Talk:Apostasy

The percentage of atheism is higher than any of the regional countries. Apostasy is not illegal and is not punishable by law. The citations used are either biased and unreliable sources or no longer exist. (It should be noted that a woman/man can file for divorce based on changes of ideology) Please fix this.

This is a quote from the sources: “In Jordan apostasy is not a criminal [offence] and the Islamic courts only have jurisdiction in matters of so-called Personal Status issues (mainly family and inheritance law).”

46.185.147.33 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The Library of Congress has this to say about the situation in Jordan:

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Q Chris and User:Jeffro77, I think that Jeffro77's reduction of the entry on Jehovah's witnesses, with a link to a larger article, is an appropriate compromise here. I'm happy to participate in discussion here before further reverts if that is helpful? -Darouet (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I would note that my reduction of the section wasn't actually a compromise. It was exactly the same as my initial edit, which was apparantely mistaken for deleting the section. It is certainly not necessary for a minor Christian denomination to be presented as if it is a major religion (and certainly not at the top of the list). It is also not necessary (or appropriate) for this article to enter into whether JW doctrines are right or wrong, so that content was removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A more extensive treatment of the JW belief on apostasy is at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Apostasy. That would be the more informative article to use for the "Main article" link. BlackCab (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually pay any attention to what had been linked as the main article in my previous edit, but I've changed it now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that on reflection I am happy with the edit. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"A person is an apostate even if he or she believes in most of Islam, but verbally or in writing denies of one or more principles or precepts of Islam. For example, if a Muslim (...) enters a church or temple, (...) celebrates festivals of non-Muslim religion, helps build a church or temple, (...)." Nonsense. I've seen Muslism all over the Europe entering churches as per tourism, I myself have entered Holy See. In Iran or Iraq I've seen Muslims helping Christians build their churches. This paragraph is some nonsense. Maybe those are rules for wahabis from Saudi Arabia but not for Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Egypt is marked on the map as one of the countries, which have the death penalty for apostatsy, yet in the list it says the punishment is 3 years imprisonment. This needs to be corrected. Which is true? --Feuerrabe (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: in the list of countries where apostasy is illegal, is it illegal for abandoning just one specific religion (Islam in most cases) or is it illegal to renounce other faith as well? What about if you already are an unbeliever when you enter the country (so just be an unbeliever is illegal, instead of giving up the religion)? I believe we should clarify this. Thieh (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Ishag as she does not fit the definition: she was raised as a Christian and has never professed Islam (contrary to, e.g., Youcef Nadarkhani). She might fit under "people labeled as apostates", but that would be a different list. e.g. CNN Irmgard (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, this is an article about apostacy, not a list. It is a good of how Muslims interpret apostasy. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Meriam case belongs in this article, because in Islam, a female child does not have to profess being a Muslim to be a Muslim. If her father is Muslim, she is automatically a Muslim. If she changes her religion, or marries a non-Muslim, any time, she is an apostate. The cited source confirms this. RLoutfy (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this case deserves a mention, but because there is a link to a separate article, much of the text is redundant. There is even repetition within the current paragraph that is unnecessary. I inserted a trimmed down version previously and believe that contains the sufficient information. When compared to the other entries in the list, the current form appears to suffer from recentism. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Map says Morocco has the death penalty for apostasy, the body of the article gives no specifics, only that apostasy is covered by the law "indirectly", and other sources indicate that Morocco has the death penalty only for terrorism.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this article explians it. As far as I understand it the Moroccan law allows the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars to impose fatwas on religious matters, and recognises these as law. The Supreme Council of Religious Scholars issued a fatwa that Muslims who leave Islam must be sentenced to death. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you understand that from the source you provided. No where is it stated that fatwas by the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars are recognized as law or are even binding in any way. In fact, if you follow up on the references in that source you will see that a Moroccan government official dismisses the fatwa and denying that the government has asked for their advice, which implies that they are just an advisory body. If this is the source on which the claim about the death penalty for apostasy is based, then it is clearly false -- the source itself includes an official denial that the fatwa is legally binding. The map should be changed.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You could be right, it needs someone who understands what "recognising" a religious law means in Morocco. If it means that religious organisatons are free to impose the penalty, or the state would impose it on their behalf then the map should stay as it is. If it is just some sort of formality then it should be changed. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, with an explicit governmental denial that the fatwa is binding and in the absence of any source claiming otherwise it is clear that the map should be changed until someone can provide evidence that Morocco has the death penalty for apostasy. Many countries have religious authorities that are recognized by the states but there's no reason to assume that these authorities have legislative powers.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the original comment; the source does not imply that religious decrees are equivalent to laws or that carrying out a fatwa is necessarily legal. See new section (Map: criminal penalties) below for map. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It claims in the opening statement that Apostates are put to death under Sharia in Islam and in Judaism, and it uses Deuteronomy as the reference. I believe this should say old testament or historical/ancient Judaism, as that is not a practice of Judaism today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.142.177.63 (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the reference to "Judaism" here should be deleted unless there are other sources to confirm the accepted legitimacy of a death sentence for apostate Jews, and I have seen none, let alone verified instances of such a sentence being carried out. As I understand it, the Bible is not generally considered a "reliable source" for this kind of statement, not least because Jewish law has been continually re-interpreted for many centuries. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The article cited when referring to the legal status of apostasy in Somalia is outdated as the political climate in Somalia has changed greatly since the article was published in 2009. The Federal Government of Somalia hasn't addressed the issue apostasy. So far executions for apostasy are carried out extrajudicially by Islamist groups like Al-Shabaab. In Somaliland and Puntland, apostasy from islam is made illegal in their constitutions. Although, a punishment for apostasy hasn't been specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mari0-k6862 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A 2013 report by the IHEU on countries with the death penalty for apostates included Somalia.^[1] —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This map incorrectly marks Egypt as a country punishing apostates with execution, which is not in the source cited. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Morocco is marked here as a country imposing a death sentence for apostasy, yet the source cited (Library of Congress) is unclear about whether the religious decree in question has the status of law or not. Middle East Online reported a senior Moroccan government official denying that the fatwa was in any way legally binding. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coconutporkpie: The LOC source states, on page 11, "in April 2013, the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars issued a religious decree (fatwa) that Moroccan Muslims who leave Islam must be sentenced to death. Religious decrees are significant because Islam is the official state religion under article 3 of the Moroccan Constitution of 2011. Additionally, under article 41 of the Constitution, the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars “is the sole instance enabled [habilitée] to comment [prononcer] on religious consultations (Fatwas)."

The map presents "Countries criminalizing apostasy as of 2014", not whether the sentence is actually imposed or postponed. The map looks fine to me. If isn't, what is your concern? Do you have a suggestion for a different color coding? RLoutfy (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Article 41 of the Moroccan Constitution goes on to specify that "The Council is the sole instance enabled [habilitée] to comment [prononcer] on the religious consultations (Fatwas) before being officially agreed to, on the questions to which it has been referred [saisi]".^[3] Yet the quoted member of the government denied that any such question had been referred to the council.^[4] It's still unclear based on the sources whether Morocco as a nation-state has instituted any law criminalizing officially sanctioned a legal death penalty for apostasy. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the Middle East Online article. It quotes Mahjoub El Hiba as, ""I am not authorised to request advice or fatwas from the CSO. I do not have to comment on what a constitutional body like this does," he added. He is speaking for himself, not Morocco. The other issue is: does Middle East Online meet wikipedia WP:RS requirements? Unless you provide a reliable source, one that explicitly reaches or implies a conclusion conflicting with other three sources, we should stick with the red color. Meanwhile I am changing the color code for Morocco because at least "converting a Muslim is a crime in Morocco",^[5][6] and adding the map back in. RLoutfy (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that the article in question is clear on these points:"Government denies having requested any such fatwa from council of Islamic scholars as Ministry of Islamic Affairs declines to comment"; "'What was published in the document attributed to the CSO does not concern our government and commits us to nothing,' Hiba said". Is Middle East Online a reliable source? The Library of Congress seems to think so, at least. The article in question is used as a the source for the LOC statement on the fatwa. If Middle East Online does not meet WP:RS requirements, then the LOC source would be out as well becomes questionable. I don't know what "other three sources" means; The Pew Research article deals with calendar year 2012, but the Moroccan fatwa was not issued till 2013. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A report issued several months after the Middle East Online article by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) named 13 countries in which apostasy was punishable by death, and Morocco was not among them. To quote: According to Reuters:

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The IHEU report for 2014 can be found at freethoughtreport.com. I haven't downloaded it and it may have information that conflicts with the previous report. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the newer report:

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand there is the official Islamic Council demanding a death sentence for apostates, while on the other, a criminal sentence of 3 to 6 months' imprisonment is given to apostates "in practice". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostasy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110514131432/http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~rb267689/ to http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~rb267689/#_Toc2952976

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostasy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c59.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927023611/http://www.culticstudiesreview.org/csr_articles/langone_michael_full.htm to http://www.culticstudiesreview.org/csr_articles/langone_michael_full.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apostasy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910062141/http://www.meconcern.org/index.php/en/press-releases/12-convert-to-christianity-flees-jordan-under-threat-to-lose-custody-of-his-children to http://www.meconcern.org/index.php/en/press-releases/12-convert-to-christianity-flees-jordan-under-threat-to-lose-custody-of-his-children
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/search/list/?search_book=Deuteronomy&search_chapter_verse=13&varchapter_verse=13%3A6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205203045/http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/Kliever/start.htm to http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/Kliever/start.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212103655/http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm to http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212103655/http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm to http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213062553/http://www.xenutv.com/interviews/woodcrafts.htm to http://www.xenutv.com/interviews/woodcrafts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The map at the beginning of the article (Map of countries with death penalty for atheists.svg) might not be appropriate here.

Its captions in the article says it shows: "Countries in which, as of 2013, apostasy or blasphemy against the local or state religion was punishable by execution under the law. " However, according to the sources cited in the caption, the map shows countries where being an atheist is punishable by death. The name of the image and its own description page indicate the same.

Some of the countries shown here may punish apostasy or blasphemy against Islam by execution as well, but not all atheists are apostates from Islam, and vice versa.

Also, although the sources cited put Malaysia in the list, this inclusion is dubious. The Syariah Courts of Malaysia do not use execution (death penalty).--27.38.2.0 (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, there is no basis for claiming that some of the countries e.g. Morocco punish apostasy with the death penalty. The map is, at best, grossly misleading, and at worst blatant disinformation. This very same discussion was had 4 years ago, with the same conclusion that the legal statuses of certain countries are outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.245.121 (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

To start with, you can provide reliable sources to support your criticism of the map. With that, we can put a list of errata on the page of the map and into the legends. Then someone can use that to fix the map. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Some people constantly remove anything that doesn't say Hinduism completely tolerates apostasy. These are User:Snowcream and User:Wikiforhistory. Their reasons for removal seem various - unverifiable (When I gave links), synthesis (when I didn't really deviate from the sources), cherry-picked (I didn't pick out what would be added or not). The source Hinduism Today they restore is not reliable and is not based on any primary source. Hinduism has no central authority so views will differ. Their interest doesn't seem to be in letting any various views of Hindu scriptures remain. 59.96.134.44 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the issues when dealing with Hinduism is that it is very diverse, and something believed by one branch can contradict the teachings of another. I have added a sentence indicating that there are differences, ans with this I am happy with your text. Incidentally Hinduism Today can be a good source at times, it has scholarly articles explaining various texts from Upanishads, Agamas, etc. It also has opinion pieces, so each has to be taken individually. Also it should be recognised that it represents Shaiva Siddhanta, so opinion pieces will slant towards that particular interpretation. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that, but the one who wrote in that Hinduism does not even know apostasy and tolerates apostasy without any question is certainly not basing his statement on any study of ancient Hinduism. The author of the "Introduction" of the issue of Hinduism Today isn't stated, so I don't know who wrote it,

Nor of course it makes the magazine necessary reliable if they included other scholars. What needs to be recognised that often these things might be slanted towards feelings of people rather than any study of scriptures, or other sects for that matter.

I did try to look for scriptures that talk on toleration of apostasy, but it's difficult to find any scholar analysis of Hindu scriptures on apostasy. Let's keep trying. 59.96.134.44 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Apostate.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Although the Islamic State isn't the Syrian government they still have judicial power over a portion of the country. The Islamic State does punish apostasy ,within its jurisdiction, with death while Syrian government does not. Although it is relevant to the topic of apostasy does the Islamic State deserves its own subsection or should it be classified under the section regarding Syria's laws?

Wherrman (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Wherrman

I'd say no, if we don't recognise their authority then we shouldn't recognise their law. At most there should be a separate section for "Islamic state" -- Q Chris (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC).

Nigeria is on the map but not the list...? 0m9Ep (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The following countries have criminal statutes that forbid apostasy or blasphemy:^[1]

• Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, though the U.S. and other coalition members have exerted pressure which has prevented recent executions).^[6]
• Brunei – per recently enacted Sharia law, Section 112(1) of the Brunei Penal Code states that a Muslim who declares himself non-Muslim commits a crime that is punishable with death, or with up to 30 year imprisonment, depending on the type of evidence. However, if the accused has recanted his conversion, he may be acquitted of the crime of apostasy.^[7]
• Comoros – illegal (death penalty)^[8][9]
• Iran – not in the Penal Code, but the use of the death penalty for cases of apostasy was approved by the Iranian Parliament in 2008.^[10][11]
• Jordan – possibly illegal (fine, child custody loss, marriage annulment) although officials claim otherwise, convictions are recorded for apostasy^[12][13][14]
• Kuwait – Apostasy is not illegal in Kuwait,^[15][16][17] although apostasy is penalized in family courts for Muslims.^[15][16] For Muslims, apostasy in family court can result in loss of child custody, inheritance rights, annulment if married to a Muslim.^[15][16]
• Malaysia – illegal in five of thirteen states (fines) if they do not get conversion permission from Sharia court.^[18] Additionally, a number of states have voted bills into law that allow for apostates from Islam to be detained and reeducated.^[19]
• Maldives^[8]- illegal for Muslim nationals (loss of citizenship).^[20][21] Illegal to proselytize for religions other than Islam.
• Mauritania – illegal (death penalty if still apostate after 3 days)^[22]
• Morocco – not illegal, but official Islamic council decreed apostates should be put to death.^[23] Illegal to proselytize for religions other than Islam (six months to three years imprisonment)^[24]
• Oman – illegal (prison) according to Article 209 of Oman penal code, and denies child custody rights under Article 32 of Personal Status Law^[23]
• Qatar – illegal (death penalty)^[23]
• Saudi Arabia – illegal (flogging, imprisonment and death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions)^[14][25]
• Somalia – illegal (death penalty)^[26][3]
• Sudan – illegal (death penalty)^[27]
• Syria – defamation of religious proceedings punishable with 2 year jail sentence.^[8][7]
• United Arab Emirates – illegal (3 years' imprisonment, death penalty)^[23][28]
• Yemen – illegal (death penalty)^[23][3]

Hello,

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sudan's new government abolished the apostasy law in 2020, the article and map should be updated to reflect this change.

The map that has been added is incorrect (for the reasons which I will state below). That is why I initially removed it and why I will have reverted its readdition.

In contrast with this map, the Freedom of Thought Report, on which this map appears to be based, does not list Brunei, Pakistan, Somalia, Somaliland and Sudan among ten countries in which apostasy is punishable by death, at least in the latest publication as of March 2021. Malaysia, however, is listed among these countries (despite unenforceability), in contrast with this map.^[1] - Krmody (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I added a paragraph under "Buddhism", referring to "hypostasy", used as if it were the opposite of "apostasy", if apostasy is taken to be falling away from belief. Hypostatsy is taken to be "falling into belief", where both terms are taken as negative; nobody would call themselves either an apostate nor a hypostate, because both terms denote error.

I don't know if this word is attested anywhere other than the book I cited. For what it's worth, the prefix "hypo-" means "under". "Apo-" means "apart", so they are not etymologically opposites.

The word "hypostasy" doesn't occur in Wiktionary.

MrDemeanour (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The section is obviously off-topic. Because it's such a large section of the article, I'm starting a discussion, but unless there are objections I intend to delete the section as a whole.

A new section, "motives for apostasy" that has a paragraph or two about the role of atrocity stories might be appropriate, and an entire section on atrocity stories has no place in the apostasy article. Mosi Nuru (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hiding behind words in almost the entire section. WHAT were the penalties? Weasel words galore, nothing clearly stated. Arminden (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Apostasy#Buddhism says

some Buddhist circles ... teach that one who renounces the Buddha's teachings has the potential of inflicting suffering on themselves.

That doesn't seem to be relevant to the concept of "apostasy". If somebody "inflicts suffering on themself", that has nothing to do with the religious notion of punishment being inflicted on them by a supernatural being or effect.

- ~2025-38881-19 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. If you don't follow the rules for avoiding suffering, you suffer. What's controversial about that?

I'm not saying that fits 100% apostasy, but there are nuances. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The current article quotes Qur’an 4:89 in isolation when discussing apostasy, but omits the immediately following verse (4:90), which provides an explicit limitation and exception to the command mentioned in 4:89.

Qur’an 4:90 states that those who refrain from fighting, seek peace, or are allied through treaties are not to be harmed. This suggests that 4:89 is addressing a specific wartime context involving betrayal and active hostility, rather than apostasy in general. Quoting 4:89 without 4:90 risks misleading readers by removing essential contextual boundaries acknowledged in the Qur’anic text itself. Per Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, due weight, and context, I suggest either:

• Including Qur’an 4:90 alongside 4:89, or

• Adding a clarifying note that 4:89 is qualified by the following verse.

This would improve accuracy and prevent readers from drawing conclusions that are not supported when the passage is read in full context. ~2026-39979 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)