No sane person can accept that there should be a death penalty for changing religion. Thus Islamic apologists fabricated a lame excuse, where they started claiming:
The act of apostasy in Islam can be seen as equivalent to committing treason against a modern-day state. Just as a state would punish its citizens who support its enemies and betray the constitution, Islamic law also provides consequences for those who abandon the religion.
It's important to distinguish between two types of laws:
- A State Law
- And a Personal Law
State laws regulate interactions between individuals and are applicable when two or more people have to deal with each other. On the other hand, personal laws pertain to an individual's beliefs, values, and practices, and are not concerned with dealings between people.
The Islamic apologist's argument that apostasy in Islam is equivalent to committing treason against a modern-day state is flawed because it blurs the line between state laws and personal laws. While a state may punish its citizens for supporting its enemies or betraying the constitution, religious beliefs and affiliations fall under personal laws. The decision to change one's religion is a matter between an individual and their deity, and does not involve any harm or injury to others. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the state to impose penalties for apostasy.
The Islamic apologists are trying to impose those non-human laws today, against which their own Prophets REBELLED. Yes, Muhammad himself rebelled against his own community and he called their idol Gods to be false deities and refused to follow them. Yes, Ibrahim himself broke the idol gods of his community. Why didn’t then Muhammad and Ibrahim become worthy to be killed for APOSTASY?
Instead of calling Muhammad and Ibrahim to be apostates and worthy of being killed, Islamic apologists start presenting them as MAZLOOMS (oppressed), and pagans as ZALIMS (cruel people), while they tried to stop them from criticizing their gods.
These are only Double Standards of Muslim apologists. Islam itself started following the Sunnah of Pagans in this case (actually, much worse as pagans didn’t kill him or other Muslim converts, but they only tried to stop them from criticizing their gods).
The Story of Bloodthirsty WOLF and the LAMB:
Do you remember that story where the wolf kept on making lame excuses one by one, that the lamb was making his drinking water dirty, or he abused him last year, or it was his father who abused him. And at the end, the wolf killed the lamb on the basis of those lies.
Muslim apologists are exactly those bloodthirsty wolves. They will tell every type of lie and make every type of lame excuse in order to achieve their wicked plans.
Here is the video of Daniel where he is defending the Islamic Apostasy Law of killing people.
All his excuses are based upon that colonizers banned the freedom of speech too and punished people for speaking against the Crown and the State.
But there are 2 flaws in Daniel's arguments:
- Once again, what colonizers did was based upon "State Law" and was a matter of dealing between two or more people. But as far as the "Personal Law" of colonizers was concerned, then even the colonizers didn't kill people for changing their personal religious beliefs, while personal religious beliefs are not treason against the State.
- Secondly, even the "State Laws" of colonizers were wrong, and thus modern secular states have to abolish those barbaric practices.
The problem with Islam is that it is a rigid religion, and it is totally unable to REFORM itself. Firstly it declared a personal issue as a State Crime. And then it shows a total inability to reform its mistake. Muslims have to live with these horrible mistakes of Islam till the last day, as they cannot change Sharia Rulings/Mistakes on their own.
Moreover, Sharia orders Muslims if any non-Muslim state does not allow Muslims to preach Islam, and to let people convert to Islam, then it becomes obligatory for Muslims to wage war against that non-Muslim state. Therefore, the questions are:
- Should non-Muslims today also wage a war against Islamic countries and punish them for not allowing non-Muslims to preach and to let people leave Islam?
- And why should non-Muslim states today allow Muslims to immigrate in their countries, instead of waging a war against them? And why should they allow Muslims to preach and let people convert to Islam?
In simple words, Muslim excuses of treason etc. are not correct, and Islamic Sharia is only based upon Double Standards and hypocrisy and the rule of might is right.
The Results of Hypocrisy of Islamic Apologists
The West has two opposing forces:
On one side, there are Human-friendly Secular Forces who extend a welcoming hand to Muslims in the West, defending their human rights and advocating for their inclusion.
On the other side, there are Radical far-right Forces who vehemently oppose the idea of Muslims settling in their countries and acquiring citizenship.
Islamic preachers, like Daniel, reside in Western nations and aspire to spread their teachings, converting others to Islam. However, they simultaneously endorse the brutal killings of non-Muslims who attempt to proselytize in Islamic countries, as well as Muslims who choose to renounce their faith.
By displaying such blatant hypocrisy, these Islamic preachers inadvertently weaken the human-friendly Secular forces in the West and empower the radical right-wing forces by providing them with ammunition for their anti-Muslim rhetoric.