You bet you are missing something here. Show me where i connected apostasy to treason. Don't talk, just post.
Your wish is my command.
Mr. Spinkles said:
Given your views, are you not shocked and appalled by eselam's statement?
To be honest no am not. I know that some Muslims think that killing apostates is an Islamic teaching. It is not. Islam is a religion of reasoning, rationality and logic. Flip this issue in all its sides and nothing will make sense of killing a person for merely changing his belief. In contrary i can go on and on about the negative results of committing such a rule.
In all fairness, what you are not saying is that your view is a distinctly minority view. Need I pull up the famous hadith about killing one who leaves Islam? I have actually had some Muslims explain that it is a form of mercy killing, a pre-emtive strike, if you will, lest the apostate commit offenses while in living in error or life outside Islam.
Mr. Spinkles said:
The answer seems simple to me...no, he is not a traitor.
Well yes and no.
The person i am talking about perhaps would like to join a terrorist mini cell to attack his own "former" country. That will make him a traitor.
But if he simply wants to leave the country and maintain respect and peace then he is not a traitor.
That is what i meant and that what i was saying all along. An apostate is different from a traitor, one can be both but a believer can also be a traitor. Treason is the crime that recieved capital punishment.
You are also ignoring the fact that many were called traitors for simply rejecting Islam. Again, you are only telling part of the story... the part that supports your viewpoint.
Apostasy is leaving the religion, it does not mean the apostate need to harm or fight his former people, if he choose to do that then he is a traitor.
Must they express their opinions by their hands and weapons? lol.
No, of late, most are given to using the pen and talking out in public. Ibn Warriq, Hirsi Ali and many others have very different views from the standard Muslim rhetoric and are forced to live in fear that some maniac is going to kill them simply for speaking out about something they feel passionately about. I don't think they actually want to harm Muslims, rather, I am under the impression that they want to help Muslims escape from their Antideluvian thinking. No surprisingly, many former Muslims who speak out against Islam are forced to employ large body guards to protect them from followers of the
religion of peace.
Neither of these two is involved in armed conflict against Muslims and yet they receive death threats regularly. Evidently many Muslims do not share your viewpoint that the apostate should not be killed.
Insecure? Late Ahmed Dedat have challenged the most profound religious figures on live debates infront of millions of people. Through him 4 Catholic priests embraced Islam. He even publicly invited the late Pope to an open debate in which the latter rejected. I'm sure you will act all "what has this to do with my point", this is to show you that Muslims are not insecure about our Islam, we dont care in fact we look for open debates and discussions with others figures on public televisions simply because we are too secure about our belief. How many other religious figures will encourage pubic debates?
Well preying on Catholic priests isn't especially difficult, in my opinion, so their "reversion" is of little consequence to me.
Wiki Quote on Ahmed Dedat
Lloyd V. J. Ridgeon, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Glasgow writes:
Ahmed Deedat's pamphlets are being recycled to a brand new British Muslim constituency. Thus, a new generation is exposed to his malicious new disinformations. The reason for the popularity of such polemicists as Ahmed Deedat is varied: Muslim self-understandings as "the best of all communities" leads them to suppose that Islam prevails over all religions. Combined with the wounded pride of living in a post-colonial world within the continuing hegemony of western culture,some dignity can at least be preserved by claimimg moral and religious superiority.
That sums up my views about Mr. Dedat fairly well.
I will repeat again, when apostates think they can express their hatred with physical force then they will recieve the same.
That is good to hear, I suppose, but sadly it is not a view expressed by the majority of your fellow Muslims, plain and simple.
What an utter crap. So in this case in Islam we make no difference between an apostate and a person of other belief like a Christian or a Jew because they also rejected the very basis of the state?
Notion rejected. Christians and Jews do not suffer from this consequence because they did not believe in Islam in the first place. You are mixing apples and oranges. Nice try though.
You give yourself so much credit for thinking your posts can intimidate me or even trap me to the point where i change my Islamic belief just to please you! lol.
You misunderstand. I don't give a rat's hindquarters if you change your beliefs or not, least of all to please me. Try to tone down the cheap theatrics, m'kay.
Yes Islam is a complete way of life, it does not deal with spirituality only but with other aspects of life. The reason why state and religion is not seperate is because there isn't a law that is not covered in Islam. However, we do have civil laws for non-Muslims as Sharia Law is only fully applicable on Muslims with some exceptions.
I realize that, ProudMuslim, and so the Apostate is dealt with under Sharia Law. So simple.
Finally not only Qur'an does not state any worldly punishment for aspotates, but in fact states that "no compulsion in religion" and that hypocricy is far more dangerous for a society than disbelieving, and we all know that not allowing people to leave the religion will create hypocrites among them and scheming against religion by them.
But therein lies a double-edged sword. How do you tell who is naughty and who is nice, but more importantly, who decides?
