Apostates of Islam

[Mr Spinkles]

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 first of all, Microsoft won't have you put on trial and murdered for using Linux. So already you have "moved the goal posts", if you see what I mean.

It's difficult to answer your question, because i.m.o. it contains invalid assumptions. It is like saying, "If I don't make it illegal, how do I prevent Muslim children from wearing hijabs?" The question is unanswerable, because it assumes I have the right to prevent Muslim children from wearing hijabs, which I do not.

As far as means of defending your point of view, surely there are many ways, other than State murder. You can hang a flag outside your house. Write a letter to the newspaper. Argue with your friends. March in a demonstration. Run for political office, or vote. Donate your time or money to a political group.

 

[Alla Prima]

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.

Not any more.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Well first of all, Microsoft won't have you put on trial and murdered for using Linux. So already you have "moved the goal posts", if you see what I mean.

It's difficult to answer your question, because i.m.o. it contains invalid assumptions. It is like saying, "If I don't make it illegal, how do I prevent Muslim children from wearing hijabs?" The question is unanswerable, because it assumes I have the right to prevent Muslim children from wearing hijabs, which I do not.

As far as means of defending your point of view, surely there are many ways, other than State murder. You can hang a flag outside your house. Write a letter to the newspaper. Argue with your friends. March in a demonstration. Run for political office, or vote. Donate your time or money to a political group.

So, you do agree with the concept of having a penalty for apostates, but you disagree with the death penalty, am I right?

Edit: I'm gonna leave for now, and will proceed later (isA)

 

[.lava]

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.

60:8 Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.

60:9 Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.

according to these verses, you can not be friends with an apostate who's attacking Islam and God does not command Muslims to kill them but God clearly commands not to make friends with them. which means an apostate who's fighting against Islam would not have chance to give you doubt on Islam step by step as you described if you followed commands of Allah.

the answer is simple;

109:6 You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.


.

 

[Sahar]

Are we talking here about;
Freedom of changing beliefs,
Or freedom of preaching disbelief to Muslims,
Or freedom of practicing religion?!!

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Are we talking here about;
Freedom of changing beliefs,
Or freedom of preaching disbelief to Muslims,
Or freedom of practicing religion?!!

I second those questions, because I think we are missing the main issue, or is it just me?!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

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...

Okay so then by your logic, the French state, the Turkish state, the Russian state, and any other secular state has the right to kill/jail people who undermine the identity of "secularism".

So isn't it somewhat hypocritical of you to complain that the hijab is not allowed in public schools in Turkey or France? Why is it wrong to do that, when they are just trying to preserve the identity of their state?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, you do agree with the concept of having a penalty for apostates, but you disagree with the death penalty, am I right?

No, I do not agree with the concept of having a penalty for apostates.
Do you think there should be a penalty for atheists who convert to Islam (and convince other atheists to convert as well)? :areyoucra

 

[Alla Prima]

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.

The ideology is more important than people's lives and as a matter of fact people aren't really very important at all. They become disposable in the support and maintenance of Islam.

 

[.lava]

The ideology is more important than people's lives and as a matter of fact people aren't really very important at all. They become disposable in the support and maintenance of Islam.

are you a robot?

.

 

[Alla Prima]

No, I do not agree with the concept of having a penalty for apostates.

Neither do I. None whatsoever. No compulsion to religion.

 

[Alla Prima]

are you a robot?

.

Don't be silly. Respond to the content of my comment.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are we talking here about;
Freedom of changing beliefs,
Or freedom of preaching disbelief to Muslims,
Or freedom of practicing religion?!!

The problem is not4me, in my opinion these all go hand-in-hand. In practice, without one you don't truly have any of these freedoms.

Imagine trying to have a discussion with me, if I said sure, you are free to believe in Islam and practice your religion and express your opinion.....but if during our discussion, atheist judges determine that you have offended atheism, or uttered a falsehood about atheism, or attempted to convince me that atheism is incorrect, then you will be arrested. You might even be executed.

Now, imagine that, and tell me if you feel very free to express yourself.

Clearly you wouldn't, and that is why I would rather see every atheist on Earth convert to Islam than see a single Muslim humiliated and executed by the government for expressing herself. If atheism loses the argument, when people are free to express and hear all arguments, then it probably deserves to lose.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

not4me,

You never answered my question: what is wrong with the idea that .lava and I support, which is that everyone has freedom of expression?

(Within reason, of course. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded room, you can't threaten to murder someone, you can't falsely accuse people of crimes, etc. for obvious reasons.)

 

[Alla Prima]

Are we talking here about;
Freedom of changing beliefs,

Yes we are and yes people should be free to change their religion without fear of harm.

Or freedom of preaching disbelief to Muslims,

This too and yes. If one has the freedom to change his or her religion then one is free to encourage others to disbelief and those in turn free to not listen.

Or freedom of practicing religion?!!

All religious people should have the freedom to practice their religions as long as it doesn't harm others or deny the freedoms of others.

 

[.lava]

not4me,

You never answered my question: what is wrong with the idea that .lava and I support, which is that everyone has freedom of expression?

(Within reason, of course. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded room, you can't threaten to murder someone, you can't falsely accuse people of crimes, etc. for obvious reasons.)

i don't think it is freedom of speech they're talking about. i believe they are talking about "fitnah". imagine that i tell lie about someone elses to you then i go tell lie to other person about you and i cause trouble between you two. people can make others kill each other by doing that kind of stuff. this is not exactly freedom of speech. it is fitnah. something that people knowingly do to cause damage to people or to public. but of course not4me should explain herself.


.

 

[.lava]

Yes we are and yes people should be free to change their religion without fear of harm.

This too and yes. If one has the freedom to change his or her religion then one is free to encourage others to disbelief and those in turn free to not listen.

All religious people should have the freedom to practice their religions as long as it doesn't harm others or deny the freedoms of others.

if you are not a robot then go back and read what not4me has said so far then ask your questions. she does not say people should be killed for changing religion.


.

 

[Sahar]

Mr Spinkles, I live in a country where you can see churches everywhere and Christians practice their religion and celebrate their feasts as much as they want. However, when it comes to proselytizing real problems arise and guess what from Muslims and Christians equally to a degree that threatens the national security of the country. What I am trying to say it's very possible to believe in a certain religion and practice it without going to the court. Because I see this and live this.
I support your right to leave Islam without any punishment. I support your right to practice your religion. Very generally, I don't expect that you would be able to try to convince Muslims to leave Islam. And I believe changing your beliefs and practicing your religion is very possible without trying to convert Muslims.
But to be completely honest, I am not sure to what extent freedom of speech should be in the Islamic state. I need to search more about this point. And very possible that I may not reach a conclusion.
Is it possible for example for someone to author a book about atheism? To criticize Islam?
I expect the answer is no but I gave this much thought before, should we allow this and on the other hand Islamic preachers and thinkers will be more active when they reply to such books? Is this kind of flow of ideas better (it's tempting to me ) or is it better to put some limitations, but limitations to what extent? Doesn't the Qur'an itself, quote the different beliefs and reply to them? Or most people in any community just follow the trend without deep thinking?
All these questions have run through my mind and I haven't found a clear definite answer to them yet.

 

[Shahzad]

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...

Islam must be a brittle, fragile faith to resort to such threats to hold on to it's believers.

 

[Sahar]

not4me,

You never answered my question: what is wrong with the idea that .lava and I support, which is that everyone has freedom of expression?

(Within reason, of course. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded room, you can't threaten to murder someone, you can't falsely accuse people of crimes, etc. for obvious reasons.)

The issue, Mr Spinkles, is that the Islamic state (as I understand) is not like any other kind of states. It has its unique own objectives. Protecting the message of Islam is one of these objectives, and this message came to lighten the path of humans to their creator and which includes fighting kufr, kufr is the greatest injustice to the human kind, kufr and corruption are not separable. When you call to kufr is a call for corruption. So, it's not very likely that this state that fights kufr, allows the call for kufr. If you want to disbelieve, you're free. You, solely, will be responsible for this but to convey this to others, here is the problem. This is very general speaking. Coming to the details, many questions are raised, see my previous post.