Originally posted by techsouthQuite so but you need to investigate what this is about. You need in particular to become aware that the Wahhabi sect promoted by the Saudis and adjacent Arab states is a serious and dangerous change from the practice of Islam in the preceding millennium.
Even today, in many predominantly Muslim countries there is a realistic threat of death if you are a Muslim and renounce your faith.
Yet although scripture was so central to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s ideology, by insisting that his version of Islam alone had validity, he had distorted the Quranic message. The Quran firmly stated that “There must be no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256), ruled that Muslims must believe in the revelations of all the great prophets (3:84) and that religious pluralism was God’s will (5:48). Muslims had, therefore, been traditionally wary of takfir, the practice of declaring a fellow Muslim to be an unbeliever (kafir). Hitherto Sufism, which had developed an outstanding appreciation of other faith traditions, had been the most popular form of Islam and had played an important role in both social and religious life. “Do not praise your own faith so exclusively that you disbelieve all the rest,” urged the great mystic Ibn al-Arabi (d.1240). “God the omniscient and omnipresent cannot be confined to any one creed.” It was common for a Sufi to claim that he was a neither a Jew nor a Christian, nor even a Muslim, because once you glimpsed the divine, you left these man-made distinctions behind.http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism
Despite his rejection of other forms of Islam, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab himself refrained from takfir, arguing that God alone could read the heart, but after his death Wahhabis cast this inhibition aside and the generous pluralism of Sufism became increasingly suspect in the Muslim world.
After his death, too, Wahhabism became more violent, an instrument of state terror. As he sought to establish an independent kingdom, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad, Ibn Saud’s son and successor, used takfir to justify the wholesale slaughter of resistant populations. In 1801, his army sacked the holy Shia city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, plundered the tomb of Imam Husain, and slaughtered thousands of Shias, including women and children; in 1803, in fear and panic, the holy city of Mecca surrendered to the Saudi leader.
Eventually, in 1815, the Ottomans despatched Muhammad Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt, to crush the Wahhabi forces and destroy their capital. But Wahhabism became a political force once again during the First World War when the Saudi chieftain – another Abd al-Aziz – made a new push for statehood and began to carve out a large kingdom for himself in the Middle East with his devout Bedouin army, known as the Ikhwan, the “Brotherhood”.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'd like my question answered as I can't find it myself. You can find several instances of Islamic courts in recent years passing such sentences but none of those cases wind up with actual executions. The claim was:
Well the death sentence was handed out on Tuesday. They haven't killed him yet.
In 1209, Arnold Amaury, abbot of Citeaux, called for the collective slaughter of all Cathars in the town of Beziers. His motto, which has carried forth into modern expression, stated, "Kill them all, the Lord knows those who are his." Only a small minority of the town, perhaps five hundred, was made up of Cathars, but all the city paid the price for guilt by association. Twenty thousand were killed. Thus began the wholesale slaughter of thousands of Cathars in the thirteenth century.http://islamnewsroom.com/if-someone-leaves-islam-hot-topics-45
Non-Catholics, of course, may respond to the above by putting the blood of those deeds on the hands of the evil Catholics. However, one should not forget Martin Luther’s ruling concerning the Anabaptists, another pacifist heretical group who had the audacity to have themselves re-baptized when adults. Martin Luther stated that such heretics are not to be tolerated and the only fitting punishment for them was hanging.
This approach is in compelling contrast to the legacy of Islam. Not long after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the caliph Ali had to face the crisis of the heretical group known as the Khawarij. Although he sent people to preach to them to correct their misunderstandings, his approach was that they were not to be physically attacked by the state as long as they did not commit any acts of violence against the Muslims.
The Khawarij did become violent, and it became necessary for Ali to fight and defeat them. Afterwards, he was asked about them. He was asked if they were polytheists, and Ali replied that they, by holding the beliefs they held, were attempting to flee from falling into polytheism.
When he was asked if they were hypocrites, he replied, "Hypocrites rarely remember and mention Allah". Finally, they asked him, “What are they?”
He replied, “They are our brethren who revolted against us and we fought them only due to their revolting against us.”
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTo be fair there are Islamic states taking a harsh line on apostasy but their interpretation of this principle is not generally accepted in Islam and indeed most Muslims are horrified. Needless to say, Saudi Arabia is a key centre for fascistic readings of Islam.
Somalia 2009 maybe:
It's tempting to use Saudi Arabia, one of the largest and most powerful Arab states, as a proxy for the legal systems in Arab states as a whole. But that's not fair. Saudi law takes a much stricter interpretation of Islamic law than almost all of its neighbors, and Saudi practices are viewed with horror in much of the Middle East.http://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8103269/saudi-execution-apostasy
That's because the Faustian pact between Wahhabi clerics and the al-Saud family is unique. Though many nations use sharia as a source of inspiration in their legal codes, no other Arab country is explicitly founded as clerical-Wahhabi states.
Reform is not impossible. Caryle Murphy documented a number of promising signs in an interesting Foreign Policy essay, including growing diversity of religious thought and declining public support for sharia law. Saudi women are challenging some of the particularly absurd gender rules, like the ban on women driving.
But don't expect an end to things like the criminalization of apostasy anytime soon. The Wahhabi establishment, and its harsh vision of criminal law, are deeply embedded in the Saudi state, and seen by the monarchy as essential for keeping themselves in power.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAn Islamist militia has executed a Somali politician who they accused of betraying his religion by working with non-Muslim Ethiopian forces.
Somalia 2009 maybe:
Originally posted by no1marauderWho cares marauder?
Of the countries researched, it appears that
Iran is the only one that has executed a person convicted of apostasy to date.
According to the US Department of State, the last death penalty for apostasy that was actually
carried out occurred in 1990.34
http:// ...[text shortened]... as any laws restricting religious freedom are, techsouth's claim is surely factually incorrect.