Apostates of Islam

[keithnurse]

there is no compulsion in religion, (even) our Prophet SAW is only a reminder, everyone shall have whatever religion they follow and if Allah had pleased everyone would believe in what Muslims believe...and hadith says "kill whoever abandons Islam". don't you see a contradiction here? i mean, how come you don't?

.

[/quote]
Lava ,you need to ask a scholar who says apostates should be killed this question, why doesn't he see a contradiction. It is absurd to me to say those scholars aren't aware of that quran verse so they must have a good reason to believe Muhammed DID in fact say "if someone (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him".

 

[.lava]

Lava, have you read these articles on apostasy by a current living Islamic scholar?

www.islamqa.com/en/ref/811
www.islamqa.com/en/ref/14231

Would you tell me exactly why he is wrong and that you know better than he does what Islam teaches despite the fact that he has much more education in the sciences of hadith and qur'an interpretation?

no, i haven't and i do not think i will. i know nothing on my own. i am a student of tasavvuf, i have a teacher and i am here simply sharing what i was taught. i am still a student.

.

 

[.lava]

there is no compulsion in religion, (even) our Prophet SAW is only a reminder, everyone shall have whatever religion they follow and if Allah had pleased everyone would believe in what Muslims believe...and hadith says "kill whoever abandons Islam". don't you see a contradiction here? i mean, how come you don't?

.
Lava ,you need to ask a scholar who says apostates should be killed this question, why doesn't he see a contradiction. It is absurd to me to say those scholars aren't aware of that quran verse so they must have a good reason to believe Muhammed DID in fact say "if someone (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him".

no, i do not really need to ask anything. my question concerns AbuKhalid alone. besides, it is not my job to do.

.

 

[keithnurse]

Lava, if you know nothing on your own, as you say, then wouldn't it behoove you to learn from a wide variety of scholars? such as the ones at www.islamqa.com ? Even scholars you don't agree with?

 

[.lava]

Lava, if you know nothing on your own, as you say, then wouldn't it behoove you to learn from a wide variety of scholars? such as the ones at www.islamqa.com ? Even scholars you don't agree with?

no, we have Murshidas. i do not learn Islam from scholars, i learn it from my Murshida, my teacher. most of Muslim don't. they rather believe in scholars without asking Allah if they are man of Allah or not. we first ask Allah. we do not chose who to believe on our owns. Allah shows us who to follow, literally, so we do.

.

 

[Alla Prima]

that's not what i was trying to tell him. he thought i was slandering scholars of Islam.

Ok fine but do you acknowledge the judgement of the scholars regarding the authenticity of the Sahih Bukhari of which I have already posted?

 

[.lava]

Ok fine but do you acknowledge the judgement of the scholars regarding the authenticity of the Sahih Bukhari of which I have already posted?

i can not make judgement on whole hadith books. it requires much more knowledge than i have to do that.

.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Because lay Muslims cant do tafsir of the Quran.

I think many American lay Muslims would be against death for apostates because they value a free society. In fact I don't think this, I know this for a fact, because I have spoken to a few.

 

[Alla Prima]

i can not make judgement on whole hadith books. it requires much more knowledge than i have to do that.

.

That's not what I asked you. Do you acknowledge the judgement of the scholars regarding the authenticity of the Sahih Bukhari?

 

[.lava]

That's not what I asked you. Do you acknowledge the judgement of the scholars regarding the authenticity of the Sahih Bukhari?

i answered your question in the way I want. so deal with it cos i do not care if it does not satisfy you. you've been mean and dishonest. you hate Allah and Islam therefor you always have some hidden negative intention.


.

 

[Alla Prima]

i answered your question in the way I want. so deal with it cos i do not care if it does not satisfy you. you've been mean and dishonest. you hate Allah and Islam therefor you always have some hidden negative intention.


.

I have been neither dishonest or mean and I don't have a hidden agenda. I've been out front and clear with my position on Islam and I can defend these statements.

And no you didn't answer my question probably because you didn't understand it. I won't waste my time asking again no problem.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Forgive my interjection, Fatihah, but doesn't the above explanation sound more than just a bit paranoid? Using this kind of thinking, shouldn't "western" countries be killing citizens who convert to Islam just in case they are plotting against their homeland?

Response: If the "western" countries has logical reasoning to do so, then yes. They have a right to protect their homeland. However, islam is not a threat. If it was, there would never have been any western country. If the west waged war on islam, they would lose. That's why they never have and all western countries are run by the principle of freedom of religion because they know the end result when you try to oppress islam.

No, that is not the reason. Here are the reasons:

Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution
The Declaration of Independence
Being an Answer to Mr. Burke's Attack on the French Revolution - part 1 of 16

Some interesting reading about the brief conflicts between the U.S. and the delightful Islamic states of North Africa.
The Thomas Jefferson Papers - America and the Barbary Pirates - (American Memory from the Library of Congress)

 

[AbuKhalid]

i can not make judgement on whole hadith books. it requires much more knowledge than i have to do that.

.

Well ask your teacher is there any doubt about the authenticity of Bukhari or Muslim. I would assume he will say no. There are strong hadith and weak hadith but Bukhari and Muslim made a point of only collecting the strongest most authentic ones in their collections, hence the name SAHIH Bukhari. Every single hadith in it is graded sahih.

I will answer the other points later when I have more time.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

yes because islam is the true religion of god and it has no man made laws that change over time. (an islamic perspective.)

From my perspective, Islam is worse than a system of man-made laws that change over time....it's a system of man-made laws that don't change over time.

 

[Sahar]

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

Corruption of the society is absolutely not a human right (at least in the Islamic dictionary). The Islamic state is different from the secular one, it is important to always keep this in mind. What is acceptable in a secular society can be very unacceptable in an Islamic one. And we can disagree on what you recognize as a human right.

 

[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.

As I said before the Islamic state is biased to the da'wa of Islam, so I don't aim to demonstrate how it would be a just law. It would be very just from the Islamic perspective.

 

[Sahar]

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.

What I said has nothing to do with apostasy. And my point wasn't about proselytizing being harmful to the national security but I was trying to show that you can believe in and practice your religion freely without proselytizing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Corruption of the society is absolutely not a human right (at least in the Islamic dictionary). The Islamic state is different from the secular one, it is important to always keep this in mind. What is acceptable in a secular society can be very unacceptable in an Islamic one. And we can disagree on what you recognize as a human right.

Okay. I do want to point out one other thing: I realize that in some cultures, at some times, it is simply an unfortunate fact that violence can easily erupt between religious groups, because of the slightest provocation or misunderstanding. If it is absolutely necessary for the State to restrict freedom of speech and interaction between groups, the way a parent would separate two bickering children, in order to prevent bloodshed, then I can understand that. That's a special case.

 

[Sahar]

Okay. I do want to point out one other thing: I realize that in some cultures, at some times, it is simply an unfortunate fact that violence can easily erupt between religious groups, because of the slightest provocation or misunderstanding. If it is absolutely necessary for the State to restrict freedom of speech and interaction between groups, the way a parent would separate two bickering children, in order to prevent bloodshed, then I can understand that. That's a special case.

Yes indeed that's a special case. But we are talking about the general rule.

 

[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.

Who should decide? How things work in a secular democratic state?

Yes indeed that's a special case. But we are talking about the general rule.

The general rule in the Islamic state, which is special to it.