“Execution by Divine Right? How Islam's Justification for Killing Breaks Its Own Rules”

🔍 Introduction

A Christian student questions Islam’s sanction of capital punishment. The response from a mainstream Islamic authority attempts to justify execution as divinely mandated, morally sound, and historically consistent — both in Islam and in Christianity. But when the dust settles, we’re left with more contradictions than answers.

This article exposes the internal breakdown in that defense and the fatal flaw in Islamic jurisprudence when it comes to state-sanctioned killing.

---

⚖️ Part 1: “The Soul Belongs to Allah” — Then Why Is It Forfeitable?

Islamic Claim:

"Yes, the soul belongs to Allah alone. But He permits execution by His decree."

Logical Problem:

1. Premise A: The soul belongs to Allah, and only He has the right to end life.

2. Premise B: Man cannot take a life unless explicitly authorized by divine revelation.

3. But: Execution is carried out by human judges, subject to human error, bias, corruption, and political manipulation — with irreversible outcomes.

4. Contradiction: If divine authority is needed to end a life, how can fallible courts make that decision without violating divine sovereignty?

Conclusion: The Islamic argument collapses when divine prerogative is delegated to flawed institutions. The “will of Allah” becomes indistinguishable from the “will of men.”

---

🔪 Part 2: Execution Is Mercy? The Qisaas Argument Falls Apart

Surah 2:179 claims:

“In Qisaas (retaliation) there is life for you, O people of understanding.”

Islamic reasoning: If people fear execution, fewer murders occur.

Reality Check:

• Empirical data: Countries with capital punishment often have higher homicide rates than those without (compare the US vs. Western Europe).

• Islamic execution is not always for murder: It includes:

  • Apostasy (leaving Islam)

  • Adultery (with four witnesses)

  • Blasphemy

  • Homosexual acts

  • “Spreading corruption” (vague term easily politicized)

• Double standard: Islam says execution is "life-giving," yet applies it to theological disagreement, not just homicide.

Logical contradiction: If Qisaas is about preserving life, why kill those who haven’t taken life?

---

📚 Part 3: Whataboutism from the Bible — And Why It Doesn’t Work

Islamic apologetics routinely reply:

“The Bible commands mass killing. Your scriptures are worse.”

Here’s why that’s irrelevant:

1. Tu quoque fallacy: Pointing out that another religion also sanctions killing doesn’t justify your own system’s flaws.

2. Incoherence: Islam claims the Torah and Gospel were originally from Allah — yet condemns the same texts as immoral.

   • Either they were inspired and God commanded the killing (meaning your God is okay with it),

   • Or they’re corrupted (which undermines your theological foundation).

3. False equivalence: Christianity has no legal system today that applies Old Testament death penalties. Islam still enforces them in Sharia-based states.

Conclusion: If the best you can do is say, “but your religion killed people too,” you’ve conceded the moral argument.

---

🧨 Part 4: The Apostasy Death Penalty Destroys the Core Argument

Islam’s legal system says:

“If someone leaves Islam, execute them.”

This contradicts:

• Quran 2:256 — “There is no compulsion in religion.”

• Quran 18:29 — “Let him who wills believe, and let him who wills disbelieve.”

So which is it?

• If faith is a choice, why punish those who leave?

• If execution is the penalty, then “no compulsion” is a lie.

Formal contradiction:

Premise	Quran 2:256 (No compulsion)
Islamic Law (Fiqh)	Apostate must be executed
Result	Faith is not a choice
Conclusion	Contradiction: Islam both affirms and denies free belief

---

🛑 Part 5: Final Analysis – When Law Becomes Oppression

• Islamic execution is not just about justice — it’s a tool for religious control.

• The hudud system punishes thought, expression, criticism, and disagreement.

• Execution becomes a means of silencing dissent, not protecting life.

---

🧠 Final Thoughts: What Have We Learned?

1. Islam’s defense of execution appeals to divine authority — but depends on human hands.

2. Its application of death penalties includes non-lethal “crimes” like apostasy and speech.

3. Its attempt to justify by biblical comparison only exposes further contradictions.

4. Quranic verses like 2:256 and 18:29 create formal contradictions with Sharia rulings.

5. This renders the Islamic claim of divine justice internally inconsistent and morally indefensible.

---

✍️ Closing Word

You can’t claim “mercy” while swinging the sword.
You can’t say “faith is a choice” while killing apostates.
You can’t condemn Bible violence while quoting it as divine revelation.
And you can’t ask to be taken seriously while building a system where disagreement equals death.

That’s not justice.
That’s theocracy in a noose.