The freedom of thought and religion in Islam – I-

For Hasan Yoosofi Eshkevari.

One of the assumptions in the dialogue of the civilizations is accepting the variety of ideas and religions. The civilizations are based on different cultures and different cultures have been found on the basis of various schools of thought and religions. Dialogue of civilizations and cultures is not possible without freedom of religion and thought.

The dominant culture in Iran, the one that suggested the idea of dialogue, is based on Islam, while the popular (official and traditional) interpretation of Islam does not apparently reflect that. Therefore the mentioned theory is ensued from another interpretation of Islam. This article is to draw the kind of interpretation of Islam that ensures freedom of religion and thought in Islam.

To reach this ideal it is necessary to answer the following questions: What is meant by freedom of thought and religion? Where does it fit in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? What is the point of view of the popular Islamic interpretation on the subjects of freedom of thought and religion and on what religious documents is it based on? Are freedom of thought and religion beneficial or are they destructive? What is the viewpoint that concords Islam and the freedom of religion and thought, what are its characteristics, and on what religious grounds is it based on?

The assumption of this article is: The freedom of thought and religion is beneficial and its observance in Islam needs studying the fundamental religious rules and a second Ijtihadin in some jurisprudent orders.

The article is made up of several sections. In the first section the fundamental concepts are discussed. In the second section, the popular interpretation of Islam and freedom of thought and religion and its documents would be analyzed. The third part is to prove freedom of thought and religion beneficial. In the fourth section with the use of authentic Islamic text and extraction of fundamental religious rules while criticizing the reasoning of the popular interpretation it has been tried to prove the freedom of religion and thought in Islam. Considering the sensitivity of the subject the author would appreciate criticism beforehand.

Section One: Discussing the fundamental concepts.

The concepts that are used in this discussion are: Freedom, Thought, Religion, Freedom of thought, Freedom of religion, Islam, The popular interpretation, the documents of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is necessary to state that the concepts have been stated in the orders that are to be paid to in the article.

Freedom: The right of man to act and think in all areas as long as his actions does not deprive the right of others and does not lead to the breach of the public peace or order.

Idea: The collection of viewpoints, opinions, beliefs, and impressions that each individual has concerning existence, society, history, man, religion, culture, and etc. Every opinion from the viewpoint of the person who holds it is correct, honest, useful, and superior, while it can be considered as void, delusive, destructive and unlikely to others.

Religion or Creed: A kind of idea, a collection of viewpoints man, the physical and the metaphysical world, ethical manners and practical rules that the believer is to prosper eternally through faith and the deeds that have been brought tot man by the prophet.

Freedom of thought: The right to choose and adhere to any idea. The right to think, believe, expression, teaching and promoting, and acting on the beliefs long as his action does not deprive the right of others and does not lead to the breach of the public peace or order. Freedom of thought is realized when the beliefs of a person does not lead to the deprivation of his individual and social rights no matter what they are.

Freedom of religion: The right of man to choose any religion. The right to faith, expressing the religion and religious beliefs, and freedom to practice the rituals, teaching the religion to the children and the religious and promoting the religious teachings in the society, putting up shrines, abandoning faith and abandoning the religion (apostasy), abandoning the religious acts, and questioning the religious teachings, as long as his religious acts does not deprive the right or the freedom of others or does not breach the public peace or order. Religious freedom is realized when the religious of the individual what ever that it may be is not considered a crime and does not lead to the deprivation of his individual and social rights in this world.

Islam: Faith in God, resurrection and the prophecy of Mohammad the son of Abdullah as the last prophet of God. Koran- the collection of holy revelations to his prophet-and the practice of the prophet the promise, the deeds and the saying s of the prophet- are the two main resources of Islam. Sunni and Shiite are the great creeds of Islam. Shiite means that after Koran and the prophetic tradition, and the interpretation of the household of the prophet of Koran and tradition it is taken as the third main religious resource. Sunnis do not officially believe in anyone else except the prophet himself as innocent, even though in their religious beliefs they observe in the deeds of the household of the prophet.

The popular interpretation of religion: The dominant understand of Koran and tradition that is often found in the judgment of scholars and orators, and has generally become the consuetude of the intellectuals in the world of Islam, and the historical deeds of the Moslems is also in concord with it, and it can be taken as traditional. In societies that the Islamic rule is sovereign the official interpretation is often as mentioned. Some modern faithful thinkers have questioned this kind of interpretation in the last century. These teologists have a different interpretation of Koran and tradition (and the manners of the household of the prophet in Shiite).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The international declarations, pacts, and protocols that have been legislated, with different dimensions, by the member states in the last half of this century (the majority of all the states) and are taken as universal criterion. The signatory states of these documents can sign these conditionally or absolutely or with a set condition.

The most important documents of he Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning the freedom of thought and religion are: Articles 2,18,19,26(sections2&3),29(section2)of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles2(section1),18,19,and 20of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Section Two: Freedom of religion and belief in the popular interpretation of Islam:

When we come to religion people can be divided in to three groups: 1) The Moslems 2) The Jews, the Christians, and the Zoroastrian and 3) The Heathen. The popular interpretation of Islam has different judgments for each group. We would first refer to the most original sources concerning these judgments, and then we would pay to its proof.

The first group: The Moslems

The Moslems are free to openly practice their religion, express their religious beliefs, practice their rituals alone in groups, teach religion to their children and all believers the rituals of Hajj and sacrifice, advertise and promote the religious teachings in society and build mosque. They have the right to critic all other religions and reveal its shortcomings and shoe the supreNawaaty of Islam. Nobody has the right to force a Moslem to leave his religion with duress or to prevent him from the religious ceremonies. There is a consensus in this and there are no differences in this area. Yet in the following judgments freedom has not been considered:

A Moslem is not free to change his religion, for example become a Christian or a Buddhist and or become an atheist. A Moslem who for any reason leaves his religion, or in other words becomes an apostate would be severely punished. The child of a Moslem who has chosen to become a Moslem after maturity and then has become an apostate-which means a inborn apostate-would have the following sentence: 1) His repenting and Islam are not apparently accepted 2) Would be executed 3) His wife would be separated from him without divorce and would get the period of abstention in the case of husband’s death (three consecutive menses) 4) His property would be divided among his heir.

The repenting of a child whose parents have not been Moslems yet has chosen Islam after his maturity and then has become an apostate (a national apostate) would be accepted. If he repents and brings Islam until the end of the third day then he would be spared otherwise he would be executed. And as soon as he becomes an apostate his spouse would be separated from him without divorce. _ For a Moslem woman who becomes an apostate her spouse would be separated from her without divorce and the period of abstention in the case of divorce (three consecutive menses) would be necessary. And her repenting would be accepted .If she repents she would be spared otherwise her sentence would be life imprisonment with forced labor until she repents or dies [2].

Therefore for a Moslem who becomes an apostate and does not agree to return to Islam if he is a man he would be executed and if she were a woman she would be sentenced to life-imprisonment with forced labor.

A Moslem is not free to deny the affair that in the religious custom has been appointed to Islam because he has other opinions. If a Moslem denies an affair that in the religious custom of the time is indispensable to religion and as a result denying, the religion or the prophet go under question then even if he counts himself as a Moslem, he would be taken as an apostate and he would be sentenced as an apostate [3]. The new impressions of some of the Islamic scholars of some religious judgments can easily come under the mentioned case, as through history charging people with apostasy and infidelity has not been few [4].

A youth whose both parents or one of them has been a Moslem is not free to choose another religion other than Islam after maturity. If he does not become a Moslem for any reason he would be considered as a national apostate and he would be sentenced accordingly, meaning that he would first be asked to repent and if he does not accept depending on whether he is a boy or a girl he would be either sentenced to death or life-imprisonment with forced labor, and the end of the sentence would be determined either by death or repenting [5].

A Moslem is not free to abandon the religious incumbents or to do things that are prohibited by the religion. If he does this intentionally and with knowledge he would be punished and the punishment would be given by the Sharia judge[6](The best example would be the punishment of whipping).

The second group: The adherent to one of the other four recognized religions (Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism)

Apparently the Subea (A sect that is between Christianity and Judaism) is also put in this group [7]. The other infidels are not in any way considered in this group [8]. It is necessary for the Moslems to fight with the adherent to one of the other four recognized religions so that they would choose one of the two ways: To bring Islam or by paying tribute accept the humiliation of accepting the obligations and go by the special laws that has been made for them.

If they accept the conditions then their lives, property, and women would be safe. The religious leader would set the amount of tribute and the conditions would be as he sees fit. If it would lead to them becoming a Moslem they would have the right to practice their religion openly and to express their religious ideas. With the permission of the religious leader they would be able to keep their shrines and to practice their religious ceremonies either alone or in groups, and teach the religious affairs to the people of their religion. They can leave their religions and bring the permissible religions (in their own religion) changing their religion to Islam in any condition would be possible. They can leave their religious practices and critic their own religious teachings.

The judgments of the followers of the Zoroaster, Moses and Christ who after entering the agreement with the head of the Islamic government acquire rights and obligations under law in following cases is against the freedom of religion and ideas:

They are not free to train their children in a way that they would adopt the religion of their parents, meaning that they can not forbid their children to go to Islamic gathering and propaganda centers, they are obligated to leave them alone so that they can choose their own way and it is obvious that the way that is correspondent with the inborn nature of the child, Islam, would be chosen [9].

They are not free to build churches, synagogues, monastery, or a temple of fire [10].
They are not free to advertise and promote their religion and weaken the faith of the Moslems. Spreading their ideas is forbidden [11].

They cannot critic the Islamic teachings.
They cannot openly practice what is permissible in their religion yet it is at the same time prohibited in Islam [12].

They are not free to change to any other religion (like Christianity, Judaism, or Zoroastrism) except Islam, otherwise they would be killed [13].

They don’t have the permission to stay in the Islamic community if they don’t go through with their obligations. In that they can go to a safe location or the religious leader has the right to kill them, slave them or get ransom from them are two opinions [14].

The third group: The others

The non-Moslem whether he is a Christian, Jew or a Zoroastrian or not that have not accepted the mentioned obligations and the other heathen are considered infidels deserving to be fought against. It is indispensable that they would be presented with Islam. If they accept then there is no problem but if they don’t accept then the holy war against them would be indispensable [15]. Their wives and children would be slaves and all of their property and land would be confiscated as plunder [16]. Even though the well known view point of the Shiite scholars impermissibility of the preliminary holy war is for the time of absence [17] but today the permission of the preliminary holy war for the time of absence is also one of the important opinions [18]. Therefore the non-Moslem not paying tribute who does not accept Islam does not basically have the right to live, and it is needless to say that he would be deprived of other rights as well, therefore the judgment for the infidels is completely in contrast with freedom of religion and belief.

With a look at the judgments for the three groups we can conclude that if the popular interpretation gets more power the freedom of religion and belief would practically be out of the question. Through the discussion that was had I don’t think that there is any doubt that the popular interpretation does not reflect freedom of religion and belief. And now very briefly we would pay to the most important documents of the above judgments. From the above judgments from every section we would choose a judgment and then we would analyze its most crucial reason. The three judgments that have been chosen are: 1) the death sentence for an apostate Moslem 2) the tribute for the followers of Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrism, and 3) the infidel who does not pay tribute and him not having the right to live.
The documents for the heavy punishment of an apostate Moslem are some traditions.

The Sunnis refer to this tradition of the prophet that states: “Kill any one who changes his religion” [19]. One of the documents for the punishment of the natural apostate is the valid tradition of the Amar Sabati.

I heard Imam Sadegh stating that: Any Moslem who leaves Islam and denies Mohammad’s prophetic mission and accuses him of falsehood, his blood is permissible for who ever that has heard him and his spouse is to be separated from him from the day of his apostasy and his property is to be divided among his heirs, and his wife would get a period of abstention that is for the husband’s death (4 months and 10 days) and it would be a necessity for the Imam to kill him and not accepting his repentance [20].

Among the evidences for the punishment of a national apostate is the authentic tradition by Ali-ebn-Jafar to his brother Abel-Hassan.

It has been said that Imam Musa-ebn-Jafar has stated that: I inquired him about a Moslem that had become a Christian and he said that he would be killed and his repentance would not be accepted. I asked him that if a Christian becomes a Moslem and then becomes an apostate then what is to be done? He stated that his repentance would be accepted and if comes back to Islam nothing but if he doesn’t then he would be killed [21].

Among the evidences that are referred to for the punishment of women is the authentic tradition of Imad.

I asked Imam Sadegh about an apostate Moslem. He stated that she would not be killed, would be given hard labor and would be deprived of any nourishment or drinks except that which is necessary to keep her alive, and she is to be worn rough clothes and would be beaten at the times of pray [22].

One of the most important evidences for the judgment concerning the followers of Zoroaster, Moses and Christ who after entering into agreement with the head of the Islamic government acquire rights and obligations under the law is this Koranic verse: “Fight the followers of the book whop don’t have faith in god and resurrection and do not pay attention to the things that are prohibited by god and his prophet through religion, and do not practice the just religion, fight until they pay tribute with their own hands with humiliation [23].
The most important evidences of the infidels who do not pay tribute are:

Fight all heathen as they fight you [24].
And at the end of the Hiram month, kill the infidels where you find them and take them as prisoners and siege them and prey for them everywhere, and then if they start to pray and repent and pay religious tax (Zakat) let them be free, that God is kind and merciful [25].
Fight with them (The infidels) until there is no evil and there is Godly religion everywhere. And if they let go god is observant of their thoughts [26].

Pondering in the above evidences shows that the popular interpretation of Islam has considerable evidences in denying the freedom of thought and religion in the holy book and the tradition. The critical analysis of these evidences will come in the fourth chapter.

Section Three: Freedom of religion and thought as a merit

In this section we are to analyze freedom of thought and religion rationally, without using any narrative schemes. First we would endeavor to create the thinking atmosphere of the deniers of the freedom of religion and thought and then through it’s criticism we would pay to proving the freedom of thought and religion as a merit and a positive element.

The subject of freedom of religion and thought is not comparable with the subjects of pray and seizure so that its merits and demerits be veiled to the human mind. Therefore it can be talked about. Without a doubt, anyone who has rendered a judgment in this area has definitely done so after evaluating the costs and the benefits. The religious scholars, the orators and the decision makers are not an exception .One who gives a religious injunction against the freedom of religion and thought, no doubt have evaluated the cost and disadvantages, and the evils of freedom and one who stresses on the freedom of religion and thought for sure knows the advantages, good and the benefits of it. If the problem of freedom of thought and religion is a rational on e then before analyzing the rational judgments-that would definitely refer to the intellect as the final resource-solve the issue in the realm of intellect and reason.

Other than being an issue that is not concerns of pray and being a rational issues the freedom of thought and religion is a question that has a history that is more ancient than religion. It is prior to choosing of the religion and idea. Through accepting that religion is chosen and an idea is selected. How can a religion that wants its followers to research and accept a religious idea with the help of reasoning and analysis and considers copying in the area of belief as null deny the freedom of religion and thought?

The result of a research cannot be imposed before it is done. This that we say that the people are free to research through religions and ideas but they must definitely choose Islam is an incomplete statement. If they are free then the result cannot be determined beforehand and if the result has been determined beforehand and they have no choice but to accept it then they are not free. What is the difference if an individual has been born in a Moslem family and has been matured in an Islamic society and therefore is a Moslem and that one has been born in a Christian family, has matured in a Christian society an as a result he is a Christian? Good and operative ideas are the choices are for conscious individuals. How can a religion that denies the freedom of religion and thought expect freely choose it and when they do their freedom be taken away from them?

Unfortunately the subjects of freedom of religion and thought have not been paid to as an individual issues. Therefore its framework and ways has not been clearly drawn. Therefore it is natural that in the interpretation of some judgments like the punishment of an apostate, the conditions that are to be accepted by the followers of Moses, Jesus and Zoroastra, and the infidel not having the right of life if he does not accept those conditions enough attention has not been paid to the common religious rules and the fundamentals of religion.

Critic on the presuppositions of denying the freedom of thought and religion

  First:

The possibility of the realization of a closed society. Meaning that the cultural atmosphere of a society can be controlled in a way that no unwanted judgment contaminates the general atmosphere, and the people not being informed of the null ideas and religions in order to be influenced or deviate from the right path.

  Second:

The effect of heavy punishments for the cause of reforming the society. The nature of man is in a way that it must be kept away from the null by force, violence and applying pressure, otherwise, meaning that if he is free he would be deviated from the right path and demons would be in control of his life. If leaving Islam would have a death sentence then no one would feel like apostasy. If the followers of the holy books feel the humiliation if one who has to pay tribute then they would become Moslems, and if the infidels are to choose between death and Islam then they would surely choose the latter. Generally speaking there is no other way if the right religion is to dominate the world.

  Third:

Completely forbidding propaganda. Human-beings are in a way that if they are exposed by the propaganda of various ideas and religions they would easily be deviated from the right path and would be influenced by the evil forces and would lose their religion and creed. The only way that people would be able to keep their religion is to forbid the advertising of other religions and ideas otherwise there is no guarantee that people would be faithful to their religion.

  Fourth:

Predicting any heavy punishments in the case of this special religion having rough clashes with other ideas and religions. In the last millennium religions and ideas have had hostile contacts with each other, therefore these kinds of judgments have been particularly Islamic and have been popular in the ancient world and as a result they have never been taken as a wrong or something to be ashamed of.

  Fifth:

The obligation to spread an exoteric, and superficial Islam: It is clear that fear of death or escaping tribute and st6aying as a Moslem for the fear of death sentence of an apostate is in concord with the superficial Islam, but we have no reason to believe that it would lead to a real inner Islam. Even though it is difficult to imagine that these judgments would strengthen the faith, and moral and the penetration of the real religion. Now don’t the religious scholars have a duty to see to it that religion has affected the very core of the society?

There is no doubt that the mentioned judgments are in concord with the five principles above, yet the authenticity and completeness one each and every one of them is disputable. I quickly point to them and pass.

1 : The fast and astonishing progress of technology in the field of communication has made the realization of a closed society impossible. Whether we want it or not general information about religions and ideas is accessible through the language of their owners.

2 : Even though heavy punishments and terror is very much effective in apparent acceptance yet it has a negative effect when it has to be accepted by the heart. We must evidently reconsider our anthropology. Man must be trusted, he accepts right in free conditions, and the important thing is that he should be informed and that he can choose freely.

3 : In today’s world, a hostile, and violent encounter with the religions and ideas has no place and these kinds of judgments cause general hatred and repellence toward that idea and are not attractive.

4 : If something for example causes a decrease in faith and religion authentically, considering that the aim of the religions is inner change how can we consent to such affair?

Intellect and its stand towards the freedom of religion and idea

After a short introduction and critic of the fundamentals of the denial of freedom of religion and thought we would pay to the explanation and interpretation of what intellect dictates concerning this matter.

1. Idea and religion are affairs that are chosen, or left freely by the people. Choosing s certain idea or religion are based on reasons and preludes that with their realization the idea is accepted, and with out it the idea is discarded. If the reasons and the preludes of the idea are present, force and pressure can never take that idea away from a person or change it, and if the reasons and preludes are not present, force and pressure can never create it. That which is created with force and pressure is only a fake idea and no more.

2. It is clear that all ideas and religions present in human societies do not all enjoy the same validity and justification, and in addition there is no doubt that some of these religions are null nevertheless some people have faith in these religions that we consider as null. The best way to change and reform the null ideas is convincing their believers, and convincing cannot be done but in a free atmosphere. If they didn’t accept we don’t have a duty that is more than that. Meaning that we are not let to make them accept our religion with force and pressure. Deprivation of freedom of thought and religion would lead to the acceptance of a certain idea or religion. Force and terror in the case of religions and ideas would make them go underground and it being hidden but it would not do away with it altogether. Till man sees a benefit in a certain religion like well-being or something that takes heals their pain in this world or a thing that is to lead them spiritual summits they would not let go of it. The durability of any idea in history points to the benefit that it has bright for its believers. Man is very strict in changing his idea specially if it is a religious one, this change comes when they are convinced and not ewhen they are forced.

3. Then we can say that the world is a place that one is put through test. Man is free to choose between the different religions and ideas in this world, a choice that might be right or wrong, just or null, and based on our idea he would clearly see the result in the other world. If man was to choose the right religion by force or if there were conditions that made anything but the right path impossible (otherwise he would be killed) God would be the first to be entitled to such a right and could have created man as theangelsandmaketheirworldastheirswithoutanycontrastofrightandwrong. Then whatwould be the meaning of the punishment of the wrongdoers and the awards given to the pious and the good in the other world?

4. The abundance of ideas among the people is inevitable. At least history of man up to now shows this. Deprivation of freedom and religion in such abundance would lead to discord, deceit and hypocrisy. The believers of the forbidden religions, ones that could even be sentenced to death or would be deprived of many of their legal rights if they express their idea, have no other way but to act as they believe in the dominant religion. Hypocrisy destroys faith, and with multiplication of hypocrites a society that is based on faith cannot be founded. The spread of hypocrisy and discord is the inevitable result of deprivation of freedom of religion and thought.

5. Many of the religions and ideas introduce themselves as the most complete, best, and last religion or idea and their believers believe this claim. There is no doubt that in the other world these ideas would be tested and just would be cleared from the unjust, but in the world it is centuries that every religion has based its reasoning on this great claim and this has apparently not been able to convince others. If any possessor of an idea or religion that claims to have the most complete, the most perfect, and the only acceptable idea or religion forbids other religions and only gives freedom to the followers of his religion (without letting them change their religion) then the religious societies would be closed and the secular areas would become open societies. The most perilous situation for a religion is to be put in a closed atmosphere and society that would stop its growth, and development, and would lead to its impeding. The followers of such religions and ideas as soon as they are put in a free atmosphere lose their religion and idea, or their faith would become weak.

6. The prohibition of freedom of religion and idea even in that religion and idea would lead to a kind of formal inflexibility and would make any innovation and ijtihad extremely difficult. Sentencing as an apostate, infidel, or heathen is the fruit of such societies, and its result is the deprivation of society of the judgment of its most powerful intellectuals.

7. If the followers of a religion or idea don’t give freedom to the followers of other religions and ideas (even not giving their own followers the freed to change their religion) and then it is retaliated and others choose the same means and limit or deprive the followers of this religion or special idea, outside of the dominion of this religion and special idea, who is the one that gets hurt? Other than this religion and special idea?

8. The disadvantages and the demerits of the prohibition of the freedom of religion and idea is to the point that in case of being informed no wise man would ever accept it. The scholars that have issued the judgments of the prohibition of freedom of religion and ideas have imagined that this way the good of religion and its ways would be considered more, there is no doubt that if they are also put in such an atmosphere they would reconsider. It is very likely that the possibility of the youth and children from the right path can be pointed to as one of the evils of the prohibition of the freedom of religion and ideas. It is obvious that education and advertisement among the children and the youth has its rules and that the parents have the main role in the religious teachings of their children. In addition all the activities of the followers of other various religions and ideas in a free society is regulated by the law and no religious and faithful person doesn’t have the right to disregard the rights and the legal freedoms of an others, or public order using the excuse that he is practicing his religion.

9. Religions and ideas that have a strong and rational base don’t fear their presence in the arena of freedom of religions and ideas. It is clear that religions and ideas with a weak base fear competing in the arena of ideas and thoughts and make-up for their weakness by declaring war on the freedom of religion and thought.

10. This viewpoint that it should be differentiated between the freedom of thought and the freedom of idea and accepting the freedom of thought because of it being sound and the denial of the freedom of idea because of the possibility that some rational ideas may not be correct is not acceptable [27], since thinking is not in need of justification from an authority and can not in general possible to forbid it so that by the promise of the freedom of thought we can make him indebted. The thing that is disputable is the expression of idea and acting on the basis of that idea. Therefore differentiating between thought and idea is not the solution to our problem. Because who would think of his idea as null and not good? A person who differentiates in such a way is put in the group of the people that deny the freedom of thought and idea.

Therefore it can be concluded freedom of religion and thought rationally speaking is goo and positive through the viewpoint of the sages, therefore it is pleasant and beneficial.

……………………

Footnote:

1 This paper was read in international congress of human rights and the dialog of civilizations in Tehran , may 6, 2001. Translated from Persian to English by Arash. Khalatbari

2 The above judgments are based on the religious injunctions of Shiite scholars for example refer to:
Imam Rouhollah Khomeini, Tahrir ol’vasile, Ketab ol’ers, Mavane ol’ers, Al’Kofr, problem 10,ch2, pgs.366&367 and Ketab ol’Mahdood, Algol Fi Ertedad, Problem 1,ch2, pg.494
Ayatollah seyyed Abolghasem Khoi, Mabani Takalomat ol’Menhaj, Al’Ertedad, ch.1pgs.324&327 and problem 271,pg.330.

By hard labor it is meant getting beaten at the time of pray, harsh forced labor, being deprived of drinking and eating more than it is necessary and being worn rough cloths (Mabani Takalomat ol’Menhaj Ch.1 pgs.331&332).

The Sunni scholars don’t have a consensus about the killing of an apostate in the case of repenting, Only Hanfieh know the punishment of the woman apostate as imprisonment with hard labor until she brings Islam, in addition they know repenting as permissible and not mandatory. For example refer to Al’Daktour Vahbata Zahili, Al’Fegh ol’ Islami Ve Adlate.ch.6, pgs.183-193

3 Ayatollah Seyyed Kazem Tabatabai Yazdi, Al’Arvate Al’Vasge, Ketab ol’Taharat, Fi al’Nejasat, Al’Samen, ch.1, pg.67.
Tahri ol’Vasile, Ketab ol’Taharat, Fi bayan ol’Nejasat, Al’Asher, vh.1, pg.118.
Menhaj ol’Salehin, Ketab ol’Tahare, Al’Ayan ol’Najesat, ch1, pg.109.

For sample religious injunctions of the Sunni scholars refer to: Al’Fegh al’Islami Ve Adelate ch.6pg.183.

4 The judgment of excommunication for the biggest Islamic scholars whether sophist or philosopher like Avisina, Sohrevardi, Sad ol’Moteahelin, Mohiedin ebn Arabi and even recently in between the scholars Sheikh Hadi Najm Abadi (Known as Mokafer) are small samples that represent a whole bigger group.

5 Refer to Tahrir ol’Vasile, Ketab ol’ Hodood, Al’ghole Fi Ertedad, problem 4,ch2, and pg.495.

6 Mabani Takalomat ol’Menhaj, problem 282,ch.1, pg.337. Dar Tahrirat ol’ Vasile (Forou Had ol’ Ghasf, Al’Khames, ch.2, pg477.) Not doing that which is by religion necessary and committing that by religion has been forbidden are included in punishments that have maximum and minimum if they are considered as great sins

7 Menhaj ol’Salehin, ch.1, pg.361&391, Ketab ol’Jahad, problem 62..

8 Previous 391/1 and Tahriret ol’ Vasile, Tatamat Ketab ol’Hodood, Ahkame Ahle Zamme, problem 2,ch2, pg.497.
9 Menha ol’Salehin, Ketab ol’Jahad, problem 81,ch 1,pg.397.

10 Tahrir ol’Vasile, Sharaet ol’Zemme, Al’ Sades, ch. 2,pg.502.,Menhaj ol’Salehin, Ketab ol’Jahad, problem 85,ch.1, pg.399.

11 Tahrir ol’Vasile, Ketab ol’Hodood, Foroue Ahkame Ahle Zemme, Alrabe, ch.2, pg.507.

12 Tahriat ol’Vasile, Ketab ol’ Houdoud, AL’Sani Men Forou el’Ahkame Ahle Zemme, ch.2, pg.506, Mehnaj ol’ Salehin, Ketab ol’Jahad, problem 80,ch.1, pg.397.

13 ] Tahrir ol’Vasile, Ketab ol’hodood, Al’Aval Men Foroue el’Ahkamme Ahle Zemme, ch 2, pg.506.

14 Men Haj ol’Salehin, Ketab ol’ Jahad, problem 82, ch.1, pg.398, Tahrir ol’ Vasile, Sharaet ol’ Zemme, problem 8, ch.2, pg. 503.

15 Men Haj ol’Salehin, Ketab ol’ Jahad, ch.1, pg.360.

16 Mne Haj ol’Salehin, Ketab ol’Jahad, Al’Ghanaem, ch.1, pgs.379-381.

17 Tahrir ol’Vasile, Ketab ol’Amre Be Marouf Ve Nahye As Monker, Khotam, problem 2,ch.1pg.482.

18 For example refer to: Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammad Momen Ghomi, Kalamate Sadideh Fi Masael Jadideh, Kalamate Fi al’Jahad el’Ebtedai,pg. 315-358, and Ayatollah Khoii, Menhaj ol’Salehin, Ketab ol’Jahad, ch.1,pgs. 364-366.

19 Neil ol’Vetar, ch. 7,pg.90.

20 Al’Kafi, ch. 7, pg.287, tradition 11,Men la Yahzarol Faghih, ch.3, pg.98, tradition 333,Al’Tahzib, ch 10,pg.136, tradition 541, Al’Estebsar, ch.4, pg 283, tradition 957, Vasaelat ol’ Shiite, Abvab Had ol’Mortad, section 1,tradition 3,ch.28, pg.324.

21 Al’ Kafi, ch.7, pg.287, tradition 10, Al’Tahzib, ch.10, pg.138, tradition 548,Al’Estebsar, ch.4,pg 254,tradition 963, Vasael Al’Shiite,Abvabehade ol’Mortad,section 1,tradition 5,ch.28,pg.325.

22 Al’ Tahzib, ch.10, pg.143, tradition 565, Men layahzarol’Faghih,ch. 3, pg.89, tradition 335, Vasael ol’Shiite, Abvabe Had ol’Mortad,section 4, tradition 1, ch.28,pg.330.

23 Tobeh Chapter, Verse 29.

24 Tobeh Chapter, Verse 29.

25 Tobeh Chapter, Verse 5.

26 Enfal Chapter, Verse 39.

27 Professor Martyr Motahari, A book about the Islamic Republic, 87-136 and a book about the Islamic revolution pgs.6-22.

1|2|3