Apostates in Islam: to kill or not to kill?

[Cyrene]

- Who are the Apostates in Islam?


Apostates or Renegades are those who decide to leave the religion of Islam. There is a widely prevailing misconception about this issue. It is generally thought that the Quran provides the death sentence for those who desert the religion of Islam. There is not the least ground for such a supposition. The Quran speaks repeatedly of people going back to unbelief after believing, but never once does it say that they should be killed or punished. Although the Quran does provide the death sentence for some situations such as putting a murderer to death, but it never provided death sentence or ordered the death of those who leave Islam.


"They ask thee (Muhammad) Concerning fighting In the Prohibited Month. Say: Fighting therein Is a grave (offence); but graver is it In the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith (Islam) and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter; they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein." Verse 2:217 Here in this Verse we see that God Almighty talks about those who leave Islam, and promises them punishment in the day of judgment. God doesn't order the death of those people.


"O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He (Allah) will love as they will love Him lowly with the believers, Mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproachers of such as find fault. That is the Grace of Allah which He will bestow on whom He (Allah) pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things." Verse 5:54 Here in this Verse we see again God strengthening the faith of the Muslims in Islam by assuring them that whenever they see Muslims leaving Islam they will also see those who join Islam with strong faith and love to God Almighty.


"As most men are rebellious." (5:49), it is inevitable that there should be apostates even from such a religion of reason and common-sense as Islam. In Verse 5:54 above there is a warning to the Muslims that they should not repeat the history of the Jews, and become so self-satisfied or arrogant as to depart from the spirit of God's teaching. If they do, the loss will be their own. God's bounty is not confined to one group or section of humanity. He can always raise up people who will follow the true spirit of Islam. That spirit is defined in two ways:


1- They will love God, and God will love them.


2- Amongst their Brethren, their attitude will be that of humility, but to wrongdoers they will offer no compromises, and they will always strive and fight for the truth and right. They will know no fear, either physical, or that more insidious form. They are too great in mind to be haunted by any such thought.


"(O Muslims) Your friends are (No less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the Believers, those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship)." Verse 5:55 Here we see God telling Muslims after he warned them from apostates in (5:54) that their real friends are: God, Prophet Muhammad, and the good Muslims who keep up with their prayers and charity, and who humbly worship their God.


"But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray." Verse 3:90 Here in this holy verse we see God rejecting the faith of those who keep coming back and forth to Islam. In order for a human being to accept Islam as his religion, he must be certain about it first. God's path is wide open, and his mercy is greater than this universe. This Verse also does not order the death of those who leave Islam.


The path to God is always open and God will be your friend as in verse (5:55) above, and he will forgive your sins for you once you repent as in the following verse: "Except for those that repent (Even) after that, And make amends; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful." (3:89).


-Freedom of Religion:

Some Muslims believe in killing apostates because they follow a Hadith from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) regarding the apostates. While Islam was weak and still growing among Jews, Christians and Pagans, Muslims did not have the full and complete religion that they needed. Some Jews and Christians wanted to take advantage of such situation to destroy Islam. They had a plan to adopt Islam first and then desert it, thus creating the impression that Islam was not a religion worth adopting.


"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 (from Islam)." Verse 3:72 To protect Islam from such attempts done by a group of the people of the book, Prophet Muhammad ordered the death of those who enter Islam and leave it. This temporary law that was put by the Prophet had stopped the hypocrites who carried so much hatred toward Islam to enter Islam and desert it afterwards.


God ordered the Muslims to kill the pagans who fought against the Muslims. The following Verse talks about all of the enemies who fought the Muslims long and bloody battles:


Verse 2:191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." The killing of the pagans who fought the Muslims during the time when Islam was not yet complete was essential.

"This day those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: Yet fear them not But fear Me (Allah). This day have I (Allah) perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your (complete) religion...." Verse 5:3 So long as Islam was not organized, with its own community and its own laws, the unbelievers and the Hypocrites from the People of the Book and the Pagan Arabs had hoped to wean the believers from the new teaching. Now that hope is gone forever with the complete organization of Islam.

"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)." Verses 15:2-3

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand." Verses 10:99-100

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject: for the wrong doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on!" Verse 18:29

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!" Verse 10:99

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" Verse 2:256

"To you be your Way, and to me mine" Verses 109:1-6

"Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: 'I believe in the Book which God has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. God is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. God will bring us together, and to Him is (our) Final Goal.'" Verse 42:15

- So how come Muslim Fundamentalists execute those who desert Islam then?


The interpretation of those who prohibit women from education, even though Islam clearly allows education for women, and prohibit them also from driving, and oppress men by forcing them to grow beards, even though beards are NOT mandatory in Islam, doesn't mean much to me.


As we've seen above, it is quite clear, and beyond any questioning that God Almighty prohibited compulsion in religion and allowed the absolute freedom of religion to everyone. When Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him executed apostates, he did it because Muslims were at war time and because Islam was still partial, and Muslims needed protection from the hypocrites of the people of the book who purposely entered Islam and deserted it later to create confusion among the Muslims.

the media only shows you some Terrorists like Boko Haram and al Qaeda etc. as they are the overwhelming majority of Muslims. they represent Islam as much as Ku Klux Klan represents Christanity.

The Prophet Muhammad even talked about them: " After me there will be disunity in the Ummah, there will be a group of people from my community, they say good things, and do bad things, they read the Quran, it does not go past their throats, they desert ( contradict) religion as the Arrow deserts the Bow, and they do not get back to it, they are the worst Creatures, may he be happy he who fights them, and get killed, they invite people to the word of God and they have nothing to do with it, whoever fights them is more worthy of God then them"

[Enemy of the State]

Apostates or Renegades are those who decide to leave the religion of Islam. There is a widely prevailing misconception about this issue. It is generally thought that the Quran provides the death sentence for those who desert the religion of Islam. There is not the least ground for such a supposition.

Yet death as the punishment for apostasy is accepted in all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. The issue was not controversial until westernized muslims had to start finding ways to reconcile their liberal western lifestyle with their faith.

The Quran speaks repeatedly of people going back to unbelief after believing, but never once does it say that they should be killed or punished. Although the Quran does provide the death sentence for some situations such as putting a murderer to death, but it never provided death sentence or ordered the death of those who leave Islam.

Not true.

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.

And from the Bukhari Hadith, considered to be among the most important and reliable in Sunni Islam, followed by a majority of the world's muslims:

Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Take note of how not only does this call for the death of apostates, but also adulterers. I'm curious over what kind of "historic context" you will use to get out of this one.

Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

They had a plan to adopt Islam first and then desert it, thus creating the impression that Islam was not a religion worth adopting.

You believe this act is worthy of death? You are not helping your argument. It must be difficult going through the mental gymnastics everyday to reconcile 7th century moral standards with your 21st century life.

the media only shows you some Terrorists like Boko Haram and al Qaeda etc. as they are the overwhelming majority of Muslims. they represent Islam as much as Ku Klux Klan represents Christanity.

We do not have a problem of Christians beheading people for apostasy, homosexuality, blasphemy or marrying the wrong person in the West, the comparison falls flat on its face. Here is a recent study on the views of the Muslim world:
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/0...ull-report.pdf

78% of Afghans believe death is the proper punishment for apostasy. The numbers in other states are far from flattering aswell.

[Sar1n]

The biggest issue with Islam, way overshadowing others, is this simple thing:

According to muslim beliefs, Qu'ran is direct word of god, an unchangeable law for all eternity, and Muhammad, after his revelation, was perfect human being, example to everyone.

In effect, everything he did is allowed if not encouraged. This is used as justification for many things, including arranged child marriages, and also this. It's obvious that he wasn't perfect, and you've said yourself....he went against the word of Qu'ran himself when, as you say, it was necessary. Kill apostates? Shouldn't, but Muhammad did that when he though it's necessary, so muslims are allowed to do just that. Kill unbelievers? Ditto.

[Visna]

The biggest issue with Islam, way overshadowing others, is this simple thing:

According to muslim beliefs, Qu'ran is direct word of god, an unchangeable law for all eternity, and Muhammad, after his revelation, was perfect human being, example to everyone.

In effect, everything he did is allowed if not encouraged. This is used as justification for many things, including arranged child marriages, and also this. It's obvious that he wasn't perfect, and you've said yourself....he went against the word of Qu'ran himself when, as you say, it was necessary. Kill apostates? Shouldn't, but Muhammad did that when he though it's necessary, so muslims are allowed to do just that. Kill unbelievers? Ditto.

I think a bigger issue is the lack of a centralized authority. If there is one thing Catholicism got right, it's the need for someone at the top who can say what is or isn't kosher.

[Cyrene]

Yet death as the punishment for apostasy is accepted in all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. The issue was not controversial until westernized muslims had to start finding ways to reconcile their liberal western lifestyle with their faith.

the four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence held that apostasy by a male Muslim is punishable by death, differing on whether to execute the apostate immediately or grant him an initial opportunity to repent and thus avoid penalty. They also differentiated between harmful and harmless apostasy.

if the apostate starts to fight Muslims afterwards, the capital punishment falls on him, if not, then Muslims have no right to even harm him. here's a verse that proves my point:

"And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them." (Sura Al-Nisa)

and excuse me? i don't live in the west nor i have a western lifestyle, so please..

and what you said is not true, this issue was controversial since Early Islam, Many prominent scholars throughout the centuries have held the view that apostasy is not a hadd (singular for hudud = capital) offence. This view is founded on the fact that the Qur'an is completely silent on the death penalty for apostasy, two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions, Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences, it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.

Not true.

"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"

this verse has nothing to do with Apostates, read the WHOLE Sura to get the WHOLE Meaning:

"And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet [in return] with one better than it or [at least] return it [in a like manner]. Indeed, Allah is ever, over all things, an Accountant, Allah - there is no deity except Him. He will surely assemble you for [account on] the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt. And who is more truthful than Allah in statement, What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance], 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"

the sura was talking about the same people in this verse "A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) 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 (from Islam)."

which again proves my point, that's why The prophet ordered the killing of all those Hypocrites. because of this verse.

And from the Bukhari Hadith, considered to be among the most important and reliable in Sunni Islam, followed by a majority of the world's muslims:

Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

to be exact, an apostate is only punished when he creates schism among the Muslim Ummah; this is according to the scholars of Islam:


“Moreover, it is incorrect to say that everyone who leaves Islam is automatically killed. Thus, if an apostate causes no harm to the Muslim community and does not call for spreading hostility towards Islam, he is not to be punished, rather he is to be advised kindly and wisely to let him know the true image of Islam."


We can conclude that the issue of the penalty prescribed for apostasy is dependent on the public interest of the nation. Therefore, there is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation. On the other hand, if a group of apostates endangers the security and interests of the Muslim community, then the Muslim ruler should consider them to be a danger and threat to society.

Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

First, this hadith is considered a weak hadith with just a single isnad (this means there is only one chain of transmission or narration) and thus according to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not enough to validate thedeath penalty.


Second, this hadith is also considered a general ('amm) hadith in that it is in need of specification (takhsis); for it would otherwise convey a meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious reading of the hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the intention of the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, when a text is interpreted once, it becomes open to further interpretation and specification. Therefore, many scholars interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high treason (hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or God or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.


Third, and most importantly, there is no evidence to show that Prophet Muhammad saw or his Companions ever compelled anyone to embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of the faith.

quoting weak hadiths is not a smart thing to do.

You believe this act is worthy of death? You are not helping your argument. It must be difficult going through the mental gymnastics everyday to reconcile 7th century moral standards with your 21st century life.

Islam came with a law which deals with all matters of life, including governing and politics, until this day, western and eastern nations harshly punish anyone who commits the crime of treason. why do you blame Islam for protecting the national security of Muslims? the Bible orders the killing of Apostates, too.

We do not have a problem of Christians beheading people for apostasy, homosexuality, blasphemy or marrying the wrong person in the West

of course you do, haven't you heard of the crimes committed by the KKK? rape, murder, torture, racism, death threats on Catholics , jews, and african people.

78% of Afghans believe death is the proper punishment for apostasy. The numbers in other states are far from flattering aswell.

and a 100% of Christians believed that Muslims worshiped Muhammad, the black stone and the Kaaba in the Middle ages, it's all about ignorance, don't blame the religion, blame the people. no one represents Islam, save Prophet Muhammad.

and the vast majority of Christians today believe they shouldn't follow the OT anymore, while Prophet Jesus clearly said he came to fulfill the law of the Prophets. not to abolish it.

I think a bigger issue is the lack of a centralized authority. If there is one thing Catholicism got right, it's the need for someone at the top who can say what is or isn't kosher.

We don't need a Pope like Christians do, everything in the Quran can be thoroughly explained my the Ulama.

and this centralized authority you speaking of was the main factor (only second to the Council of Nicaea) responsible for the corruption of Monotheistic Christianity and it's transfer to just another Pagan Roman Religion.

[Sar1n]

Oh dammit. There's a lot in there that deserves a good response, but I don't have time right now. It'll have to wait till evening.

[Cyrene]

i know that feeling bro.

[Mangalore]

...

and a 100% of Christians believed that Muslims worshiped Muhammad, the black stone and the Kaaba in the Middle ages, it's all about ignorance, don't blame the religion, blame the people. no one represents Islam, save Prophet Muhammad.

...

Of course you blame the religion because it's the ideology that makes people follow stupid ideas, it's not the other way around. Without stupid ideologies average people are usually quite harmless even in their ignorance, it's the exploitation via ideology that is bad. You can't remove all the bad ideas people derive from a religion and claim it's not part of a religion, that's not how this psychological and social construct works.

By that standard you could declare that no religion exists because of the human condition everyone's God is a different one even inside a single community supposedly worshipping the same denomination they come up with incompatible God ideas all the time.

[AngryTitusPullo]

I think a bigger issue is the lack of a centralized authority. If there is one thing Catholicism got right, it's the need for someone at the top who can say what is or isn't kosher.

Who need a pope when we have the Qur'an.

[Cyrene]

Of course you blame the religion because it's the ideology that makes people follow stupid ideas, it's not the other way around. Without stupid ideologies average people are usually quite harmless even in their ignorance, it's the exploitation via ideology that is bad. You can't remove all the bad ideas people derive from a religion and claim it's not part of a religion, that's not how this psychological and social construct works.

By that standard you could declare that no religion exists because of the human condition everyone's God is a different one even inside a single community supposedly worshipping the same denomination they come up with incompatible God ideas all the time.

ok, for example when the Extremists in Mali called "Ansar al-Dine" sell drugs to get money, do you you blame Islam while it clearly prohibits selling or buying drugs and alcohol?

when Christians drink wine and eat the flesh of Pigs, do you blame Christianity while Jesus clearly commands them to follow the OT which clearly state that Drinking Wine and eating Pig's meat are Prohibited?

the real source of human stupidity is to tell them they are the descendants of Apes.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

the real source of human stupidity is to tell them they are the descendants of Apes.

Telling them the truth makes people stupid?

The reasons, why pork is prohibited are beyond stupid. It's like telling people to shave off all their hair, instead of washing it regularly.

[Treize]

ok, for example when the Extremists in Mali called "Ansar al-Dine" sell drugs to get money, do you you blame Islam while it clearly prohibits selling or buying drugs and alcohol?

when Christians drink wine and eat the flesh of Pigs, do you blame Christianity while Jesus clearly commands them to follow the OT which clearly state that Drinking Wine and eating Pig's meat are Prohibited?

the real source of human stupidity is to tell them they are the descendants of Apes.

The old testament does not forbid the consumption of wine.

Infact the first time it was banned was in the Quran and only at the third surah concerning alcohol. The first two did not forbid it either.

[Cyrene]

Telling them the truth makes people stupid?

The reasons, why pork is prohibited are beyond stupid. It's like telling people to shave off all their hair, instead of washing it regularly.

i would like Aeneas Veneratio to show me a proof that humans were Apes,

i assume you do have a proof, since an anti-thiest is a materialist, and denies that God exists because he can't see or touch him.

"science without Religion is Lame"

The old testament does not forbid the consumption of wine.


Infact the first time it was banned was in the Quran and only at the third surah concerning alcohol. The first two did not forbid it either.

"And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations" (Leviticus 10:9)

[Visna]

We don't need a Pope like Christians do, everything in the Quran can be thoroughly explained my the Ulama.

and this centralized authority you speaking of was the main factor (only second to the Council of Nicaea) responsible for the corruption of Monotheistic Christianity and it's transfer to just another Pagan Roman Religion.

If there is no need for a centralized authority informing the followers of the correct interpretation, why did you feel the need to make this thread? Could it be because there is actually disagreement on the correct interpretation?

Who need a pope when we have the Qur'an.

Evidently some do. I think it would be very beneficial, then you Muslims could point to whoever it could be, the dean of Al Azhar or something, and categorically state that this or that is halal or whatever. Instead you have a ton of different ideas colliding. It's like all those more or less deranged Protestant cults, only with AK-47's for everyone. Of course secular mismanagement plays a big role as well, but far too often the conflicts are drawn along religious lines, something that putting someone in charge would go at least some way to avoid. I realize it's purely hypothetical now, far too much time has passed, conflicts started, blood spilt, but imo Muhammed should have thought of the idea before he died.

i would like Aeneas Veneratio to show me a proof that humans were Apes,

i assume you do have a proof, since an anti-thiest is a materialist, and denies that God exists because he can't see or touch him.

Humans were not apes, but we share a common ancestor. It's not a direct line of descent with one form becoming another. This common ancestor who lived in Africa some 5-11 million years ago gave rise to two distinct lines, one with hominids which eventually lead to us, and one with great apes which eventually lead to chimps, gorillas and orangutangs. We're related to the great apes, but we aren't descended from them, it's more like they're our cousins so to speak.

[Cyrene]

If there is no need for a centralized authority informing the followers of the correct interpretation, why did you feel the need to make this thread? Could it be because there is actually disagreement on the correct interpretation?

hah, i am not talking to Muslims, but to the media that spreads lies like the law of apostaty in islam is death, just because they saw someone from Al-Qaeda doing it.

Evidently some do. I think it would be very beneficial, then you Muslims could point to whoever it could be, the dean of Al Azhar or something, and categorically state that this or that is halal or whatever. Instead you have a ton of different ideas colliding. It's like all those more or less deranged Protestant cults, only with AK-47's for everyone. Of course secular mismanagement plays a big role as well, but far too often the conflicts are drawn along religious lines, something that putting someone in charge would go at least some way to avoid. I realize it's purely hypothetical now, far too much time has passed, conflicts started, blood spilt, but imo Muhammed should have thought of the idea before he died.

The Prophet said "That which is lawful is clear and that which is unlawful is clear, and between the two of them are doubtful matters" these doubtful matters are usually related with politics, and a bit related to food, like for example eating at foreign restaurants.

only small issues like these are discussed, not Capital punishments.

Humans were not apes, but we share a common ancestor. It's not a direct line of descent with one form becoming another. This common ancestor who lived in Africa some 5-11 million years ago gave rise to two distinct lines, one with hominids which eventually lead to us, and one with great apes which eventually lead to chimps, gorillas and orangutangs. We're related to the great apes, but we aren't descended from them, it's more like they're our cousins so to speak.

once again there is no proof for what you are saying, i mean, come on, how did these " scientists" know that this African Creature gave rise to us and monkeys?

and as science tells us, Animals were not origanted on Earth, but they were sent down to it from space, and then developed into many physical shapes and forms. see this and this.

[Visna]

hah, i am not talking to Muslims, but to the media that spreads lies like the law of apostaty in islam is death, just because they saw someone from Al-Qaeda doing it.

The Prophet said "That which is lawful is clear and that which is unlawful is clear, and between the two of them are doubtful matters" these doubtful matters are usually related with politics, and a bit related to food, like for example eating at foreign restaurants.

I didn't realize Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan was Al Qaida. You learn something new every day I suppose.
There are disagreements, with some leaning towards medieval scholars who were big on the whole death penalty thing, and modern interpretations which are more, well, modern. There is collision between the alleged freedom of choice and conscience, and whether apostasy is a case of the above or it's treason for example. Portraying this as some sort of media problem is demonstrably incorrect.

once again there is no proof for what you are saying, i mean, come on, how did these " scientists" know that this African Creature gave rise to us and monkeys?

There are two main pieces of evidence of common ancestry.

1. There is overwhelming evidence that the human chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion of two chromosomes in our common ancestor. In fact it's pretty much impossible to explain the fused chromosome without involving common ancestry.

2. Mitochondrial DNA. Or more specifically a piece of the mitochondria which is free to accumulate mutations. The mutations are used as a sort of clock, and can be used to demonstrate evolutionary relationships. The same way DNA can be used to show you are related to your mother and father, DNA sequencing can show that humans are closely related to chimps, a bit less so with gorillas etc, and we can use the mutations to calculate roughly how long ago the "branches" on the evolutionary tree split.

You're using religion to debate biology on biology's terms. And the result is obvious.

and as science tells us, Animals were not origanted on Earth, but they were sent down to it from space, and then developed into many physical shapes and forms. see this and this.

Err, where are you going with this?

[Aeneas Veneratio]

@Cyrene: If you don't believe in a common ancestor already, I really got no time to waste trying to convince you on the errors of your way. That being said, your use of coloured letters is also a factor in me not wanting to waste time on a pointless argument.

[Cyrene]

I didn't realize Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan was Al Qaida. You learn something new every day I suppose.
There are disagreements, with some leaning towards medieval scholars who were big on the whole death penalty thing, and modern interpretations which are more, well, modern. There is collision between the alleged freedom of choice and conscience, and whether apostasy is a case of the above or it's treason for example. Portraying this as some sort of media problem is demonstrably incorrect.

oh God, did you read my posts before replying?

and what you said is not true, this issue was controversial since Early Islam, Many prominent scholars throughout the centuries have held the view that apostasy is not a hadd (singular for hudud = capital) offence. This view is founded on the fact that the Qur'an is completely silent on the death penalty for apostasy, two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions, Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences, it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.

it says the issue was controversial, so there is some disagreement, what i'm trying to say is that there are ample proofs in the Qur'an and hadith which orders the execution of Apostates who take up arms and threaten Muslims only.

therefore, countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan are following the Wrong interpretation of these hadiths, that's why-if you happened to notice- i said " blame the People, not the Religion " and seriously Iran? what the hell, they are following Shia Islam, they have their own world of Jurisprudence, separated from the sunni one (which is followed by over 85% of muslims )

There are two main pieces of evidence of common ancestry.

1. There is overwhelming evidence that the human chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion of two chromosomes in our common ancestor. In fact it's pretty much impossible to explain the fused chromosome without involving common ancestry.

2. Mitochondrial DNA. Or more specifically a piece of the mitochondria which is free to accumulate mutations. The mutations are used as a sort of clock, and can be used to demonstrate evolutionary relationships. The same way DNA can be used to show you are related to your mother and father, DNA sequencing can show that humans are closely related to chimps, a bit less so with gorillas etc, and we can use the mutations to calculate roughly how long ago the "branches" on the evolutionary tree split.

i'm sorry, but are you good at biology?

What must have happened, is that one pair of chromosomes got fused, we look at our Genome, and discover that one of our chromosomes resulted from the fusion of two primary chromosomes, if we don't find them, Evolution is wrong, we don't share a common ancestor, so how would we find them? chromosomes have nifty little markers, called Centromeres, which are DNA sequences that are used to separate them, and they have cool DNA sequences in the End called Tellameres, What would happen if a pair of chromosomes got fused, Tellameres will be put where they don't belong, in the center of the chromosome, and the resulting fused chromosome should actually have two centromeres, one of them might come inactivated, but nonetheless it should still be there, and you know if we don't find that chromosome, evolution is in trouble.

Guess what, the argument is the presence of a vestigial centromere, normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in Chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.

sorry, but this isn't an evidence for evolution, Ken miller fails..

You're using religion to debate biology on biology's terms. And the result is obvious.

i don't use religion, i study Biology. *_^

Err, where are you going with this?

animals came from space, not earth, so you can't trace their ancestor, at least not yet.

@Cyrene: If you don't believe in a common ancestor already, I really got no time to waste trying to convince you on the errors of your way. That being said, your use of coloured letters is also a factor in me not wanting to waste time on a pointless argument.

pffffft, what an excuse.

[Sir Adrian]

I think a bigger issue is the lack of a centralized authority. If there is one thing Catholicism got right, it's the need for someone at the top who can say what is or isn't kosher.

Christianity had the right idea but Catholicism's execution is just awful.

[Visna]

it says the issue was controversial, so there is some disagreement, what i'm trying to say is that there are ample proofs in the Qur'an and hadith which orders the execution of Apostates who take up arms and threaten Muslims only.

therefore, countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan are following the Wrong interpretation of these hadiths, that's why-if you happened to notice- i said " blame the People, not the Religion " and seriously Iran? what the hell, they are following Shia Islam, they have their own world of Jurisprudence, separated from the sunni one (which is followed by over 85% of muslims )

And thank you for proving my point. A centralized authority would do away with much of that "no true scotsman" stuff. But then again, I suppose the current situation is actually preferable. I mean, can you imagine if the Islamic Pope was some bat-excrement-crazy Saudi cleric?
I still think not appointing a clear heir and procedures for the future showed Muhammed suffered from a severe lack of foresight, though. The result of the the petty squabbles over his legacy and the resulting divisions has killed more Muslims than even the worst Empire building, crusading, imperialist pigdog could ever hope to achieve.

i'm sorry, but are you good at biology?

What must have happened, is that one pair of chromosomes got fused, we look at our Genome, and discover that one of our chromosomes resulted from the fusion of two primary chromosomes, if we don't find them, Evolution is wrong, we don't share a common ancestor, so how would we find them? chromosomes have nifty little markers, called Centromeres, which are DNA sequences that are used to separate them, and they have cool DNA sequences in the End called Tellameres, What would happen if a pair of chromosomes got fused, Tellameres will be put where they don't belong, in the center of the chromosome, and the resulting fused chromosome should actually have two centromeres, one of them might come inactivated, but nonetheless it should still be there, and you know if we don't find that chromosome, evolution is in trouble.

Guess what, the argument is the presence of a vestigial centromere, normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in Chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.

Thank you to Ken Miller and a thanks to you too I suppose for pretty much literally transscribing the segment of a longer lecture. (Jump to 1:44)
Couldn't have said it better myself.

sorry, but this isn't an evidence for evolution, Ken miller fails..

Because... why? You say so?
Do you know where you're going with this? First you ask for evidence of common ancestry between humans and the great apes. Then, when it's provided, you quote from a lecture which demonstrates why there is such a mountain of evidence for such a common ancestor. Then you turn around and say "that's not evidence for evolution".
Jesus tapdancing Christ, and please don't take this the wrong way, but do you have any idea what you're talking about? There is no shame in admitting ignorance.

Alternatively explain the evidence of a fused chromosome with something a wee bit more substantial than a "this isn't an evidence for evolution, Ken miller fails". That's Nobel Prize winning stuff if you succeed.

i don't use religion, i study Biology. *_^

Well, if the above is any indication, and you were my student, I would have failed you.

animals came from space, not earth, so you can't trace their ancestor, at least not yet.

There was life before the Cambrian Explosion. Or do you mean that pre-Cambrian life came from space? Or there was life but "space" just randomly decided to send some more? Or you don't think there was life at all? Please expand.

Christianity had the right idea but Catholicism's execution is just awful.

The very concept of a Pope you mean?