Talk:Apostasy in Islam/Archive 2

A misleading link
The second sentence in the article claims that "Islamic scholarship differs on the earthly punishment for apostasy, ranging from death to no punishment at all," and provide a link to prove this (http://www.iheu.org/node/1540). In the article however there is no claim made that some Islamic scholarship consider apostates to suffer "no punishment at all," what it says is:
 * But under the Sharia, apostasy (either advocating the rejection of Islamic belief or announcing such rejection by word or deed) is not permitted and for a man is punishable by death. The punishment for a woman is more lenient - she must stay in prison until she reverts, however long it takes.

Therefor the claim in this sentence of the article have to be changed or provide a new link. (The linked article is also written by an atheist and this seems to be a problem since the subject is about apostasy in in regard to Islam and Islamic law.) Davidelah (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"However, Quran does not reveal a specific punishment for apostasy" (6) This is 100% false. I am surprised no one has caught this yet. If you just look a few verses like Surat An-Nisā verse 4:89 "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."

Creation of section on the Mufti of Egypt
Davidelah and I have been going back and forth regarding the position of the Grand Mufti of Egypt on apostasy. He maintains that Ali Gomaa made a clarification in which he stated apostates must be punished. I insist that because of more recent statements this clarification is not valid

Also, the events regarding the Mufti have been doubted. Tariq Ramadan has said that it wasn't the Mufti who released the clarification, but it was his organization Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah who released it, but the very next day Ali Gomaa said that he meant exactly.

Whether or not you agree with this version of events should not stop us from noting them in the article. This can not be done in a few sentence long paragraph, but would need a new section.

Yster 11:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ali Gomaa's current position that he is against the death penalty, is not the same as saying a Muslim can give up his faith without punishment, as he clarified his rejection of here. A later reference with an unambiguous statement to the opposite effect would be valid to discard his clarification in the gulf news. If you think there is too much emphasis on this issue I suggest rephrasing the sentence rather than deleting it altogether, even though I think his clarification is given due weight. Davidelah (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't seen this discussion before my rv, as no-one hinted toward it. Anyways, my rv is still valid as a suspicious WP:BLP violation. As long as the mufti is alive, we can't use statements in such-a-way. The BLP/ANI are specialized in these cases, so they have to approve if your insertion is legitimate or not. Yster makes a good point, tho; but we need a specialized expert in a dispute like this. The content can't be added for the time being.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not just a BLP but a stance on a particular issue. Also, even by full BLP standard, you have no reason to remove it, BLP policy allows only for immediate removal of poorly sourced material and Gulf News is a notable and respected newspaper in that part of the world. So you can't claim my edit is a suspicious WP:BLP violation. And as I said before I suggest rephrasing the sentence rather than deleting it altogether if you aren't happy using the statement in such-a-way. I find it really wasteful to take up such a trivial issue in BLP/ANI. Davidelah (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a formal way to become an apostate?
Just out of curiosity is there a statement or a contract or some sort of ritual to be done to formally be recognized apostate by their mosque? Nefariousski (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed the out of context Quranic verse in the scriptural references section
Why ? Simple. The verse (4:89) was taken out of context.

Here's the verse in question (4:89):"They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do and thus be on the same footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Verse 4:75, Same chapter, : "And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

The "you"/"them" refers to the Meccans and other tribal combatants Muslims had to face during the time verse was introduced. Hence why the context is enemy combatants. The term "from their ranks" further supports the fact that the context is a military one.

By the way, the contradiction argument also had to be removed since it was an opinion that was POV. If you disagree with my change, then let's argue/debate about what the Quran says and I'm ready to promote further Islamic scholars, historical sources and more Quranic context.

If there's any "You", "Them", "The disbelievers", you need to provide context like I just did. "The" is an article that specifies. There is also a difference between "A disbeliever" and "The disbeliever". "A" means any within that group, in other words, it means all. "The" means a specific subgroup within that group. This is basic English. So what does "You", "Them", "the disbelievers" mean? This is where context come in.

Also, the link (44 and 45) (http://www.alim.org/library/quran/ayah/compare/4/89/fight-against-hypocrisy-and-hypocrites#ayanote-607) does not even mention Apostate in parenthesizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.35.233 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would seem that one person's context is not another's. While apostasy in Islam may not be an issue for some, it results in death sentences for others. You might consider adding a different interpretation/view to the section, but as the content you removed was reliably sourced, it should stay. If you want to argue for removal, please continue to discuss it on this page and get consensus before removal. To request more comments, please see wp:rfc Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't reliably sourced since the source is different from what is written on this page. There is absolutely no mention of the word Apostasy in the source. Therefore, it should not be written within parenthesis.

"While apostasy in Islam may not be an issue for some, it results in death sentences for others."

I am not questioning the fact that there has been apostasy punishment in Muslim countries. I just showed that the Quran or the source (44 and 45) has no mention of the word Apostasy. That word should not be parenthesized within the verse mentioned.

These are all the translations taking straight from the 2 sources used :

Source 44 : "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."

Source 45: "

Pickthall	:	They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

Asad	:	They would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil 108 for the sake of God; and if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them 109 for your ally or giver of succour,

Malik	:	Their real wish is to see that you become a disbeliever, as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may become exactly like them. So you should not take friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as protectors or helpers.

Yusuf Ali	:	They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do and thus be on the same footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. 607 "

There is no mention of the word apostate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.35.233 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Relinquishment of the obligation of prayer
Denying the obligation to pray is an apostasy. See (for example) The Distinguished Jurist's Primer, vol. 1, pp. 96-99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.91.86 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

See also: http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/minhajenglish.pdf --> CHAPTER VIII.—INTENTIONAL OMISSION OF PRESCRIBED PRAYERS

Or Mawardi, here in French: http://www.e-corpus.org/notices/101647/gallery/684204/fulltext http://www.e-corpus.org/notices/101647/gallery/684205/fulltext http://www.e-corpus.org/notices/101647/gallery/684206/fulltext

Or Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (Reliance of the Traveller): http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf page 109. f1.3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.91.86 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

...most living Bahá'í have not, in fact, ever been Muslim.[91]
"...most living Bahá'í have not, in fact, ever been Muslim.[91]"

Whilst most have never been practicing Muslims this statement ignores the Islamic doctrine that all are born Muslims and revert back to the Islamic faith (Rather than converting). This belief, although not held by all Muslims, stems from the Hadith:

Hadith 2:441 Narrated Abu Huraira

Allah's Apostle said, "Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) but his parents convert him to Judaism, Christianity or Magainism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?" Then Abu Huraira recited the holy verses: "The pure Allah's Islamic nature (true faith of Islam) (i.e. worshipping none but Allah) with which He has created human beings. No change let there be in the religion of Allah (i.e. joining none in worship with Allah). That is the straight religion (Islam) but most of men know, not." (30.30) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.212.19 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the point you are trying to make? Do you have a counter-ref for Ref.91 above?  What are you saying to improve the article?


 * One valid point is that this reference (now #96) does not in any way support the assertion made in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So you have a cite that most Bahai's in the world have muslim parents? If you do I would be very interested in reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.148.83 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So, if we ignore Islamic doctrines in the process of writing an encyclopædia, what's the problem? Jimp 12:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes
the user who edited this page has greatly damaged it. the pervious version was far better. How does a former "Muslims" view way more than scholars and sources content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwitzerWorld (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I wouldn't call his edits "greatly damaging". However, several of his edits should have been discussed. Such as the massive change to the lead which then included individual opinions rather than that of a scholar on such a matter. AcidSnow (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * SwitzerWorld - The article was tagged with multiple issues - neutrality and cites. The edits I made had nothing to do with former "Muslims" - if you think so, prove it. They were sourced from peer reviewed journals, secondary WP:RS sources, direct quotes from Quran and Hadiths, checking cites that the old version of this article previously used and quoting those source completely, with context and accurately. Your concern that the content was derived from "former Muslims" (apostates) is false. Quran and Hadiths are not written by former Muslims, nor did the widely cited publications I added.
 * You also reverted the world map with old one which had no external source, was wrong and someone's original research. It violated wikipedia policies of verifiability and WP:NOR.
 * Please read WP:FIVE, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:JDLI. Identify which source and explain which changes are worrying you. Welcome to wikipedia. RLoutfy (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AcidSnow - I have put the old lead back, while we discuss. The lead is not neutral, uses unreliable sources, dubious phrasing, has original research and does not summarize the main article per WP:LEAD. For example, the source does not say anywhere, "—at least among those who have killed or threatened to kill people for apostasy—", the BBC article does not support what the lead claims it does, etc. This is all POV and advocacy unsupported by sources. I am tagging it for now. The lead needs to be improved, and I will start a section on this tag page to discuss it. RLoutfy (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how the lead is not neutral. That's my only problem with your edits as of now. I don't know about her/him though. AcidSnow (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality requires due weight and not taking sides. Minority views should not be presented as if they are majority's or more than minority. Nor should significant minority views be ignored. Since we are discussing a re-drafted lead section on this talk page, let us continue this there. RLoutfy (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft lead
AcidSnow - Here is the draft lead for discussion. It is mainly a re-arrangement of the old lead for coherence. The definition parts are combined, original research removed, scholarly sources added, and wording that was not neutral or unsupported removed.
 * Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ردة‎ riddah or ارتداد irtidād) is commonly defined as the rejection in word or deed or the act of leaving Islam (apostasy) by a person who was born in a Muslim family or who had previously accepted Islam.[3][4] The definition of apostasy in Islam includes not only former Muslims who have renounced Islam (such as converts to Christianity or another religion),[5] but self-professed Muslims who have allegedly questioned or denied "a fundamental tenet of creed" of Islam, such as sharia law, the prophets or angels of Islam, or who have "mocked God", "worshiped idols", etc.,[6][7][8] and is even applied to some who were born non-Muslim, but whose ancestors had converted from Islam—examples being Bahá'ís in Iran and Ahmadiyya in Pakistan.[9]


 * Under current laws in some Islamic countries, the actual punishment for the apostate (or murtad مرتد ) ranges from execution to prison term to loss of child custody and annulment of marriage to no punishment.[1][4][10] As of 2013, twenty three Muslim-majority countries had a penal code or case laws that considered apostasy as a crime.[11][12]


 * Some contemporary Muslim scholars state that apostasy in Islam is punishable by death or imprisonment until repentance.[13][14][15] According to critics, apostasy is an issue of freedom of faith and conscience. These Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion.[16][17][18]

RLoutfy (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The only major thing I don't understand is the definition: why do the opinions of former Muslims and those that have killed have more weight than that of a Muslim scholar? The lead does not even mention how the Hadith play a role as well. It should say something like: "The definition and punishment of apostasy various among Muslims Scholars and "self professed Muslims" who have acted on their own interpretations" or something similar. You also largely removed how many Muslims scholars have stated that it's not a crime. Other than that it's relatively good. AcidSnow (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All sides should be presented with due weight. The "Sharia demands apostate be killed" side (Dr Shahin in BBC article), as well as the side challenging that interpretation (Mr al-Banna in BBC article). For neutral presentation, we must ask whether the sides are nearly equally weighted, or is one in minority? Read the BBC source currently in the lead. At the very end, it states, "Today, views like that of Mr al-Banna are in the minority." The lead should include a summary of this minority view, but give it appropriate weight and clarify it is minority.
 * We should not over emphasize or rely on former Muslims, nor current Muslims. Let us just NPOV summarize scholarly peer reviewed secondary and tertiary publications - by non-Muslims, current Muslims and ex-Muslims.
 * The lead (and article) need to be coherent and in encyclopedic style, not a jumble of confusing opinions. The arguments of Muslim scholars who do not consider apostasy to be a crime need to be summarized in one place.
 * The "rebel" word is not neutral in the lead - because it implies war or active opposition. A wording closer to the BBC source would make it more neutral. I will draft another lead and post it here. RLoutfy (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another lead draft-

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ردة‎ riddah or ارتداد irtidād) is commonly defined as the conscious abandonment of Islam by a Muslim in word or through deed.[1] It includes the act of converting to another religion (such as Christianity) by a person who was born in a Muslim family or who had previously accepted Islam.[2] The definition of apostasy in Islam includes in its scope not only former Muslims who have renounced Islam to join another religion or become an atheist, but Muslims who have questioned or denied "a fundamental tenet of creed" of Islam such as Sharia law (unbelief), or who have mocked God, or worshiped idol(s), or knowingly believed in an interpretation of Sharia that is contrary to the consensus of ummah (Islamic community).[3][4] The term has also been used for people of religions that trace their origins to Islam, such as Bahá'ís in Iran and Ahmadiyya in Pakistan and Indonesia.[5]

The definition and punishment for apostasy in Islam is controversial, and varies among Islamic scholars.[6] In Islam’s history, vast majority of scholars have held that apostasy in Islam is a crime punishable with death penalty, typically after a waiting period to allow the apostate to repent and return to Islam.[7] Some contemporary Muslim scholars also hold this traditional view that death penalty for apostasy is required by the two primary sources of Sharia - Quran and Hadiths; other scholars believe imprisonment of a Muslim apostate until repentance is more appropriate.[8][9] A minority of contemporary Islamic scholars, relying only on Quran, hold the view that apostasy in Islam is not a crime.[7]

Under current laws in Islamic countries, the actual punishment for the apostate (or murtadd مرتد) ranges from execution to prison term to no punishment.[12][13] Many Islamic nations void the Muslim apostate’s marriage, deny child custody rights, as well as his or her inheritance rights for apostasy in Islam.[9] Twenty three Muslim-majority countries had a penal code that considered apostasy as a crime, as of 2013.[14][15]

According to critics, punishment for apostasy in Islam is a violation of universal human rights, and an issue of freedom of faith and conscience.[10][11]

RLoutfy (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The cite numbering in the draft above does not correspond to current reference list numbering in the article. RLoutfy (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect or misleading example of Indonesian Atheists supposedly jailed for atheism
Please excuse me if I am somehow not following the guideline, as this is my first attempt at contributing. I believe the following paragraph in the section discussing apostasy in Indonesia is incorrect:

"These laws have been used to arrest and convict apostates in Indonesia, such as the case of 30-year old Aan who declared himself to be an atheist, declared “God does not exist”, and stopped praying and fasting as required by Islam. He was convicted and sentenced in 2012." .

Specifically, two things are of issue.

1. The cited source of this statement itself states:

"He was not convicted under the country’s blasphemy law, although it was one of the two charges brought against him. Instead, he was found guilty of violating the 2008 cyber crimes law. His crime was spreading his atheist beliefs through his Facebook accounts, “Ateis Minang” and “Alex Aan”, which the court said incited hatred and animosity against religious groups " (italics for emphasis). Thus, he was jailed for inciting religious hatred, not for being an apostate.

2. Furthermore, although his Facebook status of "God does not exist" is one of the evidence brought against him, it was only one out of eleven cartoons and status updates. The others he posted included comic strips with titles such as "Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter in law" and "Muhammad has sex with his wife's slaves". .

My suggestion is thus to erase the reference to Alexander Aan as an example of application of apostasy laws (because it wasn't) or to improve the accuracy of the article by mentioning the other evidences that was brought upon him. The way it is written at the moment seems like it glossed over things to create the impression that he was jailed for something trivial as proclaiming his atheism when he actually took a more active role to disparage Islam while doing so. 113.23.129.6 (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the first sentence of Indonesia section. It clarifies the context of "These laws have....". Welcome to wikipedia. RLoutfy (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Pew Research survey results deceptively quoted, suggesting severe bias on the part of Wikipedia editors
The reference to the first Pew Research survey only cites the countries where a large porton responded favorably to the question of the death penalty, while failing to mention that in 2 of the 7 countries surveyed, less than 10% were in favor: Egypt with 5% in favor, and Lebanon, with 6% in favor. This is misleading, imply that the attitude is uniform amongst the countries surveyed, when it obviously is not. reporting that 5% to 75% are favor is substantially different in tone than reporting that 30% to 75% are in favor.

The reference to the second Pew Research survey fails to mention that the statistics ONLY apply to those who answered "yes" to the survey question "Should Sharia Law become the law of the land?" By presenting the raw statistics from the two different surveys as though they were equivalent, leads me to suspect an agenda by those doing the reporting. For example, the Wikipedia article reports that 86% of Muslims in Egypt favor the death penalty for apostasy. However, the survey reports that only 74% of the Moslms answered yes to the original question, so the normalized figure for Egypt is 86% of 74% or, 64% believe that the death penalty should be used as the punishment for leaving Islam. The Wikipedia article claims that the results of the 2010 survey and 2012 survey are comparable, but there is no way that 64% in 2012 is comparable to 84% in 2010. It is a drop of nearly 25% or, an inflation of 31%

Here is the normalized statistics for each country listed. Countries not listed in first survey marked with "n/a" [note that this is done on a Sunday morning and I likely made a few mistakes, but even so...]:

Notice that in every country where we have 2 data points except Lebanan (already one of the lowest), the trend has always been towards liberalism. The Wikipedia article asserts that there was no substantial change, but in every case there was substantial changes. This is clear biased reporting, or at best, gross incompetence. Given the international "us vs them" rhetoric pitting 1.5 billion Moslems vs the rest of the world, it behooves Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. Sparaig2 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the 2010 study, I would agree that mentioning countries with low support for capital punishment would give readers more complete information, but the article currently simply reports (correctly) that high levels of support are found in these five countries. It says nothing about what proportion of surveyed countries have such high support.
 * As for the second study, I agree that the article as it is now inaccurately portrays the 2012 study. It fails to mention, as you correctly state, that the percentages only apply to Muslims who answered yes to "Should Sharia Law become the law of the land?". However, your method of normalization is also incorrect. You simply multiply the percentages, e.g. in Egypt 86% of the 74% of Muslims who answered yes to the question equals 86% x 74% = 64%. This assumes that of the 26% of Muslims who answered 'no' to the first question, 0% would favour the death penalty for apostasy. That is just an unfounded assumption. We cannot know how these Muslims would have answered the question, they weren't asked. So while it is quite possible, as you suggest, that there is a trend to more liberal views, that cannot be gained from comparing the two studies, because the numbers cannot be objectively compared: they measure different things. -Lindert (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is an assumption, but is it an unfounded assumption? To suggest otherwise is to suggest that someone who doesn't want Sharia Law to become the law of the land still wants the most extreme part of said law--killing those who no longer agree with you--to be the law. That's a less supportable assumption to make then simply assuming that anyone who doesn't want Sharia Law doesn't want the most extreme part of it either. Sparaig2 (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making deductions and assumptions that neither the cited sources state, nor this article. It is also original research, which is against wikipedia policies. I concur with Lindert, and will edit to make that Pew-based section more complete. RLoutfy (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Better, but still misleading because the number of pro-Sharia Muslims in each country varies so widely, from 99% in Afghanistan, to only 12% in Turkey. In fact, I think that should be added to the end:
 * Note that Pew Research found that the percentage of Muslims in each country who want Sharia Law to be the law of the land varies from country to country. In Afghanistan, 99% of Muslims want Sharia Law to be the basis of national law in Afghanistan, while in Turkey, 12% of Muslims want Sharia Law to be the basis of national law in Turkey.
 * This maintains accuracy, isn't "original research," and doesn't imply that the majority of Muslims everywhere want to kill anyone who disagrees with them. Sparaig2 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the 2012 Pew survey about death penalty, I added the countries that were missing. I found it strange that most of the countries were listed -- including all the highest -- but none of the countries with low approval of the death penalty were listed. Also explained a little more how countries were selected (Pew addresses this in their FAQ at the link); tried to clarify/explain the issues discussed above about computation (when multiplying Sharia-law X yes-death-penalty, one gets a figure showing the MINIMUM approval in the entire Muslim community, not the precise actual figure) -- and I included the overall percentage (which is 36% or above) to give some perspective. David Couch (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about "Pew Islamic Countries Survey of 2012". A concise summary of Pew survey is useful. Explaining math with examples of two countries makes this article less readable and diffuse. It also raises the question you ask in a different context - why Egypt and Indonesia have been picked, why not all the countries. Going through the math for all countries is unnecessary, off topic to this article. The overall percentage, 36% or above, to give some perspective, should suffice. RLoutfy (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What, this article isn't all about the "Pew Islamic Countries Survey of 2012"? Aw heck! Can we add such an article?... just kidding. Thanks for preventing this article from turning into a textbook. Some of us get a bit carried away with the details.David Couch (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pew research statistics on apostasy
The article contains a number of statements similar to this one: "A 2010 Pew Research Center poll showed that 84% of Egyptian Muslims believe those who leave Islam should be punished by death." The reference indeed links to a 2010 Pew Research poll that contains no references to apostasy. A skim of the entire poll indicates nothing to back up the statement.Slofstra (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Pew report does not use the word 'apostasy', but it does indeed say that "84% of Egyptian Muslims believe those who leave Islam should be punished by death.". See page 14 of the report, There's a table titled Views of Harsh Punishments. - Lindert (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC). From the last page of the report: "ASK MUSLIMS ONLY: Do you favor or oppose making the following the law in (survey country)? d. Death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion". 86% from Jordan answered "Favor".
 * The 2010 results and the 2012 results are quite different. The way in which the surveys were conducted is likely a partial explanation, but the trend seems to be growing tolerance in virtually every Muslim country for which we have more than 1 data point. Sparaig2 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Map
Wiki id2 - The map you created is not supported by sources such as this. Without an external source, it violates WP:OR policy. RLoutfy (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My map does not violate the policy. In fact I created it with the refernce in mind. The other map conflates apostasy with blasphemy. Which are two different things. Egypt and Morocco do not have death for apostasy, your map appeared to show that it does. It's is more inaccurate. ( Wiki id2  (talk)  14:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC))


 * We both cited this reference - Apostasy - LOC. Read the Morocco section, Iran section and others. For example, the source says for Iran, "While Iranian law does not provide for the death penalty for apostasy, the courts can hand down that punishment, and have done so in previous years, based on their interpretation of Sharia’a law and fatwas (legal opinions or decrees issued by Islamic religious leaders)." This does not justify your yellow coloring in the map - death penalty for apostasy is a judicial reality in Iran. You have miscolored Morocco and other countries too. Please explain how your map is consistent with the source?
 * The cited Apostasy - LOC source above, makes no mention of Turkey or much of West Africa or Central Asia. Yet, you have painted it blue. Please provide a source.
 * This article is about apostasy in Islam, not death penalty for apostasy in Islam. A better map would include information beyond death penalty, and include prison, civil penalties, etc because these are relevant. RLoutfy (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No the legal status is unclear because the law doesn't exist. It can be created but it doesn't exist. The blue section is partly mentioned in the LoC reference. See Tunisia.

It doesn't talk about Morocco using the death penalty. Nor does it talk Egypt. So blue is accurate there too. Blue is accurate for Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria as per the source as well. You used the source, I'm not denying it, but inaccurately. The Pew Research centre source talks in depth about the penalties for Blasphemy, it doesn't provide a country-by-country analysis on the exact penalty for apostasy. Just whether it is a crime or not. So the LoC source is better because it covers it in more depth. The Central Asian countries are secular states, Bosnia, Albania and kosovo don't use it because they don't have the death penalty, nor does Turkey. Other sections coloured in blue are also reference as per pew research centre, because Indonesia doesn't not prosecute for apostasy either. The map which you used, is still inaccurate, because Pew research centre, only talks with apostasy about which countries have laws. Not on the usage of death penalty. It's not just about the death penalty. But that is a main concern, so the map reflects that. The other things like inheritance and child custody rights vary so much country from country, actually state from state! That it can be hard to put it all accurately on one single map. Whereas use of death penalty is binary, with just a few shades of yellow, so easier to reflect on a map. The other laws, are rightly covered in depth at the section below, it doesn't need a map. Given that the laws vary so much if you take death penalty out of the equation.

Capital punishment is of capital importance to many readers. So it is worth having a map which talks about it regarding the Muslim world.

Death penalty is the main concern of many people, so countries which do and do not use it have to be mentioned. Iran's status is rightly yellow, because even though the courts hand down a verdict it is still invalid because a law does not exist! The LoC acknowledges that there is confusion within their legal system. Ergo, yellow. ( Wiki id2  (talk)  15:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC))


 * Once again, this article is about apostasy in Islam, not death penalty for apostasy in Islam, and not controversy about death penalties laws for apostasy in Islamic countries.
 * You allege, "Death penalty is the main concern of many people". Says who? or which source. Is this your personal opinion or assumption?
 * Jail, civil penalties, arrests for proselytizing Christianity/etc to Muslim people, and people held in solitary confinement for apostasy from Islam is due and relevant for this article because it is widely covered in mainstream media and peer reviewed scholarly articles on Apostasy in Islam.
 * My map is well sourced and it does not say "death penalty law exists". It simply said "death penalty".
 * Your map is not properly sourced. Where is the source for Turkey, much of West Africa, Central Asia? Please provide source(s). I will refrain from reverting your map re-insertion edit for 24 hours, to give you time to find and provide reliable source(s) for coloring all these blue. I believe it is fair to remove both your version and my version of maps, while we discuss which map is best for this article on this talk page. RLoutfy (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean 24 hours? I have provided sources for Turkey. You are not addresing the flaws in your work. Which is that the map conflates penalties for apostasy with blasphemy. You are not addressing the flaws that Islamic law in different countries is to complex on child custody and inhertance and varies region by region for a map, so it cannot accurately be described. My references are there. E.g. Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, North Africa, Jordan and Iraq are blue as per LoC reference. I am putting the others together for central Asia. Your map is clearly wrong, Morocco and Egypt do not have death penalty for apostasy. The map is fundamentally wrong, which you are projecting.

I say that "Capital punishment is of capital interest" it's interesting to human rights campaigners such as Amnesty International which want the penalty abolished. My sources are there. Your work on jail, solitary etc. is mentioned in the article, I am saying that the laws vary so much on a region by region basis that it can't be mentioned on a map! Maps are easy to colour for binary things. E.g. do you or do you not have death penalty for apostasy. Not "describe your countries entire legal and penal code for apostasy by colouring in countries in a colouring map." Not to mention the incorrections despite using a Pew research source, which is clarified by the LoC that neither Egypt nor Morocco use the death penalty.

Death penalty is important for either maps, even your map talks about it. My map is more clear, because it is accurate on Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco. You can't say my map is less relevant because no one cares about death penalty. That's pretty hypocritical when the map which you propose shows the use of death penalty as well, albeit inaccurately. ( Wiki id2  (talk)  16:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC))


 * My map has no color for Tunisia. For Morocco, it colors it consistent with the LOC - Apostasy cited source. But, for now, let us focus on your map because it is still temporarily in the article.
 * The BBC report you just added for Turkey does not use the word apostasy even once in the article. BBC wrote, "The protocol must be ratified by the Turkish parliament." - which means, as of the date of that news article, the general ban was not law of Turkey. Using it for your apostasy map is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't use that reference to support your map.
 * Look at your caption. It reads, Muslim majority countries with death penalty for apostasy in red, unclear/mixed status in yellow and not using capital punishment in blue.
 * So what you need to provide are reference(s) that show (a) not using capital punishment for apostasy for each country in blue, (b) mixed/unclear for each country in yellow, and (c) using capital punishment for each country in red. Don't do original research; the source you cite must use the word apostasy and imply this conclusion about capital punishment for apostasy.
 * The Apostasy - LOC reference above states that Iran has been using capital punishment for apostasy - but you have colored it yellow, which is wrong per your caption. RLoutfy (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what to do. My sources for the BBC is valid. It does not mention apostasy, but not using the death penalty means there is no death penalty for apostasy. That is really, really irrational of you. No death penalty at all, means no death penalty for apostasy too! Also, I have provided references to central asian states constiutions, they are secular, so there is no religious based legislation. Therefore, apostasy cannot be a crime, because the state does not legislate on a religious basis. It does not mention apostasy, but it talks about not legislating for religion, which is inclusive of apostasy. You cannot remove death penalty references arbitrarily just because they don't suit your opinion.(  Wiki id2  (talk)  21:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC))

Also, given that Erdogan considered, is not anymore, restoring the death penalty ergo, it must have been abolished in the first place. ( Wiki id2  (talk)  21:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC))

Iran's status, I will consider changing on my map. Your point has some validity about converting to red. But I will check it in more detail. Much of it is mixed with the annoying politicians you see. With the end of Ahmadinejad and the start of Rouhani's term, Iran has shifted away from the ultra-conservative policies. But I understand your view on Iran, and I will check into it in further detail. Tunisia shouldn't be left uncoloured. Countries which aren't non-muslim or do not have Muslim majority are uncoloured, so a blue is necessary for differentiation, the article is about apostasy in Islam. Tunisia in Islam so there has to be some form of colouring. Can't be grouped together with the Vatican me thinks ;) ( Wiki id2  (talk)  21:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC))

The LoC states in the same document though that Iran does not have a law for apostasy. Therefore the legal status is "mixed", the "mixed" exists for Iran because it appears that laws in that dictatorship are derived arbitarily. But it's not firm exactly is it? That's my point. I'm not saying that Iran does not use death penalty, but I'm saying it's a mixture, which is the esssence of the LoC reference, it like the "It's complicated" relationship status on Facebook. ( Wiki id2  (talk)  21:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC))


 * You added this, with the embedded comment, "Shows which countries do indeed have a law for apostasy. So those with no law, by default have no death penalty, have to be coloured blue. Others between yellow/red." You also added this as source, with the embedded comment, "Article 1 says Kazakhstan is 'secular', so it does not legislate laws on religious bases, ergo ref shows Kazakhstan should be coloured blue."
 * Both are OR. Article 15 of Kazakhstan allows death penalty for 'especially grave crimes'. The document does not say apostasy is not a 'especially grave crime'. Such WP:OR is not acceptable.
 * Do you have reliable published source(s) that actually use the word apostasy and its punishment somewhere, to support for your blue coloring of Libya, Algeria, Niger, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Malaysia, etc.? RLoutfy (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The OR is on your side, by making an argument from ignorance that because apostasy is not explictly mentioned, it must fall under 'especially grave crime' in Kazakhstan. You are wrong, in any case On May 2007, Kazakhstan amended its Constitution abolishing the death penalty for all crimes except terrorist acts that cause loss of human life and exceptionally grave crimes committed during wartime. On December 20, 2012, Kazakhstan voted in favour of the Resolution on a Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty at the UN General Assembly.Cf here You are listing several countries as having the death penalty for apostasy which haven't had a death penalty executed for decades. When a country is considered as a de-facto abolitionist, e.g. hereit can hardly be practicing a death penalty for apostasy. --95.90.52.88 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In Kazakhstan, apostasy cannot be a grave crime. Because the state is secular, it does not legislate for "religious crimes" that is my point. Libya, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq etc. are all within library of congress reference as not using death penalty. It is clear that they don't use the death penalty for apostasy.

If Turkey does not have the death penalty, it will not execute apostates, simple. Must admit though, the debate is actually helping to improve the accuracy of the article :)( Wiki id2  (talk)  07:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC))

I have another suggestion, using the library of congress reference, we can improve the analysis of fines/ jail in the country-by-country analysis, although it appears to be 80% completed anyhow. This analysis will also incorporate what your map is trying to say, but will be in more depth because it is in text form. The data is qualitative in terms of jail terms/ fines or custody rights whereas death penalty, while less in depth, I agree, is more binary, quantiative if you will so it is more accurate on a map. ( Wiki id2  (talk)  09:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy is
 * Quote "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication."
 * That is what you are violating above, again. You are inferring conclusions and extrapolating implications that neither Kazakhstan-related source explicitly makes, nor Turkey-related source explicitly makes. You are doing original research and have added misleading content.
 * Are you willing to respect wikipedia's policies for this article, or do you simply not care what the WP:NOR policy is? RLoutfy (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * YOU are the one inferring extrapolating implications by making up a meaning for "extreme crimes" to suit your agenda which flies in the face of international standards. You are violating both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV --95.90.52.88 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading map
The map presented does NOT represent the actual situation in 2013. Several of the countries listed as having a death penalty for apostasy actually have a moratorium for death penalties and have not executed a death penalty in decades. Cf. here where Mauretania and Morocco are listed as quasi-abolitionists. --95.90.52.88 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The map shows the "apostasy law map", and not a "execution practice map". RLoutfy (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kuwait
- You reverted this. What is your concern with the following sources - Kuwait - Laws Criminalizing Apostasy Library of Congress (May 2014), and Ahmed Al-Suwei Shleibik's article in the Journal of Sharia and Islamic Studies? You alleged these as dubious in your edit comment - why? And why the POV-section tag? RLoutfy (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dubious
It has been mentioned that Sarakhsi and Ibne Taymiah said that no legal punishment for Apostasy. Although a reference to a book has been given, I would like to request a primary source i.e writings of these scholars on the subject because I have seen some of the excerpts from their books where they have also advocated punishment for apostasy (granted that it is for "severe apostasy" (whatever that is) in the case of Ibne Taymiah). I think some primary source reference should be provided here to make it authentic. Sohebbasharat (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:PRIMARY sources of Sarakhsi and Ibn Taymiyyah are non-English, and such primary sources are best avoided. You mention, "[having] seen some of the excerpts from their books where they have also advocated punishment for apostasy". Perhaps you can add a short summary from those excerpts for NPOV, and thus improve the article? RLoutfy (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why such sources are to be avoided? --13:30, 9 June 2015‎ HakimPhilo (talk | contribs)


 * Please read WP:PSTS, for when and how primary sources can be used, and when not. RLoutfy (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear ; I read it, I'm asking you about that specific source (Ibn Taymiyya) if an English translation is provided? Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

whoever wills, let him disbelieve
وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ ۖ فَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ

And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve."

Quran 18:29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.96.72 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've referenced it in the Punishment → Qur'an section. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Misquoting Jonathan A.C. Brown
The source, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy, ISBN 978-1780744209, at p. 186 does not write, ""hence the Qur'an granted religious freedom". Brown writes, "why then do all four Sunni schools of law agree that a Muslim man who leaves Islam is killed if he refuses to recant (the Hanafis only punish a woman with imprisonment)? The ruling is based on a number of Hadiths considered totally reliable by Sunni scholars" RLoutfy (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear . I didn't reference p.186 alone but also p.188 in which that statement is mentioned.
 * Clearly by stating "why then do all four Sunni schools of law agree that a Muslim man who leaves Islam is killed if he refuses to recant (the Hanafis only punish a woman with imprisonment)? The ruling is based on a number of Hadiths considered totally reliable by Sunni scholars" you didn't read the source; After that question he attempted exactly at answering it, and he concludes: "Dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists like Gomaa and Qaradawi could not justify ignoring authenticated Hadiths by invoking modern values. They had concluded that the evidence, in this case communal practice, trumped the Hadiths. They explained this by recourse to the epistemological hierarchy of Islamic legal theory. Even the soundest Hadiths were rarely transmitted widely enough to meet the grade of massively diffuse and parallel transmission (tawatur),  like that of the Qur'an. As a result, they only yielded strong probability, not certainty, that the Prophet had made the statements attributed to him in the Hadiths. Qur'anic principles like religious freedom, by contrast, were certainties, and any Hadiths that touched on such principles would have to be understood in light of them." Next time please read the sources more properly instead of making false accusations. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That p. 188 language does not imply "hence the Qur'an granted religious freedom". The bigger issue is that your edit is cherrypicking content from Jonathan Brown, and misrepresenting the source. It needs to be rephrased and revised for NPOV. The verses and the summary from Jonathan Brown may be better integrated in the Other views on punishment section. RLoutfy (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear . The basis of his point was that (2:256) & (18:29) made it clear that the Qur'an granted religious freedom in all cases. He then went on different discussions, till he reached the conclusion, and he added to it: "Qur'anic principles like religious freedom, by contrast, were certainties, and any Hadiths that touched on such principles would have to be understood in light of them." In view of his whole argument, it is clear that I didn't make a case of WP:CHERRYPICK, and your accusations (see WP:ACCUSE) aren't helping in making any progress. I don't think we should put it in that section since his whole point the were based on Qur'anic verses. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Apostasy in Algeria
I quote:

Algeria

On 21 March 2006, the Algerian parliament approved a new law requiring imprisonment for two to five years and a fine between five and ten thousand euros for anyone "trying to call on a Muslim to embrace another religion." The same penalty applies to anyone who "stores or circulates publications or audio-visual or other means aiming at destabilizing attachment to Islam."

End quote. This is about the interdiction and punishment for the proselytization of other religions in Algeria, it has nothing to do with apostasy; That's why I deleted it. Thanks for your comprehension. --HakimPhilo (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a common sense, in Wikipedia we not not simply delete irrelevant non-trivial information; we move it to the relevant article. In this case, I guess, it would be Proselytism or derived subjects. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Jane D McAuliffe (2004), Encyclopedia of the Quran, Vol. 4 (Mistaken Reference)
To support that "Quran reprimands apostasy in Islam and suggests it deserves "chastisement."" you made the following reference: Jane D McAuliffe (2004), Encyclopedia of the Quran, Vol. 4, ISBN 978-9004123557, p. 456. where it is said: "Already in Meccan passages apostates (see APOSTASY) had been threatened with punishment (Q 16:106) but are so again with still more emphasis in Medinan passages (2:217; 3:176-7; 9:74)." That passage was in the section on "Reward and Punishment" under the subtitle: "Those who are punished", the passage doesn't even make the point as to whether the punishment is in this life and/or in the hereafter. It is thus dubious to quote it in favor of the first statement. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Edit: I have deleted the previous dubious wording, and added the correct view from the APOSTASY section (which was recommended for further explanation in the passage in Vol.4 p. 456) from the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, Vol.1, p.120. --HakimPhilo (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The original language was better. The verses quoted mention chastisement explicitly (see Q 16:106). And the original wording was, "However, Quran does not reveal a specific punishment for apostasy." That is true, "in this life and/or in the hereafter". That is what the widely held view is, including Jane McAuliffe and Juan Campo. RLoutfy (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear . Your statement "The verses quoted mention chastisement explicitly (see Q 16:106)." is an explicit case of original research (see WP:OR). Where does Jane McAuliffe state that? I invite you to reread the section on Apostasy in the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, Vol.1, pp. 129—122, you deliberately went against what was stated in the Encyclopedia which would be in this case the WP:NPOV. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not WP:OR, because the cite archived at the University of Southern California uses the word "chastisement". We are not relying on McAuliffe for that, but Shakir. But even McAuliffe uses the word "punishment" which is equivalent to "chastisement". RLoutfy (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear . So why didn't you leave the wording as it was in the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an? Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Campo, Juan Eduardo. Encyclopedia of Islam.
Someone referenced "Campo, Juan Eduardo (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Infobase Publishing. pp. 48, 174. ISBN 978-0816054541." to support that "The charge of apostasy has often been used in Islam's history to punish dissidents, persecute minorities and skeptics " The relevant passage from p. 48 is:

The charge of apostasy is often used by religious authorities to condemn and punish skeptics, dissidents, and minorities in their communities.

There is no mention of persecution. And the relevant passage from p. 174 is:

Quranic revelation, the Sunna (custom) of Muhammad and the first Muslims, the consensus of religious jurists, and legal reasoning—there are only six crimes that warrant punishment as offenses against God: 1)  adUltery, 2) false accusation of adultery, 3) drinking wine, 4) theft, 5) highway robbery, and 6)  apostasy (opinion is not unanimous on this crime, however). T

Again no mention of persecution. The meant passage will be edited to include only p.48 as a reference with the wording found in the Encyclopedia. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @HakimPhilo: This is another case of your WP:TE-style arguments and editing in this article and elsewhere on wikipedia. "Condemn and punish", a language supported by the cite on p. 48 by your own admission, is a form of persecution. I do not understand your allegation, "there is no mention of persecution". What do you mean? Condemnation and punishing someone for their religious belief (apostasy) is hostility and ill-treatment, which is what persecution means? At wikipedia, editors are required to avoid copyright violation, and closely summarize content in their own words. RLoutfy (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear . My point was that you were displaying clear change of these words based on their level of hostility to Islam, violating WP:NPOV. Your accusation and allegations (please read WP:ACCUSE) that I display WP:TE type of editing is contrary to the WP:GF etiquette, indeed all my edits were neutral, unlike yours - as anyone can check. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Issues of neutrality and factually accuracy.
deleted a lot of the content I mentioned, most notably the verses 10:99 and 18:29

which no pre-modern scholar even claimed that they were abrogated. In general edits were always uniform in their view, and violate NPOV giving a monolithic account of apostasy in Islam that isn't consistent with reality. That user also ignored a lot of my points and made extremely many misquotes, e.g., and. He also deleted my labelling of the "Other views on punishment" as unconsistent without giving any justification. Hence I marked the article as POV and Disputed. Thanks for your comprehension. --HakimPhilo (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is WP:OR. Neither translations of the two verses mention 'apostasy' and 'opposition to execution' as you have done in this article (here and here), nor have you cited a reliable source that interprets these verses that way. I am not going to have a forum-style discussion with you on these verses on this talk page. You need to provide a cite that does that interpretation for the verses you have added, and I have checked Jonathan Brown and I do not see him reaching this conclusion with 18:29, 10:99 and 88:21-22 (if he is, identify the page, or better still provide a quote from him).
 * It is strange that you allege on this talk page above that using the word "chastisement" as equivalent to "punishment" as "an explicit case of original research (see WP:OR)", but you use the above two verses and


 * Then you add your personal conclusion, unverifiable in cited sources, that "The basis for an opposition to execution in the Qur'an stems from" these verses. This is tendentious editing and WP:OR by you in this article. You are invited to provide a cite that does this interpretation and analysis with 18:29, 10:99 and 88:21-22. RLoutfy (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear.

+"Neither translations of the two verses mention 'apostasy' and 'opposition to execution' as you have done in this article (here and here), nor have you cited a reliable source that interprets these verses that way."

The verses don't need to specifically mention the word 'apostasy' to oppose it, as a matter of fact it simply needs to talk about complete religious freedom. And I cited both "A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2014). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy. Oneworld Publications. pp. 186–189. ISBN 978-1780744209." Who states: Quote. According to all the theories of language elaborated by Muslim legal scholars, the Qur'anic proclamation that 'There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has been distinguished from error' is as absolute and universal a statement as one finds. The truth had been made clear, and now, 'Whoever wants, let him believe, and whoever wants, let him disbelieve,' the holy book continues (2:256, 18:29). End Quote. He further elaborates on Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and Ali Gomaa's rulings on apostasy and he states: Quote. "Both scholars arrived at the same conclusions regarding apostasy, and both took the legal custom of Muslims as more determinative of the Prophet's teachings than Hadiths themselves. Gomaa and Qaradawi affirmed that, at the level of personal conscience and private religion, the freedom of belief was absolute. The Qur'an had clearly mandated this." End Quote. The second source I mentioned is "Abou El Fadl, Khaled (January 23, 2007). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. HarperOne. pp. 158–159. ISBN 978-0061189036." He cites (88:21-22) and then he says that even the Prophet does not have the right to think of himself as a warden who has the power to coerce people. This is reaffirmed by many of the historical reports regarding the Qur'anic revelation that emphasize that belief and conviction cannot be coerced. He concludes that moderates do not believe that there is any punishment that attaches to apostasy. So again you're making false accusations.


 * "... provide a cite that does this interpretation and analysis with 18:29, 10:99 and 88:21-22"

See my points above. (Also you're doing Tu quoque fallacy) Also you didn't address my points I highlighted earlier. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @HakimPhilo: Peruse WP:NOR, WP:PRIMARY and WP:TE. You are interpreting primary sources. That is unacceptable and inappropriate in this and other wiki articles. RLoutfy (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For the 4^th time, I didn't do WP:PRIMARY, in fact I cited my sources. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by CounterTime, Adding back nonspecific tags
You are edit warring now, adding back nonspecific tags as you did here. Why are you adding these tags back with your reverts? RLoutfy (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @RLoutfy I will try to remove them, since you specified some sources, sorry for that, it's because I couldn't revert your edit automatically, and hence I had to return to manually return to an older version. Sorry again. --CounterTime (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet still many things are still nonspecific enough to verify, e.g. "deviates from approved Islamic tenets (ilhad), or if he or she commits a blasphemy such as treating a copy of the Qurʾan with disrespect. ref="Rahman, S. A. (2006), Punishment of apostasy in Islam, Institute of Islamic Culture, ISBN 983-9541-49-8"" where not even a page is mentioned.


 * I added specific page numbers for many. Add all those back, which you reverted inappropriately. When page number is missing, don't use nonspecific tag, add "page needed" tag when page number is missing. Nonspecific tags should not be used for page number. Some editors specify many pages, which in good faith must be assumed to be verifying the context and the content – both are important for WP:V. RLoutfy (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll start using the page needed tag when something doesn't mention a page, however many still have unspecified cites. You only specified some, and so the nonspecific tags still apply to the other ones unless you specify them. (I'm talking about cites around a specific claim, which needs only to bring at most 3-4 pages.) You talk about good faith, but you actually were caught using multiple pages as an excuse to distort citations, see here and here --CounterTime (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Quit your personal attacks. Your uncivil behavior is getting tiresome. Join me in focusing on constructive collaboration. There is no 3-4 page rule in cites. Editors should provide any number of pages that verify the context and the summary provided. In most cases just 1 or 2 pages suffice, but in some the discussion may be on 10 or 30 pages, and the same cite may be used multiple times within this article (or others). RLoutfy (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those aren't personal attacks, they are only remarks concerning some of your misquotes. I know that there's no 3-4 rule in cites, but when one cites for example "Madjma' al-anhur, Volume 1, p. 629-637, by Shaykhzadeh." for the claim "Other Fiqhs such as Hanifi and Shafi'i schools of jurisprudence also disagree on whether ridiculing (Islamic) scholars is an act of apostasy." that seems a lot, do you agree? --CounterTime (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide history diffs with your allegations. The diff should show, whatever you accuse me of, that it was I who added the text for the first time. It will help make things easier to research and respond to. You can start with this latest Madjma' al-anhur accusation of yours. RLoutfy (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, I didn't claim that it was you who added that, I only gave an example to show my point which is: "Many cites in the article aren't specific enough, and one should specify them". So it was only an example, not an accusation or something. --CounterTime (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that you are not trying to accuse me of things I did not do. That would be WP:UNCIVIL. Now, lets get back to improving this article. Go ahead, add back all the specific page numbers I added across various sections, and some WP:OVERCITE I removed, in my last edit. RLoutfy (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --CounterTime (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tags
I have removed the article header tags. If there is a specific problem, please explain what the problem, preferably with cites of reliable scholarship. Let us together identify and address issues with this article. RLoutfy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the deliberate use of WP:NPOV citations in the article, which makes it unbalances and unscholarly. See the other comments in the talk page; Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "deliberate use of WP:NPOV citations"? NPOV does not mean, "I don't like what the scholar is saying so it is NPOV", it only means that all non-fringe and scholarly sides must be summarized. For further help on what NPOV means, try wikipedia's teahouse. RLoutfy (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @RLoutfy What I stated didn't imply -in the least- that NPOV was equivalent to "I don't like what the scholar is saying so it is NPOV". Please read the other comments in the talk page that outline the issues. --CounterTime (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So what do you mean by "deliberate use of WP:NPOV citations"? The other authors have accepted the consensus and gone. You must explain your concerns in your words, by taking one cite at a time. RLoutfy (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @RLoutfy As far as I'm concerned, when viewed with regards to your edit war on the article on Q.2:256 is that your version of "Apostasy ..." suppresses the other verses that are related to Q.2:256 despite the citations that link them, as well as providing a biased vision of abrogation with regards to Q.2:256, for instance "Peters and Vries, in contrast, explain that the Quranic verse 2:256 was traditionally interpreted in a different way, considered abrogated (suspended and overruled) by later verses of Quran such as 9:5 by many historic Islamic scholars." However as pointed in the Q.2:256 article, the overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered it to be non-abrogated, see the cites in the meant article. "Some modern scholars state that this verse's abrogation by historical Muslim jurists may have been flawed." Here you make it do as if the current interpretation was different from the classical one, when it isn't the case. There are other problems with the article, and a very significant one, such as the fact that it doesn't explain that there are two types of apostasy: minor (nonpunishable) and major (punishable).--CounterTime (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You state, "overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered it to be non-abrogated". Do give a reliable cite with page number? RLoutfy (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I cited every famous premodern scholars as well as other sources that say that '2:256 abrogated' isn't the mainstream Muslim opinion, including for instance: Richard Curtis (2010), Reasonable Perspectives on Religion, p.204. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0739141892. Quote: "While the pope, following many anti-Islam propagandists, seemingly argues that the oft-cited Qur'anic dictum "no compulsion in religion" was abrogated by subsequent revelations, this is not the mainstream Muslim interpretation. Indeed, the pope made a major scholarly blunder when he claimed that the "no compulsion in religion" verse was revealed during the Meccan period, "when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat." In fact, it was revealed during the later Medinan period--the same period as the verses that authorize armed struggle against the Meccan enemies of the nascent Muslim community in Medina, that is, "when Muhammad was in a position of strength, not weakness."" (emphasis added)

The meant premodern scholars are:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, pp.21-22.

Al-Tabari, Jāmi` al-bayān `an ta'wīl āy al-Qur'ān 4, Dar Hajar, 2001, p.553.

Abi 'Ubayd, Kitab al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh, p.282.

Al-Jaṣṣās, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān 2, p.168.

Makki bin Abi Talib, al-Idah li Nasikh al-Qur'an wa Mansukhih, p. 194.

Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh fi al-Quran al-Karim, p.259.

Ibn Jizziy. at-Tasheel. p. 135.

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an 2. p.22-24.

See the other cites in the article on Q.2:256. --CounterTime (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, as I said don't cite primary sources, and don't do your own translations or interpretation, because your translations are wrong. Since we disagree on translations, it is you who must provide a secondary source that does the translation ( what is wikipedia policy in situations where editors disagree on non-English cite translations?). The "this is not the mainstream Muslim interpretation." does not mean "overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered it to be non-abrogated". You need to provide a cite that says the latter as you alleged. Further, remember Richard Curtis claim in a book published by Lexington Books does not mean other views by established scholars in books published by Oxford University Press etc must be discarded. For NPOV, we must summarize various sides. RLoutfy (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Loutfy Those aren't primary sources. "and don't do your own translations or interpretation, because your translations are wrong." Could you please cite passages from all the following books:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, pp.21-22.

Al-Tabari, Jāmi` al-bayān `an ta'wīl āy al-Qur'ān 4, Dar Hajar, 2001, p.553.

Abi 'Ubayd, Kitab al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh, p.282.

Al-Jaṣṣās, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān 2, p.168.

Makki bin Abi Talib, al-Idah li Nasikh al-Qur'an wa Mansukhih, p. 194.

Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh fi al-Quran al-Karim, p.259.

Ibn Jizziy. at-Tasheel. p. 135.

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an 2. p.22-24.

in which I provide each time a "wrong" translation?

"Since we disagree on translations"

Which translation do we disagree with?

"The "this is not the mainstream Muslim interpretation." does not mean "overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered it to be non-abrogated"."

As I stated: "I cited every famous premodern scholars as well as other sources that say that '2:256 abrogated' isn't the mainstream Muslim opinion", the statement overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered to be non-abrogated is found in the references to the works of these same scholars I mentioned above, (Al-Tabari, Abi 'Ubayd, Al-Jassass, Makki bin Abi Talib, Al-Nahhass, Ibn Jizziy, Suyuti, ... see the article on Q.2:256), as well as things like "Muslim scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them" (ref: Muhammad S. Al-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law, US American Trust Publications, 1993, p.51.)

"Further, remember Richard Curtis claim in a book published by Lexington Books does not mean other views by established scholars in books published by Oxford University Press etc must be discarded."

Just because a book was published in the OUP doesn't mean each view it states is true and every book published elsewhere should be wrong, remember I cited the works of premodern scholars (Al-Tabari, Abi 'Ubayd, Al-Jassass, Makki bin Abi Talib, Al-Nahhass, Ibn Jizziy, Suyuti, ... see the article on Q.2:256) who all confirm the thesis. --CounterTime (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (perhaps off-topic) Not that I am by any means an expert on medieval islamic apostasy so I post a naive question: shouldn't the work of premodern scholars go into a section of "History of apostasy in Islam" unless of course that's where the information already is? It could be interesting to illumunate the contrast between the contemporary views of historic apostasy with how that same era is viewed by modern scholars if there are differences. AadaamS (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @CounterTime, Those non-English sources are primary, and the few I checked have been mistranslated by you to push your POV. Can you replace your "alleged translation and interpretation of primary sources by premodern scholars" with secondary WP:HISTRS sources for history of Muslim scholar views on Apostasy? This is a well studied topic, with a lot of recent scholarship, and finding recent WP:RS shouldn't be difficult for you. RLoutfy (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "...the few I checked have been mistranslated by you to push your POV" Can you show how I mistranslated them? (Note: You still didn't show how I mistranslated sources in another article, see here) Note to the reader, the user @RLoutfy has been engaged in distortions of sources, misquotes, and similar things in another relevant article (the one on the verse Q.2:256) see here and here. -unsigned comment by CounterTime

Translations of contentious material should ideally come from secondary sources. Are there any? --Neil N  talk to me 18:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that translations of such works (like the tafsir of Al-Tabari, etc...) don't exist for the current moment. --CounterTime (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Tags reinserted by CounterTime
Tags must be explained. Since you have re-inserted three tags with this revert, please identify the sections with specific details that explain the need for the "weasel, factual accuracy, and neutrality" tags. Since you are a recently registered account, you may find WP:OVERTAG and WP:DETAG helpful. If you can, do provide cites of reliable publications that support your concerns. RLoutfy (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The tags were added by previous users, who outlined issues with this article in the talk page, go read them, as I told you earlier. (See the archive) --CounterTime (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Those editors are gone. I have read the archive and comments, and the tags are no longer justified. The tags will be removed per WP:DETAG, because the discussion is inactive. If you restore them back, you must explain the issues in your words. Restoring them back without explanation is disruption. RLoutfy (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * They are gone but their points are still valid, the article didn't have a dramatic change since their last contributions, and I doubt you even read their objections in the archive. --CounterTime (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please provide the link to specific archive section(s) that discuss the tags dated from July 2015 and after, and then provide some specifics so we can work on clearing up any issues in the article. To help you, here is the link to Archive 2. RLoutfy (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You already stated "I have read the archive and comments," there's no point in reiterating what they and I told. --CounterTime (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, you write "what I told" above, please provide a diff link to the section where you explained the tags? Or a diff link where someone else did. , Do you see anything in Archive 2 for July 2015 or after hat tags? CounterTime's evasion, despite repeated requests, seems disruptive. Isn't CounterTime supposed to provide specifics and explanation for the tags? RLoutfy (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For example HakimPhilo mentions the NPOV tag in the archive, concerning what I told here it is in the very top of this talk page: here. --CounterTime (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The tags added in October seem unnecessary. The POV tag is redundant and the "expert needed" tag is generally used for highly technical topics. --Neil N  talk to me 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks NeilN. I will remove those tags. I don't see the HakimPhilo's section with specifics. Please provide a link to the section you are reading or edit history diffs of HakimPhilo. Based on your comments here, it seems your issues are with a particular section. Are you okay if we move the tag to that specific section? If not, please identify specific issues with each section of this article. Similarly, please link the post-July 2015 section that discusses "weasel, factual accuracy" tags. RLoutfy (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not having issues with one specific section but with the article as a whole. I already referred you to where you can find HakimPhilo's comments and the other concerns. --CounterTime (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the section you apparently see. Do provide at least one WP:DIFF link. RLoutfy (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Which section are you talking about? --CounterTime (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All. Please provide a WP:DIFF link. RLoutfy (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but which section are you talking about? --CounterTime (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the explanation of the three tags in any section the post-July 2015 history of this talk page. You need to provide a diff, or shall we try DRN. RLoutfy (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the relevant section of the talk page where I talked about them. Please read it. --CounterTime (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)