As long as Islam was in power, there was no problem in understanding the views and opinions of the main stream of Islam represented by the JamhËr ʿUlamā´. Once the power passed into the Islamically weaker hands, the anti-Islamic elements worked for its detriment, with all their abilities and capacities, causing Islam being criticized to the basic and essential judicial sources, core and non-core as well. The critics of Islam triggered some SharÊah issues, some of them needed to be checked out, b…
Read moreAs long as Islam was in power, there was no problem in understanding the views and opinions of the main stream of Islam represented by the JamhËr ʿUlamā´. Once the power passed into the Islamically weaker hands, the anti-Islamic elements worked for its detriment, with all their abilities and capacities, causing Islam being criticized to the basic and essential judicial sources, core and non-core as well. The critics of Islam triggered some SharÊah issues, some of them needed to be checked out, but the most of them were raised either because of hostility towards Islam or because of misunderstandings. Among these issues was the issue of freedom. It was claimed that. the hadÊth “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” opposes the freedom advocated by the QurÉn. But in reality this HadÊth is not opposing the QurÉn, it means that it is permissible to kill those who destroy the entity, existence and security of the society by changing their religion. It is a kind of TaÑzÊr and would be applied by the authority of the imam or judge or by the head of the state; in other words it is delegated to the competent authority in the Islamic state to decide the appropriate penalty, there would be no blame on them in a specific given situation if they award the death penalty for apostasy. Thus the HadÊth recommends a sentence in specific situation and in no way prescribes the death for apostasy unconditionally which could compromise the freedom of religion and conscience guaranteed by the Quran.