Apostasy in Islam

Apostasy in Islam

My view is that the penalty for apostasy in Islam is as stated in the Qur'an below:

"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go on increasing in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor guide them to any way of deliverance". (4:137)

I think that it would immediately be obvious that if a person were to be put to death for apostasy, i.e. for disbelieving, it would not be possible to "believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve..."

A basic tenet in Islam is that there is no compulsion in religion. Death for apostasy therefore does not make any sense, unless such apostasy was accompanied by a betrayal of or treason or enmity/fighting against the Islamic state/community.

Perhaps it may be useful to look into the context and circumstances of the hadiths decreeing the death penalty so that this controversial (and to me unnecessary) subject is laid to rest.

My opinion is close to that in the following article:

"Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?" by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D.

President of the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.

Ridda or Irtidãd: Literally means "turning back". The act of apostasy -- leaving Islam for another religion or for a secular lifestyle.

Murtadd: Literally means "one who turns the back." An apostate.

Murtad Fitri: Literally means apostate - natural. A person born of a Muslim parent who later rejects Islam.

Murtad Milli: Literally means apostate - from the community. A person who converted to Islam and later rejected the religion.

Due to 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.

Nobody has come forward to challenge this widely held belief as well as put forth a convincing argument about the misinterpretation of Qur'anic teachings by Ulama (Muslim religious scholars).

The Qur'an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations.

Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Whosoever changes his religion, Kill him (man baddala Dinahu faqtuluhu)". It is this last quote from the Prophet that forms the basis of the said ruling.

While jurists are agreed on the authenticity of this tradition, they differ very widely on the appropriate interpretation and thus, the law concerning apostasy. Understanding the different viewpoints, and arriving at the truth is crucial to our discussion of this subject.

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 Shaâ'ani, 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 (taâ'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').

If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set a time limit for his repentance.

Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur'an (39: 53-54: "Say: 'O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against your own selves! Despair not of God's mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering (of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succored.'")

Any scholar who says the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, then the convict is to be given a life-time to repent, and this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha'ee, Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi, Imam al-Baji and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. One must conclude that the death sentence is not for 'simple apostasy' (mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse and slander (sabb) of the Noble Prophet.

Freedom to convert to or from Islam

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256.

"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137.

For example, the Qur'an says: "Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so." (Al-Kahf: 29)

In another verse, Allah Almighty says: "Yours is only the duty to convey the message; you are not a guardian over them." (Al-Ghashiyah: 21- 22)

The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown above, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy.

From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty.

Hence the death penalty is not an appropriate response to apostasy.

The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.

Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the above cited hadith, in which the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because this hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient confirmation to impose the death penalty. The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy.

The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has not been documented. Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason. (e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.).

There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy.

The issue of killing a murtad or the apostate is not a simple one. Scholars have debated it from various angles and it is not simply an issue of killing someone for choosing one religion or another.

The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him.

This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. So, it cannot be confused with the freedom of conscience for every individual, which has been guaranteed in the Qur'an through hundreds of verses.

For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha (RA) concerning apostasy relates to one who left his religion and fought against Muslims.

QUR'ANIC VIEWS

The Qur'an has referred to the issue of apostasy at more than one place (for example see Al-Baqarah 2: 217, Al-Baqarah 2: 108, A'l Imra'n 3: 90, Al-Nisa' 4: 137 and Al-Nahl 16: 106). But at none of these places does the Qur'an mention the punishment of death for such people who change their religion. The Qur'an does mention that such people shall face a terrible punishment in the hereafter but no worldly punishment is mentioned at any of these instances in the Qur'an. This situation obviously raises a question mark in the mind of the reader that if Allah had wanted to give the punishment of an apostate a permanent position in the Shari`ah, the punishment should have been mentioned, at least at one of the above mentioned places. If the Qur'an had kept completely silent about the apostate, the matter would have been different. But the strange thing is that the Qur'an mentions apostasy, and still does not mention the punishment (if any) it wants the apostate to be subjected to.

Furthermore, the Qur'an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases. One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of creating unrest in the country (fasa'd fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society, for example activities like terrorism etc. The Qur'an says:

"Whoever kills a person without his being guilty of murder or of creating unrest in the land, it is as though he kills the whole of mankind." (Al-Ma'idah, 5: 32)

Obviously, apostasy can neither be termed as "murder" nor "creating unrest in the land".

Thus, in view of the above facts, we are left with one option only. We can only say that either the saying has been wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as it is clearly contradictory to the Qur'an and the Prophet could not have said anything contradictory to the Qur'an, or that the saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relates not to all apostates but to a particular and specific people.

Shaykh Subhani

Shaykh Inayatullah Subhani (author of the book Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam) says that neither Islam forces any person to embrace neither Islam nor it forces him to remain within its fold. He writes, "Apostasy has been mentioned several times in Qur'an. It also describes the bad treatment that will be meted out for committing apostasy, but it never talks of punishment for the crime in this world." The learned scholar mentions three Ayaat (verses) from Qur'an on apostasy (Al-Baqara 217, Muhammad 25-27 and Al-Maida 54) and then says that none of these Ayaat prescribes any punishment for that though these Ayaat pass strictures on the people who commit it. There are several other Ayaat on the same issue and none of them prescribes either death penalty or any other punishment for apostasy in this world. He then adds that had there been some punishment in Islam for apostasy there was no reason as to why the issue was mentioned repeatedly in Qur'an but no punishment was prescribed.

Misinterpretation of the hadith, Man baddala Dinahu faqtuluh (kill him who changes his religion) has caused the problem. This order has been made to look general and permanent, though it was said in a particular circumstance for a particular group. Shaykh Subhani writes that this order was made to counter a scheme prepared by Jews of Madinah. They had planned that some of them embrace Islam for some time and then return to their old religion. Then some other people do the same. It was aimed to create restlessness among Muslims against their own leadership so that the strong Muslim unity should start crumbling. It was made clear in Qur'an in (Aal Imran, 3: 72-73).

To counter this planning the Prophet (SAW) ordered his companions to act in such a manner. Despite this order lengthy investigations were made to ascertain that the case was true and the person concerned was given adequate time to explain before the punishment was carried out.

Shaykh Subhani says lack of clear grasp of Qur'an misguided even leading Ulama. Otherwise it was not difficult to understand the hadith. Qur'anic teachings on the issue were not kept in mind.

He emphasizes that people who were awarded death penalty for reverting to other religions from Islam during the time of the Prophet (SAW) or during the reign of his caliphs were not given the punishment for the crime of apostasy but for the fact that they were at war with Muslims and Islamic government.

Shaykh Subhani regrets that punishment that was prescribed for certain people under special circumstances was made to look like a general order. He says that it was the order for people who posed a threat to the Islamic state and became at war with Islam and not for any person who reverts to other religion.

A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred.

In conclusion, we must never confuse the issue of killing a murtad with the freedom of conscience guaranteed in the Glorious Qur'an. For a detailed discussion, one should read (1) the Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's book on this issue: Jareemat ar-riddah wal murtadd (The Crime of Apostasy and Apostate) - published by Ar-Risalah foundation.

(2) Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam (Book: Tabdili-e-Mazhab aur Islam) by Maulana Inayatullah Asad Subhani)-published by Idara Ihya-e-Deen, Bilariya Ganj, Azamgarh (UP, India) Pages: 108, Price Rs 30.

This issue is not one between "progressive" and "fundamentalist" Muslims. Personally, I am against any such misleading labels. As we know, even eminent Muslim scholars who were probably even more "fundamentalist" than any Muslim "fundamentalist" today did not agree with the punishment of death for apostasy.

What I believe misled those who insisted on such a punishment was more political expediency rather than any thing else.

What some, even scholars, have accepted as Shari'ah, may not be supported by the real fundamentals of Islam. If neither the Qur'an nor the Prophet made any capital punishment ruling on such an important issue as apostasy - mere conversion - then I can only say that any attempt to impose capital punishment in such a situation is not Islamic.

That it has somehow come into and is accepted as part of the so-called Shari'ah is to be regretted, but there are more than a few things in the Shari'ah and what Muslims do today which could do with more rigorous study and criticism in the light of the real fundamental tenets of Islam.

Right of conscience to worship God as a person sees fit, is matter between God and that person, only. This is exactly what the Muslim scholars who disagree with the death penalty for apostasy say. That is also what God in the Qur'an says.

Yet mankind is perverse enough to decide otherwise, as if it knows better than God.

Mankind will always disagree even in the face of clear proof. Muslims are not immune to such perverse behaviour, even if some of them sincerely believe that what they do is in the name of God or Islam and even misguidedly believe has been ordained or permitted by Him.

In reality they have set up their egos as God and follow the dictates of their own egos.

Let us not be baffled. The "existing reality of capital punishment for leaving Islam" was created by perverse politicians and jurists and blindly followed by the mass of unquestioning sheep. These are the same perverse persons who would kill a Muslim for wearing shorts when there is no such punishment in Islam.

There is no question of evasion. Muslims have to deal with such perversion from within all the time and even worse perversion from outside as well.

Mainstream jurists' consensus is not a valid yardstick to measure correctness - many jurists have kept silent in the face of oppression or manufactured judicial pronouncements in aid of the powers that be and have even been responsible for the extermination of many pious scholars and Muslims.

Any law in the Shari'ah must find its basis in and be measured against the fundamental tenets of Islam. If that law is unIslamic when measured against the plain provisions of the Qur'an and Sunnah, then it cannot validly be a part of the Shari'ah. It is unconstitutional.

It would also certainly be extremely difficult if not impossible to legislate anything to do with one's internal beliefs and even if a Muslim wishes to apostasise, what would killing him achieve? His repentance? He could obviously keep his disbelief to himself.

I for one don't see this as a crime against Islam or the Muslim Community and there are many others, including prominent scholars of Islam, who see it the same way. It is an affront to God, who will punish it as He pleases or He may forgive it in the case of sincere repentance (which does not come at the point of the sword).

Islamic jurisprudence is only really divided on this issue in the sense as to whether it is a "crime" or not.

I'm not so much arguing with anyone here as giving a different perspective even for Muslims to ponder. This is a major issue which non-Muslims like to "capitalise" on and I don't expect them to change their reasoning no matter what the Qur'an, the Prophet or any Muslim, scholar or otherwise, says.

For a fairly objective study, although I may not agree with all that it says, I would recommend the following:

www.findarticles/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_3_70/ai_110737774 "Apostasy as objective and depersonalized fact: two recent Egyptian court judgments - Part II: Islamic law: boundaries and rights" Social Research, Fall, 2003 by Baber Johansen

What this study basically shows is that the creation of the death for apostasy law is not to be found in the Qur'an, but rather that it was established by Muslims (i.e. it was man-made law) for politically expedient purposes.

As far as the Shari'ah is concerned what is made by man can be undone by man - especially where there is no Divine ordinance for it. What was reportedly done during the time of the Prophet for a specific purpose cannot be (mis)interpreted as giving carte blanche to succeeding generations to follow suit, purposely or otherwise, in blind imitation without the benefit of the direct Divine Guidance which he had.

In reality therefore, the situation is a lot more complex and complicated than the critics of the "death for apostasy punishment" which is purportedly in Islam or Islamic Law, will give credit for.

My stance must therefore not be taken as an apology for the fact that the so-called "death for apostasy punishment" exists (perversely though it may be) in Islamic countries purportedly applying the Shari'ah.

Some excerpts from the above (my emphasis added in italics):

..."The Muslim jurists of the pre-modern period had assigned ethical norms an important place and had clearly distinguished purely ethical from enforceable legal norms. The notion of the individual believer as someone who takes ethical responsibility for his acts independently from the decisions of the judiciary and the political institutions found its expression in the concept of the individual's own interior forum (batin). This holds especially true for questions of belief and unbelief. In the last instance, these questions were considered a matter of religious conscience, even if judicial decisions against apostates were legitimized for political reasons. When the modern nation-states' codification of the law reduced Islamic law to personal statute law, the state's written law abandoned the purely ethical norms of that tradition and with them the concept of the individual's own forum (batin)..."

"...Fourth, the notion of a modern, tolerant, and pluralist Islam is not rendered obsolete by these trials. State institutions, such as the prosecution, often side with the accused intellectuals against the apostasy procedure of the judges. Many intellectuals, lawyers, journalists, writers, and artists opt for an understanding of Islam that encourages public debates about the way in which Islam can be harmonized with notions of freedom and democracy guaranteed by the constitutions of the modern Arab nation-states. The courts that condemn Muslim intellectuals as apostates constitute one--and for now probably the most powerful--institutional component of modern Islam at the end of the twentieth century. But the reality of modern--and classical--Islam is much more complex than the courts' reasoning allows us to understand..."

"...The Koran, on the other hand, discusses apostasy in a number of verses (sura 95, verse 54; sura 47, verse 25; sura 2, verse 217; sura 3, verse 80; sura 16, verses 108-109) but nowhere mentions a punishment in this world. The Koranic text threatens the apostates with punishment in the hereafter only. Verse 217 of the second sura translates well the Koranic stance on this matter: "But those of you who turn back on their faith and die disbelieving will have wasted their deeds in this world and the next. They are inmates of Hell, and shall there abide forever."

"Apostasy and unbelief are here seen as a matter between God and the concerned individuals. Apostates will be punished in the world to come. Yet, many reports about the normative practice of the prophet, his Sunna, require the punishment of apostasy in this world. In all fairness it has to be said that there are more reports warning the believers that it is a mortal sin to declare the fellow Muslim an unbeliever. The fiqh specialists, finally, whose literature springs into existence in the second half of the eighth century, agree on the idea that the apostate has to return to Islam or be killed..."

"...Classical Hanafi doctrine holds that the capital punishment of the apostate serves mainly political aims. I quote two famous Hanafi jurists from Central Asia on this matter. The first is the eleventh-century Transoxanian jurist Sarakhsi, one of the major authorities of the Hanafi school. He says:

"The change of religion and the original form of unbelief belong to the most abominable of crimes. But [their judgment] is a matter between God and his servant and the punishment [of this crime] is postponed until the hereafter. The measures advanced in this base world [and which thus precede God's judgment] are matters of political expediency [siyasat mashru'a] ordained by the law in order to protect human interests" (Sarakhsi, n.d., vol. 10: 110).

In the same vein, the twelfth-century Hanafi jurist Marghinani, whose book al-Hidaya exerted a lasting influence on the Hanafi jurists of the Near East, states his position with the following words:

"In principle, punishments are postponed to the hereafter and the fact that they are advanced [so that they precede the hereafter] violates the sense of probation [as the sense of human life in this world]. One deviates from this principle in order to defy a present evil and that is warfare [against the Muslims]" ('Ayni, vol. VI: 702-703). (2)

"...The classical Hanafi doctrine defined the punishment of apostasy as a punishment for warfare against the Muslim community, not as a punishment for unbelief. This approach, unique among the schools of fiqh, spells out the jurists' hesitation to directly interfere with questions of belief..."

I trust it is clear where I'm going with this. Islam will never be damaged by apostasy, and where apostates actively fight or wage war against the Muslim Community, the right of self-defence is and must always be available just as it is to any other community on earth.

But the punishment for apostasy per se can never be death. That will have to wait till after death.

There is only one cure for misguidance - education and critical thought, especially on the real basis and tenets of Islam - the path in Islam has been clearly set “worship of God, prayer, spirituality, righteousness, piety, knowledge, good thought, good action, good behaviour, good deeds, trust, humility, kindness, tolerance, justice, equity, legitimacy, faith, reason, rationale, charity, peace, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, brotherhood and love.

These are all powerful weapons against oppression, wrongdoing and injustice, whether perpetrated by Muslims or non-Muslims.

Muslims have to figure out for themselves where they are going wrong if they wish to avoid getting frustrated by oppressive and unjust conduct of other Muslims as well as non-Muslims - to the extent that they are willing to blow themselves up along with innocent victims and call for the killing of apostates who do Islam and the Muslim Community no harm (they only harm themselves after all).

Did God give any Muslim the right to do what many assume they can do in His Name and in the name of Islam, when it is only their own egos which make such assumptions? 

The following extract from an article "Apostasy & Islam: Through the eyes of A Former Apostate" by T.O. Shanavas, the author of the book, CREATION AND/OR EVOLUTION An Islamic Perspective (ISBN 1-4134-6581-1) may also cast some further light on the issue of apostasy:

"A Few years ago, during question-answer session in the Islamic Center of Greater Center, a member inquired about the punishment for apostasy in Islam. It is an unfortunate common belief among many Muslims that Shariah prescribes death for the apostate!!!

I was once an apostate and openly declared I did not believe in Islam and rejected even the existence of God. Thank God! I was then living in a country, India, where people did not execute apostates. I thank God for giving me a chance to repent and return to the fold of Islam. I, being an apostate once, became free from the cultural and ethnic Islam to study true Islam with an open mind. "Islamic scholars" and imams do not anymore control my mind and beliefs unless their decrees (fatawa) are (1) in conformity with the Qur'an, (2) the hadiths that they quote do not contradict the Qur'an.

Many Muslims today practice an ironic form of idolatry (in Islamic terminology, shirk, the one sin Allah does not forgive). We, Muslims, criticize other religions for not being truly monotheistic, yet so many of us are guilty of another, more subtle form of shirk: we worship our scholars instead of Allah! We commit the sin for which other people are condemned by God in the Qur'an:

"They have taken as lords besides Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only one God. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner unto Him!"[9:31]

Now, most classical commentators of the Qur'an agree that the grave transgression alluded to here is not the literal worship of the learned people. According to Tirmidhi, the Holy Prophet was asked to explain this verse by Adi ibn Hatim, a convert (or apostate) from Christianity, and he confirmed that the sin was the people, "considering lawful what their priest declared lawful, even though it was forbidden by Allah." (Al-Jami, 44:9;IJ).

I believe that many Muslims are reluctant to speak up because many "Islamic" cultures today encourage docility and teach to unquestioningly accept the decisions of "qualified" scholars. This is a new phenomenon; in the time of Muhammad (s), ideas were only supported after they had been proven to be in harmony with the Qur'an. Scholars could not just pull rank, as they were expected to be able to argue their cases. In fact, in a famous incident of Islamic history, a humble woman of Medina publicly corrected the Caliph. One day, Hazrat Umar (RA) was announcing a change in the rule mahr, when the woman in the crowd suddenly stopped him in his track by loudly quoting a verse of the Qur'an which contradicted his proposal. He had to relent, saying, "The women of Medina know the Qur'an better than Umar." So, it is time for Muslims to question the imams and scholars if they deviate from the Qur'an and hadiths that do not contradict the Qur'an. We must not only be satisfied by the answer of the scholars, but we must verify the source of their references. Remember, if Hazrath Umar (RA) can make a mistake, ordinary scholars and ordinary people like us also can make greater mistakes.

The Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet (s) require Muslims to think critically. Pagans are repeatedly berated for not questioning, for not using reason, even being compared to dumb animals on several occasions!

"When it is said unto them: 'Follow that which Allah has revealed:' they say: 'Nay! We shall follow the ways of our fathers.' What! Even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?....Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense." [2:170-171]

"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book...." [3:7]

"Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found herein much incongruity." [4:83]

So, the principle established here is that (1) Muslims are required to think critically and not blindly accept the authority of their scholars, and (2) that the clear message of the Qur'an is to be preferred to any isolated law interpretation which contradicts the Qur'an's clear spirit.

The Qur'an teaches that human beings are individually responsible. So, I believe that Allah would not forgive my sins on the Day of Judgment even if my sins were the result of following the advice of a certain Imam. I would not be able to hide behind any Imam or behind his fatwa even if coming from the most respected and revered Imam of any time.

Therefore, views expressed here are my opinions based on the references given. I do not claim to be a scholar, but there are sometimes cases where the violation of the Qur'an is so self-evident that all Muslims can see them.

I believe that inhuman law of apostasy has nothing to do with Islam of the Prophet (s) and it is an interpolation into Islam by fanatics among us and the selfish rulers. There are many reasons for me to believe that execution for apostasy is a manufactured law rather than divine law.

Holy Prophet (s) spent his entire life fighting in defense of fundamental human rights that everybody should be free to choose his religion; no one must be physically forced to change religion. Prophet (s) struggled with the Meccan establishment to have the freedom to invite non-believers to Islam. This was consistent with the practices of all other Prophets.

The Qur'an states:

"...There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is here forth distinct from error...[2:256]

In the light of the above verse, a person has to be insane to believe that Islam prescribes execution for apostasy.

The Qur'an further states:

" Say (Muhammad) it is the truth from the Lord of all. Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, LET him disbelieve." [18:29]

In no uncertain terms, Allah commands Prophet to allow people to believe and disbelieve. If the Shariah recommends to kill an apostate, this law cannot be Islamic because it contradicts the above two verses.

The Qur'an further states:

"And so, O Prophet, exhort them, thy task is ONLY to exhort; thou canst NOT compel them to believe." [88:21-22]

"Thy duty is to make the message reach them; it is OUR PART to call them to account." [13:40]

"Call thou (all mankind) unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in MOST KINDLY MANNER..." [16:125]

While the Qur'an commands the Prophet (s) not to compel people to believe in Islam and invite people with the most kind manner and words, fanatics among us threaten people with death mercilessly to keep them in the Muslim Ummah as hypocrites as if the dishonest hypocrites are better than honest apostates. It is a most heinous crime against Islam and Prophet (s) to manufacture the inhuman law of execution of apostate. If the Qur'anic verses tell the Prophet not to compel people to believe in Islam (88:22) and the responsibility to call disbelievers to account rests with God only (1:40), the law of execution of apostates is of human origin.

Initial reluctance of the people of Arabia to accept Islam disturbed the Prophet (s). Then the following verse was revealed:

"And had your Lord willed, whoever in the earth would have believed all together, will you then coerce people to become believers?" [10:99]

According to the above verse, even God will not coerce people to become Muslims or remain as Muslim once a person accepts Islam. So, Muslims must condemn the law of apostasy and save innocent Muslims becoming intolerant and violent by the heinous indoctrination by fanatics among us because Allah says:

"Who can be more wicked than the one who invent a lie against God,..." [6:93]

So, religious belief is a personal matter. It is God alone -- not the state or religious authorities -- who know what is in the heart of the people. If the highest human authority, Prophet (s), cannot call anyone to account for belief or disbelief, no sane person can believe that religious scholars and the state have the authority to execute people for their personal belief.

The Qur'an states:

"A section of the People of the Book say: 'Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, But reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back." [3:72]

A section of People of the Book used a tactic to create doubt among the Muslims in the hope that some of them might thereby be beguiled into repudiating Islam. How could it be possible for non-Muslims to have enacted this plan to entice Muslims to believe one day and reject the next, if death was the penalty for apostasy? This tactic of a group of People of the Book mentioned in the Qur'an exposes the apostasy law of the Muslim fanatics as un-Islamic. In spite of the deceptive behavior, the above verse cautions Muslims that "perchance they may themselves turn back" truly to Islam. The Qur'an does not rule to kill the apostates.

Abdullah b.Ubayy b.Salul was the leader of the munafiqun (hypocrites). But Prophet (s) took no action against him. Prophet (s) prayed for him and stayed at the grave until he was buried. Those fanatics among us must explain the reason for Prophet (s) not executing the known hypocrites like Abdullah b.Ubayy. Ubbay lived until death plotting to destroy Islam and the Prophet (s) knew it. He was not executed for apostasy. This suggests that apostasy law is not a divine law but interpolation by fanatics among us.

Another verse states:

"Those who believe, then reject Faith, then believe (again) and again reject Faith, go on increasing in Unbelief -- God will not forgive them nor guide them on the Way." [4:137]

An apostate cannot enjoy the repeated luxury of believing and disbelieving if punishment is death. A dead man has no further chance of again believing and disbelieving. Furthermore, if taken at face value, this verse indicates that God will only withdraw His guidance after repeated rejections. It does not tell Prophet (s) to kill these apostates. So, what right do these religious authorities and imams have to deprive a person of access to the divine guidance after the first?

The Qur'an states:

"How shall God guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the apostle was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But God guides not a people unjust. Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of the God, of His Angels, and of all mankind; -- In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot; -- except for those that repent (even) after that, make amends; For verily God is oft-forgiving, most merciful." [3:86-89]

It is obvious from these verses that no punishment is to be inflicted by one man or another for apostasy. By no stretch of the imagination can the phrase, "curse of Allah," be interpreted to be a license to murder anyone who he considers to be an apostate. If any such commandment was prescribed it would have been clearly defined as all other punishments are in the Holy Qur'an.

The fact is that the Qur'an even mentions that apostates can be forgiven if they amend and repent. How could they repent if apostates are killed? By forced repentance? Then, does not Qur'an state that there is no compulsion in religion? The one verse that states that there is no compulsion in religion should be enough for a fair minded person to realize that Islam does not teach death to apostates.

Finally, can any one hadith suggesting to kill the apostate invalidate all the Qur'anic verses quoted earlier? We, Muslims, blame the West for anti-Muslim reporting. What do you expect from the West if we provide the sticks to beat us up? Will Muslims object the persecution of the new Muslim convert for his/her apostasy by his/her erstwhile co-religionists? If we believe that it is injustice to kill a new Muslim by non-Muslims for his/her apostasy from his/her former faith, you must give the same just treatment to Muslims who become Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc. Let Allah call to account those people who left Islam.

I, like many Muslims, am still bitter over smear jobs done on my religion by Western media over the Gulf war, and the Rushdie affair. So, the last thing that I want is to see Islam slandered all over again because of the barbaric and un-Islamic apostasy law. Ask yourselves: what kind of religion kills people for simple choice of faith, a change of heart? Not a religion of love and peace, not a religion worthy of respect! Perpetuation of the law to kill apostates can only increase or create doubts in the heart of the Muslims and potential Muslims, as people everywhere are already bombarded by negative images of Islam.

My message to those Muslims who, like me, yearn to project true compassionate face of Islam is that Dawa will never be successful in the West as long as crazy nonsense of law of apostasy is unchallenged by Muslims. If Muhammed Ali, Cat Stevens, and Murad Hoffman were harassed by a reactionary Christian group, the Muslims will be up in arms! We must be consistent in our attitude and compassionate to those Muslims who want to leave Muslim community.

"Believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil...." [9:71]

Therefore, let us protect the rights of all people to have freedom to believe and disbelieve. In closing, Islam is only vulnerable when Muslims abandon its clear teaching of reason, religious freedom, tolerance, and peace.

 

REFERENCES

1. www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm

2. "Islam, Apostasy and PAS," 1999-JUL-22, at: https://sistersinislam.org/islam-apostasy-and-pas/

3. S.A. Rahman, "Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986).

4. http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/apostasy_and_freedom_of_faith_in_islam/0016063

Paul's Different Gospel Part 7

 Paul's Different Gospel 7

Jesus came to reform Judaism and would therefore have come into conflict with its priests and leaders. Yet he never preached against the Mosaic Law, only how it was being (wrongly) implemented. Jesus gave it the spiritual dimension that was lacking. And he also had another mission.

Judaism had by that time also become polluted by paganism, particularly of Roman and Greek origin and the Essenes and Nazarenes under Jesus were intent on purging it of these influences, yet all still within the context of Mosaic Law, which Jesus himself never abrogated or taught that it had to be done away with.

Today's Christians may say that Paul didn't bring anything new to this antagonism toward Judaism of his day, which was foreshadowed by the Old Testament by the promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34 of a new covenant and a new law written in the heart to supersede the law of Moses:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." - Jeremiah 31:31-34

For good measure they could throw in Daniel as well and many other "unfulfilled" prophecies. These prophecies which the Jews expected to be fulfilled in the real sense and not merely spiritual, never did happen.

We must be aware of the "pesher" process of reworking of biblical passages whereby the scroll writer studies or examines a book of the Bible, usually a prophetic work, and reinterprets it in terms of the events of his own time.

Using such a technique, what you propose can also be reinterpreted to refer to the Prophet Muhammad rather than Jesus or perhaps even to both of them.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has given us even more ample material for this purpose, what with their references to The Messiah who was both Ruler and Priest and the Two Messiahs who will appear towards the end of time, one the Messiah of Israel (the Royal or King Messiah) and the other the Messiah of Aaron (the Priest Messiah)* (See note below).

Are these to be found in Christianity? The answer is "No". Are they to be found in Islam? The answer is "Yes". But that is perhaps another subject entirely, although perhaps connected in a way to Paul's different gospel.

Yes, indeed, and this New Covenant which God made with them would only be fulfilled in the time of the Prophet Muhammad. And part of Jesus's mission was to prepare the way for the coming of "that Prophet".

During the time of Jesus, the division was not only between the righteous (Jews) and unrighteous (Pagans) but more between the Jews and the different Jewish sects themselves.

Jesus was to reform Judaism and thereby restore the Divine link between Creator and Created.

In this context, the Pauline doctrine about overcoming the very nature of sin "which is death itself" and for which he had to die and be resurrected sounds a bit convoluted.

How can death be the very nature of sin, unless Pauline Christians mean it in a metaphorical way like sin being "spiritual" death? But surely this is not a sufficient reason or method for God to require the death and resurrection of Jesus? What would that prove?

No "sacrifice" of anything by God can in any sense be a real "sacrifice" since God has nothing to "sacrifice" anything for nor should He need to, being above all needs or wants.

The relationship between God and His Creation was not limited only to Israel, although the Jews would have liked to believe so, and perhaps still like to believe so. The Jews were God's "Chosen People" only in so far as they obeyed His Commandments and His Law and they lost that birthright because of their own arrogance, hard-heartedness and disobedience, as Jeremiah himself makes very clear.

They were supposed to be the examples for the rest of the world, but does this mean that the rest of the world was left entirely without guidance until Jesus came? Christians may like to believe so, but that is not the case.

There were of course zealots at the time who desired Jesus to lead them against Roman occupation.

But they were not at war all the time. There were relative periods of calm and peace when a certain level of co-existence and tolerance had to be in place until some spark lit another flame. Obviously the Jews did not think that Jesus was the Messiah who would lead them against the Romans or were disappointed when he didn't. Either way he could not play that role.

Pauline Christianity had to find a reason for this and this is where the Messiah became merely a spiritual concept and the "Kingdom of God" became merely the "Church of God".

Jesus's followers' presence in the Temple was generally tolerated and James their leader had access even to the Holy of Holies. Because to them there was only One Law. Any Jew would know what it meant when speaking of the Law. Any follower of Jesus would too. 

Paul also knew what Law it was he was accused of speaking against. The fact that Paul denied it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary (even his own letters, as we know later), while the Apostles insisted on it showed just how different their teachings were.

Or was it merely fate in the form of the Romans that changed everything, leading to the complete marginalization of Jesus's original disciples and their substitution by the Roman Catholic Church.

Discussing something like "Paul's Different Gospel", will inevitably draw in many elements of how the entire basis of Christianity itself came about and its relationship with the original disciples of Jesus.

On one hand, we have assertions by Paul himself that he got his gospel not through or from the original disciples, but by direct revelation from Jesus and he makes it very clear just how different his gospel was by arguing with Peter and the other disciples over the enforcement of the Mosaic Law, which it was then agreed did not apply to the Gentiles whom Paul was preaching to.

On the other hand we have Jesus's disciples still praying in the Temple and continuing to adhere to the Mosaic Law. Unfortunately not much remains of the teachings of the original disciples and what remains are the present 4 gospels which may represent more Pauline teaching than Nazarene teaching.

We may never be able to reconcile the two, but I believe that a fairly objective study of whatever evidence we have, placed in the historical context and without the baggage of any theology, can reveal to a great extent the truth of the matter.

Paul really did go to extraordinary lengths to "deny" the Law and to be as offensive as he could to those who adhered to it (including Jesus' s original followers) and who still kept to its dietary and other requirements? What was Paul trying to show here?

*Note:

https://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html

"The men of Qumran fervently believed in a doctrine of "last things." They had fled to the desert and were readying themselves for the imminent judgment when their enemies would be vanquished and they, God's elect, would be given final victory in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. It was in connection with these end-time events that one of the most fascinating teachings of the sect emerges. The messianic hope loomed large in the thought of the brotherhood. As a matter of fact, evidence shows that they actually believed in three messiahs -- one a prophet, another a priest and the third a king or prince.

In the document mentioned earlier called the "Manual of Discipline" or the "Rule of the Community," it is laid down that the faithful should continue to live under the rule "until the coming of a prophet and the anointed ones [messiahs] of Aaron and Israel" (column 9, line 11). These three figures would appear to usher in the age for which the community was making preparation.

In another document found in Cave Four and referred to as the "Testimonia," a number of Old Testament passages are brought together which formed the basis for their messianic expectations. The first is the citation from Deuteronomy 18:18-19 where God says to Moses: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee." Next comes a quotation from Numbers 24:15-17, where Balaam foresees the rise of a princely conqueror: "a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab," etc. The third passage is the blessing pronounced by Moses upon the tribe of Levi (the priestly tribe) in Deuteronomy 33:8-11. The way in which these three quotations are brought together suggests that the writer looked forward to the advent of a great prophet, a great prince and a great priest.

There were three individuals in the Old Testament writings that were referred to as "my anointed ones" -- the prophet, the priest and the king (refer to Ex 29:29; 1 Sam 16:13, 24:6; 1 Kg 19:16; Ps 105:15). Each of these was consecrated to his work by an anointing with oil. The Hebrew word for "anointed" is meshiach, from which we get the word Messiah."

However, they then come to the absurd and contrived conclusion that "The marvelous truth of the New Testament doctrine of the Messiah is that each of these three offices found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth!"

In reality, throughout history up to this day, it is a well-known fact that only the Prophet of Islam has been known as "The Prophet" (the Messiah in whom were combined the offices of King and "Priest"), while there is a belief in Islam that Jesus (the King Messiah) will come towards the end of the world to rule as a just ruler (King) around the same time as the Imam Mahdi (the "Priest" Messiah).

Paul's Different Gospel Part 6

Paul's Different Gospel 6

What can we make of Peter's commendation of Paul in 2 Peter 2:14-18:

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Also of John's failure to correct Paul's different gospel?

It is said that the apostle John outlived Paul by 20-25 years, and wielded enormous authority in the church as the last living apostle. He was one of the people closest to Jesus. If Paul had perverted the message of Jesus, it was within John's power to correct it, and rather easily. John did not. The easiest explanation for this would be that John agreed with Paul.

Firstly with regard to 2 Peter. Most scholars are of the opinion that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraph (i.e. author unknown and not Peter) and date it between 100-160 CE, out of range of Peter's lifetime.

Much of its material has been copied or is literarily dependent on Jude, which itself belongs in the post-apostolic age. It is also highly Hellenistic in concept and (rhetorical) language as is 1 Peter, something one would not expect from an unlettered Galilean fisherman (Acts 4:13).

Secondly, it is even more strange that John never mentioned Paul at all. It is as if he didn't even know of Paul or did not want to acknowledge his existence. Furthermore, would the Apostle John have become so anti-Jewish as the "Gospel of John" makes out?

 

John was dated at a time when the Gentile Christians were breaking loose from the Jewish origins of "Christianity" and developing their own theology and also possibly facing much opposition from "Jewish Christians" as well as trying to cope with a potentially if not actually hostile Roman regime.

The fact that the early followers under the leadership of James - after Jesus's ascension - were still allowed to pray in the Temple somehow vitiates against any charges of blasphemy against Judaism in Jesus's teachings - and obviously they still adhered to Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20 "...they are all zealous of the law:"), for the other Jews to continue to tolerate them.

There were incidents of persecution and Paul was of his own admission said to have been one of the persecutors, yet the puzzling thing is that they still managed to stay on in Jerusalem and even worshiped in the Temple with the other Jews. Why were they persecuted then by the priests and were not persecuted later?

The Acts seem to reveal a fair bit about how even James and the other elders of the "Jewish Christian" community who were "zealous for the law" differed from Paul. While in the Acts Paul denies going against the law, yet as we have seen from his own words in his letters that this is exactly what he has done.

Acts "[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

[22] What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

[23] Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

[24] Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

[25] As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

[26] Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

[27] And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

[28] Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place."

What the Jews of Asia were complaining about of course were the very essence of Paul's different teachings, in accordance with his own "different gospel", such as we can glimpse from the Acts and his letters.

 

Paul's Different Gospel Part 5

Paul's Different Gospel 5

It will be obvious by now from the previous analysis that Paul did in fact teach a different gospel from that taught by the other apostles, one which depended entirely on faith - since he couldn't prove any of it - and not the (Mosaic) Law which Jesus had come to fulfill.

He could not prove any of it because as he claimed he had received it by direct revelation from Jesus, who had by then already left the earthly world. The fact that it contradicted Jesus's teaching while still alive did not stop Paul from expounding and expanding on his newly-found theology, especially among the non-Jews or Gentiles.

This is where Christianity stumbles and becomes something that Jesus never taught, the moment Paul preaches his different gospel and distances himself from Jesus's original disciples.

Paul had by this time developed a theology based on "faith in Jesus Christ" as opposed to one based on "observing the law". As he said, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Galatians 2:14-21). It is at once apparent that the other apostles were teaching that righteousness could be gained through the law (or rather through observance of it).

An example perhaps of the fairly original teachings of Jesus and his disciples (as far as can be ascertained) can be found in James:

"JAS 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"* you are doing right. [9] But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. [10] For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. [11] For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"* also said, "Do not murder."* If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker."

This of course was a very stringent doctrine and one which could hardly have found favour with the more relaxed Gentiles. If Paul wished to be "successful" in his mission to the Gentiles, obviously he had to tone down this doctrine of "strict adherence to the Law".

Paul in fact did more than that - he did away with the whole requirement to follow the Law and instituted a far easier belief of "faith in Christ" - which practically guaranteed salvation to the believer, even without any necessity to do good deeds. This peculiar theology also led to the development of the concept of "original sin" which it was said Jesus saved those who "had faith" from.

Actually the point that Paul makes in Galatians is that the curse of the law is the fact that it is impossible to keep perfectly, hence Paul's statement that no-one is justified by the Law. What Paul tells the Galatians is simply that they are free to try to keep the letter of the Law if they like, but they will fail, and so they should therefore rely on faith in Christ. If the whole of Galatians is read thoroughly, it will be seen that this is what this letter is about.

"JAS 2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, [13] because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"

JAS 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? [15] Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. [16] If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? [17] In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

This is a direct refutation of Paul's teachings.

"JAS 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. [19] You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."

"JAS 2:20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless*? [21] Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? [22] You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. [23] And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"* and he was called God's friend. [24] You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

Could James have been addressing Paul without mentioning his name? It would appear so.

"JAS 2:25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? [26] As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

"JAS 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. [2] We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

JAS 4:11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. [12] There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?"

And who is Paul to judge the Law? Or teach something which Jesus and his disciples never taught?

Leviticus 18:5 (NIV) on the other hand states: "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." This sounds more like a justification for the law rather than a refutal of it, and a sounder basis for faith (though perhaps not of the kind which Paul envisaged).

Those who still think that it shows that faith is the basis for keeping God's Law, not the other way round, and that this is the point Paul made in Galatians have to be faced with the fact that by doing away with the Law, Paul has therefore demonstrated his lack of faith.

Either way, Paul's different gospel cannot be supported by the teachings of the scriptures and of Jesus and his original disciples and must therefore be dismissed as an innovation.

Paul's Different Gospel Part 4

Paul's Different Gospel 4

The Trinitarian-Unitarian dispute need not be glossed over. The whole of Christianity was split by it and Constantine feared that it would cause grave problems to his rule.

The "heretical" teaching of Arius depends on where the different Christians stood. It is obvious that Arius had his supporters and he was also right in stating that the "Son" is not of one nature or substance with "God the Father", etc.

The teaching of Arius was based not only on Judaism but the teaching of Jesus himself that "God is One". What could be more straightforward than that? Those who disputed this assertion were the real heretics.

Any dilution of this central assertion and truth must certainly be treated as suspect and could have been due to a few factors, not the least among which was forgery, interpolation and misinterpretation.

The fact that the heretical teaching of the Trinity prevailed with the might of Constantine behind it does not mean that it was the right teaching.

It would really be very difficult for Muslims to do any great violence to the integrity of the "scriptures" that has not already been done by the Trinitarian Christians themselves.

I'm not at all saying that Trinitarian Christians misunderstand their own message. I am quite sure that they understand their own message. But do they understand the real message of Jesus?

When I say "Trinitarian Christians" I use this term to distinguish them from the original followers of Jesus, who were Nazarenes of the Judaic-Essenic sect or movement (i.e. all of whom were Jews) and also from the "Unitarian Christians" such as Arius and others of his persuasion (who were essentially, though not all, non-Jews).

As all will note, I have not made a single reference to the so-called "Qur'anic view" of "Christian" scriptures, as I believe that "Christian" scriptures or what the Christians (both Trinitarian and Unitarian) accept as "scriptures" can and should be looked at on their own merit.

Indeed we must look at all Christian scriptures as a whole, not just those accepted by the Trinitarian Christians.

If the Trinitarian Christians do not accept the Qur'an being imposed upon them, then likewise they should not insist upon their version of the Bible, especially the New Testament, being imposed upon others, including Christians of other persuasions (and thus ignoring those who disagree with their Bible as well).

Paul wasn't able to pull a fast one over the other Apostles. Far from it. While they all at first continued to pray and preach in the Temple of the Jews, there is doubt the others were interested in spreading the word of Jesus outside of the Jewish community, and they were only too happy to let Paul say what he liked to the Gentiles.

It only concerned them when he tried to impose his clearly different teachings on Jewish communities outside of Israel and many times they sent emissaries to correct him, which upset Paul no end, as we can see from his letters. And this is where he came into conflict with them, as his letters also clearly indicate.

Peter and the other apostles of course knew exactly who Jesus was, but Paul did not.

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus the Nazarene was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22 NIV).

As for the Council of Nicea, it was called by Constantine to settle once and for all the differences between the warring Unitarian Christians (Arians) and the Trinitarian Christians (Athanasians) so that he could preserve the political integrity of his Empire.

This interference by civil authority in the affairs of the Church was not merely over doctrinal differences, but because those differences had become violent and threatened the stability of the Empire.

Origen just 50 years earlier had taught that the "Son" was chosen not by superiority of nature but by virtue of his self-effort. This was also Arian teaching.

It is also known that Origen had access to many of the lost words of Jesus, and quotes from the disciples not recorded in the NT. Origen knew the real nature of Jesus was that of an extremely holy man. And all can become holy men, as evident from the teachings of Jesus himself recorded in writing by those of the first century, but now lost - probably destroyed in the aftermath of the Council of Nicea.

"And we recall the words of St. John in his epistle: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God...." (1 John 3: 2).

The Trinitarians looked down on Arius, who to them was a mere priest of Alexandria. He was not a Bishop, nor did he have any authority to elaborate in the teachings of the Church.

Arius being "simply a Priest" is immaterial, as well as whether he had any authority to elaborate in the teachings of the "Church". The Trinitarian "Church" of course denounced and disowned his teachings since they were not the teachings of the Trinitarians, so it really was of no relevance whether he had its authority or not.

Obviously there was more than one movement in Christianity at that time and even till today. So it is rather disingenous when Trinitarian Christians refer to the "Church" as if theirs was the only authentic "Church", especially when the original followers of Jesus only had the Temple.

There was absolutely no reason for Arius to submit to their authority. In fact he was putting forward a totally different creed/doctrine of his own, one which he thought was closer to the truth - and comparatively speaking he was right.

Paul's "different" gospel makes it very clear who were the real heretics or blasphemers, and they were the ones, including Paul himself, who taught anything which was contrary to the Mosaic Law, which Jesus had come to fulfill, not to destroy as Paul did.

Just because they now claim to be "orthodox" Christianity does not make Athanasius's explanation of the "Logos" or his defence of the personality and deity of the "Holy Spirit" right and Arius wrong.

While most of the Christian priests and bishops signed the Nicene Creed, affirming that "Jesus Christ" - whom none of them had known - was "Very God of Very God" and "of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made," they did so under threat of banishment.

Obviously and for some reason (which probably had nothing to do with the truth), Constantine sided with the Trinitarians on the issue of the nature of Jesus, i.e. whether he was one with God and therefore God Himself, or a human being - one of those closest to God.

In "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity", by David W. Bercot, there were 5 who did not agree with the Nicene Creed.

"...Constantine himself chaired the two-month long conference and actively participated in the discussions... Constantine persuaded the group to draw up a church-wide creed that specifically addressed the Divine nature of the Son. This was something quite new, for in the past each congregation used its own individual creed. (pp. 131-132)

Constantine himself proposed the wording of the new church-wide creed. To exclude the viewpoints of Arius, Constantine argued that the Greek term homoousios should be used to describe the relationship of Jesus and His Father. This term is usually translated into English by the phrase, "being of the same substance." ... In fact, several pre-Nicene Christian writers had used that term to describe the Deity of the Son. However, the term doesn't appear anywhere in Scripture, and it had never been included in any of the early congregational creeds... (p. 132)

Nevertheless, as a result of Constantine's persuasive skills, all but five of the church representatives at Nicaea eventually signed the newly-established creed. Constantine then banished into exile the five who wouldn't sign, one of whom was Arius. Constantine also decreed: "... If anyone shall be detected in concealing a book written by Arius, and does not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death."... (p. 132)

Subsequently, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicea regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, as they said in a letter to Constantine written by Eusebius of Nicomedia: "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you."

And a blasphemy it was that rules most of Christendom to this day, even though Constantine did change his mind about Arius and brought him back from banishment in an effort to unify the Empire which was still in grave danger of being torn apart by the warring factions of "Christianity", even after the Nicene Council.

For his efforts Constantine, in collusion with the conniving bishops who supported him, rewarded himself with the office of Messiah - an office previously reserved only for Jesus. It was Constantine, not Jesus, who became the embodied Messiah, Saviour and Head of the "Church" - the Trinitarian Church of course.

What had Jesus have to do with this? Absolutely nothing, for the Nicene Creed had transformed him into something else entirely and that he had never ever claimed to be - God.

The very human Jesus of history had been transformed beyond redemption by the bishops of the Trinitarian Church with the backing of the very secular Emperor Constantine into God Himself and Constantine had himself become transformed into the Messiah.