him. Not you, or anyone else! We are his servants, and we are here to do his bidding (as well as explore the world he has created for us among other things). I hope that ends the issue of the death penalty for leaving Islam.

Allah does not want you to pick a faith and just stick to it for the hell of it. He wants you to know about him, and worship him! There are muslims today who simply recite the Qur’an, but have no idea of what it means. Allah does not like that. You should understand what the Qur’an is saying, and the only way to do that (because of the way it’s written) is by reading and understanding it in it’s original language. I was born a muslim, and I have questioned my faith. I have thought to myself many times why not become a Christian or Budhist, or a Hindu. Someone even put it to me that there might have been a bunch of guys a few hundred years ago, who thought it would be funny to write a ‘holy book’ with the intent to trick the world, and here we are, falling for it. There is really only one reason why I’ve remained a muslim, and that’s because Islam has stood the test of time.

Firstly, the Qur’an is the same today as it was the day it was revealed to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). This is a feat in itself. I’m sure if you look at two copies of any other religious or holy book, you will find differences in them. Has anyone heard of the game, ‘Chinese Whispers’? You whisper a sentance or statement in one persons ear, and they whisper it into someone elses. This carries on through a number of people, and the last person is asked to tell everyone what he thinks the sentance or statement was. Most of the time, it’s nothing like the original, and definately not identical. Over time, people add their own words and meanings, and as soon as they do that, they are not writing the Holy Book anymore, but they are writing their own version of it which is not Holy. The Qur’an is identical, everywhere in the world, and has not been changed at all. This is because it’s been protected by Allah himself. There are people who learn it off by heart, they are called Hafiz. Because they have learnt it, you can’t change it.

Also, the Qur’an is written in a form of poetry. Many years ago there was a competition held in Saudi Arabia to demonstrate the firmness in the belief of Islam. The price was a large sum of money, to whoever could write ONE verse that would fit into the flow of the rhyme in the Qur’an. Many people tried, but not one could do it. It cannot be altered, because once it’s altered, it’s not the Qur’an anymore.

Secondly, Islam has not changed over time whereas other religions has. I’m going to mention Christianity here, because I can think of one example and it’s the first one that came into my head. And if my following words concern you, please don’t be offended as I mean no offence. I’m merely demonstrating a point. Back in the olden days, the Church of England did not consider or allow homosexual people to be Christians or believers in God (something of that nature). The bottom line is that they were not accepted by the Church. Nowadays, they are. Who made this decision? A man did! The Church of England (not sure about the rest of the world or Christianity in general because I don’t really follow it) has repeatedly altered it’s position on many issues based on public thinking and expectations. Islam has not. Islam has not ‘moved with the times’ nor will it. The teachings of yester-year are still strong today. We live in a society now where homosexual people are treated no different from any others (by the majority of the public). Islam forbids this. In Islam, you cannot be a homosexual. Allah made a male and female who are supposed to mate together. Allah does not wish for males to mate with other males, and same for females. There are other examples like this, but this is the first that sprung to mind. My point is Islam is not changing with society, BECAUSE the book has not changed!

There are a lot of other points which could be raised, but I won’t go into them now. For me, this two points alone suggest that there is something very real about the teachings of Islam. It’s not fake. There are many false rumours being spread about Islam, whereas in reality they are more based on laws made by man, rather than those set by Allah (the death penalty for non-believers for one). Another common misconception is that Islam gives women no rights, they are regarded as a piece of ‘property’. This is also untrue. In fact, Islam gives more rights to the women than it does to the men.

Do not believe everything you hear, it is up to you to find out the truth. You should not believe in your God blindly, but you should seek to find the truth. I did, and I truely believe that Islam is the religion that Allah wants us to follow, because it answers all of my questions and there is something supernatural about it.

Interestingly enough, Christianity started out very similar to Islam. In most respects, they are almost identical. Muslims also believe in Jesus (although he’s referred to as Prophet Isa), but we do not believe he is the son of God. Allah is not male, nor female. He has no family, relations, or equal. He is something we cannot comprehend, and it is foolish to call Jesus his son. We don’t believe Jesus died on the cross, but he was replaced by someone else and was taken up to the heavens. We also believe he will return to Earth too, to slay the Anti-Christ.

Anyways, I’ve said my peace. I hope this will give a lot of you a deeper insight to Islam and it’s followers (and why it’s taken such a grip). Islam is more than a religion, it’s a way of life. And it’s not as harsh as it’s made out to be.

93

Jay(UK) –

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board, and to our lively little discussion! It is always refreshing to hear a new voice, especially one who provides a good, insider point-of-view.

Everything you say is true. (Well, almost everything. Islam has changed quite a bit over the centuries. The Sunni/Shiite split. The rise of Sufism and the establishment of new tariqahs. The closing of the gates of ijtihad. And so on.) None of it, however, is relevant to the point of our discussions – the historical reasons why Islam became dominant in areas where Christianity did not.

Many untuths are told about Islam, as they are told about all religions. These need to be addressed, but in another thread.

Personal religious convictions are welcome on the Straight Dope Message Board, but in another section – “Great Debates,” I believe.

If you have any historical information on the spread of Islam, I hope you will share it with us. I, for one, would be most interested in hearing it!

TFH –

And we welcome you, too, to the Straight Dope Message Board! This discussion has certainly attracted a fair number of new members. Glad to have you all aboard!

I wasn’t aware that tithing was a requirement in the early Church, though I acknowledge I am far from an expert.

All devout Muslims are expected to pay an annual religious tax, the zakah. Though it is less than 10% for most commodities, I question whether many people would make a deep, spiritual commitment based soley (or largely) on finance.

I have read that most early Muslims were agrarian. Though certainly there were merchants, I believe they were a minority.

Peace to all,

94

Quite an interesting theory, TFH! Some sense at last. Let’s get some facts straight.

I tried to check up on this, but couldn’t find it in any of my references. Could you let me in on your reference?

I’m afraid I’d have to disagree. Muslims are far from being exempt from taxes; instead, taxation is a RELIGIOUS obligation! “Zakat”, as it is called in Arabic, is an annual payment, ranging from 2.5 - 15% of income, which all Muslims must pay, either to the state, or to a public treasury. There are exemptions from this taxation, but they are very few, and based mainly on poor financial conditions.

Regarding the 10-15% flat rate that conquered people were required to pay, do you have a reference on it? From what I understand, conquered peoples had to pay a taxation similar to the “zakat” Muslims had to pay.

I’m not sure about this; I’ll check it up and let you know. In the meanwhile, if you have a reference, could you let me know?

95

Hi, Jay –

I might not agree with everything you’ve said, but it did make an important point. The discussion so far has focused on EXTERNAL factors, such as military conquest, taxation, death penalties, etc. These factors might be valid, but they’re only a small part of the story. We should have discussed INTERNAL factors too - what, in Islam ITSELF, made it attractive for people to convert?

I don’t know if you guys would agree, but IMHO, no religion whatsoever would achieve so much penetration, based solely on military conquest or other external factors. There has to be something attractive about the faith itself, something which no one has discussed yet.
Beruang –

I agree with your point about “taxation” or the “financial” aspects of Islam.

I’d like to discuss the point about the “change in Islam”. Yes, it DID indeed change, but I think we all need to admit that it did not change as much as other religions (particularly Christianity). A few practices might have changed, but the core of the faith remains the same.

In the book “History of the Saracen Empire”, Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay observe:
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran. … ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God,’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.” " (p.54)

No one came along to say that Mohammed was actually divine, or that Mohammed died for our sins, or that God is “three in one” rather than “one and only one.” Well, maybe they did, but it obviously didn’t endure.

96

First of all, there’s a difference between “killing non-Moslems” and “killing Muslims who become non-Moslems.” The penalty is imposed against former Moslems BECAUSE they have already tasted the true gospel (according to Islam) and chose to reject it.

Second, the death penalty for leaving Islam is NOT domestic law. It is part of Islamic Law, the Shari’ah. Don’t believe me? Check out http://www.islam-qa.com, a pro-Islam site.

Especially enlightening is the URL posted by MEBuckner,

http://www.islam-qa.com/QA/5|Jurisprudence_and_Islamic_Rulings(Fiqh)/Alhudood_WatTa’azeerat(Punishment_and_Judicial_Sentences)/Punishment_of_one_who_leaves_Islaam.27031998.696.shtml. Check it out for yourself.

97

Lightkeeper –

I seem to be the official greeter on this thread. That’s OK; it’s great to have you aboard!

Your points are well-taken, I’m not sure I entirely agree. Some of the fundamental tenets of Christianity – Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again, that sort of thing – haven’t really changed from the beginning. A lot of the dogma of the Roman (and probably Greek) churches were set back in those councils that I cna never remember, but tomndebb will be along shortly to enlighten us. The Reformation caused a major split, but it was (by some accounts) as much a political revolt as a theological one.

(Though there is certainly no exact comparison, the Sunni/Shiite split in Islam appears – to me, at least – to be somewhat analagous to the Greek/Roman split in early Christianity.)

Of course, Christianity has been around a few centuries longer, and thus has had more time to accumulate change. Plus, the way in which Islam developed was very different, and tended to reign in some of the radical changes we have seen in the history of Christianity.

Second, in my original post I had stated my desire to avoid a discussion of any modern religion’s relative merits. Both Christianity and Islam are compelling, complex, sophisticated and philosophically satisfying faiths. Both swept away many “primitive” religions (Cecil’s word). In 13 centuries, neither has swept away the other, nor have they swept away Budhism, Hinuism, Judaism, or other modern faiths. So, arguing inherent strength or superiority doesn’t appear to be a promising avenue of debate.

Cecil’s original point was that Christianity did very well against the pagan beliefs of Europe and the Mediterranean, but made little headway against the sophisticated religions of the East. My OP asked, then why did Islam? I took as a given the idea that each of the major modern faiths is sophisticated and compelling (and each has hundreds of millions of believers to back that up). So I look to historical / political / military events, or even the history of proselytism, rather than take up the contentious – and ultimately unanswerable – issue of the relative merits of the different faiths.

Peace,

Beruang

98

Beruang

Thanks for the welcome. I’ve followed a couple of topics for a while, but never really got around to making a contribution, but when I read this thread yesterday I knew had to be the day I registered.

True, many untruths are told about Islam, and this may be said about other religions. I can’t comment on other religions because I don’t hear any, I only hear about untruths being told about Islam. But that may be simply because I listen and concern myself more with what goes on regarding Islam and don’t concern myself with other religions, but I accept your point.

As for historical information about the spread of Islam, I’m afraid I could not possibly contribute any more to what has already been said. But I don’t believe that conquests, wars etc was the only, or even main, reason why Islam took such a grip. It’s because the people believed it, and with good cause too. There are a lot of internal reasons, as Lighthouse Keeper states.

Lighthouse Keeper,

You are correct in saying that Zakat is compulsary for all muslims. It’s one of the 5 pillars of Islam. And in Islam, there are various other kinds of taxes too. For instance, Allah does not like you to have intercourse with your wife unless she is clean (ie, not having a period). If you do have intercourse with your wife while she is unclean, he will not punish you if you pay the fine (in this case it’s 10g of gold to the poor for each offence). BTW, this is called Makrooh. It’s something that Allah does not like you doing, but won’t punish you for.

And also, I’d like to reiterate that Islam itself has not changed at all. What may have changed is customs and the way people practise it, but you have to remember, although they may do such things in the name of Islam, their actions are not really islamic. There are going to be some variations in the way people follow Islam, and the Qur’an also states this. Muslims are going to be split into 72 different sects. Of those, 71 will go to Hell, and only one will enter Paradise. So obviously, those 71 sects (not all of which exist at the moment) are doing something wrong. Even though they do it in the name of Islam, it’s not Islam they’re following or practising. Islam has not changed one bit! Only customs and practises surrounding it (made by mortal men) may have!

JubilationTCornpone,

Yes, there is a difference between killing non-Muslims and Muslims who turn into non-Muslims, but don’t you see? According to Islam everyone is born a Muslim, so obviously (according to Islam) those of you here who are not Muslims have left Islam to follow another faith. I don’t think you’re dead because you’re replying to my posts (incidentally, I didn’t check out those sites you’ve posted because I didn’t think there was any need).

Many of you may consider that to be a petty point (after all, I doubt that most of you realised you were born muslims already when you were choosing a religion), so I tried to find out a little more about what the situation is regarding the penalty for leaving Islam. Obviously, the first point of research would be to consult the Qur’an itself, but unfortunately I can’t read Arabic (yet) so I’ll have to reply on what other’s have read and how they interpret it, and this is what I’ve managed to find out. It may be right, it may be completely wrong, so please don’t hold me to anything. The important thing is though, each point is qualified with a reason and this is why I think Islam works.

Apparently, it does state in the Shari’ah that you can kill a non-muslim. But there are rules governing this. Like any law, it’s very very complex and there are a lot of conditions which need to be fulfilled before it’s acceptable in Islam. I’m not sure about killing those who convert from Islam, because no-one’s been able to give me a positive answer, but they’ve given their interpretation of it. In Islam, there are two types of people. Muslims, and Kafir (non-believers). It’s OK to kill a Kafir for religious reasons (like a religious war or something), but it’s NOT permitted to kill another Muslim for any reason. The general feeling is that you can’t go around killing those who have converted away because it’s not a choice that mortal man has (taking a life). If you kill someone who’s converted, you’ve not only committed a great sin yourself, but you’ve also removed that persons chance of reverting back to Islam (in which case he’d be forgiven). Allah wants you to choose and believe your religion because you know or believe it to be true. You shouldn’t believe it blindly (as I don’t). You are NOT forced to become a Muslim, it’s an act of choice (which is why we were put on this earth in the first place) and you should not be fearful of death for choosing another religion over Islam. At the end of the day, Allah will punish you in the afterlife anyway, and there’s no getting away from that. Mortal men can believe what they wish, Allah will punish those who made the wrong choice and you cannot escape it. So there’s no hurry to go around killing people and taking away their choice to revert back to Islam.

I’ve provided plenty of reasons why I believe it’s not Islamic law that Muslims are supposed to kill people who convert away from Islam. Only one reason has been provided why this should be the case (“BECAUSE they have already tasted the true gospel (according to Islam) and chose to reject it”). I’m afraid I do not consider this reason enough to debunk my argument!

I still think that these countries have an extreme view of the punishments Islam has laid out, and some over-zealous people have taken it upon themselves to carry out these punishments in the name of Islam. I’m not even sure about what the situation is regarding chopping theives hands off in Saudi. I don’t think it’s Islamic law because they’re punishing you straight away with an irreversable punishment (and remember, Allah is very forgiving). And also, Islam dictates that your body should return to the earth in the same way as it came (ie whole and complete, therefore no organ donations). If you go to the grave without your hand, Allah will not like this. You should be fearful of Allah, not other men as we are all created equal. Allah will punish you Himself, and forgive you if he chooses to do so. These men who go around dismembering people in the name of Islam do so without right.

In the same way as these countries have taken extreme views, some people here (naming no names) have taken very narrow views. I believe myself to be quite open minded, I have considered all points and given my answer the best way I can naming my reasons for doing so, and dealing with each point and view. Some of you here need to do the same, and not blindly believe everything you read. Think about it for yourself, and see which makes most sense. Yes, the Shari’ah does say muslims can kill Kafir, but there are rules. Hard and fast rules! Do not take a point out of context or apply it in situations where it was never meant to be used.

Allah is the Almighty, He is the Punisher and the Forgiver. Only Allah can judge your actions on this earth, it is not for mortal men to make those kinds of decisions for themselves. I know this for a fact that even though the Shari’ah contains various forms of punishments for various sorts of crimes (most are whipping I believe), the evidential requirements and standards are really really high as not to punish someone incorrectly. If you’ve done wrong, you have time to repent your sins and ask for forgiveness. How are you expected to do this if you’ve been killed by your fellow man?

Talking about this point though. I’ve heard of and met many people who’ve converted to Islam from other religions, but I have yet to hear about someone who’s converted AWAY from Islam of their own free will (or even without). Just a minor point, but one I think is important.

I believe I’ve discussed enough Islams position on killing Kafir from leaving Islam. I don’t want to continue with it any further because I think it’s getting away from the topic of this thread. There is not one rule why people follow Islam in great numbers. There are many rules. You have to look at the religion as a whole, and not separate distinct parts of it. Islamic law is very intertwined and complex, and it would take an age to discuss it fully here giving all the reasons for a certain action, and exceptions.

99

I would just like to quickly add an important point.

Don’t be so quick to believe and rely blindly on what other people have written. Remember the game of Chinese Whispers I mentioned? One person will discuss his view of what the Qur’an says, and someone else will follow up on that, and this will continue until we’ll reach a point where the topic has completely shifted (as is what seems to be happening in this thread) and strayed from the path of Islam. This is how the different sects of Islam are going to be formed, from people straying.

You HAVE to go back to the Qur’an and find out for yourself what it says. You cannot rely on other people, because there’s no guarantee that they are right. You should investigate for yourself, and find out the truth of what’s up. I can’t stress enough that you need to always refer back to the Qur’an OVER what other people have said and written. It is the primary source of information, and it still exists today EXACTLY the same all over the world as it did then, so there’s no excuse in getting it wrong. You can quote what other people have said at me until you’re blue in the face, but I won’t believe any of it unless I find out that it’s written in the Qur’an.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Qur’an (as far as I’m aware), isn’t written in simple prose. It’s written in such a way that it’s timeless. You can pick it up and read it at any time (I’m talking about centuries here) and it’ll be as relevant then as it always was. Because of the way it’s written, people often take different views on what it means which is where variations come into it! Which is why it’s important for all muslims to read, understand and apply it for themselves.

100

We;ve been through this before. The death penalty for apostasy is enshrined in Islamic Law, the Shari’ah. This penalty may not be in the Qur’an, but because it’s part of Islamic Law, it is binding on Islamic faithful. That is why Moslem countries in the Middle East have chosen to enforce this rule – quite forcefully, in fact.

Moslems in the Western world sometimes claim that this death penalty is only practiced by a few aberrant leaders or sects. However, as anyone who reads the news would know, this penalty is official law in nations such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and many others already mentioned in earlier postings.