in a western world so hellbent on secularism

[Mash007]

why do we have such backing for the state of Israel.

A nation created specifically for a religious group..

discuss.

[The Anti Desi]

Israel uses Judaism as a facade to gain sympathy for persecution. Many orthodox Jews disagree that Israel was created under true Jewish sanction. Overall, Israel is not a truly practicing Jewish state, but because people are born into Judaism, they have the status within the society.

[Indian_Eyess]

good point and I agree with Anti-Desi's point too. However, most of the founders of Israel were atheist and used 'Jewish nationalism' to establish what they see as a secular Jewish state...dont know how that really works, but sure.

[Cunard]

good point and I agree with Anti-Desi's point too. However, most of the founders of Israel were atheist and used 'Jewish nationalism' to establish what they see as a secular Jewish state...dont know how that really works, but sure.


its a state which governs under the rule of law...not religious law

the piont of a jewish nation is so jews have a homeland so somthing like the persecution they have faced for thousands of years would come to an end

[Cunard]

Israel uses Judaism as a facade to gain sympathy for persecution. Many orthodox Jews disagree that Israel was created under true Jewish sanction. Overall, Israel is not a truly practicing Jewish state, but because people are born into Judaism, they have the status within the society.

a very small element of orthodox jews

[Indian_Eyess]

its a state which governs under the rule of law...not religious law

the piont of a jewish nation is so jews have a homeland so somthing like the persecution they have faced for thousands of years would come to an end
yeah, I've read about Zionism by Herzl who was an atheist.

[Mash007]

its a state which governs under the rule of law...not religious law

the piont of a jewish nation is so jews have a homeland so somthing like the persecution they have faced for thousands of years would come to an endwhy not give the Kurds their own nation then?

[FatGeezer]

all comes down to $, because $ is power, in simpleton terms

[Space-Cowboy]

why not give the Kurds their own nation then?


I agree, but which chunk? You have to consider that the area you give them SHOULD be some what enriched with some type of natural resource [renewable/non/etc.] for example, oil, or timber, etc. Furthermore, in order to induce some form of urbanization and industrialization, they would have to be given some point [preferable a sea port] where transportation benefits as a mode to induce FDI could come about easily.

[FatGeezer]

I agree, but which chunk? You have to consider that the area you give them SHOULD be some what enriched with some type of natural resource [renewable/non/etc.] for example, oil, or timber, etc. Furthermore, in order to induce some form of urbanization and industrialization, they would have to be given some point [preferable a sea port] where transportation benefits as a mode to induce FDI could come about easily.
how about giving them some military might and letting them pick and choose what they want? would taht work for ya?

[Space-Cowboy]

how about giving them some military might and letting them pick and choose what they want? would taht work for ya?

Except that what if said military rule picks the shittiest piece of land for these people?....

A strong rule can certainly do wonders for economic growth... but not if proper land reform and policy decisions aren't made.

So no, a military backing isn't enough [it's certainly necessary, but not the end all be all].. the military leaders need to be educated on civilian policy making for the induction of growth...... after that, yes, Kurdish Nation will prosper. Given the right policies, it might even surpass Iraq. [although that's not saying much].

[FatGeezer]

Except that what if said military rule picks the shittiest piece of land for these people?....

A strong rule can certainly do wonders for economic growth... but not if proper land reform and policy decisions aren't made.

So no, a military backing isn't enough [it's certainly necessary, but not the end all be all].. the military leaders need to be educated on civilian policy making for the induction of growth...... after that, yes, Kurdish Nation will prosper. Given the right policies, it might even surpass Iraq. [although that's not saying much].
i meant give the kurds some military might and let them pick and choose for themselves. and assume that they revolutionary leaders have some common sense and vision.

nvm. was mmeant to be a sarcastic comment anyway!

[Space-Cowboy]

i meant give the kurds some military might and let them pick and choose for themselves. and assume that they revolutionary leaders have some common sense and vision.

nvm. was mmeant to be a sarcastic comment anyway!

Oh, yea, I absolutely agree, give them the power to revolt, I'm assuming projections after that fact:


Suppose this independant Neo Kurdistan finally became a nation. If the military decided to implement a socialistic/communist regime... in a nation at its birth I see one main advantage, one main disadvantage:

Advantage: Decision making and setting policies would be faster paced, as there would be little or no disagreements and political backlogs in a one party system.

Disadvantage: Capital accumulation, which requires privatization to sustain itself, which is needed for economic growth, would not be possible under a communal regime [where there is NO privatization]. Also, it is proven time and time again, communal ownership of land leads to further resource exploitation than private ownerships...

[The Anti Desi]

There was a rumor that previously, the Jews wanted to occupy Utah :|

[bandogge]

why do we have such backing for the state of Israel.

A nation created specifically for a religious group..

discuss.

it aint just israel,theres plenty of nations that are on earth for just 1 religion group.the vatican for catholics etc
if anything islam has the most nations created for 1 religous group.

[Indian_Eyess]

it aint just israel,theres plenty of nations that are on earth for just 1 religion group.the vatican for catholics etc
if anything islam has the most nations created for 1 religous group.
not really, most Muslim countries are secular and dont follow the Shariah.

[Space-Cowboy]

not really, most Muslim countries are secular and dont follow the Shariah.


Is this good or bad?

[Indian_Eyess]

Is this good or bad?
whichever one country that respects human rights and moves towards economic development is good, either a theocracy, democracy, republic, or all of the above, while defending the dignity of people, secular or religious. As long as the basics are met, then I think its good, most Muslim countries dont meet these standards. Some are working towards it, but most lag behind.

[Space-Cowboy]

whichever one country that respects human rights and moves towards economic development is good, either a theocracy, democracy, republic, or all of the above, while defending the dignity of people, secular or religious. As long as the basics are met, then I think its good, most Muslim countries dont meet these standards. Some are working towards it, but most lag behind.


I'm glad that you feel that way bro, and I agree with you, but that didn't really answer my question. Do you wish to see Shariah Law as it stands by its current definition of what it is be implemented in the Muslim countries today?

[Indian_Eyess]

I'm glad that you feel that way bro, and I agree with you, but that didn't really answer my question. Do you wish to see Shariah Law as it stands by its current definition of what it is be implemented in the Muslim countries today?
shariah law is not implemented in the way it used to be under the Ottomans or even earlier. In fact, most of the so called 'shariah laws' of today have alot of local and cultural laws added onto it. I think Shariah law isnt a bad idea.

[Space-Cowboy]

shariah law is not implemented in the way it used to be under the Ottomans or even earlier. In fact, most of the so called 'shariah laws' of today have alot of local and cultural laws added onto it. I think Shariah law isnt a bad idea.


I was told, by various sources, that under Shariah Law, if a Muslim chooses to no longer be a Muslim [say he converts out to Buddhism, or Christianity, etc.], that under Shariah Law he would be put to death.

Is this infact true?
And if so, do you agree with this?

[Indian_Eyess]

I was told, by various sources, that under Shariah Law, if a Muslim chooses to no longer be a Muslim [say he converts out to Buddhism, or Christianity, etc.], that under Shariah Law he would be put to death.

Is this infact true?
And if so, do you agree with this?
according to the Qur'an:

Surah (Chapter): Al-Kaafirun Total Ayats (Verses): 6
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
109.Say: O disbelievers!
109.I worship not that which ye worship;
109.Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109.And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109.Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109.Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion
--------
In other words, the faith of a person is for God to judge, not human. The whole concept of taking the life of an apostate is actually misleading and is not part of the shariah.

[Space-Cowboy]

according to the Qur'an:

Surah (Chapter): Al-Kaafirun Total Ayats (Verses): 6
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
109.Say: O disbelievers!
109.I worship not that which ye worship;
109.Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109.And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109.Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109.Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion
--------
In other words, the faith of a person is for God to judge, not human. The whole concept of taking the life of an apostate is actually misleading and is not part of the shariah.

Ok, good, now comes the important part for when debates come up on these forums, I will quote you, because I believe you to be well versed in your religion:

So then, under TRUE SHARIAH LAW, no where is it written and/or instructed that if a Muslim chooses to denouce Islam to follow another faith, Buddhism for example, that he will be put to death?


Is this correct?


Like I said, I know you to be well versed, so what you say to the above question ^^^, I'll quote in all future RD debates that pertain to this matter.

[Felonius Monk]

Since when is politics a fair or even logically consistent business?

[Mash007]

Israel is an anomaly..

its proof of the folly of man. trying to grant 'liberty' upon a people. its caused nothing but pain since its inception.

[MolviCorleone]

why do we have such backing for the state of Israel.

A nation created specifically for a religious group..

discuss.

That is becuase the USA itself is ruled by religious fanatics.

Neo cons :no:

[FatGeezer]

Ok, good, now comes the important part for when debates come up on these forums, I will quote you, because I believe you to be well versed in your religion:

So then, under TRUE SHARIAH LAW, no where is it written and/or instructed that if a Muslim chooses to denouce Islam to follow another faith, Buddhism for example, that he will be put to death?


Is this correct?


Like I said, I know you to be well versed, so what you say to the above question ^^^, I'll quote in all future RD debates that pertain to this matter.
no thats a load of man made bollocks.

shariah law does not even cover things such as converting out of Islam, as it is not "law" per se. Shariah Law covers things such as normal state law covers, e.g, criminal law, family law, inheritance, finance etc etc.

If someone converts out of Islam you're supoosed to let them be and let them go on theyre own way, not persecute them nor hinder them, but rather be normal to them as you would with any other muslim or non-muslim. Who knows, in time they may see the "folly" of theyre ways and return to Islam.

In shariah the only allowable punishments for death are for murder, adultery if the person is married, and a final punishment to someone who steals continuously and wont stop even after being punished a few times already (that i can think of from the top of my head).

[Mash007]

no thats a load of man made bollocks.

shariah law does not even cover things such as converting out of Islam, as it is not "law" per se. Shariah Law covers things such as normal state law covers, e.g, criminal law, family law, inheritance, finance etc etc.

If someone converts out of Islam you're supoosed to let them be and let them go on theyre own way, not persecute them nor hinder them, but rather be normal to them as you would with any other muslim or non-muslim. Who knows, in time they may see the "folly" of theyre ways and return to Islam.

In shariah the only allowable punishments for death are for murder, adultery if the person is married, and a final punishment to someone who steals continuously and wont stop even after being punished a few times already (that i can think of from the top of my head).
dont quote me on this but I'm pretty sure it says in the Quran that 'there is no compulsion in religion' i.e it cant be forced.

also in regards to the sentences of death for apostasy... again dont quote me yeah... but they base it on the fact that it happened during the time of the prophet..

however from I remember reading (dunno where :( ) that it is written somewhere that people were killed for apostasy however the crimes they were executed for where not apostasy..

it was in fact that these peole left Islam.. and then committed treason i.e they were muslims.. left Islam and then worked for the enemies of Islam at that time but undercover and were caught... so they were actually killed cos of that rather than the actual apostasy.

also it is because the word Apostasy itself has different meaning in Arabic one of which is 'high treason'

if u look even to today.. treason is a capital offence in many countries....

its kinda covered here a bit

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/347E49BD-B8A3-47A1-AF19-5EBC405A8B9F.htm

[Space-Cowboy]

no thats a load of man made bollocks.

shariah law does not even cover things such as converting out of Islam, as it is not "law" per se. Shariah Law covers things such as normal state law covers, e.g, criminal law, family law, inheritance, finance etc etc.

If someone converts out of Islam you're supoosed to let them be and let them go on theyre own way, not persecute them nor hinder them, but rather be normal to them as you would with any other muslim or non-muslim. Who knows, in time they may see the "folly" of theyre ways and return to Islam.

In shariah the only allowable punishments for death are for murder, adultery if the person is married, and a final punishment to someone who steals continuously and wont stop even after being punished a few times already (that i can think of from the top of my head).

Aye that makes sense definitely!

[Space-Cowboy]

dont quote me on this but I'm pretty sure it says in the Quran that 'there is no compulsion in religion' i.e it cant be forced.

also in regards to the sentences of death for apostasy... again dont quote me yeah... but they base it on the fact that it happened during the time of the prophet..

however from I remember reading (dunno where :( ) that it is written somewhere that people were killed for apostasy however the crimes they were executed for where not apostasy..

it was in fact that these peole left Islam.. and then committed treason i.e they were muslims.. left Islam and then worked for the enemies of Islam at that time but undercover and were caught... so they were actually killed cos of that rather than the actual apostasy.

also it is because the word Apostasy itself has different meaning in Arabic one of which is 'high treason'

if u look even to today.. treason is a capital offence in many countries....

its kinda covered here a bit

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/347E49BD-B8A3-47A1-AF19-5EBC405A8B9F.htm


Yeah I can understand treason.... but obviously, people should be given free will to leave Islam if they choose as long as they aren't working against the religion.

[Space-Cowboy]

I'm glad I got these answers,....I will quote them for future reference.


One of the biggest crackdown on apostacy was conducted by the Catholic Church through their Spanish Inquisition.

[Cunard]

why not give the Kurds their own nation then?

they have been demanding it for year....kurdishtan in norther iraq which has lived under the american no fly zones is pretty much independant...has own police, education, govt, army, etc......some parts of it are first world with massive economic boom

perhaps if Iraq falls into a sustained civil war...the kurds will break away and form a truly independant state

[Cunard]

Israel is an anomaly..

its proof of the folly of man. trying to grant 'liberty' upon a people. its caused nothing but pain since its inception.

same could be said about Pakistan....only recently have there been any real movements towards peace.....if only the palestinians/israelis could learn a thing or two from the Indian Sub :dunno:

[FatGeezer]

Yeah I can understand treason.... but obviously, people should be given free will to leave Islam if they choose as long as they aren't working against the religion.

the ones that were killed were ones that left and actually fought AGAINST Islam or muslims, in which case killing in the game of war becomes "legal", or as mash said, ones that fought against muslims but were captured and didnt ask forgiveness, were killed for treason.

[Lebeke1]

Judaism is a religion, culture and ethnicity. To say the jews don't deserve a state, especially when there are so many Jews in the world, is like saying Serbia shouldn't be a state, or Croatia who seperated from Yugoslavia due to their different ethnicities.

[musicchic33]

Judaism is a religion, culture and ethnicity. To say the jews don't deserve a state, especially when there are so many Jews in the world, is like saying Serbia shouldn't be a state, or Croatia who seperated from Yugoslavia due to their different ethnicities.

I think his point was how they went about "acquiring" that state...and they way they went about doing it.

[The Anti Desi]

Now one thing to clarify....secularism does not mean anti-religion at all.

America is secular in the sense that it does not make one religion the establishment of the government. This does not prohibit citizens and government from bringing religion into politics.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

same could be said about Pakistan....only recently have there been any real movements towards peace.....if only the palestinians/israelis could learn a thing or two from the Indian Sub :dunno:
the Indians and the British agreed to Pakistan's formation. Gandhi, Nehru, etc. so its a territorial dispute, whereas Israel started off as having its very right to exist questioned.

[Indian_Eyess]

Now one thing to clarify....secularism does not mean anti-religion at all.

America is secular in the sense that it does not make one religion the establishment of the government. This does not prohibit citizens and government from bringing religion into politics.
not yet

[The Anti Desi]

not yet
You talkin about the religion losing hold in politics or are you talkin about the Christian Rite taking major advantage??

[Space-Cowboy]

You talkin about the religion losing hold in politics or are you talkin about the Christian Rite taking major advantage??


Umm, remember the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages........ that's what's bound to happen :|

[The Anti Desi]

Umm, remember the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages........ that's what's bound to happen :|
The Catholic church was the absolute ruling body during their reigns. In American government, no one was given the power. And no one religion can take absolute control of it.

[Space-Cowboy]

The Catholic church was the absolute ruling body during their reigns. In American government, no one was given the power. And no one religion can take absolute control of it.


Not absolute, but they can gain leverage by funding election campaigns no?

[The Anti Desi]

Not absolute, but they can gain leverage by funding election campaigns no?
Lobbying leverage....yes.

Federal power.....no.

[Space-Cowboy]

Lobbying leverage....yes.

Federal power.....no.


Federal power, no,
Vicarious power, certainly!

[The Anti Desi]

Federal power, no,
Vicarious power, certainly!
As can any other group. Its still not a religious establishment.

[Space-Cowboy]

As can any other group. Its still not a religious establishment.


But for example, why do you think Bush leans so much towards Englican Christian groups and corporations.... those are the big fund raisers for them. Certainly not a religious establishment, but the way that the flow of the money is pouring in from, and the sectors that it's flowing in from,..... it almost might as well be one......... Almost.

Ask your self, would the Bush govt. give two shits above Islam with respect to their priorities with say Southern Baptists?

[The Anti Desi]

But for example, why do you think Bush leans so much towards Englican Christian groups and corporations.... those are the big fund raisers for them. Certainly not a religious establishment, but the way that the flow of the money is pouring in from, and the sectors that it's flowing in from,..... it almost might as well be one......... Almost.
He may try his best to support his religion and influence it into politics as constitutionally as possible. A person of any other religion would could do the same.

Ask your self, would the Bush govt. give two shits above Islam with respect to their priorities with say Southern Baptists?
If he wants priorities with his religion, he is allowed. If a Muslim were President, you would ask a the same type of question.

Now regarding his politics with religion regarding social standards, his conservative views conform with my conservative views. So as of now, I have no qualms against him for that.

[Space-Cowboy]

He may try his best to support his religion and influence it into politics as constitutionally as possible. A person of any other religion would could do the same.


If he wants priorities with his religion, he is allowed. If a Muslim were President, you would ask a the same type of question.

Now regarding his politics with religion regarding social standards, his conservative views conform with my conservative views. So as of now, I have no qualms against him for that.

I can definitely respect that but the problem is currently that while the views may 'conform', the fact still remains that there IS a devide between Islam and Christianity is concerned as far as rightwing Christian groups are concerned in the U.S. These Englican groups will be looking to put pressure on Bush to distance himself as far away from the Islamic community as possible......... possibly.

[khanbaba_]

according to the Qur'an:

Surah (Chapter): Al-Kaafirun Total Ayats (Verses): 6
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
109.Say: O disbelievers!
109.I worship not that which ye worship;
109.Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109.And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109.Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109.Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion
--------
In other words, the faith of a person is for God to judge, not human. The whole concept of taking the life of an apostate is actually misleading and is not part of the shariah.


Ok this surat was revealed in Mecca when Muslims didn't have their own state. The background to this surat is that, non-muslims of Mecca came to Prophet s.aw and offered that they will worship Muslim God for 6 months and Muslim should worship their Gods for 6 months.At that time this surat was revealed . Its referring to non-muslims but not apostates.

[khanbaba_]

Ibn Abbas said:
The Messenger of Allah s.a.w, said, "Who ever changes his religion, put him to death"
Bukhari 6992.

Also in Bukhari 6484 and Muslim 1676,
According to Prophet s.a.w anyone who leaves his religion and seperates from the main body of the Muslims should be killed.

It doesnt say anywhere that whethere that person is waging a war on Islam or not.

There is no difference in this between all four schools of Sunnis.
Even Wahabis/Salafis agree to this.

This is only for an Islamic states, not for apostates living in non-islamic lands.
If the apostate is a male, he should be given 3 days to repent
before he is executed.

If its a female, she would be imprisoned till she repents.

[khanbaba_]

Its like when u join army, you have to obey the rules. If you dessert the army before, you will be court-martialed and punished. Being an apostate is making fun and mockery of Islam.

[khanbaba_]

Also in Bukhari it says, some apostates were brought to Hazrat Ali r.a and He put them to death. They were not fighting against Muslims. Just being an apostats is a crime big enough.

[khanbaba_]

After the death of Prophet s.a.w, some people refused to pay zakat. They denied its being obligatory. Hazrat Abu Bakar and all the Sahabas fought against those people, and some repented and others were killed.
Its also mentioned in Bukhari.

[Space-Cowboy]

Also in Bukhari it says, some apostates were brought to Hazrat Ali r.a and He put them to death. They were not fighting against Muslims. Just being an apostats is a crime big enough.


So you're suggesting that people who freely choose to convert out of Islam should be killed? Congrats dipshit, you just set the religion back by about 800 years. I don't even know why I'm arguing.....
I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I'm more inclined to believe Indian_Eyess and FatGeezer over what you say anyday.

[khanbaba_]

Prophet s.a.w sent Hazrat Abu Musa to Yemen to invite people to Islam. After sometime Prophet s.a.w sent Hazrat Muadh bin Jabal to Yemen. When he reached Yemen, he came to Hazrat Abu Musa. There was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Abu Musa told Hazrat Muadh that this person was a Jew, he became Muslim now he has became apostate. Hazdat Muadh said that the Judgment of Allah and His Apostle s.a.w is that he should be killed.
Its also reported in Bukhari 84 :58.

This punishment is not suspened to the apostate planning against Islam.

[khanbaba_]

So you're suggesting that people who freely choose to convert out of Islam should be killed? Congrats dipshit, you just set the religion back by about 800 years. I don't even know why I'm arguing.....
I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I'm more inclined to believe Indian_Eyess and FatGeezer over what you say anyday.


You can't be allowed to make fun and mockery of Islam. If you live in an Islam state, and you become an apostate, you will be given 3 days to repent.
For a female is imprisonment untill she repents.
This is what the Prophet s.a.w and Sahabis did. All the sunni scholars agree on this.


What Indian-eyes quoted has to do with non-muslims but not apostates.

[Space-Cowboy]

You can't be allowed to make fun and mockery of Islam. If you live in an Islam state, and you become an apostate, you will be given 3 days to repent.
For a female is imprisonment untill she repents.
This is what the Prophet s.a.w and Sahabis did. All the sunni scholars agree on this.


What Indian-eyes quoted has to do with non-muslims but not apostates.

Like I said, I'll trust what Indian_Eyess and FatGeezer have to say over what you say..... you're a terrorist.

[khanbaba_]

Well I will put forward the real teachings of Prophet s.a.w, Sahabas, and our pious predecessors and be called a terrorist then be apologetic.

[Space-Cowboy]

Well I will put forward the real teachings of Prophet s.a.w, Sahabas, and our pious predecessors and be called a terrorist then be apologetic.

Give me an actual source [credible]... not YOUR interpretations.. and yes, punishing people in that manner for their FREE WILL to leave Islam IS a terrorist-like attitude.... any organization/people that support that kind of activity should be shot.

[khanbaba_]

Give me an actual source [credible]... not YOUR interpretations.. and yes, punishing people in that manner for their FREE WILL to leave Islam IS a terrorist-like attitude.... any organization/people that support that kind of activity should be shot.


I posted few quotes from Bukhari. Those are not my interpretations. There is no compulsion for anyone to accept Islam but once you do, you cant just leave it and make mockery of it. This is the view from first day till present day. There is no difference between scholars on this.
And this ruling is only for an Islamic state.

[Space-Cowboy]

I posted few quotes from Bukhari. Those are not my interpretations. There is no compulsion for anyone to accept Islam but once you do, you cant just leave it and make mockery of it. This is the view from first day till present day. There is no difference between scholars on this.
And this ruling is only for an Islamic state.

Humour me.
Show me the exact line in the Quran again, which says that a person who leaves Islam should be punished/killed.

And yes there IS very much a difference amongst scholars on this. Otherwise it would point out a very real flaw in the Shariah Law. But like I said, I trust Indian_Eyess/FatGeezer more...

[khanbaba_]

Humour me.
Show me the exact line in the Quran again, which says that a person who leaves Islam should be punished/killed.

And yes there IS very much a difference amongst scholars on this. Otherwise it would point out a very real flaw in the Shariah Law. But like I said, I trust Indian_Eyess/FatGeezer more...

Ok its up to you who you chose to believe. I posted few narrations of Prophet s.a.w. And for ur info there is no difference between this among sunnis. All four schools of thought of sunnis agree on this.
What Indian_eyes posted, thats referring towith non-muslims and not apostates. I even posted the background to that surah. And it was revealed in Mecca. Muslims only had their own state when they migrated to Medina.

[Space-Cowboy]

Ok its up to you who you chose to believe. I posted few narrations of Prophet s.a.w. And for ur info there is no difference between this among sunnis. All four schools of thought of sunnis agree on this.
What Indian_eyes posted, thats referring towith non-muslims and not apostates. I even posted the background to that surah. And it was revealed in Mecca. Muslims only had their own state when they migrated to Medina.


I'm still waiting for the specific Quranic verse that says those who freely choose to leave Islam should be killed.

[khanbaba_]

I'm still waiting for the specific Quranic verse that says those who freely choose to leave Islam should be killed.

I just quoted the narrations of Prophet s.a.w.
I quoted the actions of Sahabas. And for us this is prove enough.
What Prophet s.a.w said is also prove for us.
It says in Quran

"And whoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys Allah" (41:80)

"And he (the Prophet s.a.w) does not speak from his own desire. It is not but a revelation revealed (to Him). (53:3)

Sunni sharia law is made up of or we have 4 sources of Islamic law.
Quran
Sunnah (actions, speeches of Prophet)
Ijma (consensus of companions)
Qiyas (analogy)

[khanbaba_]

And your statement about taking Islam back 800 years, Islam is a univeral religon and for all the times and for all the people till end of times. You cant change the rules over-time.

[Space-Cowboy]

I just quoted the narrations of Prophet s.a.w.
I quoted the actions of Sahabas. And for us this is prove enough.
What Prophet s.a.w said is also prove for us.
It says in Quran

"And whoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys Allah" (41:80)

"And he (the Prophet s.a.w) does not speak from his own desire. It is not but a revelation revealed (to Him). (53:3)
Sunni sharia law is made up of or we have 4 sources of Islamic law.
Quran
Sunnah (actions, speeches of Prophet)
Ijma (consensus of companions)
Qiyas (analogy)

You haven't quoted anything, tell me where in these two quotes that it says to punish/kill those who leave Islam. You're just giving your own twisted interpretations, nothing more. And I don't give a shit about anything other than the Quran. I don't care what your prophet has to say, I only care about the words of your God as it is written in the Quran. So, I'm still waiting for the exact Quranic verse that dictates apostates should be punished/killed. You haven't given me any shred of evidence as of yet.

[Space-Cowboy]

As it stands, you're placing some random hadith as speculation above and beyond what the Quran offers...... and I've already made it clear, I don't care about the hadiths..... they were written by men. I WANT THE QURANIC VERSE.

[khanbaba_]

You haven't quoted anything, tell me where in these two quotes that it says to punish/kill those who leave Islam. You're just giving your own twisted interpretations, nothing more. And I don't give a shit about anything other than the Quran. I don't care what your prophet has to say, I only care about the words of your God as it is written in the Quran. So, I'm still waiting for the exact Quranic verse that dictates apostates should be punished/killed. You haven't given me any shred of evidence as of yet.

lol man
I just quoted 2 verses from Quran that says anything Prophet s.a.w says is from Allah. In Quran we are told to follow anything Prophet s.a.w says or he performs. He s.a.w doesnt do anything but its from ALLAH.
Then I quoted just few narrations of Prophet s.a.w.
I told you Sunni law is made up of 4 sources. When we believe in 4 sources, then we can quote from any one of the 4 sources . If someone only believe in the Quran, then he will be only allowed to quote from the Quran.

[Space-Cowboy]

lol man
I just quoted 2 verses from Quran that says anything Prophet s.a.w says is from Allah. In Quran we are told to follow anything Prophet s.a.w says or he performs. He s.a.w doesnt do anything but its from ALLAH.
Then I quoted just few narrations of Prophet s.a.w.
I told you Sunni law is made up of 4 sources. When we believe in 4 sources, then we can quote from any one of the 4 sources . If someone only believe in the Quran, then he will be only allowed to quote from the Quran.


The Quran doesn't say 'kill apostates'....

Again those are YOUR interpretations...... and again, "what the prophet says" relies on hadiths.... as far as I'm concerned the hadiths are very much fallible. So I don't trust those to tell me what the prophet says... and anyone with half a mind would have the sense to realize a great man like the Prophet would not order the punishment/deaths of people and infringe upon their freedom of choice of faith in such a manner. In otherwords, no where is it conclusively ordered to kill apostates.

Thus, go take your terrorist bullshit somewhere else.

[khanbaba_]

As it stands, you're placing some random hadith as speculation above and beyond what the Quran offers...... and I've already made it clear, I don't care about the hadiths..... they were written by men. I WANT THE QURANIC VERSE.

Hadees were written by men in book form. Well so was Quran. Quran was not revealed in a book form. It was revealed bit by bit and then gathered into book form later on. I am not quoting some random Hadees, every hadees in Bukhari is saheeh (authenic). And I have only quoted few. During the time of Prophet s.a.w, some sahabas would write down the hadees. And thats how they are passed to us. But more then books, these narrations were passed generation by generation. Sahabas were direct students of Prophet s.a.w. What ever they heard of saw him doing, they learned it. Then they passed it down to their students.
And I will repeat again, we have 4 sources so I can qoute from any of the source. If someone only believe in 1 source, then you can ask him quote only in Quran.

[khanbaba_]

*****edited by Cunard*****

[Space-Cowboy]

Hadees were written by men in book form. Well so was Quran. Quran was not revealed in a book form. It was revealed bit by bit and then gathered into bookform later on. I am not quoting some random Hadees, everything hadees in Bukhari is saheeh (authenic). And I have only quoted few. Durding the time of Prophet s.a.w, some sahabas would write down the hadees. And thats how they are passed to us. But more then books, these narrations were passed generation by generation. Sahabas were direct students of Prophet s.a.w. What ever they heard of saw him doing, they learned it. Then they passed it down to their students.
And I will repeat again, we have 4 sources so I can qoute from any of the source. If someone only believe in 1 source, then you can ask him quote only in Quran.

The hadiths are up for debate. The Quran is not. The Quran does not say to kill apostates. The hadiths do. The Quran, by virtue of being non-debatable, holds more water. Bottom line, what you quoted is horribly misinterpreted...... and pretty much the back bone argument of terrorist cells.

[Space-Cowboy]

*****edited by Cunard*****

[Space-Cowboy]

*****edited by Cunard*****

[khanbaba_]

Its like a muslim telling a hindu, what books they should believe in and what books are not authentic.

[khanbaba_]

*****edited by Cunard*****

[Space-Cowboy]

*****edited by Cunard*****

[khanbaba_]

*****edited by Cunard*****

[Space-Cowboy]

*****edited by Cunard*****

[khanbaba_]

*****edited by Cunard*****

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

People should really stop getting emotional in discussions and look at the facts, evidences, proofs, etc. Just some friendly advice.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

Ok, good, now comes the important part for when debates come up on these forums, I will quote you, because I believe you to be well versed in your religion:

So then, under TRUE SHARIAH LAW, no where is it written and/or instructed that if a Muslim chooses to denouce Islam to follow another faith, Buddhism for example, that he will be put to death?


Is this correct?


Like I said, I know you to be well versed, so what you say to the above question ^^^, I'll quote in all future RD debates that pertain to this matter.

People, first off, I'd say don't get emotional.

See now, in Islaam, there are sects, as the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alaihi wassallam, foretold that there would be.

Some person claiming to be Muslim may come and say, "Oh, oh, oh, Islaam is only the Qur'aan." Now, you may choose to believe him or her. That's your perogative. But for the vast majority of those who label themselves as Muslim, believe Islaam is based on more than the Qur'aan.

They believe that the Qur'aan is the Word of God. And to go hand-in-hand with that, is the Sunnah (traditions, actions, approvals) of the last Messenger of God, Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him. The Sunnah explains the Qur'aan. The Qur'aan, itself, has explanations done by the Prophet, his Companions, and their students.

Allaah said in the Qur'aan: "Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the dhikr (i.e. the Qur'aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)." {Surah Al-Hijr :9} Now, when we look at the explanation of this Verse, we find that the Sunnah of the Prophet is also protected just like the Qur'aan, it comes under the same ruling.

Now, bare in mind, since the beginning of Islaam, the Muslims have held onto the Sunnah of the Prophet, as a proof and a guidance to be followed. And, indeed, many Qur'aanic Verses allude to this as well.

So with this clear, that the majority of those who call themselves Muslims (be they Hanafi, Shaafi'i, Hanbali, Maaliki, Dhaahiri, Zaydi, etc.), they all hold on to the Sunnah/Ahaadeeth of the Prophet to be an integral part of the Sharee’ah and our conduct in life. So, indeed, in an Islaamic State the Muslims would be following the Qur'aan and Ahaadeeth (plural of Hadeeth), upon the understanding of the Companions of the Prophet and their students. This is what the mainstream Sunni Muslims follow (who make up the largest population of those who identify themselves as Muslim).

So with that said, then, indeed, in an Islamic State (key word is Islamic State, the lands of the Muslims, not the non-Muslims) they are obliged to rule by the Sharee'ah, the whole of the Sharee'ah, not leave this bit out here and leave that bit out there. And, yes, that would include the killing of the apostate (the one who leaves Islaam).

However saying that, there are, indeed, certain rulings that go along with this. They do not just put any person to death right away. There are rules.

Now, I don't want people getting all emotional. Use your brain, the majority of those who call themselves Muslims, for centuries, do follow the Ahaadeeth, so if you want to go by what the minority who claim to be Muslim are saying because it pleases your desires, and sounds nice and fuzzy to your ears; then it's your prerogative. I'm not here to shove down your throat any opinion. I'm just giving you the flip-side since this is a discussion forum. If you don't want to accept it, fair enough. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe.

But it needs to be stressed; this is in an Islamic State, a land that belongs to the Muslims, they can do what they want as long as it's permissible in Islaam.

By the way, the only time there has ever been peace in the Middle-East, in Palestine, where the Jews, Christians and Muslims lived peacefully was under the Islamic Rule. In-fact the Jews and Christians were protected by Muslims from persecution because of the Islamic Rule. The Christians who were taken prisoner by the Mongols who invaded ash-Shaam and Iraaq; the Muslims were the ones who rescued them from the hands of their oppressors because these Christians were residents of the Islamic State, they lived under it, and thus were protected by it, even during war-time!

[Space-Cowboy]

People, first off, I'd say don't get emotional.
See now, in Islaam, there are sects, as the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alaihi wassallam, foretold that there would be.


To even BELIEVE that for a even second is fundamentally UN-Islamic. There are NO sects in Islam.


They believe that the Qur'aan is the Word of God. And to go hand-in-hand with that, is the Sunnah (traditions, actions, approvals) of the last Messenger of God, Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him. The Sunnah explains the Qur'aan. The Qur'aan, itself, has explanations done by the Prophet, his Companions, and their students.

There is nothing in the Quran that says "follow hadiths". There is nothing in the Quran that says "kill apostates".

*For if there were, it would reveal a fundamental flaw of insecurity.... the idea that one is so concerned about people leave that a death penalty has to be put in place just to "keep people in line". But again, I see no evidence of punishment for apostacy in the Shariah Law.


Allaah said in the Qur'aan: "Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the dhikr (i.e. the Qur'aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)." {Surah Al-Hijr :9} Now, when we look at the explanation of this Verse, we find that the Sunnah of the Prophet is also protected just like the Qur'aan, it comes under the same ruling.


You don't KNOW what the Sunnah of the Prophet is. Islam claims the Quran is infallible. Makes no such claims for Hadiths.


Now, bare in mind, since the beginning of Islaam, the Muslims have held onto the Sunnah of the Prophet, as a proof and a guidance to be followed. And, indeed, many Qur'aanic Verses allude to this as well.

.....

So with that said, then, indeed, in an Islamic State (key word is Islamic State, the lands of the Muslims, not the non-Muslims) they are obliged to rule by the Sharee'ah, the whole of the Sharee'ah, not leave this bit out here and leave that bit out there. And, yes, that would include the killing of the apostate (the one who leaves Islaam).
However saying that, there are, indeed, certain rulings that go along with this. They do not just put any person to death right away. There are rules.


Oh? What are these 'rules'? What if under Shariah law nation, a person, truly feels at peace in his heart by converting to Buddhism? Then what?


Now, I don't want people getting all emotional. Use your brain, the majority of those who call themselves Muslims, for centuries, do follow the Ahaadeeth, so if you want to go by what the minority who claim to be Muslim are saying because it pleases your desires, and sounds nice and fuzzy to your ears; then it's your prerogative. I'm not here to shove down your throat any opinion. I'm just giving you the flip-side since this is a discussion forum. If you don't want to accept it, fair enough. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe.


This is not an 'emotional' issue, it's a morality issue. The Sharia is supposed instill a land of law where the people can live and peace and live in happiness. By very definition, this implies that a person should be allowed to convert without fear of backlash.


But it needs to be stressed; this is in an Islamic State, a land that belongs to the Muslims, they can do what they want as long as it's permissible in Islaam.


Let me put this into perspective for you: Let's assume for a moment that it actually DOES state "kill apostates" under Shariah.

So, help me formulate this argument:

premise:
i) Shariah Law states kill apostates
ii) Muslims, by definition, support Shariah Law
iii) Muslims, therefore by definition, want a Shariah State/Regime.
------------------------------------------
conclusion:
iv) Muslims support a Regime where people are killed for apostacy.

premise:
v) Apostacy-- Choosing to leave Islam is a personal choice.
---------------------------------------------------------
vi) v + iv = Muslims support a Regime which suppresses freedom of choice at the penalty of death.

premise:
vii) Muslims claim Islam is a religion of peace.

viii) Islam encourages Shariah Law.

ix) But Islam is a peaceful religion.

=====================================
conclusion:
x) Here we have a peaceful religion which supports violence against those seeking happiness, personal happiness by going over to another faith with no threat to others.

This is a FLAW/FALLACY whatever you call it: Cuz if this were true, Muslims would be preaching peace on one hand and violence in the other.

Thus I challenge the original premise such that: Shariah does not punish apostates.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

In the previous Islamic States; the rule of apostacy was, indeed, implemented. And yes, the majority of those who identify themselves as Muslims believe this.

The mental acumen of some people is well below par it seems. Not directed at anyone specific.

In the end all I have to say to you:

La-kum deenukum wa-lee-yad-deen...
To you be your religion, and to me my religion...

[Space-Cowboy]

In the previous Islamic States; the rule of apostacy was, indeed, implemented. And yes, the majority of Muslims believe this.

The mental acronym of some people is well below par it seems. Not directed at anyone specific.

In the end all I have to say to you:
La-kum deenukum wa-lee-yad-deen...
To you be your religion, and to me my religion...

Exactly, which is a part of the Quran, thus outweighing any hadith dictating 'execution'. Thus, if a person chooses to leave Islam, it's THEIR CHOICE. And to support a regime which dictates such an execution is to support a FLAWED regime.

So again, I challenge the hadith which dictates execution for apostacy as being completely and utterly false under the teachings of the Quran.

[Space-Cowboy]

So again, knowing that I KNOW that the Quran is a message of peace, I will vehemently challenge any hadith, [or any interpretation there-of] which dictates violence against the innocent.

Now, I'm sure what the argument is going to be: Apostates aren't really 'innocent' under Shariah law, bla bla bla.

So I'll go ahead and define what 'innocent' is for you instead: Innocent under the UN Charter for Human Rights. I.E. the FREEDOM to worship what you want to, WHEN you want to, upto and including switching faith if so suits your need.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

You really have no place, being a non-Muslim and all, to teach us what our Religion tells us and what it does not tell us, especially when some of us here have studied under learned and qualified students of Islamic knowledge. How non-sensical.

Do you not see how ridiculous and absurd your argument is? For centuries Muslims have believed and held unto certain beliefs, and now you and a few people come along after centuries, and tell the world that these Muslims weren’t following their religion. It's non-sensical. Go to any Islamic University in any part of the Muslim world, be it Malaysia, Paakistaan, Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc., you will find them teaching that which I have stated. In-fact, even the Shi'ah; they will tell you the same.

Name me one established Islamic Institute in the Muslim world that teaches that which you are propagating? Absolutely absurd and un-founded.

You, I'm sorry to say, are acting like an ignoramus, and totally disregarded the points above.

I have a simple question for you: Were all the Muslim generations from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him, up until now, all dis-illusioned, and mis-guided, and some-how you all of a sudden appeared with the correct Islaam after centuries of misguidance by the previous Muslims?

Any individual with an atoms wieght of knowledge of the religion can see how un-founded your claims are.

So again, knowing that I KNOW that the Quran is a message of peace, I will vehemently challenge any hadith, [or any interpretation there-of] which dictates violence against the innocent.

Now, I'm sure what the argument is going to be: Apostates aren't really 'innocent' under Shariah law, bla bla bla.

So I'll go ahead and define what 'innocent' is for you instead: Innocent under the UN Charter for Human Rights. I.E. the FREEDOM to worship what you want to, WHEN you want to, upto and including switching faith if so suits your need.
You fail to understand that Islaam is a way of life. It has its own set of rules governing every-day life, from the manner of sleeping to bathroom etiquette. And, indeed, Islaam has its own definitions of who is regarded as “innocent,” etc. Islaam does not derive its laws from the U.N.

Under an Islamic State, just the like all of the Islamic States before, the only laws that would be applied are the Islamic Laws, not the U.N. Constitutions, etc.

And, indeed, if you have problems with some parts of the Islamic Law, then you are not the first one to air these problems you have, and you - for sure - will not be the last. However, since I was told we're not allowed to disrespect/mock other people's religious view points, etc., I have not mocked your view points - so I advise you to hold back your emotions, and do not mock. If you wish to disagree, disagree but refrain from the mockery.

Anyway, "oh learned Scholar of the Sharee'ah," since you take the definition of the “innocent” from the U.N. Charter, then what do you make of the following Verse?

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. {Surah at-Tawbah: 29}

Oh Muslims, this is the total sum of the Fatwaa passed by "al-Faqeeh" Space-Cowboy: The Muslims from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him - inclduing his Companions and their students - up until the Muslims of the present time (be they, Hanafis, Shaafi'i, Hanbali, Dhaahiri, etc., etc.,) have all been misguided, and have never followed the true Islaam.

What such grotuesque falsehood that is being vomited.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

You really have no place, being a non-Muslim and all, to teach us what our Religion tells us and what it does not tell us, especially when some of us here have studied under learned and qualified students of Islamic knowledge. How non-sensical.

Do you not see how ridiculous and absurd your argument is? For centuries Muslims have believed and held unto certain beliefs, and now you and a few people come along after centuries, and tell the world that these Muslims weren’t following their religion. It's non-sensical. Go to any Islamic University in any part of the Muslim world, be it Malaysia, Paakistaan, Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc., you will find them teaching that which I have stated. In-fact, even the Shi'ah; they will tell you the same.

Name me one established Islamic Institute in the Muslim world that teaches that which you are propagating? Absolutely absurd and un-founded.

You, I'm sorry to say, are acting like an ignoramus, and totally disregarded the points above.

I have a simple question for you: Were all the Muslim generations from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him, up until now, all dis-illusioned, and mis-guided, and some-how you all of a sudden appeared with the correct Islaam after centuries of misguidance by the previous Muslims?

Any individual with an atoms wieght of knowledge of the religion can see how un-founded your claims are.


You fail to understand that Islaam is a way of life. It has its own set of rules governing every-day life, from the manner of sleeping to bathroom etiquette. And, indeed, Islaam has its own definitions of who is regarded as “innocent,” etc. Islaam does not derive its laws from the U.N.

Under an Islamic State, just the like all of the Islamic States before, the only laws that would be applied are the Islamic Laws, not the U.N. Constitutions, etc.

And, indeed, if you have problems with some parts of the Islamic Law, then you are not the first one to air these problems you have, and you - for sure - will not be the last. However, since I was told we're not allowed to disrespect/mock other people's religious view points, etc., I have not mocked your view points - so I advise you to hold back your emotions, and do not mock. If you wish to disagree, disagree but refrain from the mockery.

Anyway, "oh learned Scholar of the Sharee'ah," since you take the definition of the “innocent” from the U.N. Charter, then what do you make of the following Verse?

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. {Surah at-Tawbah: 29}

Oh Muslims, this is the total sum of the Fatwaa passed by "al-Faqeeh" Space-Cowboy: The Muslims from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him - inclduing his Companions and their students - up until the Muslims of the present time ( be they, Hanafis, Shaafi'i, Hanbali, Dhaahiri, etc., etc.,) have all been misguided, and have never followed the true Islaam.

What such grotuesque falsehood that is being vomited.
awesome posts.

i swear, if you turn out to be a 220lb crazy Pashtun guy as well...

[Space-Cowboy]

You really have no place, being a non-Muslim and all, to teach us what our Religion tells us and what it does not tell us, especially when some of us here have studied under learned and qualified students of Islamic knowledge. How non-sensical.

Actually, if there's an inherent flaw in Islam, then I DO have a place in pointing it out. As with all injustices.

Do you not see how ridiculous and absurd your argument is? For centuries Muslims have believed and held unto certain beliefs, and now you and a few people come along after centuries, and tell the world that these Muslims weren’t following their religion. It's non-sensical. Go to any Islamic University in any part of the Muslim world, be it Malaysia, Paakistaan, Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc., you will find them teaching that which I have stated. In-fact, even the Shi'ah; they will tell you the same.

You're the one justifying killing innocents for their choice and MY argument is absurd? yea, right.

Name me one established Islamic Institute in the Muslim world that teaches that which you are propagating? Absolutely absurd and un-founded.

What am I propagating? Protecting the innocent? God forbid.
You, I'm sorry to say, are acting like an ignoramus, and totally disregarded the points above.
And you're acting like a brainwashed idiot. Made to believe whatever hadith is placed in front of you without regarding the moral consequences.

I have a simple question for you: Were all the Muslim generations from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him, up until now, all dis-illusioned, and mis-guided, and some-how you all of a sudden appeared with the correct Islaam after centuries of misguidance by the previous Muslims?

I had a simple question for you... which I outlined in the argument in the previous post..... please be so kind as to define/break it for me. I doubt you can. :idea:

Any individual with an atoms wieght of knowledge of the religion can see how un-founded your claims are.

What are my claims? Other than 'it's wrong to kill an innocent based on their choice, it's unjust what ever the law, Shariah, or otherwise' may be. If you can't disprove that, you can't disprove anything.

You fail to understand that Islaam is a way of life. It has its own set of rules governing every-day life, from the manner of sleeping to bathroom etiquette. And, indeed, Islaam has its own definitions of who is regarded as “innocent,” etc. Islaam does not derive its laws from the U.N.

Then it's inherently a flawed system, the Shariah system.

Under an Islamic State, just the like all of the Islamic States before, the only laws that would be applied are the Islamic Laws, not the U.N. Constitutions, etc.

Again, then it means it's a flawed state.

And, indeed, if you have problems with some parts of the Islamic Law, then you are not the first one to air these problems you have, and you - for sure - will not be the last. However, since I was told we're not allowed to disrespect/mock other people's religious view points, etc., I have not mocked your view points - so I advise you to hold back your emotions, and do not mock. If you wish to disagree, disagree but refrain from the mockery.

There's nothing to 'mock' here, I'm just revealing the futility of your argument. It really has NO basis in regards to a Just regime where human rights are considered.

Anyway, "oh learned Scholar of the Sharee'ah," since you believe the Qur’aan does not “dictate violence against the innocent,” and since you take the definition of the “innocent” from the U.N. Charter, then what do you make of the following Verse? Are those "innocent" people that are being talked about?

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. {Surah at-Tawbah: 29}

What the bloody hell are you talking about, this is completely unrelated to the point you're vainly attempting to make... if any. Otherwise please point it out to me.

Oh Muslims, this is the total sum of the Fatwaa passed by "al-Faqeeh" Space-Cowboy: The Muslims from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him - inclduing his Companions and their students - up until the Muslims of the present time (Hanafis, Shaafi'i, Hanbali, Dhaahiri, etc., etc.,) have all been misguided, and have never followed the true Islaam.

What such grotuesque falsehood that is being vomited

That's EXACTLY the claim I'm making. If you have a system where a person is not free to leave Islam if they so choose, i.e. FREEDOM OF CHOICE.... then it's a FLAWED system, revealing the insecurities of people governing within. And should NEVER be allowed to exist in the first place. You can quote me on that. :idea:

[Space-Cowboy]

There's no point in me arguing here, I've already proven you false.. :idea:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

There's no point in me arguing here, I've already proven you false.. :idea:
no you haven't. you've just set the stage for another debate.

you vs. Islam.

gogogo

unless you wanna wage another proxy debate. using Islam vs. Islam didn't work, so you could try other civilization systems i guess.

[Space-Cowboy]

no you haven't. you've just set the stage for another debate.

you vs. Islam.

gogogo

unless you wanna wage another proxy debate. using Islam vs. Islam didn't work, so you could try other civilization systems i guess.

Like I said, help me out here then:

Let me put this into perspective for you: Let's assume for a moment that it actually DOES state "kill apostates" under Shariah.

So, help me formulate this argument:

premise:
i) Shariah Law states kill apostates
ii) Muslims, by definition, support Shariah Law
iii) Muslims, therefore by definition, want a Shariah State/Regime.
------------------------------------------
conclusion:
iv) Muslims support a Regime where people are killed for apostacy.

premise:
v) Apostacy-- Choosing to leave Islam is a personal choice.
---------------------------------------------------------
vi) v + iv = Muslims support a Regime which suppresses freedom of choice at the penalty of death.

premise:
vii) Muslims claim Islam is a religion of peace.

viii) Islam encourages Shariah Law.

ix) But Islam is a peaceful religion.

=====================================
conclusion:
x) Here we have a peaceful religion which supports violence against those seeking happiness, personal happiness by going over to another faith

[Space-Cowboy]

btw, it's not "me v.s. Islam"

it's "me v.s. Justification for killing innocents" :idea:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Like I said, help me out here then:
there's a drastic logic gap there at the end where differing definitions of innocence or peace is assumed. like what MIXED-UP GIRL pointed out.

you can't just fill in the gaps with your own subjective morality. not when trying to come to logical conclusions anyway.

to compare systems (you have to compare systems if you want to utilize logic, since human experience is subjective), you have to look at what the principles are, and then how those were exacted in reality, in historical context, and perhaps further debates on the application of said principles. and like i said, this has to be done as a compare and contrast deal if you wanna get anywhere.

[Space-Cowboy]

there's a drastic logic gap there at the end where a differing definitions of innocence or peace is assumed. like what MIXED-UP GIRL pointed out.

you can't just fill in the gaps with your own subjective morality. not when trying to come to logical conclusions anyway.

Why not? The hadiths are doing the same.


to compare systems (you have to compare systems if you want to utilize logic, since human experience is subjective), you have to look at what the principles are, and then how those were exacted in reality, in historical context, and perhaps further debates on the application of said principles. and like i said, this has to be done as a compare and contrast deal if you wanna get anywhere.

Fine, put them into context for me. Go ahead, please justify killing a person for switching faiths for me.. Honestly, I wanna hear this one. And I don't mean just quoting random hadiths that 'tell you to do something'... from a 'logial' point of view as you so say..... please, try and justify it. And I don't care about historical context... I'm talking about HERE and NOW. And the fact that that guy in Afghanistan was about to face the death penalty for switching to Christianity. Go ahead, justify THAT. :idea:

[Space-Cowboy]

there's a drastic logic gap there at the end where differing definitions of innocence or peace is assumed. like what MIXED-UP GIRL pointed out.




Really, fill this logic gap in for me :idea:

By definition a state of Law does not imply a state of Justice.

Justice, on a world scale [U.N.] dictates freedom of choice for the innocent. Now, if the Shariah doesn't hold that same definition, it is ALREADY a flawed state.

Innocent: Those who have committed no crimes against another person[s].

^^^ Go ahead, use that definition, as it is the one which is widely accepted. And again, if the Shariah doesn't accept this, it is an inherently flawed system.

And sure it might be 'my view'.... but under this definition, it's pretty much the rest of the non-Islamic world view as well.

[Space-Cowboy]

By the way, here you go:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/afghan.christian/

Death could await Christian convert
U.S. lawmaker: Christian-conversion prosecution 'outrageous'

Wednesday, March 22, 2006; Posted: 1:03 a.m. EST (06:03 GMT) [from the article]:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed.

That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing.

Rahman, a father of two, was arrested last week and is now awaiting trial for rejecting Islam. He told local police, whom he approached on an unrelated matter, that he had converted to Christianity. Reports say he was carrying a Bible at the time.

"They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it," Rahman told reporters last week, "but I am not a deserter and not an infidel."

The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty. (Watch how Rahman's case could cast doubts on Afghanistan's commitment to democracy -- 1:17)

Afghanistan's population is 80 percent Sunni Muslim and 19 percent Shiite Muslim, according to the CIA. The other 1 percent of the population is classified as "other."

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Why not? The hadiths are doing the same.
yes. cuz there was this guy yo. a real cool character, you might have heard of him. his name was MUHAMMAD. he started his own moral system.

and that's still not the point. feel free to define any moral system you want, but you need one as a point of reference.

Fine, put them into context for me. Go ahead, please justify killing a person for switching faiths for me.. Honestly, I wanna hear this one. And I don't mean just quoting random hadiths that 'tell you to do something'... from a 'logial' point of view as you so say..... please, try and justify it. And I don't care about historical context... I'm talking about HERE and NOW. And the fact that that guy in Afghanistan was about to face the death penalty for switching to Christianity. Go ahead, justify THAT. :idea:
why should i do anything? you're the one out to prove something about Islam. and you do that through the method i outlined above.

i mean, you already started:

You fail to understand that Islaam is a way of life. It has its own set of rules governing every-day life, from the manner of sleeping to bathroom etiquette. And, indeed, Islaam has its own definitions of who is regarded as “innocent,” etc. Islaam does not derive its laws from the U.N.Then it's inherently a flawed system, the Shariah system.Under an Islamic State, just the like all of the Islamic States before, the only laws that would be applied are the Islamic Laws, not the U.N. Constitutions, etc. Again, then it means it's a flawed state.Anyway, "oh learned Scholar of the Sharee'ah," since you believe the Qur’aan does not “dictate violence against the innocent,” and since you take the definition of the “innocent” from the U.N. Charter, then what do you make of the following Verse? Are those "innocent" people that are being talked about?

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. {Surah at-Tawbah: 29}What the bloody hell are you talking about, this is completely unrelated to the point you're vainly attempting to make... if any. Otherwise please point it out to me.
i can help you out by showing you that you did already use a point of reference in passing judgement on Islam. i can tell this because you arrived at a conclusion, 'flawed'.

but you did not mention this other system used as a point of reference nor did you go into any of the criteria which i mentioned before, regarding investigating the principles, and the application of principles in historical context. and the onus is on you to do all that work. not just for Islam, but the system you use in your frame of reference.

i'm not defending anything here, just trying to help you do what you wanted to do.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Really, fill this logic gap in for me :idea:

By definition a state of Law does not imply a state of Justice.

Justice, on a world scale [U.N.] dictates freedom of choice for the innocent. Now, if the Shariah doesn't hold that same definition, it is ALREADY a flawed state.

Innocent: Those who have committed no crimes against another person[s].

^^^ Go ahead, use that definition, as it is the one which is widely accepted. And again, if the Shariah doesn't accept this, it is an inherently flawed system.

And sure it might be 'my view'.... but under this definition, it's pretty much the rest of the non-Islamic world view as well.
not really. Communist countries in practice have never hesitated to take out people for differing idealogies/principles/etc. still a huge global player.

[Space-Cowboy]

yes. cuz there was this guy yo. a real cool character, you might have heard of him. his name was MUHAMMAD. he started his own moral system
Sounds like a kool guy.... tell me, the OTHER people who supposedly wrote down the hadiths..... can you please tell me how kool they were, insofar is properly documenting what Mohammad actually said?

and that's still not the point. feel free to define any moral system you want, but you need one as a point of reference.

The point of reference I'm using is the U.N. charter.

why should i do anything? you're the one out to prove something about Islam. and you do that through the method i outlined above.

Uh, no. I'm not here to prove anything about Islam. I honestly think it's a great religion, under the context that FatGeezer and Indian_Eyess have laid out. I DO however have a severe problem with the Shariah IF it condones execution for apostacy.




i can help you out by showing you that you did already use a point of reference in passing judgement on Islam. i can tell this because you arrived at a conclusion, 'flawed'.

I arrived at the conclusion that khanbaba's and Mixed UP Girl's definition of Shariah is flawed. I haven't made any such claims about Islam itself in that regard.

but you did not mention this other system used as a point of reference nor did you go into any of the criteria which i mentioned before, regarding investigating the principles, and the application of principles in historical context. and the onus is on you to do all that work. not just for Islam, but the system you use in your frame of reference.

Oh but I have. I'm well aware of the atrocities of Brahminical Hindu kingdoms in the past.... or of the Catholic Church and the Spanish Inquisition. I'm talking about HERE AND NOW. Furthermore... having OTHER flawed systems around the world doesn't negate the flaw in the Shariah as defined by khanbaba.

i'm not defending anything here, just trying to help you do what you wanted to do.

You're defending the Shariah... and that's understandable. Like I said, I have no problem with it, as it was defined by Indian_Eyess and FatGeezer. I DO have a serious problem with a system where people who choose to leave the faith are killed for it..... and I think the rest of the moral world should have a serious problem with it as well.

[Space-Cowboy]

not really. Communist countries in practice have never hesitated to take out people for differing idealogies/principles/etc. still a huge global player.


First off, they are in violation of U.N. charter as well, all you've done is just strengthened my point here. Secondly, the unethical ideologies of a communist nation does not negate the unethical ideologies of Shariah [the way you seem to want it].

[Space-Cowboy]

The CNN article I posted is right there, feel free to read it. :idea:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Sounds like a kool guy.... tell me, the OTHER people who supposedly wrote down the hadiths..... can you please tell me how kool they were, insofar is properly documenting what Mohammad actually said?
that's 2 years of study at the tail end of a total 8 year course my aunt is finishing up... so no. i can't. but obviously, that would indicate there's plenty of information out there to peruse. start with google, wikipedia, whatever.

I arrived at the conclusion that khanbaba's and Mixed UP Girl's definition of Shariah is flawed.
you would do well to just ignore khanbaba beyond a certain point cuz he isn't writing legibly half the time and doesn't cite as well as MIXED-UP GIRL does.

MIXED-UP GIRL's definition is the one which most all Muslims follow or have followed.

your frame of reference is the U.N. Charter. so naturally, anything which is not the U.N. Charter is flawed?

that's about the extent of the logic we know you used.

Oh but I have. I'm well aware of the atrocities of Brahminical Hindu kingdoms in the past.... or of the Catholic Church and the Spanish Inquisition. I'm talking about HERE AND NOW. Furthermore... having OTHER flawed systems around the world doesn't negate the flaw in the Shariah as defined by khanbaba.
no you're not. apostacy didn't start with this one case in Afghanistan...

the reason you look at historical context is because you determine the feasibility of the application of a system's principles to reality. which is where Communism for instance, goes astray. so mentioning those other cases is not really relevant since they are not the system as embodied by the U.N. Charter.

although if you did want to argue about Christianity, then it'd be relevant.

You're defending the Shariah... and that's understandable. Like I said, I have no problem with it, as it was defined by Indian_Eyess and FatGeezer. I DO have a serious problem with a system where people who choose to leave the faith are killed for it..... and I think the rest of the moral world should have a serious problem with it as well.
again, logic gap filled in by relative morality.

you have to suspend belief in absolute morality when you want to engage various (sometimes competing) systems in objective discourse.

this has just come down to: you have your thing, someone else has their thing. their thing is wrong because its not yours.

that's why i mention the need to cite more material about the systems. start listing the principles, and how they were applied, then study the patterns of different application, and once you determine the feasibility of a particular system to real application, you can begin to analyze them as whole entities interacting with one another.

this debate you want will be a long, complicated one. there's no easy way to shortcut through it if you want the results to stand up (or you could just believe in conclusions blindly, nothing 'wrong' with that... what may be enough for you might not be enough for others).

[KhanNoonienSingh]

The CNN article I posted is right there, feel free to read it. :idea:
i read about that a long while back. i wasn't expressing my opinions on the matter.

[MolviCorleone]

I’m not so sure about the Shariah Law on apostasy, there is a difference of opinion amongst scholars, I think the hadith referring to death for apostasy is weak anyway so you don’t really have a point to begin with. I know there was that case in Afghanistan about the Christian former Muslim who was meant to be given a death penalty, if he was….it wouldn’t have been right.

The Apostates who were given the death sentence during the Prophet Mohammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wassallam time were mainly hypocrites who had other agendas when posing as muslims…….they deserved it.

Besides Islamic state.....no one has the right to dish out fatwa’s like this. Even if there was the state would be responsible for the fatwa and the death penalty.

This isnt even a topic which needs to be discussed.


btw.......after reading up on this subject.........SHEEESH the amount of bullshit ive read, lies on top of lies i could go all week refuting those lies......especially on answering-islam.org.....and these are the sites a lot of RDers go to, to learn about muslims :no:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

before i go, instead of meaningless banter, here's some basic info on everything about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

cites hadiths and verses and lists historical interpretation. and its not even objective either, Wikipedia and other writings on it are still firmly within the realm of Western outlook on the world (i.e, its written from the point of view of your U.N. Charter).

its like MIXED-UP GIRL said... to each their own. if you really dislike it enough, go attack Afghanistan and all Muslims who practice this form of Shariah and try to forcibly deter them from it. or just continue to declare your discontent on the internet, but that doesn't necessitate a reply from the other side so don't expect one.
I’m not so sure about the Shariah Law on apostasy, there is a difference of opinion amongst scholars, I think the hadith referring to death for apostasy is weak anyway so you don’t really have a point to begin with. I know there was that case in Afghanistan about the Christian former Muslim who was meant to be given a death penalty, if he was….it wouldn’t have been right.
the difference of opinion is small... standard practice has been death penalty. although it might be large if you consider that Sunni-Hunafi (majority) and Shi'a Muslims don't believe in the death penalty for apostacy of females.

[Space-Cowboy]

I’m not so sure about the Shariah Law on apostasy, there is a difference of opinion amongst scholars, I think the hadith referring to death for apostasy is weak anyway so you don’t really have a point to begin with. I know there was that case in Afghanistan about the Christian former Muslim who was meant to be given a death penalty, if he was….it wouldn’t have been right.

The Apostates who were given the death sentence during the Prophet Mohammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wassallam time were mainly hypocrites who had other agendas when posing as muslims…….they deserved it.
Besides Islamic state.....no one has the right to dish out fatwa’s like this. Even if there was the state would be responsible for the fatwa and the death penalty.

This isnt even a topic which needs to be discussed.


btw.......after reading up on this subject.........SHEEESH the amount of bullshit ive read, lies on top of lies i could go all week refuting those lies......especially on answering-islam.org.....and these are the sites a lot of RDers go to, to learn about muslims :no:

See this I can understand, and I can relate to. People who have other malicious agendas DO deserve punishment. I'll definitely see the merit in that.

But for people that choose to leave it because they find peace somewhere else? I'll even understand them receiving the Jizya [for no longer being Muslim]..... but DEATH?

[KhanNoonienSingh]

See this I can understand, and I can relate to. People who have other malicious agendas DO deserve punishment. I'll definitely see the merit in that.

But for people that choose to leave it because they find peace somewhere else? I'll even understand them receiving the Jizya [for no longer being Muslim]..... but DEATH?
this is where my own personal opinion comes into play, but like that wiki article quoted:Maududi claims that the misunderstanding and criticism arises because of a "fundamental misconception" about Islam:

If Islam is truly a "religion" in the sense that religion is understood at present, surely it would be absurd to prescribe the penalty of execution for those people who wish to leave it because of their dissatisfaction with its principles.
It is not only a "religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true ordering of life before death.
Maududi also declares:

Whatever objections the critics pose regarding the punishment of the apostate, they make them bearing in mind only a single "religion" (madhhab). In contrast, when we present our arguments to demonstrate the validity of this punishment, we have in view no mere "religion" but a state which is constructed on a religion (din) and the authority of its principles rather than on the authority of a family, clan or people.
And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason.
so basically, islam's a way of life and encompasses the political scope. which is the problem here. can you just up and throw Shariah law into random alien government systems? like Pakistan and Afghanistan have done? you could, but those are no longer subject to the islamic system of society or government, nor their systems of checks and balances. so shariah law becomes estranged in such usage, imho.

when half of islam is stripped away (the political), and someone leaves Islam, they were only ever leaving half of Islam or performing an apostacy that is not equivalent to what apostacy was during the time of the Prophet(pbuh).

that is why i personally don't think the defense for apostacy as a law is very applicable when the shariah is used in different governmental systems. :dunno: though Iran for instance, is a different story. though i'm Sunni, i acknowledge they have an actual religious state set up and running (if you can call it running), and due to that basis, shariah and particularly the apostacy law would be a better fit there. of course, people do have problems with Shi'a Islam and the Iranian interpretation thereof to boot.

[Space-Cowboy]

before i go, instead of meaningless banter, here's some basic info on everything about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

cites hadiths and verses and lists historical interpretation. and its not even objective either, Wikipedia and other writings on it are still firmly within the realm of Western outlook on the world (i.e, its written from the point of view of your U.N. Charter).

its like MIXED-UP GIRL said... to each their own. if you really dislike it enough, go attack Afghanistan and all Muslims who practice this form of Shariah and try to forcibly deter them from it. or just continue to declare your discontent on the internet, but that doesn't necessitate a reply from the other side so don't expect one.

the difference of opinion is small... standard practice has been death penalty. although it might be large if you consider that Sunni-Hunafi (majority) and Shi'a Muslims don't believe in the death penalty for apostacy of females.


I don't have to argue, the Western world is doing it enough, and on a much more prejudiced scale. Believe it or not, I'm more on your side than Israel's side, but I'm going to need something more tangible than this. I'm not here to debate, I'm here to learn YOUR reasoning.... but only if it's logical and sound. It hasn't been.

For the most part, my argument is if a system declares someone who freely leaves Islam, as 'un-innocent' and 'sentenced to death' then it's a flawed system.

i read about that a long while back. i wasn't expressing my opinions on the matter.

Yes, please do express your opinions, let me see what you think.

no you're not. apostacy didn't start with this one case in Afghanistan...

the reason you look at historical context is because you determine the feasibility of the application of a system's principles to reality. which is where Communism for instance, goes astray. so mentioning those other cases is not really relevant since they are not the system as embodied by the U.N. Charter.

although if you did want to argue about Christianity, then it'd be relevant.

I've LOOKED at historical context... I'm not denying the reasons for or against its use in the past. I AM contesting its use as of current.... as in Afghanistan. I'm also not arguing about the feasibility of Communism, I'm well aware of what's written and what's practiced. The problem I have with Shariah Law is that if it is WRITTEN that the death penalty be enforced on apostates... then it is inherantly in violation of moral and ethical code as generally accepted by the vast majority of the world. And yes, I did want to argue about Christianity and its behaviour in the past. Same thing applies.

again, logic gap filled in by relative morality.

you have to suspend belief in absolute morality when you want to engage various (sometimes competing) systems in objective discourse.

That's a cop out and you know it. And here's the counter argument to that:

Apostate: I'm Christian
Shariah: The sentence is death.
Apostate: That's immoral.
Shariah: Morality is relative, according to us, it is not.
Apostate: I'm a Christian now, I don't follow those morals.

You see... if I'm to give importance to all the relative moral views that exist; even to the Shariah, then the same is expected in return of the Shariah itself.... otherwise, again, it becomes flawed...

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Yes, please do express your opinions, let me see what you think. yeah i just made a post about that

That's a cop out and you know it. And here's the counter argument to that:

Apostate: I'm Christian
Shariah: The sentence is death.
Apostate: That's immoral.
Shariah: Morality is relative, according to us, it is not.
Apostate: I'm a Christian now, I don't follow those morals.

You see... if I'm to give importance to all the relative moral views that exist; even to the Shariah, then the same is expected in return of the Shariah itself.... otherwise, again, it becomes flawed...
that's not a counter argument. if the shariah follower can enforce his will on the apostate, he wins. might makes right in the absence of all else.

you're forgetting individuals form societal umbrellas which apply commonly held values to everyone within the umbrella.

it becomes the society vs. the individual. or larger societies versus smaller societies, or whatever. politics i guess.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

I've LOOKED at historical context... I'm not denying the reasons for or against its use in the past. I AM contesting its use as of current.... as in Afghanistan. I'm also not arguing about the feasibility of Communism, I'm well aware of what's written and what's practiced. The problem I have with Shariah Law is that if it is WRITTEN that the death penalty be enforced on apostates... then it is inherantly in violation of moral and ethical code as generally accepted by the vast majority of the world. And yes, I did want to argue about Christianity and its behaviour in the past. Same thing applies.
oh yeah, one more thing. its not the 'vast majority' of the world either. how many chinese and muslims make up the global population?

i mention chinese and communists because like i quoted before... the entire thought process behind apostacy in islam is more akin to treason AND apostacy in one, because the 'religion' was part and parcel of the state. we have no precedence for 'non-political-but-still-religious-Muslims' renouncing Islam. which is where i personally conflict with the 'here and now' view on it.

[Space-Cowboy]

yeah i just made a post about that


that's not a counter argument. if the shariah follower can enforce his will on the apostate, he wins. might makes right in the absence of all else.

you're forgetting individuals form societal umbrellas which apply commonly held values to everyone within the umbrella.

it becomes the society vs. the individual. or larger societies versus smaller societies, or whatever. politics i guess.


That's an interesting view. Let's try it this way. Let's define 'Apostates' as a People, a group of People. Under Shariah, apostates would be oppressed simply under the reasoning that might makes right. Correct?

So then, by THAT logic, it's perfectly ok for the U.S. to impose certain rules and racial profiling upon a People..... say..... Muslims... and spot check them and investigate them, at will because, the U.S. government is mighty.... and might makes right.

In terms of social umbrellas... Muslims, by definition, want the world under one, Umbrella, the Shariah.... so.... what recourse, if any, does an individual have, under that Umbrella if he or she wishes to find peace in another faith?
Other than to simply be executed.

You see, if we go by the 'might makes right' ideal... then, by that very definition, what Israel is doing is 'ethical'... and we both know that is not the case. The only real conclusion that can be drawn here is that Israel's actions are not ethical... and neither is the death penalty under Shariah..

[Space-Cowboy]

oh yeah, one more thing. its not the 'vast majority' of the world either. how many chinese and muslims make up the global population?

i mention chinese and communists because like i quoted before... the entire thought process behind apostacy in islam is more akin to treason AND apostacy in one, because the 'religion' was part and parcel of the state. we have no precedence for 'non-political-but-still-religious-Muslims' renouncing Islam. which is where i personally conflict with the 'here and now' view on it.


But that's just it, I'm told Muslims DO want religion to BE the part and parcel of the state. And as I've mentioned, Communism what is was on paper has been utterly bastardized by China..

And yes, I understand the idea of Treason... but then, the Islamic definition of Treason very much differs from the world definition. 'Treason' in the U.S. is acting against the state which could result in potentially harmful consequences for the People. i.e. feeding confidential information to the enemy. 'Treason' in Shariah refers to leaving the faith, there is no implication of 'harm' to others...

In terms of the 'here and now' yes I very much understand that most states DON'T have proper Islamic Law and the such. But it still doesn't NEGATE the fact that here we have support for a State where the freedom to choose at no cost to others is considered Treason.

And I'm very well aware of violation of many of those same rights under U.S.'s laws, I'll deal with them in another thread if need be. But like I said, it doesn't negate this.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

That's an interesting view. Let's try it this way. Let's define 'Apostates' as a People, a group of People. Under Shariah, apostates would be oppressed simply under the reasoning that might makes right. Correct?
no, the reasoning would be moral/religious/subjective in nature. might makes right is just the rule of reality that governs human affairs often.

So then, by THAT logic, it's perfectly ok for the U.S. to impose certain rules and racial profiling upon a People..... say..... Muslims... and spot check them and investigate them, at will because, the U.S. government is mighty.... and might makes right.
nope. cuz the US defines its principles, and might makes right is not one of them. they say one thing, and do another. inconsistency and hypocrisy.

if they declare outright their intention to simply force themselves on the world, and modify their constitution/laws and all that, then yes. you could use might makes right as a moral of theirs.

In terms of social umbrellas... Muslims, by definition, want the world under one, Umbrella, the Shariah.... so.... what recourse, if any, does an individual have, under that Umbrella if he or she wishes to find peace in another faith?
Other than to simply be executed.
go to a different umbrella

You see, if we go by the 'might makes right' ideal... then, by that very definition, what Israel is doing is 'ethical'... and we both know that is not the case. The only real conclusion that can be drawn here is that Israel's actions are not ethical... and neither is the death penalty under Shariah..
might makes right is not a moral or ethical term in my usage. its an actual empirical thing that happens.

right means not 'correct' but as in 'wins'. might wins.

[Space-Cowboy]

And let's use Communism for instance. China's bastardized Communism, if you will. As you know, it entails the suppression of religious practices except in the most remotest of areas.

Now, not to offend, but here goes: There have been several reports in the past, where people who actively and publicly tried to convert into Islam and Judaism in China were forcibly taken to prison, jailed, and killed.

Under Moral Relativism, this is perfectly ok, since, as you so say, 'might makes right', and they deem it moral and the punishment fair, as it is an act against the state, and thus treason and punishable by death. You see, these things can work both ways.... :idea:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

But that's just it, I'm told Muslims DO want religion to BE the part and parcel of the state. And as I've mentioned, Communism what is was on paper has been utterly bastardized by China..

And yes, I understand the idea of Treason... but then, the Islamic definition of Treason very much differs from the world definition. 'Treason' in the U.S. is acting against the state which could result in potentially harmful consequences for the People. i.e. feeding confidential information to the enemy. 'Treason' in Shariah refers to leaving the faith, there is no implication of 'harm' to others...

In terms of the 'here and now' yes I very much understand that most states DON'T have proper Islamic Law and the such. But it still doesn't NEGATE the fact that here we have support for a State where the freedom to choose at no cost to others is considered Treason.

And I'm very well aware of violation of many of those same rights under U.S.'s laws, I'll deal with them in another thread if need be. But like I said, it doesn't negate this.
that's not what i was saying. i do want religion to be part and parcel of the state.

but the form of state matters is what i was saying. throwing shariah into random western-style parliamentary democracies and other alien political institutions is what i said i think is in error.

also no, reread what i quoted from the wiki article. treason in shariah does not just mean leaving the faith as you call it. the faith is a part of the state. leaving the faith sets an immensely bad precedent, one that threatens the national security of an islamic state.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

And let's use Communism for instance. China's bastardized Communism, if you will. As you know, it entails the suppression of religious practices except in the most remotest of areas.

Now, not to offend, but here goes: There have been several reports in the past, where people who actively and publicly tried to convert into Islam and Judaism in China were forcibly taken to prison, jailed, and killed.

Under Moral Relativism, this is perfectly ok, since, as you so say, 'might makes right', and they deem it moral and the punishment fair, as it is an act against the state, and thus treason and punishable by death. You see, these things can work both ways.... :idea:
yeah, that's not what i was talking about though.

and what 'should' happen there under an ideal Islamic scenario is: the oppression of Muslims directly contradicts the charter of a 'real' Islamic State, which then stops China. first through diplomacy of course, and then if needed, escalating into outright war with China until it is subdued or stops persecution of Muslims.

technically speaking, not just Muslims. glaring displays of oppression and injustice of that sort on any people would require an Islamic State to act.

[Space-Cowboy]

no, the reasoning would be moral/religious/subjective in nature. might makes right is just the rule of reality that governs human affairs often.

The 'subjectivity' of morality doesn't pardon it from the greater ethical implications that it has on the society. Under this definitiion, it was morally ok to enforce slavery. Which is clearly not the case.

nope. cuz the US defines its principles, and might makes right is not one of them. they say one thing, and do another. inconsistency and hypocrisy.

if they declare outright their intention to simply force themselves on the world, and modify their constitution/laws and all that, then yes. you could use might makes right as a moral of theirs.


go to a different umbrella

might makes right is not a moral or ethical term. its an actual empirical thing that happens.

right means not 'correct' but as in 'wins'. might wins

What happens when said person is too poor to move to a 'different umbrella'.. as in the case of the Afghan, who was only escorted out through the help of the international community?

Actually U.S. has very real laws in terms of homeland security, and they're infact following it to a T, however unjust it may be. And yes, Might wins....

So again, like I said, it really boils down to then, is if Morality is dictated by the Rich and Powerful. Then, U.S. being that they are both rich and powerful, have their very right to impose western morals unto the Mid East [as per Foreign Policy] and supress them under the guise that the beliefs of those in the Mid East are immoral in the eyes of America.


I'm going to work now, I'll be back to discuss this.

[Space-Cowboy]

yeah, that's not what i was talking about though.and what 'should' happen there under an ideal Islamic scenario is: the oppression of Muslims directly contradicts the charter of a 'real' Islamic State, which then stops China. first through diplomacy of course, and then if needed, escalating into outright war with China until it is subdued or stops persecution of Muslims.

technically speaking, not just Muslims. glaring displays of oppression and injustice of that sort on any people would require an Islamic State to act.


Then what ARE you talking about? I'm not talking about an Islamic state in that post, I'm talking about morality and law as imposed by the Communist govt. under the value 'might makes right'. China doesn't have a Muslim state, it has a Communist state which DICTATES AS LAW religious practice of Islam be suppressed. I.E. within their own country. Thus, under the Communist Law it is China's perogative to hunt down and kill Muslims, as it is against the national policy. Just like if say Iran were to hunt down and kill apostats under Shariah Law if it were their national policy.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

The 'subjectivity' of morality doesn't pardon it from the greater ethical implications that it has on the society. Under this definitiion, it was morally ok to enforce slavery. Which is clearly not the case.
ethics is relative, like morality.

and yes, it was morally okay to enforce slavery when they were doing it. it must have been. otherwise, they wouldn't have done it.

ethics/morality changed.

What happens when said person is too poor to move to a 'different umbrella'.. as in the case of the Afghan, who was only escorted out through the help of the international community?
then they don't leave Islam, or if they do, face the known consequences. i'm not going to comment on the case of the Afghan because i don't recognize the government of Afghanistan as an Islamic State, nor did i recognize the Taliban's Afghanistan as such either (perhaps a precursor).

So again, like I said, it really boils down to then, is if Morality is dictated by the Rich and Powerful. Then, U.S. being that they are both rich and powerful, have their very right to impose western morals unto the Mid East [as per Foreign Policy] and supress them under the guise that the beliefs of those in the Mid East are immoral in the eyes of America.
they certainly HAVE the right to do so (noun), but that does not make it right (adj.) in anyone else's eyes but their own.

and when different eyes aren't seeing the same thing, they fight through whatever means, and one side wins. and then those eyes' view is propagated further until eventually the opposing view is history.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Then what ARE you talking about? I'm not talking about an Islamic state in that post, I'm talking about morality and law as imposed by the Communist govt. under the value 'might makes right'. China doesn't have a Muslim state, it has a Communist state which DICTATES AS LAW religious practice of Islam be suppressed. I.E. within their own country. Thus, under the Communist Law it is China's perogative to hunt down and kill Muslims, as it is against the national policy. Just like if say Iran were to hunt down and kill apostats under Shariah Law if it were their national policy.
i already said what i was talking about in this post:

that's not what i was saying. i do want religion to be part and parcel of the state.

but the form of state matters is what i was saying. throwing shariah into random western-style parliamentary democracies and other alien political institutions is what i said i think is in error.

also no, reread what i quoted from the wiki article. treason in shariah does not just mean leaving the faith as you call it. the faith is a part of the state. leaving the faith sets an immensely bad precedent, one that threatens the national security of an islamic state.

and yes, that's their right and prerogative.

[Space-Cowboy]

ethics is relative, like morality.

and yes, it was morally okay to enforce slavery when they were doing it. it must have been. otherwise, they wouldn't have done it.

ethics/morality changed.


then they don't leave Islam, or if they do, face the known consequences. i'm not going to comment on the case of the Afghan because i don't recognize the government of Afghanistan as an Islamic State, nor did i recognize the Taliban's Afghanistan as such either (perhaps a precursor).


they certainly HAVE the right to do so (noun), but that does not make it right (adj.) in anyone else's eyes but their own.

and when different eyes aren't seeing the same thing, they fight through whatever means, and one side wins. and then those eyes' view is propagated further until eventually the opposing view is history.

My point exactly, in reference to the Shariah's death penalty for apostates :idea:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

My point exactly, in reference to the Shariah's death penalty for apostates :idea:
exactly. so you're basically representing a set of eyes looking to eradicate opposive views from opposing eyes in this case. and like i said, to stop them, go in there with force and do it (shut the others' eyes). history will tell who the victor is, cuz the winners write history.

or you can formulate a method to allow other viewpoints to exist (which does exist in some limited form, which is why they could not resort to fighting to stop the Afghan case).

[The Anti Desi]

this is where my own personal opinion comes into play, but like that wiki article quoted:
so basically, islam's a way of life and encompasses the political scope. which is the problem here. can you just up and throw Shariah law into random alien government systems? like Pakistan and Afghanistan have done? you could, but those are no longer subject to the islamic system of society or government, nor their systems of checks and balances. so shariah law becomes estranged in such usage, imho.

when half of islam is stripped away (the political), and someone leaves Islam, they were only ever leaving half of Islam or performing an apostacy that is not equivalent to what apostacy was during the time of the Prophet(pbuh).

that is why i personally don't think the defense for apostacy as a law is very applicable when the shariah is used in different governmental systems. :dunno: though Iran for instance, is a different story. though i'm Sunni, i acknowledge they have an actual religious state set up and running (if you can call it running), and due to that basis, shariah and particularly the apostacy law would be a better fit there. of course, people do have problems with Shi'a Islam and the Iranian interpretation thereof to boot.
Madudi himself was known to incite violence and riots against other "sects". So I will be sketchy regarding his research.

Now where in the texts does it claim that those born of Muslim parents have the door closed???

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Madudi himself was known to incite violence and riots against other "sects". So I will be sketchy regarding his research.

Now where in the texts does it claim that those born of Muslim parents have the door closed???
yeah not too big a fan of the guy, but that quote is a common sense interpretation by most muslims of the hadith. its been government policy since the sahaba's time... not really research.

and door closed to what?

[The Anti Desi]

yeah not too big a fan of the guy, but that quote is a common sense interpretation by most muslims of the hadith. its been government policy since the sahaba's time... not really research.

and door closed to what?
He made the claim that children born amongst Muslim parents must be executed if they convert out of Islam. I find that a very faulty interpretation.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

He made the claim that children born amongst Muslim parents must be executed if they convert out of Islam. I find that a very faulty interpretation.
er... all people converting out of islam would be facing the death penalty. he was saying no exceptions.

and interpretation of what?

[The Anti Desi]

er... all people converting out of islam would be facing the death penalty. he was saying no exceptions.

and interpretation of what?
Children have not necessarily viewed, interpreted, accepted Islam for themselves. I can understand for those converting into Islam and then converting out, the punishment can apply. But children who have not yet understood the religion....I cannot say such can apply. That would go against 2:256.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Children have not necessarily viewed, interpreted, accepted Islam for themselves. I can understand for those converting into Islam and then converting out, the punishment can apply. But children who have not yet understood the religion....I cannot say such can apply. That would go against 2:256.
children wouldn't be tried for apostacy to begin with. they can't distinguish right from wrong.

and maududi was agreeing with you:

In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

Honestly, this thread is too long. I’ve been out to class and I return to this. Aah well.

To be honest, Space-Cowboy’s reply in response to me is not even worth my time to respond to. I think it’s clear to those who read this thread, from my previous responses and Cowboy’s responses that I have addressed his points, and indeed, he has failed to address anything that I have put forward.

U.N. is a morality code? How strange. Where are the “morals” of the U.N. with regards to the Palestinians? Where are the “morals “of the U.N. when they enforced those cruel sanctions and embargos on Iraaq (which, by the way, were foretold by our Prophet - sallallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) thus murdering over 1 million Muslim babies (statistics by the West)? And the list goes on. Cowboy's whole argument and outlook is absolutely ridiculous and full of holes and contradictions as Khan has pointed out.

I’ve seen many people like you before and I’m sure I will most-likely see many more like you in the future; you try one argument, then when that doesn’t work, you try another and so on and so on to cuase doubts, to cause confusion. Listen, I know my religion, in-fact, I researched my religion and I researched other religions before I came to Islam. I don't need a non-Muslim teaching me what is part of my religion and what is not part of it.

You see the Sharee’ah law being a problem. Who cares, really? Who cares? No-one. The Sharee’ah is not a problem for those Western people converting to Islaam every-single day all across Europe and America. In-fact, they have lived the western life-style, held unto western "morals", etc., yet find the Sharee’ah (including its death penalty) to be their chosen way of life which dictates all that they do in every-day life.

The Muslims accept the death penalty for apostasy; so what? You don’t agree. Oh my golly gosh! Big deal. You aren’t the first, and you will not be the last. But one thing, refrain from “teaching” us what we aught to believe in and what is part of our religion. Verily, some of us have grown up memorizing these very texts which you so boldly claim are not part of Islaam. In-fact the children of the Muslims from the time of our Prophet up until this very day memorise these texts which you claim are not part of our religion. How ludicrous can one person sound?

The real problem here is the authenticity of Ahaadeeth. Are they authentic? How were they recorded? Who were they recorded by? There seems to be some ignorance amongst some people in this thread about this topic so I will address this briefly, if Allaah Wills, later on. I’m kind of busy right now.

To MolviCorleone:

Brother, thank you for your input - you stated:

I’m not so sure about the Shariah Law on apostasy, there is a difference of opinion amongst scholars, I think the hadith referring to death for apostasy is weak anyway so you don’t really have a point to begin with. I know there was that case in Afghanistan about the Christian former Muslim who was meant to be given a death penalty, if he was….it wouldn’t have been right.
Indeed, if there is a difference of opinion amongst the scholars, then we do not follow the opinion that most pleases our desires or our reasoning’s. Rather we accept the differences of opinion based upon evidences from the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Secondly you say:

I think the hadith referring to death for apostasy is weak anyway so you don’t really have a point to begin with.
The Ahaadeeth that were posted with regards to apostasy are from al-Bukhaaree. They are the strongest Ahaadeeth that exist to the extent that the entire Muslim Nation (Ahlus-Sunnah) from past up until present has agreed unanimously (ijmaa’) that the Ahaadeeth found in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree and Saheeh Muslim are authentic in their entirety, without any shadow of a doubt.

Once we know they are authentic, we are to submit to them and cannot give our personal opinion against them. One may not like a certain ruling, but one must believe in it and submit to it.

We don’t need to apologise for anything in our religion.

If some Muslims in this thread are having trouble understanding the rule of apostasy in Islaam then ponder over what Sheikh Saalih al-Munnajjid has stated in reply to this:

(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

(3) By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

(4) The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

(5) If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

(6) None of those who bleat about personal freedom and freedom of belief would put up with a neighbour’s child hitting their child or justify this as "personal freedom," so how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

Man, honestly... Who cares, some non-Muslims don't like the death penalty, who cares? You don't agree, so be it. Big deal. Get over it.

[The Anti Desi]

children wouldn't be tried for apostacy to begin with. they can't distinguish right from wrong.

and maududi was agreeing with you:

In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them.
Oh....so the "door" refers to the punishment???

[Space-Cowboy]

Honestly, this thread is too long. I’ve been out to class and I return to this. Aah well.

To be honest, Space-Cowboy’s reply in response to me is not even worth my time to respond to. I think it’s clear to those who read this thread, from my previous responses and Cowboy’s responses that I have addressed his points, and indeed, he has failed to address anything that I have put forward.




Actually I've proven you wrong on everyone of your points. Thank you come again. :idea:

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

Actually I've proven you wrong on everyone of your points. Thank you come again. :idea:

I believe the thread readers will bear witness that you, indeed, have not backed up any of that which you claimed. But, honestly, I don't care. It's all clear, in the open for everyone to read.

[Space-Cowboy]

I believe the thread readers will bear witness that you, indeed, have not backed up any of that which you claimed. But, honestly, I don't care. It's all clear, in the open for everyone to read.

Actually I have, read the CNN article, sums everything up.:idea:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Oh....so the "door" refers to the punishment???
no, i believe it means literally they cannot be apostates cuz they are children who were born Muslim and would count as Muslim no matter what until they were old enough to renounce it on their own with clear state of mind.

[Space-Cowboy]

Gotta love the arrogance in this one.



The Ahaadeeth that were posted with regards to apostasy are from al-Bukhaaree. They are the strongest Ahaadeeth that exist to the extent that the entire Muslim Nation (Ahlus-Sunnah) from past up until present has agreed unanimously (ijmaa’) that the Ahaadeeth found in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree and Saheeh Muslim are authentic in their entirety, without any shadow of a doubt.

Oh but there IS a shadow of a doubt. By the mere definition that these words are the words of men and not Allah.:idea:


Once we know they are authentic, we are to submit to them and cannot give our personal opinion against them. One may not like a certain ruling, but one must believe in it and submit to it.

Which you still don't KNOW. You might have 'some evidence' to support its authenticity, but you don't know "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as you so say.

We don’t need to apologise for anything in our religion.

Yup, you don't need to apologize for a tyrannical regime. Just like U.S. does not need to apologize for rolling through the Mid East. What was that quote again? Oh yes, "might makes right".


If some Muslims in this thread are having trouble understanding the rule of apostasy in Islaam then ponder over what Sheikh Saalih al-Munnajjid has stated in reply to this:

(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

Ah yes.... I love playing telephone too.... some Sheikh said what he claims the Prophet said.

(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah

Here's where I really love it. A person who rejects it, naturally does not believe ALLAH created the world in the first place. He has no responsibility to Allah. Just like a Christian could say 'those in the Arab world reject the words of Jesus, and therefore need to be 'cleansed''. An Apostate owes your Allah NOTHING. To him, Allah is a NON FACTOR to that man.

(3) By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

So what.... SO WHAT It's their choice to reject a religion which THEY obviously feel isn't the 'true' religion.

(4) The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

Oh How kind of you. Like I said, I'm starting to feel glad the U.S. is there to offer the apostates hope for their freedom of choice.

(5) If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

Again, you fail to understand that Apostates don't consider Islam the religion of the Lord. In fact, they've found a PROBLEM with Islam in the first place, which is why they're leaving. Hell, we have one or two "apostates" on these forums anyway.

(6) None of those who bleat about personal freedom and freedom of belief would put up with a neighbour’s child hitting their child or justify this as "personal freedom," so how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

Congradulations, that's about the stupidest thing you could have ever said. Personal freedom doesn't mean going around and infringing on the freedom of others. Apostates aren't going around trying to convince others to denounce Islam through violence or coercion, they're just CHOOSING the path for themselves. Secondly, Again, they don't consider Islam the true religion..... hell, *I* don't consider Islam the true religion, HELL, ABOUT 79% of the world don't consider Islam the true religion!!


Man, honestly... Who cares, some non-Muslims don't like the death penalty, who cares? You don't agree, so be it. Big deal. Get over it.

I have no problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with it being applied to those NOT infringing their rights upon others.
You see, Apostates don't want to live under Shariah Law in the first place. So it's not even that they're asking permission to leave the religion and stay in the nation..... the vast majority actually prefer what the West has to offer over what Shariah does. And so like I said, I'm GLAD the U.S. is there to breakdown the Shariah states and offer Apostates the chance to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Oh and again, since 'might makes right', this is perfectly ok.

In reference to KNS:
"They can go to a different Umbrella"

They're not even being given a chance to go to a different Umbrella... they're being killed off.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

Boy, does Space-Cowboy’s mental acumen decrease each time I read his posts. Each time the same execrable blatherings spit forth from him.

Oh my days. Can someone else explain and make clear to this individual how I’ve already addressed these points above, and how short-sighted and ridiculous his post is. He keeps repeating himself like an annoying parrot. It's clear he has failed to grasp and understand what I had stated in my previous posts. I was never taught how to talk or behave with such people; maybe those more learned than I, those who have dealt with such imbecilic behaviour can deal with this. I can’t keep on repeating myself. It gets tiring, you know.

[Space-Cowboy]

Boy, does Space-Cowboy’s mental acronym decrease each time I read his posts. Each time the same execrable blatherings spit forth from him.

Oh my days. Can someone else explain and make clear to this individual how I’ve already addressed these points above, and how short-sighted and ridiculous his post is. He keeps repeating himself like an annoying parrot. It's clear he has failed to grasp and understand what I had stated in my previous posts. I was never taught how to talk or behave with such people; maybe those more learned than I, those who have dealt with such imbecilic behaviour can deal with this. I can’t keep on repeating myself. It gets tiring, you know.


You can't keep repeating yourself because I've already disproved you. Oh, I've understood everything you've said, and I'm beginning to see your true colours, don't you worry, I'm just showing you how your argument is utterly baseless in the greater scheme of things. :idea:

The fact is you haven't conclusively punched a hole in the argument [without punching a hole in your own] even ONCE.

[Space-Cowboy]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/#1

What happens in the case of apostasy?
The traditional punishment for Islamic apostasy--leaving Islam for another religion or otherwise abandoning the Islamic faith--is death. The best-known modern case involved author Salman Rushdie, whose 1988 novel, "The Satanic Verses," offended many devout Muslims. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, declared Rushdie an apostate and condemned him to death. In 1993, an Egyptian court ruled that the writings of Nasr Abu Zayd, a professor, were evidence of apostasy. The court ordered that Zayd be divorced from his Muslim wife (Zayd now lives with his wife in the Netherlands). The vast majority of Muslim nations no longer prescribe death for apostates. On the other hand, says Powers, "Many modern Islamic nations say they guarantee freedom of religion. But this does not necessarily include the right to speak openly against Islam and act on those ideas." Conversions from Islam to other religions are generally not permitted in Muslim countries.

[Cunard]

frankly i dont really care what muslim countries are doing these days.....the fact remains Shariah law does not fit in todays world

killing people cause they change faiths is stupid...if others did this...islam wouldnt even exist :idea:

modern islamic states who do follow Shariah pick and choose what they follow...hence again proving Shariah Law does not work in todays world with so many faiths and cultures mixing

other systems of laws and justice surpass Shariah Law....there not perfect....but they work alot better and actually make sense in this day and age

[Space-Cowboy]

frankly i dont really care what muslim countries are doing these days.....the fact remains Shariah law does not fit in todays world

killing people cause they change faiths is stupid...if others did this...islam wouldnt even exist :idea:

modern islamic states who do follow Shariah pick and choose what they follow...hence again proving Shariah Law does not work in todays world with so many faiths and cultures mixing

other systems of laws and justice surpass Shariah Law....there not perfect....but they work alot better and actually make sense in this day and age


Well said! :idea:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Gotta love the arrogance in this one.



Oh but there IS a shadow of a doubt. By the mere definition that these words are the words of men and not Allah.:idea:



Which you still don't KNOW. You might have 'some evidence' to support its authenticity, but you don't know "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as you so say.



Yup, you don't need to apologize for a tyrannical regime. Just like U.S. does not need to apologize for rolling through the Mid East. What was that quote again? Oh yes, "might makes right".



Ah yes.... I love playing telephone too.... some Sheikh said what he claims the Prophet said.



Here's where I really love it. A person who rejects it, naturally does not believe ALLAH created the world in the first place. He has no responsibility to Allah. Just like a Christian could say 'those in the Arab world reject the words of Jesus, and therefore need to be 'cleansed''. An Apostate owes your Allah NOTHING. To him, Allah is a NON FACTOR to that man.



So what.... SO WHAT It's their choice to reject a religion which THEY obviously feel isn't the 'true' religion.



Oh How kind of you. Like I said, I'm starting to feel glad the U.S. is there to offer the apostates hope for their freedom of choice.



Again, you fail to understand that Apostates don't consider Islam the religion of the Lord. In fact, they've found a PROBLEM with Islam in the first place, which is why they're leaving. Hell, we have one or two "apostates" on these forums anyway.

(

Congradulations, that's about the stupidest thing you could have ever said. Personal freedom doesn't mean going around and infringing on the freedom of others. Apostates aren't going around trying to convince others to denounce Islam through violence or coercion, they're just CHOOSING the path for themselves. Secondly, Again, they don't consider Islam the true religion..... hell, *I* don't consider Islam the true religion, HELL, ABOUT 79% of the world don't consider Islam the true religion!!



I have no problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with it being applied to those NOT infringing their rights upon others.
You see, Apostates don't want to live under Shariah Law in the first place. So it's not even that they're asking permission to leave the religion and stay in the nation..... the vast majority actually prefer what the West has to offer over what Shariah does. And so like I said, I'm GLAD the U.S. is there to breakdown the Shariah states and offer Apostates the chance to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Oh and again, since 'might makes right', this is perfectly ok.

In reference to KNS:


They're not even being given a chance to go to a different Umbrella... they're being killed off.
i'm not sure where you're trying to go with all that. :think: the hadith about apostacy aren't that weak, and the policy has been used while Muhammad(pbuh)'s companions were still alive and running the show, and that's within a generation after his death, so I'm not sure why one would think the hadith would get magically corrupted by then. its a safe bet its not alien.

and yeah, it comes down to one enforcing their will over another. its a two way street though, and America won't always be powerful enough to prevent other nations doing the same to it in return. (altho the longevity of the USA, that's a completely different subject)

and as for the different umbrella thing, lol... that's darwin at play. you have to be kind of dumb to renounce Islam while still in a country that has the death penalty for it. either that or you got paid a ton by foreign interests to cause political havoc.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

frankly i dont really care what muslim countries are doing these days.....the fact remains Shariah law does not fit in todays world

killing people cause they change faiths is stupid...if others did this...islam wouldnt even exist :idea:

modern islamic states who do follow Shariah pick and choose what they follow...hence again proving Shariah Law does not work in todays world with so many faiths and cultures mixing

other systems of laws and justice surpass Shariah Law....there not perfect....but they work alot better and actually make sense in this day and age
well said, tho i disagree about it not being able to work with so many faiths and cultures mixing. it worked under exactly those circumstances before. and now its only implemented in majority Muslim nations too, before it was used on populations that were majority non-Muslim at times (Eastern Europe, India, Spain, etc.)

i said earlier, the reason they screw around with shariah to fit, is because they're all using a particular form of government that is alien to the idea of shariah. they're mixing it with a western model that is meant to be secular.

when the Caliphate collapsed after World War 1, it wasn't due to Shariah... rather, political corruption, muddled bureaucracy, and the typical empire-killers were at play.

[Space-Cowboy]

i'm not sure where you're trying to go with all that. :think: the hadith about apostacy aren't that weak, and the policy has been used while Muhammad(pbuh)'s companions were still alive and running the show, and that's within a generation after his death, so I'm not sure why one would think the hadith would get magically corrupted by then. its a safe bet its not alien.

and yeah, it comes down to one enforcing their will over another. its a two way street though, and America won't always be powerful enough to prevent other nations doing the same to it in return. (altho the longevity of the USA, that's a completely different subject)

and as for the different umbrella thing, lol... that's darwin at play. you have to be kind of dumb to renounce Islam while still in a country that has the death penalty for it. either that or you got paid a ton by foreign interests to cause political havoc.

The thing is I CAN understand where YOU'RE coming from... but take a look at that girl.... the arrogance with lines like "the true religion" .... and using THAT as a shield to justify apostacy punishments.... Yes I can understand using a stance like 'the people unanimously voted this the law of the land'.... But in that case, a more 'appropriate' ultimatim to apostates should be "leave the country in exile..... if you choose to stay here, revert back to Islam... or die".... The other thing is, as FatGeezer noted, THOSE apostates in the time of the Prophet [pbuh] were ones who converted AND were working against the Islamic state. The ones today like that Christian convert, are not. It's all about CONTEXT. So yes, that I can understand that bit....... but I don't, and neither will the apostates, accept [from a practical standpoint] the explanation that they are being killed for leaving the "true religion".

And on a final note, Cunard summed it up perfectly. With increasing globalization and international understanding of what human rights entail, the Shariah as you describe it will have less and less of a place. As will Totalitarian Communism.... already we can see the change in economic stance in modern China, as opposed to just two and half decades back. And What else? Certainly with autonomous governments. Certainly the people of Saudi Arabia are getting more and more tired of the Saudi family not looking out for the interests of the people as much as they are looking out for the interests of the American multinational oil conglomerates, only so far has how much their [the Saudi kings] pockets are lined with cash.
etc.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

The thing is I CAN understand where YOU'RE coming from... but take a look at that girl.... the arrogance with lines like "the true religion" .... and using THAT as a shield to justify apostacy punishments.... Yes I can understand using a stance like 'the people unanimously voted this the law of the land'.... But in that case, a more 'appropriate' ultimatim to apostates should be "leave the country in exile..... if you choose to stay here, revert back to Islam... or die".... The other thing is, as FatGeezer noted, THOSE apostates in the time of the Prophet [pbuh] were ones who converted AND were working against the Islamic state. The ones today like that Christian convert, are not. It's all about CONTEXT. So yes, that I can understand that bit....... but I don't, and neither will the apostates, accept [from a practical standpoint] the explanation that they are being killed for leaving the "true religion".

And on a final note, Cunard summed it up perfectly. With increasing globalization and international understanding of what human rights entail, the Shariah as you describe it will have less and less of a place. As will Totalitarian Communism.... already we can see the change in economic stance in modern China, as opposed to just two and half decades back. And What else? Certainly with autonomous governments. Certainly the people of Saudi Arabia are getting more and more tired of the Saudi family not looking out for the interests of the people as much as they are looking out for the interests of the American multinational oil conglomerates, only so far has how much their [the Saudi kings] pockets are lined with cash.
etc.
as far as i've seen, she wasn't even talking about apostacy now, she was just talking about the written law for apostacy in Islam. so I agree with everything she's said.

the stuff about how apostacy then is not the same as apostacy now is a different issue i was going on about.

[Space-Cowboy]

as far as i've seen, she wasn't even talking about apostacy now, she was just talking about the written law for apostacy in Islam. so I agree with everything she's said.

the stuff about how apostacy then is not the same as apostacy now is a different issue i was going on about.


OK, now we're getting somewhere. Apostacy then is not the same as apostacy now. CONTEXT. FatGeezer outlined the differences: Back then, apostacy referred to both rejection and committing crimes against the state. Today, it means just leaving Islam. So then, if apostacy is not the same back then is it is now, why should the punishments be the same?

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

You can't keep repeating yourself because I've already disproved you. Oh, I've understood everything you've said, and I'm beginning to see your true colours, don't you worry, I'm just showing you how your argument is utterly baseless in the greater scheme of things. The fact is you haven't conclusively punched a hole in the argument [without punching a hole in your own] even ONCE.
Dude, you brought forth all this execrable non-sense over and over again about how Muslims don't believe in Ahaadeeth, and how the punishment for apostacy is not found in our religion; thus I asked you some questions which you could not address; but you, being the ignoramous that you are, repeated the same old blatherings again and again. How stupid can one person be. :D

I arrived at the conclusion that khanbaba's and Mixed UP Girl's definition of Shariah is flawed.
I already said the following to you previously, which you could not respond to:

For centuries Muslims have believed and held unto certain beliefs, and now you and a few people come along after centuries, and tell the world that these Muslims weren’t following their religion. It's non-sensical. Go to any Islamic University in any part of the Muslim world, be it Malaysia, Paakistaan, Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc., you will find them teaching that which I have stated. In-fact, even the Shi'ah; they will tell you the same.

Name me one established Islamic Institute in the Muslim world that teaches that which you are propagating? Absolutely absurd and un-founded.

You, I'm sorry to say, are acting like an ignoramus, and totally disregarded the points above.

I have a simple question for you: Were all the Muslim generations from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him, up until now, all dis-illusioned, and mis-guided, and some-how you all of a sudden appeared with the correct Islaam after centuries of misguidance by the previous Muslims?

Any individual with an atoms wieght of knowledge of the religion can see how un-founded your claims are.

With regards to the Apostacy punishment, I've already told you, no-one gives a shit about your concerns/problems with it. We don't care. If you don't want to live under an Islamic State, take your grotesque vomiting and your sorry self out of there - I'm sure the Muslims don't want to live with your stench from not washing your rear-end which would pollute our air with your stench and teach our children un-cleanliness. The Islamic State is for those who want to live in it and want to abide by its laws (just like the Christians and Jews chose to before). If you don't want to, no-one would be forcing you to stay.

And we don't need your approval nor the approval of your false-God, which you worship - the U.N. - for what is moral and what is immoral. Like, honestly, as if your opinions really matter to us. The fact is, Islaam is a religion largely of Converts to it... Now, these converts from the West have come from generations upon generations of background from upholding the moral code you adhere to. Yet they rejected it, and chose to accept the Sharee'ah along with its death penalty for apostacy. Honestly, who really gives a monkeys about you and your contradictions? I had said previously:

But it needs to be stressed; this is in an Islamic State, a land that belongs to the Muslims, they can do what they want as long as it's permissible in Islaam.

Thirdly, I also addressed your incongruous "moral code". Your "moral code" changes like the British weather. One day Homosexuality is immoral and illegal, the next day, what do you know - it's all fine and dandy. One day Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, the next day, what do you know - he is a hero and a role-model. What kind of system is that: no consistancy, no stable foundations. Any person with an atoms weight of intellect can see how flawed your "moral code" is. Ricidulous. What next? Raping a woman will become legal? You have no guarantee that this will or won't occur. Your moral code is full of inconsistencies and indecencies. What kind of moral code allows millions of innocent babies to starve to death? The U.N. is a cowardly organisation that allows itself to get bullied by the U.S.

but take a look at that girl.... the arrogance with lines like "the true religion" .... and using THAT as a shield to justify apostacy punishments....
Show me where I ever stated, "the true religion."? Resorting to lying now are we? (Not that I do not believe Islaam is the true religion; why else would I have converted to it if I didn't think as such, duh). In-fact go and ask a religiously committed Hindu, Sikh, whatever - they will all say their religion is the truth. Honestly, you really do lack intellect.

Uh, no. I'm not here to prove anything about Islam. I honestly think it's a great religion, under the context that FatGeezer and Indian_Eyess have laid out. I DO however have a severe problem with the Shariah IF it condones execution for apostacy.
FatGeezer's view on Islaam is not the view of the Muslim masses from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him, up until this very age. So who cares.

Anyone who has a problem with the Sharee'ah Law can take their sorry behinds to some place else. Like I said: You fail to understand that Islaam is a way of life. It has its own set of rules governing every-day life, from the manner of sleeping to bathroom etiquette. And, indeed, Islaam has its own definitions of who is regarded as “innocent,” etc. Islaam does not derive its laws from the U.N.

Under an Islamic State, just the like all of the Islamic States before, the only laws that would be applied are the Islamic Laws, not the U.N. Constitutions, etc.

Nothing else need be said.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

frankly i dont really care what muslim countries are doing these days.....the fact remains Shariah law does not fit in todays world
Today's world? That's your opinion. You're non-Muslim, so we don't care what your opinion is. In an Islamic State; no one is forced to stay, one chooses to stay if one agrees to abide by the conditons. Today's world has a large population of Muslims, and, they all (be they from the different Islamic Schools of Thoughts) want Sharee'ah, so yeah actually Sharee'ah does have a place in today's world. Those Muslim lands are not ruled by Sharee'ah because of the despots and puppets placed in power by the West. And, yes, this is proven fact. One only need look at the history of these regimes to spot that these dictators and tyrants were put into place and supported by the West. France, Britain, U.S. etc. And the others just sold their religion for money, and worldy gain. Losers.

killing people cause they change faiths is stupid...if others did this...islam wouldnt even exist
It's stupid to you becuase you're a Sikh/Hindu/Ahteist or whatever you identify yourself as. I think it's stupid how in Sikhsim, men are allowed to force their daughters to marry. Unlike the Muslims who can turn to clear, unequivocal, unambiguous proofs from their Holy Scripture to emphatically condemn this oppression, the Sikhs, alas, cannot. Women oppressors. I think that is stupid.

modern islamic states who do follow Shariah pick and choose what they follow...hence again proving Shariah Law does not work in todays world with so many faiths and cultures mixing

other systems of laws and justice surpass Shariah Law....there not perfect....but they work alot better and actually make sense in this day and age
You have just further proven your ignorance and lack of knowledge on Islaam and the Muslim world at present. It beifts a person to remain silent when he knows not the fundementals nor the principles of a subject, rather than move his tongue only to show himself up by proving to the world he is an ignaramous with the execrable blatherings that come forth from his diseased tongue.

There are no Islamic States in the world today, none whatsoever.

In the past there were, indeed, faiths and cultures mixed under the Islamic State, all living peacefully. If you had read my previous posts I had already addressed this and history books bear witness to this. There is no system of law, no religion, no entity, that has a law system as in-depths like the Islamic one as attested to even by some non-Muslims. I had also said previously:

By the way, the only time there has ever been peace in the Middle-East, in Palestine, where the Jews, Christians and Muslims lived peacefully was under the Islamic Rule. In-fact the Jews and Christians were protected by Muslims from persecution because of the Islamic Rule. The Christians who were taken prisoner by the Mongols who invaded ash-Shaam and Iraaq; the Muslims were the ones who rescued them from the hands of their oppressors because these Christians were residents of the Islamic State, they lived under it, and thus were protected by it, even during war-time!

[Space-Cowboy]

Dude, you brought forth all this execrable non-sense over and over again about how Muslims don't believe in Ahaadeeth, and how the punishment for apostacy is not found in our religion; thus I asked you some questions which you could not address; but you, being the ignoramous that you are, repeated the same old blatherings again and again. How stupid can one person be. :D




Look in the mirror. And yes, I've answered and thrown back every question you addressed.

Thirdly, I also addressed your incongruous "moral code". Your "moral code" changes like the British weather. One day Homosexuality is immoral and illegal, the next day, what do you know - it's all fine and dandy. One day Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, the next day, what do you know - he is a hero and a role-model. What kind of system is that: no consistancy, no stable foundations. Any person with an atoms weight of intellect can see how flawed your "moral code" is. Ricidulous. What next? Raping a woman will become legal? You have no guarantee that this will or won't occur. Your moral code is full of inconsistencies and indecencies. What kind of moral code allows millions of innocent babies to starve to death? The U.N. is a cowardly organisation that allows itself to get bullied by the U.S.

Seriously, you get stupider and stupider with every post. Just stop talking. What's happened over time in that idiotic statement you just made is 'moral evolution'... which apparently you have yet to experience.

AND I DON'T GIVE A SHIT about the time of the Prophet, like I said, I'm concerned about here and now.

Anyone who has a problem with the Sharee'ah Law can take their sorry behinds to some place else. Like I said

Or they can invade and demolish your outdated law, like they're doing now. [not condoning, just stating fact.]

There's no point in talking further with you. You have no scope beyond what you're spoonfed since your childhood.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

Look in the mirror.
Yes, I like looking in the mirror. *Me looking in the mirror and saying*:

Allahumma-anta hassanta khaliqi fahassin khuliqi qaharrim wajhi 'alannar. Al-Hamdulillahi-llathi sawwa khalizi fa adalah wakarrama soorata-wajhi fa ahsanaha. Waja'alani minal-muslimeen.

:D

And yes, I've answered and thrown back every question you addressed.
Indeed, you are a liar as was proven before in the above posts, insinuating and making false claims upon what I had said; when those words were not uttered by myself in a single post in the previous posts. You’re a known liar, so why should we believe a single thing you say. Whenever you make a claim, like the above, it is automatically rejected because you're a known liar.


There's no point in talking further with you. You have no scope beyond what you're spoonfed since your childhood.
If you ever read things properly and understood them, instead of rushing in with a hot-head (you really need to stop this, I heard it’s bad for the health as well); you would have seen me state I converted/reverted to Islaam, just look at the post above yours. I chose this path after researching and looking into all the other religions, including Sikhism, Hinduism, etc. You really are hot-headed, you need to chillax dude. Go to the freezer, take some blocks of ice, and smash them on your head… It should do the trick; cool that irrationality down that stems from your hot-headedness.

Funny thing, I was informed by others that you’ve been trying to invite people into this thread and respond to me. What’s up, o defeated one? Need some back-up?

Oh by the way stick by what you said: There's no point in talking further with you.
Until your mental acumen increases, do not vomit your ignorance in-front of me.

Alas, it is time for me to leave this retarded thread, and leave the volatile ignorant to his ignorance.

"When the foolish one speaks, do not reply to him, for better than a response (to him) is silence, and if you speak to him you have aided him, and if you left him (with no reply) in extreme sadness he dies." Alas, if only I acted upon this advice. Next time, next time…

Peace out - :D

[Space-Cowboy]

Yes, I like looking in the mirror. *Me looking in the mirror and saying*:

Allahumma-anta hassanta khaliqi fahassin khuliqi qaharrim wajhi 'alannar. Al-Hamdulillahi-llathi sawwa khalizi fa adalah wakarrama soorata-wajhi fa ahsanaha. Waja'alani minal-muslimeen.

:D


Indeed, you are a liar as was proven before in the above posts, insinuating and making false claims upon what I had said; when those words were not uttered by myself in a single post in the previous posts. You’re a known liar, so why should we believe a single thing you say. Whenever you make a claim, like the above, it is automatically rejected because you're a known liar.


If you ever read things properly and understood them, instead of rushing in with a hot-head (you really need to stop this, I heard it’s bad for the health as well); you would have seen me state I converted/reverted to Islaam, just look at the post above yours. I chose this path after researching and looking into all the other religions, including Sikhism, Hinduism, etc. You really are hot-headed, you need to chillax dude. Go to the freezer, take some blocks of ice, and smash them on your head… It should do the trick; cool that irrationality down that stems from your hot-headedness.

Funny thing, I was informed by others that you’ve been trying to invite people into this thread and respond to me. What’s up, o defeated one? Need some back-up?

Oh by the way stick by what you said:
Until your mental acumen increases, do not vomit your ignorance in-front of me.

Alas, it is time for me to leave this retarded thread, and leave the volatile ignorant to his ignorance.

"When the foolish one speaks, do not reply to him, for better than a response (to him) is silence, and if you speak to him you have aided him, and if you left him (with no reply) in extreme sadness he dies." Alas, if only I acted upon this advice. Next time, next time…

Peace out - :D


Keep telling yourself this, there's no point in me debating with someone with the IQ of a raisin.


Informed by others? what you mean khanbaba? hahahhaha right, that pretty much explains everything. There's NUMEROUS Muslims, YES Muslims on this site who've claimed both you and Khanbaba don't know one word of what you're talking about.

And yes, please do leave the thread... the SD is meant for intelligent posters. Come back when you are educated beyond the scope of what's told to you in a book.


It's stupid to you becuase you're a Sikh/Hindu/Ahteist or whatever you identify yourself as. I think it's stupid how in Sikhsim, men are allowed to force their daughters to marry. Unlike the Muslims who can turn to clear, unequivocal, unambiguous proofs from their Holy Scripture to emphatically condemn this oppression, the Sikhs, alas, cannot. Women oppressors. I think that is stupid.

^^^ This just goes to show how much of an idiot you are. Stop talking all together, you know NOTHING. :idea:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Apostacy then is not the same as apostacy now. CONTEXT. FatGeezer outlined the differences: Back then, apostacy referred to both rejection and committing crimes against the state. Today, it means just leaving Islam. So then, if apostacy is not the same back then is it is now, why should the punishments be the same?
who cares if they should or shouldn't... these systems of government aren't Islamic... they just have a smattering of Islam-based laws mixed in. like mixed-up girl said... there's no Islamic State anywhere.

what Muslims should care about is making it so Islamic society is consistent with the old one, so apostacy will once again work like it did back then. where the religion IS the state, so to go against the religion is to go against the state. it was never meant to function outside of such a state.

its actually not that out of date... treason carries capital punishment in most places. the only reason you'd call it out of date is because your definition of religion is different from how Islam sees itself. you classify it as a religion, while it classifies itself as a way of life.

last i recall, the entire war on terror was to protect the Western way of life. a.k.a secular/capitalist representative democracy. and allegedly, not Christianity, which is a religion, since religion has been marginalized in secular societies. islam is not like that. islam replaces secularism, replaces capitalism, replaces Western-style democracy (while retaining some institutions that are democratic in nature of course).

[Space-Cowboy]

what Muslims should care about is making it so Islamic society is consistent with the old one, so apostacy will once again work like it did back then. where the religion IS the state, so to go against the religion is to go against the state. it was never meant to function outside of such a state.

Well let me then clarify what the implications of this could be, not necessarily going against what you're saying, just analyse with me here. Now.... in the Soviet Cold War era, if one spoke out against the state it was obviously treason and punishable by death. A very analogous situation to what you've stated above; if you rejected the Communist philosophy, you died. One's best solution would be to defect and escape to a [western/capitalist] nation. Analogously, apostacy is essentially rejecting the Shariah and
'defecting'. That is the individual's only option[other than reverting]. From what you've told me, they aren't given the chance to leave the Shariah state... not even exile, only execution. And here-in lies a manifestation of much of the problem of Mid Eastern v.s. Western ideologies. And thus some of the problems of this relative morality are made ever clearer... Drawing upon the analogy of the Cold War era, dualism in ideologies existed back then too, only in a different context... [capitalism v.s. communism]. BUT, back then globalization, relative to what we have today, was still in its infancy. Today, the world is more dependant on international trade and communication than ever before. With increased internationalization, it is INEVITABLE that ideologies will clash... and the Islamic nations will.. invariably, have to conform to the international norms. Why? Because of UN pressures... not here to discuss whether this is good or bad, it simply is. Human Rights violations are often accompanied with sanctions.... especially by way of lack of FDI.... and unfortunately, the Mid East.... especially emerging financial sectors like UAE, need FDI. And this is only just one aspect of the crux of the problem.


its actually not that out of date... treason carries capital punishment in most places. the only reason you'd call it out of date is because your definition of religion is different from how Islam sees itself. you classify it as a religion, while it classifies itself as a way of life.

Going by what I said above... UN and most other world organizations classify it as a religion nothing more. They DO however acknowledge that religion and state are not separate in some countries like they are in the west. And they DO recognize that defectors [ie. apostates] may share this view as well. And so they feel that these people should be given an out... at the very least, exile into the west. Such as in the case of say Salman Rushdie, or that Afghan Christian convert. Now... the Islamic world might not care what the UN considers human rights violations [as per relative morality]... but they DO care about foreign aid and investment.... and modernization to a certain extent. This isn't my opinion, this is the general concensus of Mid East based companies and organizations. And so, as Cunard said, to keep communication lines open, and not be left behind in the "global culture" so to speak, they will invariably be forced to give in, if only to the extent to offer apostates exile instead of death.


last i recall, the entire war on terror was to protect the Western way of life. a.k.a secular/capitalist representative democracy. and allegedly, not Christianity, which is a religion, since religion has been marginalized in secular societies. islam is not like that. islam replaces secularism, replaces capitalism, replaces Western-style democracy (while retaining some institutions that are democratic in nature of course).

Well first off, I've never been a fan of Bush and his platform chantings...... But here again, as I explained above is a clash of ideologies. ....a clash of ideologies at some point has a tendency to lead to a clash of armies. But on the peaceful front, simply BECAUSE of western influences, in the form of MNCs and UN development programs, the Islamic nation with Shariah, will invariably have to concede some of its ideologies, to keep FDIs coming in. As it stands right now... the would be Shariah states aren't even Islamic states to begin with. The Saudi family for example are mere muppets of the U.S. govt. Many of these private MNCs work along side the UN to help develop the nation...... and that DOES include offering sanctity to those seeking refuge.... which could in such a case be a defector. [btw, at this time, I should note when I say defector, I simply mean someone seeking a better life in another ideology and/or as another faith..... not someone who's leaking information to the enemy against the Islamic state].

On a final note [and I'm sure guys like dr. sinister might disagree]... relative morality is only useful to the extent that everyone accepts everyone else's stance on what is and isn't moral. Beyond that, it becomes 'ethics'.. [actions specifically relating to the effects it can have on others besides yourself]. Relative morality only exists in harmony to the extent that it is not imposed on others... such as a Shariah being imposed on an apostate. To go beyond that is to invite chaos... anarchy..... and an eventual stability.... but at the cost of MANY MANY lives..


P.S., I understand where YOU come from, but I don't see how you can possibly support that girl after the kind of ignorant comment she made about Sikhism. [I'm not Sikh btw. :idea: ]

[KhanNoonienSingh]

sorry, i have to shrink my replies

Well let me then clarify what the implications of this could be, not necessarily going against what you're saying, just analyse with me here. Now.... in the Soviet Cold War era, if one spoke out against the state it was obviously treason and punishable by death. A very analogous situation to what you've stated above; if you rejected the Communist philosophy, you died. One's best solution would be to defect and escape to a [western/capitalist] nation. Analogously, apostacy is essentially rejecting the Shariah and
'defecting'. That is the individual's only option[other than reverting]. From what you've told me, they aren't given the chance to leave the Shariah state... not even exile, only execution.
like i said, to renounce Islam requires a formal declaration. they can either leave, then go do that elsewhere. or just renounce it in their heart and nobody would be the wiser, and then leave too.

being able to declare in public things that are adverse to the very foundation of a state is not really a right worth losing sleep over (we're not talking freedom of speech here, we're talking only about a certain particular speech/action that is seen as the most extreme).

Going by what I said above... UN and most other world organizations classify it as a religion nothing more. They DO however acknowledge that religion and state are not separate in some countries like they are in the west. And they DO recognize that defectors [ie. apostates] may share this view as well. And so they feel that these people should be given an out... at the very least, exile into the west. Such as in the case of say Salman Rushdie, or that Afghan Christian convert. Now... the Islamic world might not care what the UN considers human rights violations [as per relative morality]... but they DO care about foreign aid and investment.... and modernization to a certain extent. This isn't my opinion, this is the general concensus of Mid East based companies and organizations. And so, as Cunard said, to keep communication lines open, and not be left behind in the "global culture" so to speak, they will invariably be forced to give in, if only to the extent to offer apostates exile instead of death.
this usually happens anyway. due in no small part to the difference in definition of apostacy now.

On a final note [and I'm sure guys like dr. sinister might disagree]... relative morality is only useful to the extent that everyone accepts everyone else's stance on what is and isn't moral. Beyond that, it becomes 'ethics'.. [actions specifically relating to the effects it can have on others besides yourself]. Relative morality only exists in harmony to the extent that it is not imposed on others... such as a Shariah being imposed on an apostate. To go beyond that is to invite chaos... anarchy..... and an eventual stability.... but at the cost of MANY MANY lives..
when i talked about relative morality, i meant that literally... morality is relative to every person. its subjective.

not necessarily a system where everyone recognizes that. you can have an army of people who believe they have to enforce their morals on everyone else, and no matter what they say... their morality is still relative.

[WildWolfdog]

Like I said, I'll trust what Indian_Eyess and FatGeezer have to say over what you say..... you're a terrorist.

I don't know enough about this to say something and say it is fact. But maybe he is right as well, since he is saying you can't be an apostate IN AN ISLAMIC state, you can convert out of Islam and not face consequences in a secular nation or a country which has a government which openly backs a certain religion.

[WildWolfdog]

You haven't quoted anything, tell me where in these two quotes that it says to punish/kill those who leave Islam. You're just giving your own twisted interpretations, nothing more. And I don't give a shit about anything other than the Quran. I don't care what your prophet has to say, I only care about the words of your God as it is written in the Quran. So, I'm still waiting for the exact Quranic verse that dictates apostates should be punished/killed. You haven't given me any shred of evidence as of yet.

Whoah there relax and don't start disrespecting the prophet. Not every single thing is in the Quran, it's basic guidelines and so on, the Prophet is a messenger, he was sent down to teach the ways and lead by example.

[WildWolfdog]

To even BELIEVE that for a even second is fundamentally UN-Islamic. There are NO sects in Islam.

Yes there are. What the heck are you talking about? There are 70 different sects.

There is nothing in the Quran that says "follow hadiths". There is nothing in the Quran that says "kill apostates".

Quran does say follow the Prophet, and Hadith are his sayings, doings.

[RacingSoul]

why do we have such backing for the state of Israel.

A nation created specifically for a religious group..

discuss.

all ur answers lie in this documentary..."The World According To Bush" very interesting one.

[WildWolfdog]

You're defending the Shariah... and that's understandable. Like I said, I have no problem with it, as it was defined by Indian_Eyess and FatGeezer. I DO have a serious problem with a system where people who choose to leave the faith are killed for it..... and I think the rest of the moral world should have a serious problem with it as well.

Then you must have a problem with people having their hands cut off for stealing. As well as death for married people committing adultery and death penalty for murder? Those are all part of the Shariah law. But for all the laws, there is reason behind it and there have to be certain circumstances for these laws to take affect.

You don't just cut off a hand for a starving person who steals a a loaf of bread. Especially if he tried to look for work, couldn't find any and the government wasn't doing it's job helping him with money and work.

[Space-Cowboy]

Yes there are. What the heck are you talking about? There are 70 different sects.

Ideally, there shouldn't be ANY sects. That was my argument. And btw I'm not disrespecting the Prophet, that was never my intention in this thread.

Then you must have a problem with people having their hands cut off for stealing. As well as death for married people committing adultery and death penalty for murder? Those are all part of the Shariah law. But for all the laws, there is reason behind it and there have to be certain circumstances for these laws to take affect.

You don't just cut off a hand for a starving person who steals a a loaf of bread. Especially if he tried to look for work, couldn't find any and the government wasn't doing it's job helping him with money and work.

Adultery yes [but the crime should still be punished]. Murder [no, I don't have a problem with capital punishment]. Cutting off hands.. too excessive. But for all these acts, they can be justified as 'crimes'. Basically a 'wrong doing' against others. Even with adultery... the wrong doing is the financial stress that could come about upon the marriage because of the act. But Apostacy isn't committing a wrong doing against others.

I don't know enough about this to say something and say it is fact. But maybe he is right as well, since he is saying you can't be an apostate IN AN ISLAMIC state, you can convert out of Islam and not face consequences in a secular nation or a country which has a government which openly backs a certain religion.

Well I've already addressed this earlier with KNS, with the 'defecting' during the cold war era analogy.

Quran does say follow the Prophet, and Hadith are his sayings, doings.

This is purely debatable. There are many Muslims here on the forums even who reject the Hadiths as being so. And there are many Muslims debating over which ones are authentic or otherwise, and on the interpretations of the ones that may be authentic, and especially when applying CONTEXT...

And in that sense, I've heard MANY Muslims argue [generally moderates] against the death sentence for apostacy as would be applied in our times, context in mind.

Again, I suppose this all goes back to the 'defector' analogy and moral relativism. The latter of which is in my opinion, is rapidly dying under an international umbrella of generally acceptable human rights codes.

[Space-Cowboy]

Btw, I'll say again, I have uttmost respect for Islam.

[KhanNoonienSingh]

Ideally, there shouldn't be ANY sects. That was my argument. And btw I'm not disrespecting the Prophet, that was never my intention in this thread.



Adultery yes [but the crime should still be punished]. Murder [no, I don't have a problem with capital punishment]. Cutting off hands.. too excessive. But for all these acts, they can be justified as 'crimes'. Basically a 'wrong doing' against others. Even with adultery... the wrong doing is the financial stress that could come about upon the marriage because of the act. But Apostacy isn't committing a wrong doing against others.



Well I've already addressed this earlier with KNS, with the 'defecting' during the cold war era analogy.



This is purely debatable. There are many Muslims here on the forums even who reject the Hadiths as being so. And there are many Muslims debating over which ones are authentic or otherwise, and on the interpretations of the ones that may be authentic, and especially when applying CONTEXT...

And in that sense, I've heard MANY Muslims argue [generally moderates] against the death sentence for apostacy as would be applied in our times, context in mind.

Again, I suppose this all goes back to the 'defector' analogy and moral relativism. The latter of which is in my opinion, is rapidly dying under an international umbrella of generally acceptable human rights codes.
Muslims who reject the Hadith have been the absolute smallest minority always (and its only gotten more publicity now), and that minority usually hangs in the same places (Westernized cultures... since without the hadith interpretation of the Qur'an can vary drastically from person to person so they can be free to do whatever they want in the name of Islam).

[Space-Cowboy]

Muslims who reject the Hadith have been the absolute smallest minority always (and its only gotten more publicity now), and that minority usually hangs in the same places (Westernized cultures... since without the hadith interpretation of the Qur'an can vary drastically from person to person so they can be free to do whatever they want in the name of Islam).

Well there are several people here on the forums who reject the Hadiths. Anti Desi for one.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

WildWolfdog:

Look at this Cowboy; he clearly stated:

To even BELIEVE that for a even second is fundamentally UN-Islamic. There are NO sects in Islam.
So, to believe in the Hadeeth of our Nabee, sallallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam, “is fundamentally UN-Islaamic,” in his own words. And now he states:

Ideally, there shouldn't be ANY sects. That was my argument.
Who is he trying to fool? His first statement does not reflect what he claims he intended by it.

Informed by others? what you mean khanbaba? hahahhaha right, that pretty much explains everything. There's NUMEROUS Muslims, YES Muslims on this site who've claimed both you and Khanbaba don't know one word of what you're talking about.
(1) Actually, it was other members PM’ing me and telling me about you wanting back-up in this thread.

(2) So, these “numerous” Muslims who have claimed I don’t know one word of what I’m talking about; where are they? Who are they? I fail to see a single Muslim in this thread stating that I do not know what I am talking about. If they have said it in other threads, then show me. Where are these Muslims? Why haven’t they said anything to me? Do they not have any back-bone, is that it? Or are you just lying, yet again?

P.S., I understand where YOU come from, but I don't see how you can possibly support that girl after the kind of ignorant comment she made about Sikhism. [I'm not Sikh btw.]
Whatever I said with regards to Sikhism and women was justified, and is indeed, true. It is a known-fact. Strange, when Cunard lied upon Islaam; you had no qualms about it, but when something truthful is said about Sikhism, you begin to cause a stir about it. So much for you “respecting” Islaam.

Do you really think people are that stupid to believe you? All you’ve done throughout this entire thread is mocked Islaam. Pfft. If only you resided in an Islamic State and said all that you have said… If only…

Anyway, many in the West (like Space-Cowboy and those like him) have the understanding that “faith” means to believe in something that one cannot prove. This is not the approach of Islaam. In general, Muslims hold that there are very strong, rational reasons for them to believe in their religion. It is not simply a matter of “blind faith.” Instead - and this is obviously not the proper place to go into this in detail - Muslims think, for example, that the excellence of the Qur'aan, its unquestionable historical authenticity, and the numerous miracles related to it all point to this book being a true revelation from God.

Thus, before a Muslim is asked to override something found in his religion (which Space-Cowboy and his likes are asking of us), there had better be very strong evidence that something is mistaken or unacceptable in the religion of Islaam. Furthermore, from a Muslim’s perspective, the burden of proof in such a case would be upon the one who claims that there is something superior or more suitable than what is found in Islamic Law. (It must be stressed that this seems to be an issue that many in the West simply cannot comprehend because they think that faith is just a matter of blind faith and they do not realise that Muslims have rational reasons for believing in Islaam and Islaamic Law).

Those who object to the law of apostasy in Islaam in the name of “human rights” (like Space-Cowboy, etc.) have fallen into a very interesting paradox.

According to the principle of freedom of belief, nobody should be asked to give up anything they believe in. However today, it is being demanded of Muslims (from the likes of Space-Cowboy and others like him), that they not believe in or implement the Islamic law of apostasy.

In other words, in the name of human rights and the freedom to believe, they are saying that one does not have the right to believe that someone should be put to death for denying the religion of Islaam. This is very much similar to Henry Ford saying, “You can have the Model T in any colour you like, as long as it is black.” They are actually defining the limits of one’s belief and they are doing that in the name of freedom of belief.

It seems that what they are saying is clear: Although freedom of belief is a fundamental human right, before one is truly allowed to believe in or practice any religion, one must check with the human rights experts to ensure that the beliefs and practices of that religion are compatible with fundamental human rights. If this is not a paradox, nothing is.

The following question remains: What “right” do they have to force such paradoxical thinking upon the Muslims, requiring that the Muslims actually alter their faith? It seems that there is no such “right” as such a right could only be invoked by contradicting the Muslim’s “fundamental human rights”! Hah!!

Also, the Muslims reading through this discussion should read this thread here (http://forums.ratedesi.com/showthread.php?t=174408&page=1&pp=25), and in particular this (http://forums.ratedesi.com/showpost.php?p=6171933&postcount=4) post which briefly touches upon the Ahaadeeth matter. I was going to start a new thread about the authenticity of Ahaadeeth, and the beautiful and amazing history of Hadeeth Science (truly, I'm in love with it); but it's such an in-depth topic and me - possessing the very little knowledge that I do - would not do it justice and in-fact I fear that I may fall into matters that are beyond my scope at this moment in time. If anyone would like me to upload some documents about this beautiful issue; then just let me know in this thread or PM me and I will try to get them for you, inshaa'Allaah. The above argument was set out by our brother Jamaal Z. - May Allaah protect him. Anyway, this should suffice anyone who wishes to truly understand, and whose mental acumen is on par.

[Space-Cowboy]

WildWolfdog:

Look at this Cowboy; he clearly stated:


So, to believe in the Hadeeth of our Nabee, sallallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam, “is fundamentally UN-Islaamic,” in his own words. And now he states:


Who is he trying to fool? His first statement does not reflect what he claims he intended by it.


(1) Actually, it was other members PM’ing me and telling me about you wanting back-up in this thread.

(2) So, these “numerous” Muslims who have claimed I don’t know one word of what I’m talking about; where are they? Who are they? I fail to see a single Muslim in this thread stating that I do not know what I am talking about. If they have said it in other threads, then show me. Where are these Muslims? Why haven’t they said anything to me? Do they not have any back-bone, is that it? Or are you just lying, yet again?


Whatever I said with regards to Sikhism and women was justified, and is indeed, true. It is a known-fact. Strange, when Cunard lied upon Islaam; you had no qualms about it, but when something truthful is said about Sikhism, you begin to cause a stir about it. So much for you “respecting” Islaam.

Do you really think people are that stupid to believe you? All you’ve done throughout this entire thread is mocked Islaam. Pfft. If only you resided in an Islamic State and said all that you have said… If only…

Anyway, many in the West (like Space-Cowboy and those like him) have the understanding that “faith” means to believe in something that one cannot prove. This is not the approach of Islaam. In general, Muslims hold that there are very strong, rational reasons for them to believe in their religion. It is not simply a matter of “blind faith.” Instead - and this is obviously not the proper place to go into this in detail - Muslims think, for example, that the excellence of the Qur'aan, its unquestionable historical authenticity, and the numerous miracles related to it all point to this book being a true revelation from God.

Thus, before a Muslim is asked to override something found in his religion (which Space-Cowboy and his likes are asking of us), there had better be very strong evidence that something is mistaken or unacceptable in the religion of Islaam. Furthermore, from a Muslim’s perspective, the burden of proof in such a case would be upon the one who claims that there is something superior or more suitable than what is found in Islamic Law. (It must be stressed that this seems to be an issue that many in the West simply cannot comprehend because they think that faith is just a matter of blind faith and they do not realise that Muslims have rational reasons for believing in Islaam and Islaamic Law).

Those who object to the law of apostasy in Islaam in the name of “human rights” (like Space-Cowboy, etc.) have fallen into a very interesting paradox.

According to the principle of freedom of belief, nobody should be asked to give up anything they believe in. However today, it is being demanded of Muslims (from the likes of Space-Cowboy and others like him), that they not believe in or implement the Islamic law of apostasy.

In other words, in the name of human rights and the freedom to believe, they are saying that one does not have the right to believe that someone should be put to death for denying the religion of Islaam. This is very much similar to Henry Ford saying, “You can have the Model T in any colour you like, as long as it is black.” They are actually defining the limits of one’s belief and they are doing that in the name of freedom of belief.

It seems that what they are saying is clear: Although freedom of belief is a fundamental human right, before one is truly allowed to believe in or practice any religion, one must check with the human rights experts to ensure that the beliefs and practices of that religion are compatible with fundamental human rights. If this is not a paradox, nothing is.

The following question remains: What “right” do they have to force such paradoxical thinking upon the Muslims, requiring that the Muslims actually alter their faith? It seems that there is no such “right” as such a right could only be invoked by contradicting the Muslim’s “fundamental human rights”! Hah!!

Also, the Muslims reading through this discussion should read this thread here (http://forums.ratedesi.com/showthread.php?t=174408&page=1&pp=25), and in particular this (http://forums.ratedesi.com/showpost.php?p=6171933&postcount=4) post which briefly touches upon the Ahaadeeth matter. I was going to start a new thread about the authenticity of Ahaadeeth, and the beautiful and amazing history of Hadeeth Science (truly, I'm in love with it); but it's such an in-depth topic and me - possessing the very little knowledge that I do - would not do it justice and in-fact I fear that I may fall into matters that are beyond my scope at this moment in time. If anyone would like me to upload some documents about this beautiful issue; then just let me know in this thread or PM me and I will try to get them for you, inshaa'Allaah. The above argument was set out by our brother Jamaal Z. - May Allaah protect him. Anyway, this should suffice anyone who wishes to truly understand, and whose mental acumen is on par.

Didn't you say you were gonna leave? Either way, this clearly shows you know nothing about Sikhism.... or anything else for that matter.. just shut up :idea:

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

Didn't you say you were gonna leave? Either way, this clearly shows you know nothing about Sikhism.... or anything else for that matter.. just shut up :idea:
Yes, but someone advised me to come back and reply.

[Space-Cowboy]

The whole "I don't care what anyone else thinks" is an attitude befitting of a 5 year old child... but then again, with your level of intelligence, I'd expect as much.

[Space-Cowboy]

Yes, but someone advised me to come back and reply.


I can set this argument up in a new thread in GD, you'll see just how many NON Muslims come and point out the blatant flaw in your arguments like I have. And they won't be as understanding as I have tried to been. Believe me, I'm the best you got :idea:


Whatever I said with regards to Sikhism and women was justified, and is indeed, true. It is a known-fact.

This is statement shows your ignorance beyond a doubt.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

The whole "I don't care what anyone else thinks" is an attitude befitting of a 5 year old child... but then again, with your level of intelligence, I'd expect as much.
I see. Thank you for your useful input.

[MIXED-UP GIRL]

I can set this argument up in a new thread in GD, you'll see just how many NON Muslims come and point out the blatant flaw in your arguments like I have. And they won't be as understanding as I have tried to been. Believe me, I'm the best you got :idea:
Oh, I see.

[Space-Cowboy]

I see. Thank you for your useful input.


Thanks, I make it a point to go to great lengths to teach those who need to learn.

[The Anti Desi]

Ok....seriously...I don't the way this thread has gone now. This shall be junked.