No, It's not the Hudud, it's the Deen itself

You know, there's an impression that Muslim societies have lower crime rates than the West because of the Hudud, because of the Sharia punishments, because we have strict laws and severe punishments. I mean, that's even one of the things that Andrew Tate talked about. It's one of the things that made him think that that that's what made our society superior. I mean, ironically, he based that on his experiences and observations of Islam in The UAE, which is a country that most of the people most of the Muslims who like Andrew Tate consider that to be an un Islamic country ruled by an apostate regime, but never mind that. But we hear this from many others.

I mean, people like Owen Benjamin, for example. He talks about it too. And it's safe to say that this is the predominant opinion. The it's the the general impression that most westerners have about the sharia and the Islamic approach to law enforcement. Whether they, like it or not, whether they are for it or against it, whether they're, complimenting it or criticizing it.

And when we see, non Muslims admiring this alleged strictness and harshness of the Sharia, we say yes. We Muslims have tough laws and this makes our societies safer than yours. We let the impression of non Muslims about Islam become our own impressions about Islam because we're so happy to hear anything from you that doesn't sound like hate that we'll just run with it. And that's called being an unapologetic Muslim. Saying about Islam whatever the Kufar say about Islam, but then just tagging on to the end of it, so what?

You know? They'll say Islam is oppressive to women, and then we'll say, yes, it's it's oppressive to women, so what? They'll say Islam is a violent religion, and we'll say, yes, Islam is a violent religion, so what? They'll say, Islam kills anyone who leaves the religion, who leaves Islam, and we'll say, yes, we do. What are you gonna do about it?

That's being an unapologetic Muslim. But no, the Hudud is not why there's less crime in the Muslim world. That's not why. We have lower crime rates because we have fewer people in our societies who are morally inclined towards committing crimes. And I don't know why no one seems to wanna point that out.

This is the most obvious factor. I mean, you have prison terms in The United States that are called multiple life sentences as if you could be reincarnated after you die in prison and then be, taken from the maternity ward as a newborn and shoved into a prison cell. And I don't think that the conditions in prison are more harsh or more violent than they are in America, anywhere in the world. But that doesn't stop those people. That doesn't stop Americans and Europeans and so on from committing crimes though, does it?

They have strict and harsh punishments, but they still have, like in America, per capita more people incarcerated than any other people on earth, than any other country on earth, but their crime rates stay high. No. This isn't about a difference between, who has the most harsh and the most severe punishments. This is a difference in the refinement and the advancement of the morality of the society. That's what makes the difference.

You know, someone emailed me the other day asking about the punishment for apostasy, and I'm pretty sure that this came because of the debate. And anyway, this is one of the issues that regularly comes up when people want to attack Islam, Because we all know that the punishment for apostasy is death. It's not an ambiguous issue in the sharia. Now, usually when people are asked about this so I've heard many people say, you know, these sort of modern rationales and explanations to try to justify the the death penalty for apostasy, and they'll say that this is similar to high treason against the state, which is a capital crime in western societies, in western countries, secular societies. Because in Islamic history, allegiance to Islam was like the equivalence of loyalty to one's country and so on.

They'll say that. We've all heard that argument, I think. You know, the idea that leaving Islam was like being a traitor to your country. But then when you when you use this kind of a rationale, then you can say that, well, today, this is no longer the case because religion doesn't have that status anymore. And then you can say, well, maybe those rules don't apply anymore.

I think this is dangerous. I've heard that argument. I'm sure everyone has heard that argument. But this ruling isn't a fifth ruling. That means it's not specific to any particular time and place in history or or to particular historical circumstances.

This is a ruling of the Sharia. It's a statement of Rasulullah That means it's applicable for all time. This is the judgment of Allah I mean, yes, there were some scholars in history, classical scholars who took a different view on apostasy, but it's pretty clear that they were in the minority. So I don't think that there's any point that can be honestly argued whether or not this is the correct ruling or what the correct ruling is. The only thing that you can really differ about would have to do with any factors around implementation of the ruling.

In other words, whether or not this ruling or this punishment will be implemented in any given case, you know, or whether the punishment might be waived for some reason that's determined by the authorities according to what they think is in the best interest of the society, while still upholding that the punishment is right and it is just and it is warranted. You can have some leniency with regards to implementation. You it's just like when Rasulullah refused to let Amr ibn Al Khattab kill, Dul Khawisira, even though practically speaking, he had blasphemed by accusing Rasulullah of being unjust in his distribution of the. But Rasulullah said that he didn't want his enemies and the enemies of the Muslims to say that Muhammad kills his companions. So he deemed that not imposing the punishment that had earned, he thought that not imposing it was better than imposing it.

And when Ahmed bin Al Khattab suspended the for a theft, he suspended that during a famine. So, you know, throughout Islamic history, the rulers and judges have flexibility in the implementation of punishments as long as they don't change the punishments out of a denial that they are divinely revealed and correct. In other words, the punishment not being implemented, has to be for some reason, and that reason can't be because they disagree with the Hud punishment, that they can't think that the Hud is incorrect. You can't say that the Hudu does not apply, but you can potentially argue that there are reasons why implementing a punishment might be better to waive it. It might be better to not implement it on the basis of some kind of or common good.

You can differ over the implementation, but not over the law. However, you also have to bear in mind, and when Kufar bring this up, you have to bear in mind and bring it to their attention that you can't actually, discuss a law in a vacuum. It has to be in the context of legal system as a whole. Any law is contextualized by the entirety of the legal code and the procedures of the system, including the moral character of the system. And in fact, you have to consider it within the overall context of the society itself and the character of the society Because the Islamic approach to law and to punishment inclines very strongly towards lenience and mercy.

I mean, this is even seen in how a crime can progress to the point of punishment. Someone has to actually bring the matter to the judge or to the authorities. Rasulullah And encouraged people to settle their issues between themselves before they ever brought it to him for a judgment. And you know the the jurists always said that every possible attempt should be made to avoid imposing a had punishment. I mean, not only is there a presumption of innocence, not only is there a presumption of innocence, but every excuse will be sought, sometimes very creatively and imaginatively.

Attempts will be made at mediation. Sometimes there's even an opportunity for repentance in some cases. And the standard for proof of guilt is incredibly high for some types of crimes. And no one is, you know, in Islamic society, no one's going around trying to discover what you're doing. And like I said, someone has to actually bring the matter to the judges.

No one's gonna find it out. Someone has to, you know, either be a witness or a victim, or something like that, and then bring the matter to the authorities. And then the authorities themselves have to decide whether or not to pursue the issue, meaning to investigate it, to prosecute it, and so on. They may or may not do that, and that's up to their discretion. So if someone, apostatizes, they would have to generally apostatize quite belligerently in public.

They would have to be antagonistic in their apostasy for anyone to be driven to the point of taking that matter to a judge, to seek a punishment for that person. Because honestly, most people don't care. Most people don't care what you do. And most people who leave Islam, especially in the Muslim world, those are already, people who are known by the people around them to be unstable individuals or to be corrupt or to be, you know, uneducated in the religion, which is always the case, or unpracticing and so on. They're already most likely the kind of people, that no one really bothers with in the first place.

So it's highly unlikely that any of these people would ever be reported to the authorities, like I said, unless they're being antagonistic, and they're trying to create justifications, for being granted asylum in the West. And that's the truth of why most of these, career ex Muslims say that their lives were in danger in the Muslim world, precisely because they wanted to go to the West and become career ex Muslims. And in order to do that, they had to, tell the US embassy that they were in danger. I mean, let's be honest. Apostates in the Muslim world, if they face any threats, which is mostly fiction, but if they face, any threats or danger, it's most likely going to be from their own families, who are upset about what they're doing.

You know? Almost none of these people are being prosecuted by the state, for their apostasy, And and almost no one who is prosecuted by the state ever gets executed. I can't think of a single example, where that actually happened. I mean, I saw, that Moroccan that Moroccan Murtid on the Patrick Bet David podcast talking about his life being in danger in Morocco. Well, Morocco doesn't even have apostasy laws or blasphemy laws.

That man wasn't under any sort of threat. Now you might get, jumped by people who know you, people in your neighborhood, people who are angry at you for what you're doing. But again, that's almost always gonna be because the person who is apostatizing is being belligerent about it. They're being obnoxious about how they're leaving Islam and and how Islam is bad and so on. They're being obnoxious about it, and that's why they're having a problem with people who know them.

And, of course, the only people, you know, whoever do claim that they face threats for leaving Islam are the career ex Muslims who are among the most obnoxious people that you'll ever see. So that kind of confirms it. I mean, you have to admit, it's a bit, conspicuously contradictory that you have all these people making a career out of being apostates while continuously claiming that apostates all get killed. Now if someone has a problem with the punishment because they think it's too harsh, even in theory, because in practice, as I said, there's a lot of other factors that would have to be there for someone to actually have the punishment imposed upon them. But if you think just even in theory that the punishment is too harsh, then that's a subjective value judgment that is informed by a value system other than Islam, and you should try to evaluate, the actual worth and consistency and the soundness and the practical utility of that alternative value system because I guarantee it is a chaotic, self contradictory, and arbitrary value system.

And I guarantee, that it condones a great deal of evil. And I guarantee that it's a value system, that has actually caused misery and pain for everyone who has ever subscribed to that value system. Most of the severest punishments in the Sharia, like I said, are hedged on all sides by conditions and procedures that decrease the likelihood of implementation. They exist in the law and they function in the society almost as warnings, as lessons to people, moral lessons to emphasize the gravity and the seriousness of certain types of actions. And there's a consistency between the, severity of the punishment and the seriousness of the crime and the consistency with the overall, moral teachings in the religion about sin.

It's all unified. The intent is to actually refine criminality and sin out of the population and to give them a very, mature appreciation about the consequences of their actions and about the seriousness of their responsibility, first towards their creator, then towards themselves, and then towards their communities. In the West, in America specifically, popular culture glorifies criminality and sin. You almost can't see a Hollywood film, where the hero, the hero mind you, does not commit multiple felonies, which if he if if they were committed in real life, would land him life imprisonment or the death penalty. So there's an inconsistency, between the cultural teachings and the law, between what's being, promoted and what's being prohibited.

I mean, it's almost as if the popular culture is actually trying to, tempt you to become entangled in the criminal justice system. It almost seems like that, doesn't it? In the Muslim world, the popular culture tries to keep you away from that, tries to keep you away from sin and crime. The West more or less gave up on the idea that criminality can be successfully civilized out of the people. They gave up on the idea, of refining the morals and ethics of the population.

And why not? Why wouldn't they do that? There's more money in them being criminals. There's more money in the people being immoral. I mean, the criminal justice system in The United States generates more money than the GDP of a 133 different countries.

Private for profit prisons make hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Local, state, and federal governments rake in about $50,000,000,000 a year just in fines and penalties, criminal fines and penalties. And of course, it's not just that. Promoting, sexual immorality is an even bigger business. You know that treating STDs, sexually transmitted diseases, is a $40,000,000,000 market globally with the Western countries, The US and Europe, particularly and specifically leading the demand.

And obviously, it's a growing market. It's expected to grow. That's not even mentioning the money that they're making treating HIV for years on end and for so called, gender reassignment treatment that goes on for years, if not for a lifetime. I mean, the pornography business in America is worth $15,000,000,000, and alcohol is a market that's worth more than a trillion dollars. You know, there's roughly 2,000,000 arrests in The United States every year for DUIs, and each DUI is estimated to be worth up to $20,000 with that money being spread across multiple sectors from, you know, the financial penalties in the criminal justice system to lawyers to insurance companies and so on.

Not to mention the medical bills for all the people who get injured and for the funeral expenses for, like, more than ten thousand people every year who die in drunk driving crashes. So, yeah, of course, western society is not interested in their people being civilized, being moral, having some kind of moral discipline and self control. Well, I would guess that The US economy would probably be reduced by at least 20 to 30% if the people were not indoctrinated to commit crimes and sins and immorality. That's why they not only don't try to refine them, but actually brainwash people into thinking that all of those things, all of those sins, and all of those crimes are actually just fun and good, and it makes them, have interesting and exciting lives. You know?

It makes them think that, it's them being free and independent and individualistic and all that. Makes them think that they're in a movie. When actually they're all just being sold into hell. Hell on earth and hell in the hereafter. But they don't want you to believe.

They don't want you to believe in hell in the hereafter. They don't want you to believe in the judgment day. They don't want you to believe in accountability before God. That's why their societies are crime ridden and why ours aren't. Because our belief system does not prioritize profit over morality.

Our belief system prioritizes saving people from sin and wrongdoing and saving them from hell on earth and hell in the hereafter. We want people to be good and to lead good lives. We want the people to treat sins like the crimes they are so that they'll be afraid of committing them, not just afraid of the punishment if they get caught. I mean, in Islam, you have to understand, in Islam, we understand, we believe that if you do commit a crime and you do suffer the punishment for that crime, if you get the Hud punishment for that crime, then you're cleared of it in the hereafter. And if you think that the HUD punishments are severe, well, we are more afraid of the punishment in the next life than we are, afraid of the punishments in this life.

And this is what helps to keep us on the right track. And now you might start to understand why we do take apostasy so seriously. Because look at what it's done to the West. Look at what it's done to western society by not taking religion seriously. And no, it doesn't matter if you leave Islam for atheism or you leave Islam for Christianity or some other religion.

Atheism and all those other religions are what you have in the West and what you've always had in the West. And none of that prevented you, from turning into what your societies are now. Those belief systems are not a protection against chaos and evil, and we take chaos and evil seriously. You'd better believe we take that seriously. And if you don't take that seriously, you're a fool, and you must hate the human race itself.

The value system that thinks that the Islamic position on apostasy is harsh is a value system, that feels nothing whatsoever about causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year in their own societies, locking up millions of people and watching tens of millions of people ruin their lives. And on top of all that, they find nothing wrong with letting all that happen and making money off of it. That's a vicious value system. That's a ruthless value system. It's an inhuman value system.

And they're gonna pretend that the sharia is harsh, and that the only reason, that Muslims aren't as bad as they are is because we are scared of the HUD punishments. I mean, look, that's just how incomprehensible it is to you that people can actually, just be good because they know it's better for themselves and better for their society than being bad. That's how incomprehensible it has become to you. If you think that the ruling on apostasy is harsh, then you just don't take God seriously. You just don't take morality seriously.

You don't take right and wrong seriously. And you don't take the truth seriously. And you aren't civilized. And that's exactly why we do take it seriously, so we don't end up like you.