Apostates of Islam

[Alla Prima]

However, without discarding any hadith, we can argue about the context of the hadith and if it was intended to be a general rule or rule specific to certian situation...etc. and this can be said about the ahadith related to the issue of "apostasy".

All very slippery and very very convenient to promote any kind of Islam appropriate to it's intended audience.

 

[Alla Prima]

there are thousands of fellow Muslims all over the globe and those hadith books also contain real hadiths. i would not burn anything that belongs to Mohammad (PBUH).

.

Of coure not.

 

[Sahar]

All very slippery and very very convenient to promote any kind of Islam appropriate to it's intended audience.

As a matter of fact, you have no say in this. Ijtihad, Fiqh and its principles, Ilm of Hadith,...issues belong solely to Muslims and their scholars.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Yes but not4me, is that right?

Let me put it this way: if .lava and I had our way, people would be free to express themselves. Muslims could wear hijabs. They could also become apostates and convince others to join them. Atheists could become Muslims and convince others to join them. People would not be murdered by whoever happens to be in government power for expressing themselves.

What's wrong with this vision that .lava and I share?

An Islamic state would certainly approve your right to choose your beliefs, but it would be unwise if you were given the right to convince others to follow certain beliefs that would oppose the very basic ones upon which the state was based.

 

[Sahar]

An Islamic state would certainly approve your right to choose your beliefs, but it would be unwise if you were given the right to convince others to follow certain beliefs that would oppose the very basic ones upon which the state was based.

Exactly!
Nice that you pop up from decade to another.

 

[.lava]

An Islamic state would certainly approve your right to choose your beliefs, but it would be unwise if you were given the right to convince others to follow certain beliefs that would oppose the very basic ones upon which the state was based.

there is something i do not get, EiNsTeiN;

in an Islamic state, people who follow other paths live together with Muslims. for example, in Ramadan we go for fasting but some other people would not. they might eat infront of you and by seeing them eating and drinking, your nafs might convince you to stop fasting. is it their crime? and if it is, do non-Muslim have to hide when they eat? i like people eat and drink around me while i was fasting actually. it does not weaken me. matter of fact i feel happier, thanks to my Rab.

.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Exactly!
Nice that you pop up from decade to another.

Hehe, thanks!...I've been here for awhile though

 

[Sahar]

there is something i do not get, EiNsTeiN;

in an Islamic state, people who follow other paths live together with Muslims. for example, in Ramadan we go for fasting but some other people would not. they might eat infront of you and by seeing them eating and drinking, your nafs might convince you to stop fasting. is it their crime? and if it is, do non-Muslim have to hide when they eat? i like people eat and drink around me while i was fasting actually. it does not weaken me. matter of fact i feel happier, thanks to my Rab.

.

Lava, I don't think this is the same point that Einstein's post was about. but I will leave the reply to Ahmed.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

there is something i do not get, EiNsTeiN;

in an Islamic state, people who follow other paths live together with Muslims. for example, in Ramadan we go for fasting but some other people would not. they might eat infront of you and by seeing them eating and drinking, your nafs might convince you to stop fasting. is it their crime? and if it is, do non-Muslim have to hide when they eat? i like people eat and drink around me while i was fasting actually. it does not weaken me. matter of fact i feel happier, thanks to my Rab.

.

I didn't say that. In Ramadan, non- Muslims are not forced to fast of course, nor asked to hide it.
But a non-Muslim should not convince Muslims to stop fasting even if he thought it was a silly act. Thats what I mean, you do whatever you want, but you do not try to convince others to follow you (if that already opposes the basic nature of the state).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

An Islamic state would certainly approve your right to choose your beliefs, but it would be unwise if you were given the right to convince others to follow certain beliefs that would oppose the very basic ones upon which the state was based.

So, by applying your logic, any State which happens to be established has the right to shut up everyone expressing an opinion which undermines it. All the Kings and Emperors throughout history were right to kill their critics, since after all those states were based on the ideas of Monarchy. The Catholic Church has the right to silence its critics in Vatican City. Turkey has the right to crush religious expression which threatens secularism, since the Turkish state is based on secularism. The French state has the right to prevent Muslim children from wearing the hijab in schools....after all, that threatens the secular basis of the French state. The state of Israel has the right to imprison people who question or deny the Holocaust.

I, on the other hand, reject all these. None of these states have the right to prevent freedom of speech, even if freedom of speech weakens the state.

What you have said is the same misguided excuse that is always used to justify and defend tyranny: "Free speech undermines the state". Yes, sometimes it does. If your State is so fragile, or so easily criticized that the expression of critical opinion undermines it, and perhaps alters it, then it should be altered.

 

[.lava]

Lava, I don't think this is the same point that Einstein's post was about. but I will leave the reply to Ahmed.

let me ask the same question in other way so you can answer too. how come someone could convince you to leave Islam if you, in the first place, did not have it within you? every single thing, in and out of Islamic nations just because of the very nature of this world and nature of human nafs/ego, would be inviting you to do wrongs. this is not about outside world. it is about inside world you feed or not. by changing outside world you won't be safe from your ego. but by challanging your ego, you'd be safe from outside world. so i think as long as an apostate's so called message did not match with something else within you, you could not be convinced. it is more humane to kill whatever matches within you. because without that weakness within you, not just one, even millions of apostates could never convince you to abandone Islam. i rather know my weaknesses. if not, i would have to leave this world even before getting to know myself. Allah has created me. therefor i want to know myself.

.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

So, by applying your logic, any State which happens to be established has the right to shut up everyone expressing an opinion which undermines it. All the Kings and Emperors throughout history were right to kill their critics, since after all those states were based on the ideas of Monarchy. The Catholic Church has the right to silence its critics in Vatican City. Turkey has the right to crush religious expression which threatens secularism, since the Turkish state is based on secularism. The French state has the right to prevent Muslim children from wearing the hijab in schools....after all, that threatens the secular basis of the French state. The state of Israel has the right to imprison people who question or deny the Holocaust.

I, on the other hand, reject all these. None of these states have the right to prevent freedom of speech, even if freedom of speech weakens the state.

What you have said is the same misguided excuse that is always used to justify and defend tyranny: "Free speech undermines the state". Yes, sometimes it does. If your State is so fragile, or so easily criticized that the expression of critical opinion undermines it, and perhaps alters it, then it should be altered.

I can totally understand your logic.

But how would you protect the basic identity of your state?

The logic I'm using is also used in business, you can not work for Microsoft and use Linux as you OS in your office!
It's not about your freedom to use whatever OS you prefer, it's rather about the identity of the place you work at.
Rules are set there to protect the identity rather than "just" oppressing your freedom.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But a non-Muslim should not convince Muslims to stop fasting even if he thought it was a silly act. Thats what I mean, you do whatever you want, but you do not try to convince others to follow you (if that already opposes the basic nature of the state).

I just want to make a clarification: I am not saying that it is necessarily polite, or constructive, to go around telling people of other religions what to do. What I am saying is, no one, not even people in an Islamic state, has the right to murder people for this--that is the issue.

 

[Fatihah]

Mohammad (PBUH) did not have any enemies even though some people saw him as their enemy but he was never enemy to them. he did not perceieve anyone as a threat to his faith, neither should you. faith should not be that fragile. everyone is free to chose between this or that just like you.


.

Response: Yes Muhammad (saw) never perceived anyone as a threat to his faith , yet Muhammad (saw) went to war anyway. This is because he in fact had enemies and because he was an obedient prophet, he followed the orders of Allah and went to war with those who seeked to kill him. No I don't believe anyone is a threat to my faith but that still does not make them not a threat to me. And Allah gives us the right to self-defense.

 

[Sajdah]

I can totally understand your logic.

But how would you protect the basic identity of your state?

The logic I'm using is also used in business, you can not work for Microsoft and use Linux as you OS in your office!
It's not about your freedom to use whatever OS you prefer, it's rather about the identity of the place you work at.
Rules are set there to protect the identity rather than "just" oppressing your freedom.

Well said brother, May Allah Bless You.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

let me ask the same question in other way so you can answer too. how come someone could convince you to leave Islam if you, in the first place, did not have it within you? every single thing, in and out of Islamic nations just because of the very nature of this world and nature of human nafs/ego, would be inviting you to do wrongs. this is not about outside world. it is about inside world you feed or not. by changing outside world you won't be safe from your ego. but by challanging your ego, you'd be safe from outside world. so i think as long as an apostate's so called message did not match with something else within you, you could not be convinced. it is more humane to kill whatever matches within you. because without that weakness within you, not just one, even millions of apostates could never convince you to abandone Islam. i rather know my weaknesses. if not, i would have to leave this world even before getting to know myself. Allah has created me. therefor i want to know myself.

.

I didn't come across the apostates issue. .
Yes if someone tried to convince me to leave Islam, I won't likely follow him, but he can convince me to dislike Islam, then convince me to believe that Islam is not rational, then convince me that Islam is evil, and so on, until I get to the point where I can easily discard my Islamic identity.

As a ruler, you can not set rules based on your trust of people's "nafs". Again, you are protecting the identity of your state, rather than oppressing anyone's freedom.

 

[Sahar]

Aih ya 3am el 7alawa di, enta fain mn zaman?!
Well said, Ahmed!!

 

[EiNsTeiN]

I just want to make a clarification: I am not saying that it is necessarily polite, or constructive, to go around telling people of other religions what to do. What I am saying is, no one, not even people in an Islamic state, has the right to murder people for this--that is the issue.

Well, I didn't come across the apostates issue, I was merely illustrating a basic concept.

I do not have enough knowledge regarding the apostates issue. But what I know is that people (non-Muslims) are murdered when they choose to embrace Islam, then discard it.
As I recall, one of the reasons why the penalty is that much big is to aware people about the importance of embracing Islam that they have to be 100% sure about their decision before taking it.

 

[.lava]

Response: Yes Muhammad (saw) never perceived anyone as a threat to his faith , yet Muhammad (saw) went to war anyway. This is because he in fact had enemies and because he was an obedient prophet, he followed the orders of Allah and went to war with those who seeked to kill him. No I don't believe anyone is a threat to my faith but that still does not make them not a threat to me. And Allah gives us the right to self-defense.

yes, i agree with this. he (SAW) went to war because disbelievers were killing unarmed Muslims. matter of fact, he did not go to fight them back because they followed Muslims after they left Mecca to Medina. their tortures and killings was not just for awhile, it lasted for years before Muslims commanded to fight back. it is anyone's right if they were attacked. i believe there must be an actual attack to call it self-defense.


.

 

[Sahar]

I just want to make a clarification: I am not saying that it is necessarily polite, or constructive, to go around telling people of other religions what to do. What I am saying is, no one, not even people in an Islamic state, has the right to murder people for this--that is the issue.

Again this issue is different from leaving Islam. Preaching disbelief to Muslims by an ex-Muslim, an originally non-Muslim or Muslim (?) will not be allowed in an Islamic state that protects the daw'a of Islam. Say that it was legalized as a law and breaking that law can take you to the jail one year or whatever...any sort of deterrent...I would see this as the right of the Islamic state and its people...