Apostates of Islam

[.lava]

well, i got to say something. i and a Muslim freind here were PMing each other and she gave me insight about this issue. i was actually talking about this situation we have in Turkey in another thread. here, there are Muslims who's very poor and they are mostly uneducated people. in last decade (it has not been ten years yet though) some missionaries came along and these people offer money to poor Muslims and made them convert to their religion. specially teenagers fall into this. i do not want these missionaries in my nation, i'll give you that. there is one more kind of "inviter". they were Muslims, at least they were born in here. these are rich people who claims to help education of poor and clever students. it sounds like something good but they are in fact trying to make this clever young people abandone Islam. they refuse to help religious kids. if they can they make them stop performing salaats, wearing hijab...etc. i wonder if similar things were happening in Egypt. i find this very disturbing. this is not about changing your religion. this is a political movement and it is mean. also abusing poverty of people is not acceptable. i felt like i must mention this because only now i can see what our Muslim friends are talking about. i can not say those people should be killed but i would like them to be send back wherever they belong. so if an apostate was so unhappy with living in Islamic state, maybe he should find the place where he fits in.

.

 

[Sahar]

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.


.

Yeah, "fitnah" is the proper word. I can say that the Islamic state is biased to the message of Islam. But this doesn't mean that non-Muslims will be subjected to sub-humane life, not at all. Islam is about justice and mercy to Muslims, non Muslims and even animals. Your basic rights are ensured including your right to believe and practice your religion. However, trying to convert Muslims to any other set of beliefs is defined as harm and damage to the individuals and the community. This may be difficult for a non-Muslim to swallow.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks for your honest and candid reply, not4me.

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 do understand that, not4me. But are you saying that the laws on apostates only apply if it is a national security issue? I don't think proselytizing is a national security issue in every country.

 

[.lava]

Thanks for your honest and candid reply, not4me.

I do understand that, not4me. But are you saying that the laws on apostates only apply if it is a national security issue? I don't think proselytizing is a national security issue in every country.

you might be wrong about that. imagine how it would be like if people wanted to apply sharia in USA and imagine Muslims trying to convert people to Islam just to make that happen? would not it be national security issue for USA government?


.

 

[.lava]

Yeah, "fitnah" is the proper word. I can say that the Islamic state is biased to the message of Islam. But this doesn't mean that non-Muslims will be subjected to sub-humane life, not at all. Islam is about justice and mercy to Muslims, non Muslims and even animals. Your basic rights are ensured including your right to believe and practice your religion. However, trying to convert Muslims to any other set of beliefs is defined as harm and damage to the individuals and the community. This may be difficult for a non-Muslim to swallow.

took me for awhile but i think i finally get you

.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your basic rights are ensured including your right to believe and practice your religion. However, trying to convert Muslims to any other set of beliefs is defined as harm and damage to the individuals and the community. Perhaps this is difficult for a non-Muslim to swallow.

Yes, I would say that is difficult to swallow. But there is an additional issue: even if someone's speech is harmful to society, does the State have the right to determine what is acceptable/unacceptable speech, arrest, jail and execute people for expressing themselves? I say no.

I say no for many reasons. One reason I have not yet mentioned, is that it is inevitable i.m.o. that such a system will move towards tyranny--just look at history. The people in power will say, "You insulted Islam!" even if all you were doing was criticizing the people in power. Just look at the atheist blogger who was jailed in Egypt. Was he really jailed for criticizing Islam, or was it because he criticized the government? And who gets to decide? Why, the people in power do, of course.

 

[Sahar]

Thanks for your honest and candid reply, not4me.

I do understand that, not4me. But are you saying that the laws on apostates only apply if it is a national security issue? I don't think proselytizing is a national security issue in every country.

I stated my opinion on the issue of apostasy several times. I believe that you can leave Islam without any punishment.
But if you broke the law, the court will deal with you accordingly like any other person (Muslim or not) who broke the law. If it was illegal to convert Muslims to any other religion, and the punishment is 6 months jail, then this is how they will deal with you...etc.
Is this point clear?
That's why I said there is a distinction between choosing to follow any religion other than Islam and trying to convert Muslims.

 

[Sahar]

Yes, I would say that is difficult to swallow. But there is an additional issue: even if someone's speech is harmful to society, does the State have the right to determine what is acceptable/unacceptable speech, arrest, jail and execute people for expressing themselves? I say no.

I say no for many reasons. One reason I have not yet mentioned, is that it is inevitable i.m.o. that such a system will move towards tyranny--just look at history. The people in power will say, "You insulted Islam!" even if all you were doing was criticizing the people in power. Just look at the atheist blogger who was jailed in Egypt. Was he really jailed for criticizing Islam, or was it because he criticized the government? And who gets to decide? Why, the people in power do, of course.

How can a non-tyrannical system be ensured? We can get benefit from the current democratic systems, from the processes that ensure that the government will not abuse its powers.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

you might be wrong about that. imagine how it would be like if people wanted to apply sharia in USA and imagine Muslims trying to convert people to Islam just to make that happen? would not it be national security issue for USA government?

There are people in the US who want to apply sharia and there are Muslims trying to convert people to Islam to make that happen. No one would dream of saying it should be illegal to convert someone to Islam. And if anyone did say that I would think they are crazy.

And, again, you have "moved the goal posts". You are talking about people imposing Sharia law on me by force, and violating what I believe are my rights, whereas we were originally simply talking about people converting to a different religion. If someone else converts to a different religion, that by itself does not violate my rights to free speech, etc. But if Sharia law is imposed, that does violate what I believe are my rights. You can tell me I'm free all you like; I'm telling you, I wouldn't feel free. And freedom is a right, it is not a gift from the State.

 

[.lava]

There are people in the US who want to apply sharia and there are Muslims trying to convert people to Islam to make that happen. No one would dream of saying it should be illegal to convert someone to Islam. And if anyone did say that I would think they are crazy.

And, again, you have "moved the goal posts". You are talking about people imposing Sharia law on me by force, and violating what I believe are my rights, whereas we were originally simply talking about people converting to a different religion. If someone else converts to a different religion, that by itself does not violate my rights to free speech, etc. But if Sharia law is imposed, that does violate what I believe are my rights. You can tell me I'm free all you like; I'm telling you, I wouldn't feel free. And freedom is a right, it is not a gift from the State.

i am talking about people trying to convert others to this or that just because they want to change the system of a nation. let's say a Muslim for some reason changed his religion. he could live his own path. what's the intention of an apostate who lives in an Islamic state and he tries to make people abandon Islam? what's his purpose? if he is an enemy to Islam, then it would be very unhappy for him to live in an Islamic state. but the solution to this is not trying to pull others on his side. solution to this is to go wherever he fits in. as much as you or other Americans love the system you're living in, Muslims love their state to be Islamic.


.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How can a non-tyrannical system be ensured? We can get benefit from the current democratic systems, from the processes that ensure that the government will not abuse its powers.

True. But one way a system becomes tyrannical is by a tyranny of the majority. How do you prevent a country that is 99% atheist from persecuting the 1% Muslims? I care about this question, as I'm sure you do, because I care about all people. (I try to anyway, obviously I'm not perfect.) One way the current democratic systems prevent (or mitigate) a tyranny of the majority is they believe in a concept called human rights. It is believed that all people have certain Rights and they cannot be taken away by anyone, not even the State, not even a majority vote. This belief has fostered a really amazing attitude in the U.S., where even though the majority could pass laws oppressing minorities, this is greatly mitigated, because many people who are in the majority do not feel they have the right to do so.

Ask any of the American Christian posters what they think of atheism. Most of them will say it's a corrupting influence on society. Then ask them if they would vote for a law banning atheist books, etc. Virtually all of them will say no. In fact, they will defend the atheist's right to free speech. And I would defend theirs. And yours.

These ideas are spelled out here, if you are interested:
On Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Declaration of Independence
Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Applying Principle to Practice Introduction

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I stated my opinion on the issue of apostasy several times. I believe that you can leave Islam without any punishment.
But if you broke the law, the court will deal with you accordingly like any other person (Muslim or not) who broke the law. If it was illegal to convert Muslims to any other religion, and the punishment is 6 months jail, then this is how they will deal with you...etc.
Is this point clear?
That's why I said there is a distinction between choosing to follow any religion other than Islam and trying to convert Muslims.

Yes, I understand your point here. You have explained that there is a law, and that it will be enforced. But it is an unjust law, and you have not demonstrated that it is a just law.

 

[Sahar]

Yes, I understand your point here. You have explained that there is a law, and that it will be enforced. But it is an unjust law, and you have not demonstrated that it is a just law.

Then we finished the issue of apostasy here?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i am talking about people trying to convert others to this or that just because they want to change the system of a nation. let's say a Muslim for some reason changed his religion. he could live his own path. what's the intention of an apostate who lives in an Islamic state and he tries to make people abandon Islam? what's his purpose? if he is an enemy to Islam, then it would be very unhappy for him to live in an Islamic state. but the solution to this is not trying to pull others on his side. solution to this is to go wherever he fits in. as much as you or other Americans love the system you're living in, Muslims love their state to be Islamic.

I have a couple of problems with this.

1. There are people trying to change the U.S. state. That's fine with me. Some things need to be changed. As long as A) they use legitimate means (not violence), B) they do not violate my rights as a human.
2. According to your logic, it is okay for the hijab to be banned in public schools in France and Turkey, to preserve the Secular State. Anyone who has a problem with that should go to some other country where they fit in, because French and Turkish people love their Secular State. I don't accept this logic. All people have the right to express themselves without having to move somewhere else where they "fit in" more....that's a prejudiced view which will only divide the world and lead to more conflict. If individual people can't tolerate their neighbors' differences, how will nations tolerate their neighbors' differences?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Then we finished the issue of apostasy here?

No because my whole point from the beginning is that this is unjust. You have not explained to me why it is just, or how you square that with your complaining about similar laws which preserve the "Secular identity" of the State.

And what is wrong with my view, that people should be free to convert others or not? (Did you answer that? Sorry I forgot.)
People convert to Islam all the time in the U.S. People explore different ideas and change their minds. Again, it's a very imperfect society, but this is one positive aspect. I agree with what you said earlier, that free discussion is the best method to arrive at the truth.

 

[Sahar]

No because my whole point from the beginning is that this is unjust. You have not explained to me why it is just, or how you square that with your complaining about similar laws which preserve the "Secular identity" of the State.

And what is wrong with my view, that people should be free to convert others or not? (Did you answer that? Sorry I forgot.)
People convert to Islam all the time in the U.S. People explore different ideas and change their minds. Again, it's a very imperfect society, but this is one positive aspect. I agree with what you said earlier, that free discussion is the best method to arrive at the truth.

What's basically the unjust? "It" refers to what? There are two topics now. Be specific.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If it was illegal to convert Muslims to any other religion, and the punishment is 6 months jail, then this is how they will deal with you...etc.

Such a law would be unjust i.m.o.

(Although, once again the goal posts have been moved, originally the punishment was death.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way not4me I don't think you answered a question I asked earlier (I know this thread is confusing):

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.

[emphasis added]

Can you please answer the question in bold? (Sorry I didn't make it obvious it was a question.)

 

[.lava]

I have a couple of problems with this.

1. There are people trying to change the U.S. state. That's fine with me. Some things need to be changed. As long as A) they use legitimate means (not violence), B) they do not violate my rights as a human.
2. According to your logic, it is okay for the hijab to be banned in public schools in France and Turkey, to preserve the Secular State. Anyone who has a problem with that should go to some other country where they fit in, because French and Turkish people love their Secular State. I don't accept this logic. All people have the right to express themselves without having to move somewhere else where they "fit in" more....that's a prejudiced view which will only divide the world and lead to more conflict. If individual people can't tolerate their neighbors' differences, how will nations tolerate their neighbors' differences?

i can not make comments on this one because i do not know. i asked about hadiths that say apostates should be killed and they turned out to be fake hadiths. i do not know about this issue. i just understand what not4me is saying.

.

 

[Sahar]

I have two problems now. The first is that I want to discuss the punishment of apostasy as a topic separate from the issue of freedom of speech and proselytizing issue and I can't.
When I asked you about apostasy, Spinkles, it is completely different from the other point of preaching any religion other than Islam, simply because this doesn't need an apostate, it can be done by any non-Muslim who lives in the Islamic state. We can discuss the latter away from the apostasy issue. Confusing those two things is confusing.

The other problem, there are many points and topics and I don't have the time now.