If a Mussulman woman become an apostate, she is not put to death, but imprisoned, until the return to the faith. Shafei maintains that she is to be put to death; because of the tradition before cited;—and also because, as men are put to death for apostacy solely for this reason, that it is a crime of great magnitude and therefore requires that its punishment be proportionably severe, (namely, death,) so the apostacy of a woman being likewise (like that of man) a crime of great magnitude, it follows that her punishment should be the same as the of a man. The arguments of our doctors upon this point are twofold.—FIRST, the prophet has forbidden the slaying of women, without making any distinction between those who are apostates, and those who are original infidels, SECONDLY, the original principle in the retribution of offences is to delay to a future state, (in other words, not to inflict punishment here, but to refer it to hereafter,) since it retribution were executed in this world, it would render defective in the state of trial. as men would avoid committing sin from apprehension of punishment, and therefore would be in the state of persons acting under compulsion, and not of free agents: but in the case of apostacy of men the punishment is not deferred to a future state, because it is indispensably requisite to repel their present wickedness, (namely, their becoming enemies to the faith,) wicch wickedness cannot be conceived of women, who are, by natural weakness of frame, in incapable thereof: contrary to men.—A female apostate, therefore, is the fame as an original female infidel; as the killing of the one is forbidden, so the killing of the other also. She is however to be imprisoned, until return to the faith; because, as she refuses the right of GOD after having acknowledged it, she must be compelled, by means of imprisonment, to render GOD his right, in the same manner as she would be imprisoned on account of the right of the individual. It is written in the Jama Sagbeer,—"A female apostate is to be compelled to return to the faith, whether she be free', or a slave.—The slave is to be compelled by her master:—she is to be compelled, for the reasons already recited; and this is compulsion is to be executed by her master, because in this regard is had to the right both of GOD and of the master. It is elsewhere mentioned that a female apostate must be daily beaten with severity until she return to the faith.

The Hadd, a punishment based on a Zahir, or obvious sentence of the Quran requires that a Muslim who apostatizes shall be put to death. In the case of an apostate woman Imam Abu Hanifa ruled that she should be imprisoned and beaten every day. The other three Imams, Malik, Shafai and Hanbal said that she should be put to death in accordance with the Tradition which says: He who changes his religion, kill."

As a source of objective morality, the Bible is one of the worst books we have. It might be the very worst, in fact—if we didn't also happen to have the Qur'an.

Under Sharia law, apostasy is a crime punishable by death. So, reactions to non-belief include ostracization, severance of family support, abandonment, and other forms of maltreatment. In a society where the family is virtually everything in terms of social support and sustenance, family sanction is indeed the worse form of punishment for non-belief. The science is there. The scientists are there. But the popularizing scientific will is not. This is because scientists are afraid of backlash from religious establishments. Scientists do not want to disseminate scientific ideas in a way that they could be accused of blasphemy. Religious authorities are still very influential in Nigeria and will go to any length to suppress and neutralize any one promoting science in a way that puts religious claims into question. Science is still within the cocoon and control of religious authorities. Religion in Nigeria has yet to attain that liberalized state.

WHEN a 'Mussulman apostizes from the faith, and exposition thereof is to be laid before him, in such manner that if his apostacy should have arisen from any religious doubts or scruples, those may be removed. The reason for laying an exposition of the faith before him is that it is possible some doubt or errors may have arisen in his mind, which may be removed by such exposition; and as there are only two modes of repelling the sin of apostacy, namely, destruction or Islám, and Islám is preferable to destruction, the evil is rather to be removed by means of an exposition of the faith;—but yet this exposition of the faith is not incumbent, (according to what the learned have remarked upon this head,) since a call to the faith has already reached the apostate. AN apostate is to be imprisoned for three days, within which time if he return to the faith, it is well: but if not, he must be slain.—It is recorded in the Jama Sagbeer that "an exposition of the faith is to be laid before an apostate, and if he refuse the faith, he must be slain:"—and with respect to what is above stated, that "he is to be imprisoned for three days," it only implies that if he require a delay, three days may be granted him, as such is the term generally admitted and allowed for the purpose of consideration. It is recorded from Haneefa and Aboo Yoosaf that the granting of a delay of three days is laudable, whether the apostate require it or not: and it is recorded from Shafei that it is incumbent on the Iman to delay for three days, and that it is not lawful for him to put the apostate to death before the lapse of that time; since it is most probable that a Mussulman will not apostatise but from some doubt or error arising in his mind; wherefore some time is necessary for consideration; and this is fixed at three days. THe arguments of our doctors upon this point are twofold.—FIRST, GOD says, in the Korán, "SLAY THE UNBELIEVERS," without any reserve of a delay of three days being granted to them; and the prophet has also said "Slay the man who changes his religion," without mentioning any thing concerning a delay: SECONDLY, an apostate is an infidel enemy, who has received a call to the faith, wherefore he may be slain upon the instant, without delay. An apostate is termed on this occasion and infidel enemy, because he is undoubtedly such; and he is not protected, since he has not requered a protection, neither is he a Zimmee, because capitation-tax has not been accepted from him; hence is proved that he is an infidel enemy. It is to be observed that, in these rules, there is no difference made between an apostate who is a freeman, and one who is a slave, as the arguments upon which they are established apply equally to both descriptions.

According to a recent poll, 36 percent of British Muslims (ages sixteen to twenty-four) think apostates should be put to death for their unbelief.60 Are these people “morally motivated,” in Haidt’s sense, or just morally confused? And

Do you know the penalty for blasphemy? It's death, just as it always is whenever religion is threatened, especially the Abrahamic religions. Violence is only the answer for those who don't understand the question, and religion is a misunderstanding of everything.

The worst punishment from God is the separation from Him.

It is because of the Biblical curse on man's search for knowledge, which has so paralyzed his mind during the past ages, and its detrimental effect upon progress, that makes the Bible the most wicked, the most detestable, the most pernicious, and the most obnoxious book ever published. ... We will never achieve intellectual liberty until the wickedness of this book has been discarded with the belief in the flatness of the earth.

The Bible is most dangerous book ever written on earth, keep it under lock and key.

Even after his conversion, the true 'apostate' is not primarily committed to the positive contents of his new belief and to the realization of its aims. He is motivated by the struggle against the old belief and lives on for its negation. The apostate does not affirm his new convictions for their own sake; he is engaged in a continuous chain of acts of revenge against his own spiritual past. In reality he remains a captive of this past, and the new faith is merely a handy frame of reference for negating and rejecting the old. As a religious type, the apostate is therefore at the opposite pole from the 'resurrected,' whose life is transformed by a new faith which is full of intrinsic meaning and value.

As Shah Jahan made apostasy criminal, he took similar measures to enforce the Muslim penal code in connexion with other religious crimes as well. Blasphemy was once again made a criminal offence. A Hindu who was alleged to have behaved disrespectfully towards the Quran was executed. Ghhaila, a Brahman and provincial qSnungo of Berar, lost his head because he was similarly accused of disrespectful language towards the Prophet. While Aurangzeb was Viceroy of Gujarat, Raju, a Sayyid holding heretic views, was first expelled from Ahmedabad and subsequently killed on his opposing the imperial officers sent in order to accomplish and hasten his departure.

This situation leads me to reflect more and more on the message of Our Lady of Fatima, who warns us against the evil—one even more serious than the very serious evils suffered because of the propagation of atheistic Communism—of apostasy from the faith in the Church. Paragraph 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that ‘Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers,’ and that ‘the persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.’ In such a situation, the bishops and the cardinals have the duty to proclaim true doctrine. At the same time, they have the duty to lead the faithful to make reparation for offenses against Christ and for the wounds inflicted on His Mystical Body, the Church, when the faith and discipline are not preserved correctly and promoted by her pastors. If the Pope does not perform his duty for the good of all souls, it is not only possible but also necessary to criticize the Pope. This criticism must follow Christ’s teaching about fraternal correction in the Gospel (Mt. 18:15-18). First, the lay person or the pastor must express his criticism privately, which will allow the Pope to correct himself. But if the Pope refuses to correct his seriously defective way of teaching or acting, the criticism must be made public, because the common good in the Church and in the world is at stake. Some have denounced those who have addressed their criticism to the Pope publicly, as though it were a display of rebellion or disobedience, but asking him—with due respect for his office—to correct confusion or error is not an act of disobedience but rather an act of obedience to Christ and therefore to His Vicar on earth.

There can be no mistake more inexcusable and fatal than to doubt, disobey, or neglect the Bible.