Apostates of Islam

[ProudMuslim]

Reading this thread and the statements by the Muslims on it makes me soooooo thankful that I am NOT a Muslim.

Oh that is such a great loss to Islam.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Doesn't matter. Forcing an ex muslim not to speak his mind about Islam on penalty of death is compulsion to religion. It is saying even though you accept another religion as the real truth you cannot deny the truth of Islam. That's compulsion.

If this ex Muslim wants to use weapon to speak his mind, then i am afraid we have every right to listen to him with a weapon as well.

Islam is straight about transgression. If someone is using words, we will use words but if he chooses to use weapon then we HAVE to use weapons.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is an extremely long thread. I haven't posted much but I have been reading....the problem is the thread keeps going off on off-topic tangents.

There are a few things I don't fully understand about the arguments in this thread:

1. Do "England my lionheart" and "Alla Prima" insist that all possible sects/interpretations of Islam necessarily promote prejudice, hostility, and oppression of apostates? Clearly, some Muslims have adopted more humane interpetations. Just as some Christians and Jews have adopted more humane interpretations.
2. Does eselam deny that Islam promotes this? I have heard him and many (not all) Muslims say that the punishment for apostasy, or for speaking openly about one's apostasy, is death.
3. Why does .lava use the concept of "fighting" when she clearly intends to say, "speaking out"? (As in, if they speak out against Islam, I will speak out against them). I could ask a thousand Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc. what they "do" with apostates, and they would never say, "As long as they don't fight against us..." Who said anything about fighting in the first place? What sort of mentality automatically associates private beliefs, or their expression, with the notion of "fighting against us"?

 

[ProudMuslim]

This is article 18 (again) of the declaration of Human rights:

Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This is a sahih Hadith with continuous inaad:

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"


This is just an example,there are obviously more,each translation varies a little but the meaning is quite clear,re article 18 HR.
IMO the main problem is the Ahadith,the Quran is supposed to be the all singing,all dancing book from God why would you require the Ahadith which are the words and deeds of your Prophet to understand it.
There are Quran alone Muslims for good reason,the ahadith concerning Apostates is still taken very seriously and an Apostate would probably be disowned by their family at least,obviously we know what happens in Islamic states.
All this is the result of a majority of Muslims following the Hadeeth and Sunna to the absolute letter and many an Immam will openly tell you that when dealing with an Apostate they should be given the oppertunity to change back or face punishment which is death for a Man and life imprisonment for a Woman in Islamic States.
The Hadith of Muhammeds Marriage to Aisha is an example of how the Hadith,if taken literally,can set the precedent of Child Marriage which has been in the News recently,obviously Children of 8 years cannot Marry here but in some Islamic States it's nothing because they can point to the precedent.

I totally understand your concern and in some ways i also agree with you.

However, i don't agree with Qur'an-alone solution as this defeat the very purpose of God sending a messenger to be a tutor to mankind.

The problem is the 'Ummah' have closed the doors of 'igtihad' which means seeking contemporary knowledge and connect it with scriptures. They have relied on over 1000 years old interpretations. Ahadiths were meant to be the procedures book for the Muslims, they are supposed to explain the commandments of God which are found in the Qur'an. They are not meant to have their seperate set of roles. But everytime i try to explain this to you, you just go on this "cherry pick bandwagen'. The fact that i don't believe in the authenticity of some ahadiths attributed to the Prophet, does not make less of a Muslim. If i questioned the authenticity of the Qur'an that is a whole another story. Every Muslim knows this. Muslims need to not be afraid and just question, debate, use logic and reason with things that don't found right to them. I can't think of any other religion that considers education a mandatory for every follower (man and woman), that consists of many divine verses calling adherents to think, seek knowledge, reason and observe. Yet many Muslims either are afraid of doing so or just accept the reality as a given fact. Yes in many ways poverty and illiteracy play very critical role in this but also the lack of interest, will and determination to reform for whatever reason aggrevate the situation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If this ex Muslim wants to use weapon to speak his mind, then i am afraid we have every right to listen to him with a weapon as well.

Islam is straight about transgression. If someone is using words, we will use words but if he chooses to use weapon then we HAVE to use weapons.

Here's what I don't understand, ProudMuslim.

I am a humanist. If someone asked me, "How do you respond to ex-humanists?" I would say, I suppose the first way I will respond is by listening to them. I will think about what they have to say, or maybe I will ignore them. Maybe I will disagree with them.

It would not even occur to me, or seem necessary to add...."but if they fight against humanism, then there is a punishment for disrupting the social order". Or, "If they fight against me, it is my obligation to fight back."

You would say, "Who said anything about fighting?" Why did the thought of fighting enter my head at all? We were only talking about ex-humanists. Obviously we would all defend ourselves if someone attacked us....that would be true if we were talking about ex-humanists, humanists, Chinese, or my next-door neighboor's cat. So why did I raise the issue of defense only when someone mentioned ex-humanists? ....Why, unless I already have some sort of paranoia, or prejudice, or desire to fight ex-humanists?

(Now replace the word humanism with Islam above. See what I mean?)

You say that fighting doesn't have to mean violence. It could mean nonviolent "fighting". But you know, as we all know, that the nonviolent fighting easily transitions into the violent forms, and yet the same word is used for all of them: it's all "fighting" and "defense". It's the same concept that was used when the leader of millions of Shiite Muslims offered money to kill Rushdie, when a Danish film producer was murdered, and when apostates and atheists all over the world, who have committed no crime other than voicing their opinions, are jailed or harassed by (some) Muslims.

Wouldn't it be better, instead of always talking about fighting, to just say you strongly disagree with people, but you respect their right to their opinions?

Do you understand my concerns? Or am I not making any sense?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The problem is the 'Ummah' have closed the doors of 'igtihad' which means seeking contemporary knowledge and connect it with scriptures. They have relied on over 1000 years old interpretations. Ahadiths were meant to be the procedures book for the Muslims, they are supposed to explain the commandments of God which are found in the Qur'an. They are not meant to have their seperate set of roles. But everytime i try to explain this to you, you just go on this "cherry pick bandwagen'. The fact that i don't believe in the authenticity of some ahadiths attributed to the Prophet, does not make less of a Muslim. If i questioned the authenticity of the Qur'an that is a whole another story. Every Muslim knows this. Muslims need to not be afraid and just question, debate, use logic and reason with things that don't found right to them. I can't think of any other religion that considers education a mandatory for every follower (man and woman), that consists of many divine verses calling adherents to think, seek knowledge, reason and observe. Yet many Muslims either are afraid of doing so or just accept the reality as a given fact. Yes in many ways poverty and illiteracy play very critical role in this but also the lack of interest, will and determination to reform for whatever reason aggrevate the situation.

Hmm, good points.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Here's what I don't understand, ProudMuslim.

I am a humanist. If someone asked me, "How do you respond to ex-humanists?" I would say, I suppose the first way I will respond is by listening to them. I will think about what they have to say, or maybe I will ignore them. Maybe I will disagree with them.

It would not even occur to me, or seem necessary to add...."but if they fight against humanism, then there is a punishment for disrupting the social order". Or, "If they fight against me, it is my obligation to fight back."

You would say, "Who said anything about fighting?" Why did the thought of fighting enter my head at all? We were only talking about ex-humanists. Obviously we would all defend ourselves if someone attacked us....that would be true if we were talking about ex-humanists, humanists, Chinese, or my next-door neighboor's cat. So why did I raise the issue of defense only when someone mentioned ex-humanists? ....Why, unless I already have some sort of paranoia, or prejudice, or desire to fight ex-humanists?

(Now replace the word humanism with Islam above. See what I mean?)

You say that fighting doesn't have to mean violence. It could mean nonviolent "fighting". But you know, as we all know, that the nonviolent fighting easily transitions into the violent forms, and yet the same word is used for all of them: it's all "fighting" and "defense". It's the same concept that was used when the leader of millions of Shiite Muslims offered money to kill Rushdie, when a Danish film producer was murdered, and when apostates and atheists all over the world, who have committed no crime other than voicing their opinions, are jailed or harassed by (some) Muslims.

Wouldn't it be better, instead of always talking about fighting, to just say you strongly disagree with people, but you respect their right to their opinions?

Do you understand my concerns? Or am I not making any sense?

It makes perfect sense. Your scenario just reminded me of Jerry Maguire, when duing his crisis Jerry's ex fiance told him "you are not a loser" and he looked strangely at her and said "who said anything about being a loser here" lol.

The reason why we mention "physical fight" is because some members here will insist that Islam promotes the killing of apostates, of those who rejected Islam and just spoke their mind so we were explaining when exactly is force allowed in Islam and Islam's stance on transgression. So if someone rejects a Islam then " there is no compulsion in religion", if someone wanted to speak their mind and include some negative remarks then we are only allowed to respond within the same scope as "God does not love transgressors" and so on.

Take Wafaa Sultan who publicly calls for the elimination of Islam, what exactly does she mean? How can a religion be eliminated? Is she calling for the elimination of its adherents? mass massacres or something? How really i don't know. Anyway, how do i think we should respond? It will be irrational to ask a Muslim to just respect her right to have an opinion as that is not an opinion anymore and her comments should be taken seriously. But of course she must not be harmed because that will be transgression. So the only solution is match her level of aggressiveness but respect the boundaries.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It makes perfect sense. Your scenario just reminded me of Jerry Maguire, when duing his crisis Jerry's ex fiance told him "you are not a loser" and he looked strangely at her and said "who said anything about being a loser here" lol.

The reason why we mention "physical fight" is because some members here will insist that Islam promotes the killing of apostates, of those who rejected Islam and just spoke their mind so we were explaining when exactly is force allowed in Islam and Islam's stance on transgression. So if someone rejects a Islam then " there is no compulsion in religion", if someone wanted to speak their mind and include some negative remarks then we are only allowed to respond within the same scope as "God does not love transgressors" and so on.

Take Wafaa Sultan who publicly calls for the elimination of Islam, what exactly does she mean? How can a religion be eliminated? Is she calling for the elimination of its adherents? mass massacres or something? How really i don't know. Anyway, how do i think we should respond? It will be irrational to ask a Muslim to just respect her right to have an opinion as that is not an opinion anymore and her comments should be taken seriously. But of course she must not be harmed because that will be transgression. So the only solution is match her level of aggressiveness but respect the boundaries.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

There is a significant group/sect/movement in Islam that disagrees with your point of view, correct? Is it appropriate to match their level of aggressiveness as well? Wafaa Sultan made public statements which seem call for the "end of Islam", which is certainly provocative; however, many Muslims around the world, who apparently do not agree with your interpretations, have made public statements explicitly calling for death to people who drew a cartoon, or wrote a fictional book, or produced a movie. And some people have actually been killed, imprisoned, harassed, etc. So you would agree with me that we ought to oppose that very vigorously, correct?

One thing that I was tempted to say is this....is it necessary to match a person's criticism with a defense? For example, you could simply listen to their arguments, and weigh them in your own mind. Or you could ignore that person, if they are just spouting nonsense. I say "tempted" because, actually, you are right that there are cases when we should defend ideas (which is different from preventing criticism of those ideas from being expressed by others). For example, if someone is promoting racism, or murder, then we should stand up and voice our opposition. As much as we both must agree that racial equality should be defended, you must think Islam has to be defended even more vigorously, because to you Islam is equivalent to racial equality, plus many other things.

So in a way, we agree in every respect, except that you are Muslim, and I am not, lol. And that difference of opinion is beyond the scope of this thread, and probably beyond the scope of anything in our lifetimes.

What do you think?

 

[.lava]

Why does .lava use the concept of "fighting" when she clearly intends to say, "speaking out"? (As in, if they speak out against Islam, I will speak out against them). I could ask a thousand Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc. what they "do" with apostates, and they would never say, "As long as they don't fight against us..." Who said anything about fighting in the first place? What sort of mentality automatically associates private beliefs, or their expression, with the notion of "fighting against us"?

when you say Jihad Western would think it means war on the battle field where people kill each other. but defination of jihad is not just that. as a person, what i would do or say is up to you. that does not mean i am your puppet. it means i would keep balance. an apostate or a non-Muslim can fight against Islam by telling lies. if they perform this stand as a fight, then i would fight back by telling the truth. according to what i've learned so far, people are free to believe and free to say whatever they believe. but in here, in this thread some people ignore what Muslims say if they are not saying apostates should be killed. that is not honest. they are so ready ot agree with anything negative about Islam. i would not care if these people tell lie about this or that, but Islam, that is another issue. it is also command of God to tell the truth about Islam. i am not fighting against you and i would not unless you attack me physically. this is not fighting against people. this is fighting against lies. and yea i am sorry there is a fight but it is not me who started it. i can only be on the side of defense. as long as Islamophobic people attack Islam instead of wrong doer Muslims among us, then i would defend Islam. i hope that answers your question.

.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That does answer my question, thank you lava.

 

[Alla Prima]

Do "England my lionheart" and "Alla Prima" insist that all possible sects/interpretations of Islam necessarily promote prejudice, hostility, and oppression of apostates? Clearly, some Muslims have adopted more humane interpetations. Just as some Christians and Jews have adopted more humane interpretations.

I don't know for certain. I suspect not. I hope not. It's disturbing however that so many Muslims become outraged over criticisms towards Islam yet show little if any outrage over Islam's more violent groups and the atrocities they perform in the name of Islam. It's disturbing (though not surprising) how Islamocentric the mind of Muslims are - at least the ones I've spoken to and the ones I see on the news. I don't know what's in the hearts of all Muslims but I do know that the seeds - the encouragement for terrible behavior are embedded within the teachings of islam and who knows when or where these seeds will bear fruit.

 

[Alla Prima]

If this ex Muslim wants to use weapon to speak his mind, then i am afraid we have every right to listen to him with a weapon as well.

As I see it it's the Muslims not the ex-Muslims who are using weapons against Islam.

Islam is straight about transgression. If someone is using words, we will use words but if he chooses to use weapon then we HAVE to use weapons.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali used no weapons.

Salman Rushdie used no weapons.

Dr. Wafa Sultan used no weapons.

All have gone into hiding because of death threats. Are these the kind of words you are talking about? Where is your outrage against this terrible behavior?

 

[Alla Prima]

Take Wafaa Sultan who publicly calls for the elimination of Islam, what exactly does she mean? How can a religion be eliminated? Is she calling for the elimination of its adherents? mass massacres or something? How really i don't know. Anyway, how do i think we should respond? It will be irrational to ask a Muslim to just respect her right to have an opinion as that is not an opinion anymore and her comments should be taken seriously. But of course she must not be harmed because that will be transgression. So the only solution is match her level of aggressiveness but respect the boundaries. [/FONT]

Please provide the quote and in context.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali used no weapons.

Salman Rushdie used no weapons.

Dr. Wafa Sultan used no weapons.

And all are still alive, none got killed.

 

[yousaf]

if allah guides none caN MISGUIDE but Allah misguides there is none to guide. mos of the ex muslims you will find have left islam because of interaction with muslims percieving that to be shareah.

 

[Gharib]

What was the statement to which an answer was required?

what am i a butler to you?

 

[Gharib]

It always come to this with Muslims I've spoken to. Debating is not something that comes easily to them. They always revert to insults.

you call that an insult?

well lets just compare it to, say, muslims being killers for nothing, simply because you say so.

or what about me being deceitfull to people about islam, i'm not a liar and never will be ok.

but, since you are offended/insulted so easily by such words, i will not do it again.
i will not make it a personal thing, thats not my intention.

 

[Alla Prima]

And all are still alive, none got killed.

They would be dead if they could be found. That's why they're in hiding - Duh! You're saying it's ok to threaten people with death as long as you don't actually kill them. That's a barbaric idea and should be denounced by all.

My point is these people merely used words and they were threatened with death. That they weren't murdered is a testament to their ability to defend themselves not to any compassion from Islam. Your statement of "Islam is straight about transgression. If someone is using words, we will use words but if he chooses to use weapon then we HAVE to use weapons" is nonsensical propaganda.

 

[Alla Prima]

what am i a butler to you?

There were many statements. You failed to clearify which one. Which one? It's a fair question.

 

[Gharib]

We're talking about ex-Muslims.

yes, ex-muslims such as yourself. so tell me have i or anyother muslim denied your rights of speaking out?

and if we kill ex-muslims for speaking out, here you are still alive.

Islam denies them from speaking their mind/beliefs through threat of death(according to you).

nope not according to me, according to you.

i never said that ex-muslims are denied the right to speak out about why they left islam. all i said was "i don't know about that"

What people "think so" are what people believe. Islam (or you) have no business telling anyone what to believe or forbid them from verbally expressing it as long as they remain within the law of the country they reside in.

islam has not denied anyones will to leave islam and join some other belief.

but you want islam to be like that, so you pin your thoughts on islam, it is a very low thing to do.

No - ex-Muslims will not be quiet nor will I.

count me in too.

No, my role is to cast a critical eye towards the teachings of Islam so Muslim comments will not go unchallenged.

yes, you have been doing that quite wonderfully, the challenging i mean.

I think you mean go to sleep Alla Pima. No thanks. I've been asleep. Now I want others to wake up.

can i ask how long your dream lasted?

i think science has proven that a dream cannot be longer than 3 seconds or the person dies. so i wonder how you managed to survive your dream as a muslims for longer than 3 seconds. you must have been awake then, my bad. so you are right, go to sleep Alla Prima