Islam Islam on Apostates

[Barney2.0]

While searching on the web for apostasy in Islam I came on a Shia Muslim article on apostasy, I just want to make people aware of how vile, evil and cruel this ideology and heresy called Islam is. I suffer daily because of this thought crime Islam enforced on minorities and apostates:

Apostacy in Islam

I can’t believe such religious scholars could be so evil to justify the murder and persecution of religious minorities and apostates. Islam’s dogma and heresy must truly be of the devil.

 

[Not David]

It would make sense since Islam is tied with politics so going against the religion will be going against the state. What I don't like is when non-Muslims who defend Islam does not understand that.

 

[John P. Alexander]

David, people know not what they defend.

 

[dzheremi]

Not surprising at all to me, but definitely revolting. I could barely stand to read it.

This morally bankrupt piglet 'scholar' writes: "Those who like to understand or evaluate Islam from the secular/humanist point of view must realize that Islam should be judged on its own terms, and not by the secular ideals."

This seems to me to be an admission on the part of a learned scholar/cleric that Islam and those who practice it most seriously do not belong in any way in any secular society. I personally know many Muslims who would have a huge problem with that, and yet is this not the reality of Islam when taken to its logical conclusion, i.e., when it takes over all societies, as it is supposedly fated to do?

The problem is that westerners and western governments by and large want to make distinctions that serious Muslims and their religion simply do not make. So in response to this kind of writing, the ignorant but well-meaning westerner would probably say "I know lots of Muslims who don't think like that!", "Not all Muslims!", etc. Heck, I just said that about Muslims who I know.

The reality is that Islam is not my friends, or your friends, or anyone's friends. It's not the opinion of the average Muslim on the street in any society. It's not what they now advertise on giant billboards (whether those say "ISLAM: The faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus", like the one in my former home city of Albuquerque did, or "This is my Jihad" followed by some stupid errand or personal goal, as apparently appeared in some other parts of the USA). It's not simply "submission to God" (because of course everyone in a monotheistic or maybe even non-monotheistic religion could already claim to be doing that without Islam). It is the rules of the Islamic law as they are applied across the Muslim world, and in some things -- like the fate of apostates -- there is basically no divergence between the different schools of fiqh or sects of Islam. An apostate will be killed in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Shi'a) as well as in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Sunni).

 

[Limo]

While searching on the web for apostasy in Islam I came on a Shia Muslim article on apostasy, I just want to make people aware of how vile, evil and cruel this ideology and heresy called Islam is. I suffer daily because of this thought crime Islam enforced on minorities and apostates:

Apostacy in Islam

I can’t believe such religious scholars could be so evil to justify the murder and persecution of religious minorities and apostates. Islam’s dogma and heresy must truly be of the devil.

I just want to make people aware of how vile, evil and cruel this person called Al Masihi is.

What's your problem? Did anyone impose such relegion or acts on you ?
You dislike/disagree/ hate such law,,, what's your business.
I told you before your house is from glass but you insist to rock others.

First of all, according to modern study, your book is more violent than Quran.
Your bloody history of interchristinity wars is well known to everyone.
Orthodox, katholeeks , Protestants,,,, see each other not Christians (apostates).
All have killed millions of others till date.
Nevertheless: old testimony and new testimony punchment for apsotates is killing

In the Old Testament:
Deuteronomy 13:6-9"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Also let us look at Deuteronomy 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die."

2 Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman

Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death

Romans 1:20-32 (from the New Testament) "20...
Till
32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Also psychics must be put to death. Let us look at Leviticus 20:27 "And as for a man or woman in whom there proves to be a mediumistic spirit or spirit of prediction, they should be put to death without fail. They should pelt them to death with stones. Their own blood is upon them."


See old testimony and new testimony puts death as punchment to apostates

But your black islamofobia sees only Islam
Why don't you read what is written in your books before stoning others while your house is from glass ?

 

[dzheremi]

I just want to make people aware of how vile, evil and cruel this person called Al Masihi is.

What's your problem? Did anyone impose such relegion or acts on you ?

According to the Islamic Shari'a, wouldn't they do so if he was to publicly apostasize or claim any other religion than Islam? You can whine and complain and call others evil all you want, but you cannot disagree with what all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence prescribe for the apostate, which is that they be killed.

That is what is evil -- not Al Masihi for pointing it out!

First of all, according to modern study, your book is more violent than Quran.

How much of that violence is meant to be carried on into the current day by following the example of those who committed it, a la your religion's treatment of Muhammad as the perfect man, to be imitated by everyone? Do you see anyone of any consequence in Christianity saying "Let's be like Samson and slaughter 1,000 of our enemies from another tribe of people"? Versus how many times do we see the "mujahid" in Islam making his testimony about how he is going to kill those who "cause mischief in the land" or "so that all religion is for Allah alone" or any other similar thinking, in accordance with your Qur'an?

What's that you said about glass houses again, ya munafiq? Pretending like there isn't greater violence in Islam is akin to pretending that Islam is somehow more peaceful, but if you really believed in Islam, wouldn't you take seriously your god's (Muhammad) command to kill apostates? A command that our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ never gave anyone, by the way. What a hypocrite you are in your attempt to prove another's hypocrisy.

Your bloody history of interchristinity wars is well known to everyone.
Orthodox, katholeeks , Protestants,,,, see each other not Christians (apostates).
All have killed millions of others till date.

This is like claiming the Ridda wars prove that Islam is somehow uniquely more violent than other faiths. You wouldn't accept that, would you? And whereas Protestants and Catholics stopped killing each other centuries ago in basically everywhere but Ireland, there is only more and more killing of Sunni and Shia in their own inter-sect rivalries today, with powerful backers on each side like Saudi and Iran fighting over Iraq or Yemen right now. Go clean your own house!

Nevertheless: old testimony and new testimony punchment for apsotates is killing

A punishment which is inoperative, since the Sanhedrin was disbanded around 2000 years ago with the destruction of the Temple (apparently it is among the things to be reestablished according to the Jews by their messiah, if he ever shows up). So there's no way for them to practically carry it out, in addition to their being various barriers purposely set in the way of carrying it out.

And in the New Testament, it is never given as the punishment. Your reading of the scriptures is simply wrong, and can be proven to be so very, very easily by looking at the context that you have ripped this section from (Matthew 15 is obviously a rhetorical question, since the Pharisees were bothering Jesus about supposedly breaking the law when they themselves didn't hold to it saying there is some circumstance under which a Jew needn't honor his parents; look at verses 5 and 6 after where you very conveniently stopped the quote).

Romans 1, starting from verse 18 til the end (verse 32, as you have quoted) makes it clear that it is not talking about apostates from Christianity at all:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

+++

So we see that it is talking about people who "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Does that describe Christians? Maybe to Islamic proselytizers like yourself it does, since you don't know what you're talking about and your religion teaches you falsely to think we are all polytheists anyway, but it is not true that we made God into an image of birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Jesus Christ is clearly none of those things, even if you think we are wrong in proclaiming Him to be One in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the perfect Holy Trinity. So this is clearly describing idolaters who would make 'gods' out of idols in the image of these created things: the cow, the bird, etc. That's nothing that Christians have ever done, not even according to the worst Islamic apologetics. So it is clearly not talking about Christians in the first place. It is saying that those who once knew God but did not give Him proper glory as God but instead turned to idolatry deserve death. It is not saying that this is addressed specifically to apostates from Christianity, or even that it is a punishment for men to carry out on God's behalf, unlike in Islam where your god is so weak he/it needs men to do his/its dirty work. A weak religion with a weak god with weak followers producing weak arguments for it, like you are doing now

See old testimony and new testimony puts death as punchment to apostates

You are wrong.

But your black islamofobia sees only Islam
Why don't you read what is written in your books before stoning others while your house is from glass ?

Is it somehow 'Islamophobia' to point out Islam actually teaches and decrees, from its own 'scholars'? That is all that Al Masihi has done, and yet you castigate him for it. Why not turn your criticism upon your own leaders, book, prophet, and religion, which all teach this disgusting stuff?

 

[Yytz6]

The information in the article is false. It's your problem if you go reading sites like al-Islam and islamqa and feel bad afterwards. Not everyone who call themselves scholars of some kind know what they're talking about.

 

[dzheremi]

And you are a scholar instead? And we should all listen to you, for some reason? Bah...what business or benefit is it of the non-Muslim to play 'spot the real Islam' with Muslims who are in denial about what their own religion teaches? Are you seriously trying to make the claim that it is not normative in Islam that apostates be killed if they do not repent and return to Islam? Because I didn't first hear or read that on the page Al Masihi shared. I heard it from Egyptian Muslims. And then later again from Algerian Muslims. And then later again from Saudi Muslims. And none of these people knew each other. How many people need to tell you "Yes, this is the traditional punishment" for it to be true?

It's not our fault if you don't know or are in denial about your own religion, and prefer instead to make up stories about the religions of others like your friend Limo did in an attempt to make Islam seem humane and normal when it is really the religion of backwardness and evil.

And nobody feels bad for the holy martyrs of the Christian faith at the hands of the cowardly murderers of Muhammad. It is simply a matter of making known what is the case (which is already known by everyone who lives in or is connected in any way to an Islamic country), over and against the weak protestations of those who want to sanitize Islam for consumption in the non-Islamic world.

So go on, then...tell us how Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy. Then it can be shown how your wrong opinion violates every major school of Islamic jurisprudence, and you are lying or in denial.

In fact, if you are such a good and lucky Muslim that you can understand your god's preferred language, maybe you can tell us what the ruling is in this fatwa issued by scholars of Al Azhar concerning a convert from Islam to Christianity. It is right there, under the section labeled "the answer":

Hint: the phrase "He is killed by law" (يقتل شرعا) is used. What law is it talking about? Christian law? Hindu law? Jewish law? No...Islamic authorities don't rule according to any of that...it must be ISLAMIC LAW. Because killing apostates is part of ISLAMIC LAW.

Unless the scholars of Al Azhar, one of the greatest sources if not the greatest source of Islamic scholarship in the Sunni Islamic world (to present the other side, since the OP concerned the Shi'a position) are also somehow inaccurate or not scholars.

Gee, I dunno...maybe there's a law somewhere, deep down in the Islamic sources beyond what anyone can actually find unless they're some random Muslim in France, that says apostates from Islam are actually supposed to be given flowers and kittens and emotional support from the Muslim community during the hard time of losing their Islamic faith, and not...y'know...murdered, like these scholars actually say. All of them. Maybe somehow Islam is actually very peaceful! قتل actually means "hug", you guys, it's just been mistranslated and misunderstood for 1,400 years and counting!

 

[Not David]

And you are a scholar instead? And we should all listen to you, for some reason? Bah...what business or benefit is it of the non-Muslim to play 'spot the real Islam' with Muslims who are in denial about what their own religion teaches? Are you seriously trying to make the claim that it is not normative in Islam that apostates be killed if they do not repent and return to Islam? Because I didn't first hear or read that on the page Al Masihi shared. I heard it from Egyptian Muslims. And then later again from Algerian Muslims. And then later again from Saudi Muslims. And none of these people knew each other. How many people need to tell you "Yes, this is the traditional punishment" for it to be true?

It's not our fault if you don't know or are in denial about your own religion, and prefer instead to make up stories about the religions of others like your friend Limo did in an attempt to make Islam seem humane and normal when it is really the religion of backwardness and evil.

And nobody feels bad for the holy martyrs of the Christian faith at the hands of the cowardly murderers of Muhammad. It is simply a matter of making known what is the case (which is already known by everyone who lives in or is connected in any way to an Islamic country), over and against the weak protestations of those who want to sanitize Islam for consumption in the non-Islamic world.

So go on, then...tell us how Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy. Then it can be shown how your wrong opinion violates every major school of Islamic jurisprudence, and you are lying or in denial.

In fact, if you are such a good and lucky Muslim that you can understand your god's preferred language, maybe you can tell us what the ruling is in this fatwa issued by scholars of Al Azhar concerning a convert from Islam to Christianity. It is right there, under the section labeled "the answer":

Hint: the phrase "He is killed by law" (يقتل شرعا) is used. What law is it talking about? Christian law? Hindu law? Jewish law? No...Islamic authorities don't rule according to any of that...it must be ISLAMIC LAW. Because killing apostates is part of ISLAMIC LAW.

Unless the scholars of Al Azhar, one of the greatest sources if not the greatest source of Islamic scholarship in the Sunni Islamic world (to present the other side, since the OP concerned the Shi'a position) are also somehow inaccurate or not scholars.

Gee, I dunno...maybe there's a law somewhere, deep down in the Islamic sources beyond what anyone can actually find unless they're some random Muslim in France, that says apostates from Islam are actually supposed to be given flowers and kittens and emotional support from the Muslim community during the hard time of losing their Islamic faith, and not...y'know...murdered, like these scholars actually say. All of them. Maybe somehow Islam is actually very peaceful! قتل actually means "hug", you guys, it's just been mistranslated and misunderstood for 1,400 years and counting!

To be fair, French Muslims have a more liberalized view of their religion.

 

[dzheremi]

To be fair, French Muslims have a more liberalized view of their religion.

To be even more fair, this particular poster has a history of claiming that anything that they don't like or that shows their religion in a bad light is wrong, while positing no alternative source of information unless pressed extremely hard for it. Hence I'm pressing extremely hard because I know they're full of baloney.

"This is wrong just because" or "This guy/You/Nobody knows Islam (but I do, even though I'm not going to show how what I say is correct)" or any similar quasi-liberal excuses for murder don't cut it at all. Put up or shut up, Muslims. Show how Al Azhar is wrong, and how all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence are wrong.

They can't do it, because this is in their religion, and it is followed even to this day. Was Mehdi Dibaj murdered for nothing? Or was Mariam Ishaq imprisoned and given the death penalty for nothing? Or did Abdul Rahman have to seek asylum in Italy because Islamic law as practiced in his native Afghanistan was too understanding of his decision to leave Islam for Christianity?

You'll notice if you click these links that these were all very recent cases: Mehdi Dibaj delivered his final testimony in 1993 (by now almost 30 years ago, but within the living memories of probably most people, myself included), Miriam Ibrahim Yahia Ishaq was imprisoned and sentenced to death in 2014, and Abdul Rahman was arrested in 2006. So when Muslims bring up the Christian history of intercommunal fighting or the Crusades or any of this other stuff from centuries and centuries ago, it doesn't have the same evidentiary weight as these recent cases of Islamic courts, ruling Islamically in countries run according to Islamic law, that these apostates are to be killed.

 

[Not David]

To be even more fair, this particular poster has a history of claiming that anything that they don't like or that shows their religion in a bad light is wrong, while positing no alternative source of information unless pressed extremely hard for it. Hence I'm pressing extremely hard because I know they're full of baloney.

"This is wrong just because" or "This guy/You/Nobody knows Islam (but I do, even though I'm not going to show how what I say is correct)" or any similar quasi-liberal excuses for murder don't cut it at all. Put up or shut up, Muslims. Show how Al Azhar is wrong, and how all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence are wrong.

They can't do it, because this is in their religion, and it is followed even to this day. Was Mehdi Dibaj murdered for nothing? Or was Mariam Ishaq imprisoned and given the death penalty for nothing? Or did Abdul Rahman have to seek asylum in Italy because Islamic law as practiced in his native Afghanistan was too understanding of his decision to leave Islam for Christianity?

You'll notice if you click these links that these were all very recent cases: Mehdi Dibaj delivered his final testimony in 1993 (by now almost 30 years ago, but within the living memories of probably most people, myself included), Miriam Ibrahim Yahia Ishaq was imprisoned and sentenced to death in 2014, and Abdul Rahman was arrested in 2006. So when Muslims bring up the Christian history of intercommunal fighting or the Crusades or any of this other stuff from centuries and centuries ago, it doesn't have the same evidentiary weight as these recent cases of Islamic courts, ruling Islamically in countries run according to Islamic law, that these apostates are to be killed.

Yeah, I agree. Most of the time, they are deflecting.

 

[Yytz6]

tell us how Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy.

Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy.

 

[dzheremi]

Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy.

How so, when it is clearly called for in all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and indeed given as an Islamically-prescribed sentence, as in the examples already given? This is a well-known prohibition. If Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy, how do you explain this map:

This is a map of countries where apostasy is punishable by death. At the story that contains the map, the following explanatory note is given:

Thirteen countries, all of a Muslim majority, punish apostasy (the renunciation of a particular religion), or blasphemy with death.

The annual Freedom of Thought report by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, found that 13 countries impose capital punishment upon people simply for their beliefs, or lack of them.

Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen are the relevant countries.

All of these countries, except Pakistan, allow for capital punishment against apostasy, while Pakistan imposes the death penalty for blasphemy - including a disbelief in God.
​

Do you seriously mean to suggest that all of these countries' Islamic judicial systems have gotten it wrong and created a punishment for apostasy where it doesn't exist in Islamic jurisprudence?

That really strains the limits of what is believable. Please back it up with something.

 

[Yytz6]

How so, when it is clearly called for in all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and indeed given as an Islamically-prescribed sentence, as in the examples already given? This is a well-known prohibition. If Islam does not have the death penalty for apostasy, how do you explain this map:

This is a map of countries where apostasy is punishable by death. At the story that contains the map, the following explanatory note is given:

Thirteen countries, all of a Muslim majority, punish apostasy (the renunciation of a particular religion), or blasphemy with death.

The annual Freedom of Thought report by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, found that 13 countries impose capital punishment upon people simply for their beliefs, or lack of them.

Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen are the relevant countries.

All of these countries, except Pakistan, allow for capital punishment against apostasy, while Pakistan imposes the death penalty for blasphemy - including a disbelief in God.
​

Do you seriously mean to suggest that all of these countries' Islamic judicial systems have gotten it wrong and created a punishment for apostasy where it doesn't exist in Islamic jurisprudence?

That really strains the limits of what is believable. Please back it up with something.

A typical translation of apostasy by non-muslims:

Ridda, also presented as al-ridah and in English, apostacy.

Mansour states that the basis of ridda and the harsh penalty for it, is based on the Koran and defines ridda as:

“... to reject Islam by word, deed or omission.”

Ridda is a Muslim crime for which, according to some jurists, these severe penalties of hudud apply. In other words, there is no freedom of religion; once a Muslim, always a Muslim or, in the alternative, the Muslim apostate commits ridda with potentially horrific and fatal punishment.
Ridda Definition

The word ridda typically translated as apostasy At the time of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) meant, not only apostasy, but also political abandonment of the Muslim community.

Due lack of education and critical thinking several myths have taken root in the Muslim world over the ages, and there have not been any efforts in the past to clear these doubts. On the contrary, there has been a sort of effort to strengthen these myths and misconceptions. These misinterpretations of Islamic teachings have taken their toll on the Muslim world and have strengthened a misplaced perception that Islam is a symbol of obscurantism, a religion of intolerance and answers everything with the sword.

And there is no bigger misconception-strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years-other than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy. The Christian missionaries and the Western world are cashing in on it. Ulama have tried to strengthen their point of view and several leading Muslim reformists have failed to tackle the issue. This misconception has also presented Islam as a medieval and killer religion. Islam bashers have time and again tried to carry the point by pointing out that Islam orders the killing of a person if he or she reverts to another religion from Islam.
---------------------------
This tradition does not refer to Muslims who leave the religion of Islam for other religions. Finally, there is the crucial dispute over the nature of the punishment and the crime. Al-Nakha’ee and, according to Sha’rani, al-Thawri, hold that the apostate is a grave sinner who should however be continuously called back to the fold for the rest of his life, and not killed. By implication, they do not consider the offence a hadd (fixed penalty) offence with a fixed punishment that must be carried out. This view is similar to the view that apostasy is a sin that carries no fixed punishment, and any penalty for it is discretionary (ta’zeer). This is a view held by the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taimiya and he attributes it as well to the Maliki Imam al-Baji. Among Hanafites, the jurist Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi holds the same view. He says in al Mabsut that the fixed penalties or hudud are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the Imam. He then adds in the case of apostasy “renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offences, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of Judgement. (“fa’l jaza’ ‘alayha mu’akhkhar ila dar al-jaza”).

Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?

 

[Barney2.0]

A typical translation of apostasy by non-muslims:

The word ridda typically translated as apostasy At the time of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) meant, not only apostasy, but also political abandonment of the Muslim community.

Apostasy on its own is considered both political and religious abandonment. State and religion aren’t distinguished in Islam, anyone who apostatizes from Islam has already taken default committed treason against the Muslim community by changing his religion. So apostates didn’t need to do anything to have the hadd penalty enforced on them besides leaving Islam:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: AbuMusa said: Mu'adh came to me when I was in the Yemen. A man who was Jew embraced Islam and then retreated from Islam. When Mu'adh came, he said: I will not come down from my mount until he is killed. He was then killed. One of them said: He was asked to repent before that.

Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4341

If someone is convicted of apostasy he is asked to repent to Islam (usually, but not always), he or she is then asked to repent sometimes even with torture. In Islam this cruelty can even extend to children who have just reached puberty, teenagers, and some scholars did hold children accountable as well.

What is the ruling on one who was born to Muslim parents then apostatised before or after reaching puberty? - Islam Question & Answer

 

[Barney2.0]

The information in the article is false. It's your problem if you go reading sites like al-Islam and islamqa and feel bad afterwards. Not everyone who call themselves scholars of some kind know what they're talking about.

IslamQA is the best Sunni authority online, Al Islam is the best Shiite one. They both quote narrations to support their rulings or statements, the reason I quote both is so no objections come up from Muslims of either mixed up sect. I quote IslamQA so no Sunnis say its Rafidi or Shiite and the reason I quote Al Islam is so no Shiites say its Wahhabi or Sunni.

 

[Yytz6]

IslamQA is the best Sunni authority online,

No, it's not. And I'm not gonna go on refuting it. It's waste of time.

 

[Yytz6]

Apostasy on its own is considered both political and religious abandonment. State and religion aren’t distinguished in Islam, anyone who apostatizes from Islam has already taken default committed treason against the Muslim community by changing his religion. So apostates didn’t need to do anything to have the hadd penalty enforced on them besides leaving Islam:

This contradicts my source, which is more credible anyway and correct on this, so no more needs to be said.

 

[dzheremi]

A typical translation of apostasy by non-muslims:

The word ridda typically translated as apostasy At the time of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) meant, not only apostasy, but also political abandonment of the Muslim community.

8.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA) (O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, ``Trim your nails, it is sunna,'' and he replies, ``I would not do it even if it were,'' as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.)
8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)

-- From The Reliance of the Traveler and Tools for the Worshiper by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al Masri (d. 1368 AD), available in pdf form here. Subtitled there as "A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law" (hmmm). As far as I understand it, Al Masri's manual reflects the Shafi'i madhab. Wasn't Sha'rani also Shafi'i, but a bit later than Al Masri, since he didn't die until 1565? The obvious question here should be why we take the word of Sha'rani over Al Masri, or for that matter any of the other cited people over any other people who may be cited.

Also, if your 'authority' Dr. Syed's more general contention that Islam does in fact tolerate apostasy is to be taken seriously (the view that it doesn't apparently being something that "the Christian missionaries and Western world are cashing in on", implying that is not true), then why does ibn Taymiyya, one of the sources that he references as being against the death penalty for apostates, say this in other contexts (against the Shi'a):

"And there may be apostasy from some of the religion, as is the state of the people of Rafidite innovations and others besides them, and God Almighty will establish a people He loves and they love Him, and will wage jihad against the one who apostasises from the religion or some of it, as He will establish the one who wages jihad against the Rafidite apostates from the religion, or from some of it, in every age. And God- Exalted is He- is the One responsible for making us among those he Loves and they love Him, who will wage jihad on the apostates and the followers of the apostates, and they do not fear the censure of the critic" (Manhaj al-Sunna 7/222) [As quoted by those lovely most non-Muslim of Muslims the Islamic State in their own writings on Islamic rulings on the Shi'ites, available in translation here.]

Tell me, is it very common for Islam to wage jihad against things it is tolerant of?

 

[Yytz6]

Tell me, is it very common for Islam to wage jihad against things it is tolerant of?

Well, it does have a history of waging jihad against oppression and injustice, both of which it is quite intolerant of.