• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Death for Apostacy in Islam discussion

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I guess it all boils down to the ol' sunni and shi'ee thing again. We have differences and we both can say each other are on the wrong path and we probably will do again down the line, but we both are Muslims and we both say la illahha illaallah Mohammad rasullah. :)

Many Shiites do same mistake as you and worship scholars.
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
Many Shiites do same mistake as you and worship scholars.

I do not worship any man on this entire earth. Allah is the only one worthy of worship.

I could actually say the same for you when it comes to your imaams but I really don't wanna go into the sunni/shi'ee . :)
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I do not worship any man on this entire earth. Allah is the only one worthy of worship.

I could actually say the same for you when it comes to your imaams but I really don't wanna go into the sunni/shi'ee . :)

You can say what you want. Reality is, I posted verses, and you rather follow scholars. Mohammad (s) said regarding the verse of Jews and Christians taking their scholars as Lords "By God they didn't (actually outwardly) worship them, but they made halal haram and haram halal and were followed".
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
You can say what you want. Reality is, I posted verses, and you rather follow scholars. Mohammad (s) said regarding the verse of Jews and Christians taking their scholars as Lords "By God they didn't (actually outwardly) worship them, but they allowed them to make halal haram and haram halal".

Mohammad pbuh is a messenger of Allah. We aren't . You deny what we say authentic because your immaams say differently. You are doing exactly what you are saying I am.

The ayat you quote does not prove what you are claiming.

Saheeh Bukhari is extremely well known and he isn't worshipped. He is a respected narrator and is entrusted with sooooooooo many authenticated ahadith.

It isn't my fault that Shi'ee refuse this. :)
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Mohammad pbuh is a messenger of Allah. We aren't . You deny what we say authentic because your immaams say differently. You are doing exactly what you are saying I am.

The ayat you quote does not prove what you are claiming.

Saheeh Bukhari is extremely well known and he isn't worshipped. He is a respected narrator and is entrusted with sooooooooo many authenticated ahadith.

It isn't my fault that Shi'ee refuse this. :)

So you appeal to authority when presented clear evidence from Quran?

The verses definitely prove what I'm saying, but your idols are too precious for you to acknowledge that.
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
So you appeal to authority when presented clear evidence from Quran?

The verses definitely prove what I'm saying, but your idols are to precious for you to acknowledge that.

nope you are claiming scholars are overriding the Quran and that is YOUR OPINION. You are entitled. I can say many things out of context as well :) the narrators of those ahadith can be traced all the way back. Can yours?

face it we will never agree, you do not take authenticated ahadith from the scholars of the Quran and Sunnah but you take from your imaams and their explanations and your own interpretations.

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. Baqarah 2;173
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Thanks for clarifying that, DS. I actually was wondering if that was a majority consensus. That may sound dum to you, but honestly its difficult for me to know. There are so many types and groups of people that its a lot to keep track of when I am mainly interested in my own problems. A misunderstanding can easily lead to deadly force. If one group perceives another is a danger then what follows can be very bad.

Among certain Islamic schools of thought, it is a majority opinion among scholars. However, many other scholars and individual Muslims disagree.

I don't know which group constitutes the majority of Muslims, but I do know there's enough disagreement to render generalization inaccurate and unwise.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not on me to judge. You can do anything you want. Allah will judge you not me :)

If you believe that, then it seems inconsistent and even more unnecessary to believe in executing someone for leaving the religion.
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
If you believe that, then it seems inconsistent and even more unnecessary to believe in executing someone for leaving the religion.

How can it be inconsistent.

You can do what you want. you have your own free power to walk away or stay. Nowadays, people really don't hold to that and are lenient. But I am no judge and I never claimed to be :) IN Islam, I say Allah is the overall judge and he will have the last say :)
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In Islam, you were put on this earth to worship the only one worthy of worship and that is Allah, the Creator of you and me. How you deal with your own choices is up to you. You have your own free will to do as you wish. Islam is a guidance, a complete guidance. But the choice is yours to "have your freedom of religion or beliefs". Just don't try and blame Allah on the day of judgement.
How can one have freedom of religion if one is to be executed if one wants to leave Islam?
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
How can one have freedom of religion if one is to be executed if one wants to leave Islam?

All I can say is I'm not Allah and I don't make the decisions ...I guess the only way is to be 100% sure before you enter into Islam or leave it :)

You have the choice still....no one will force you to leave it but yourself.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So from reading Hadiths from Sunnah.com.. Well 6 strong ones
And i am somewhat 20 Chapters of Quran in by reading commentator Ibn Kathir Tafsir

I can assume apostacy is comparable to treason? Like trying to be against muslim community. But that if you dont outwardly speak out then you may repent if you find out its the right religion.

Or am i wrong with the context here?

This "treason" factor is not so straight forward. One word "Murthadh" is used and some name it treason, some call it apostasy. But this "treason" factor was never ever understood to have been "trying to be against the Muslim community". It was always interpreted as "espionage".

Some call it "apostasy" which is a very easy, top of mind kind of association but the so called "ahadith" are not written in English. So it goes deeper than what "people say".

Anyway, there is nothing about this in the Qur'an.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
All I can say is I'm not Allah and I don't make the decisions ...I guess the only way is to be 100% sure before you enter into Islam or leave it :)

You have the choice still....no one will force you to leave it but yourself.
I will take it as an "Yes there is not Freedom of Religion in Islam as far as you understand".

Freedom of Religion entails that one is free to both join or leave a religion by one's own free will without there being any legal, economic of social sanction being put on to the individual by that religion or that society or country that follows this religion.

This also means Islam is against the fundamental human rights as declared by the UN Human Rights Charter.

OHCHR | International standards on freedom of religion or belief


"
UDHR
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief.
The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief."
"No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice."

"Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. "


Will you agree that the provisions in the Universal Human Rights Charters on religious freedom where it says no penal or other punishments can be imposed on any person for adopting or leaving any religion including Islam goes against the dictates set forth by Allah in Islam?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Among certain Islamic schools of thought, it is a majority opinion among scholars. However, many other scholars and individual Muslims disagree.

I don't know which group constitutes the majority of Muslims, but I do know there's enough disagreement to render generalization inaccurate and unwise.
Current opinion on this is here.
Muslim Beliefs About Sharia
gsi2-chp1-9.png


gsi2-chp1-3.png
 

Birdnest

Member
Clearly, enough people care about what atheists have to say considering that many people care enough to demand punishment for publicly vocal atheists, up to and including death.

Regardless, I think it's deeply inhumane and unreasonable to execute or otherwise severely punish someone merely for expressing their beliefs without harming anyone. That applies to atheists, Muslims, and all other religious/irreligious groups.
He would be potentially harming many people.
Its not so much about belief or non belief. Its about what culture society runs on. Historically and present time, its shown devotion culture in government stagnates development. Such as Catholicism and Sunni Islam. Or thats the classical examples. As compared to Protestantism and Secularism in government which actually has a work culture.

So thats the issue, if one drives on work culture then society develops. Its more or less a cultural issue and not so much belief issue. But if devotion aspect becomes main frame of a government and society, then it goes down the hill more or less
It's a religious ruling that is applied due to faith. No amount of analyzing will take the proof for it away from religious sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MyM

Birdnest

Member
Will you agree that the provisions in the Universal Human Rights Charters on religious freedom where it says no penal or other punishments can be imposed on any person for adopting or leaving any religion including Islam goes against the dictates set forth by Allah in Islam?
Why would anyone care what the UN thinks of it? We know how they're trying to corrupt Muslims as fast as they can. They especially love to lead the young ones astray.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Current opinion on this is here.
Muslim Beliefs About Sharia
gsi2-chp1-9.png


gsi2-chp1-3.png

I have seen these specific polls numerous times before. I'm unsure of their reliability or reflection of reality, however, especially considering that the internet has brought to light the presence of a considerable amount of secular Arab and Muslim voices that weren't as visible in prior decades.

Most Muslim-majority countries are currently grappling with a lot of outdated and harmful religious heritage (e.g., certain scholars' interpretations of the Qur'an) penned by scholars from previous eras, to be sure, as well as the extremism and hateful thinking that said heritage sometimes fosters and inspires. But whether this means the majority of Muslims believe in something as drastic as the death penalty for deconversion is a different story. It's a much more complicated and uncertain question.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
DEATH FOR APOSTACY IN ISLAM DISCUSSION:

So from reading Hadiths from Sunnah.com.. Well 6 strong ones
And i am somewhat 20 Chapters of Quran in by reading commentator Ibn Kathir Tafsir

I can assume apostacy is comparable to treason? Like trying to be against muslim community. But that if you dont outwardly speak out then you may repent if you find out its the right religion.

Or am i wrong with the context here?

"Apostasy" means abandonment of religious or political belief. (Oxford Dictionary).

You can understand why theists who devoutly believe that theirs is the correct religion might also believe that all other religions are wrong. Some religions don't draw the line and allow other religions to exist, but seek to exterminate them.

However, the vast majority of Islamics are peaceful people, and only a small percentage cause terrorism. The peaceful ones appeal to the world (or the part of the world that they live in) to have mercy and tar them with the same brush as terrorists.

The United States is still licking its wounds over the 911 attack, and Israel has had constant terrorist attacks. Israel tried using rubber bullets, in a humanitarian gesture to dispel terrorists who might harm Jews or Palestineans, to no avail. They found that the only deterrant was real bullets. Like the United States, they had a mandate to protect their people (all of their people, even if they were of a different faith).

It seems, today, that the vast majority of terrorist attacks come from the Middle East (largely Islamics). Most of those who flew into the World Trade Center were Saudi Arabian nationals, and some were Egyptian.

The response of the US was to blame any part of the Middle East for the terrorism, and they acted on vague hunches about who was involved in terrorism. The result was roughly 1,000,000 dead Iraqis, the death of Saddam (their leader) and his two sons and heirs to the kingdom, and destruction of many buildings and infrastructure. Oops....the US got the wrong country.

Even the Taliban of Afghanistan were not the enemy. In fact, 9 days after the 911 attack, the Taliban captured bin Laden and his key aides, and offered to turn them over to the United States if and only if the US could prove a connection to terrorism.

They had no idea that bin Laden was capable of terrorism, since he seemed like such a saint. He risked his own life (paid by the US Central Intelligence Agency) to repel Soviet incursions into Afghanistan, and everywhere that bin Laden went, he used his own wealth to buy tractors and drill wells, employ locals, and generallly improve living standards. How, they though, could a man so dedicated, brave, and kind be evil enough to do terrorism. Apparently bin Laden was "one of" the planners of the terrorist attack (911).

Bin Laden had been working with the US (as mentioned above) to repel Soviets. He was a close ally of CIA director (later president of the United States) George H. W. Bush. Under Bush's presidency, bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center, and attacked the Pentagon, and presumably was about to attack some target in Washington, D. C., but the plane went down when the passengers revolted (they said "lets roll)."

President W. Bush (son) and his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, were members of PNAC (Progress for a New Century, which was a Republican think tank that suggested that there was a possibility that three nations (later known as the Axis of Evil) that had the wealth and technical know-how to build nukes). In their lengthy manifesto, they suggested attacking this Axis of Evil (North Korea, Iran, and Iraq), but stated that they needed another Pearl Harbor type of attack to get the US public on their side. Could it be that the 911 attack was this Pearl Harbor attack?

Surely it is well known that the family of bin Laden was not questioned by the FBI (under orders of W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney), and the family was allowed to fly out of the US back to the Middle East while all other planes in and out of the United States were grounded. Even Senator Edward Kennedy was grounded in Europe, unable to fly back to the United States during this crisis. The whole situation was highly suspicious....in fact, it stank like a rotting fish.

While it was true that a splinter group of Islamics did kill 3,000 people in the 911 attack, it is also true that the backlash of the United States appeared to be a lynch mob (at least by their mentality), and they killed 1,000,000 Iraqis (not to mention running up a huge bill for the war and killing thousands of US troops, and injuring many more). Just who is the terrorist? The one who plotting the destruction of the Axis of Evil (and almost started a phony war with Niger over false info about Uranium yellow-cake presumably sold to Iraq)? Or were the 911 terrorists the only terrorists?

The New Testament (Christian) bible says that we should not pay attention to the splinter in our neighbor's eye until we pay attention to the log in our own.

From all this I conclude that splinter groups commonly do cause terrorism, but they are not necessarily all Islamic. Some are Christian, and they have a mob mentality. They use Texas justice (hang 'em first, then figure out if they should be hung later).

Everyone (Islamics, Christians, and others) need to abandon terrorism and lynch mob justice. We must consider diplomacy first rather than war. We must be careful not to embroil the entire world in a world war (again), because, next time, it will last 15 minutes and will be fought with nukes (the whole world will be destroyed). War hurts all.
 
Last edited:

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Why would anyone care what the UN thinks of it? We know how they're trying to corrupt Muslims as fast as they can. They especially love to lead the young ones astray.

President George W. Bush was confronted by the stubborness of he United Nations. He thought that since the US was paying the majority of the money to run the UN, they should side with the US. But that was not the case. There are many nations in the Middle East, and they banded together in unison to craft their own idea of how the UN should proceed. They convinced many other nations that Israel must go.

President W. Bush figured that he didn't need the UN, and could proceed with the agenda of the United States. Later, after calling the UN redundant, he tried desperately to get the UN to bail him out of the war in Iraq. He even tried to install Mohammad Al Sodr as a leader of Iraq (remember, Sodr City was named after him because he was considered a terrorist). So, obviously the solution is not to put a terrorist in charge of a nation. We have enough trouble with terrorism without doing that.

The problem is that the US entered the war in Iraq (part 2 of the war) without an exit strategy. That is why the US stayed so long and only ended up riling the citizens and surrounding nations. President Biden has finally ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (leaving much ammunition and military equipment in place, which could be repurposed to attack the US once again). In this part of the world, they carry grudges for a long time. They still have grudges against Alexander the Great who conquered them many hundreds of years ago.

After years of fighting 3rd world nations like Iraq, the US military is not fit for a nuclear war. We have mach 4 missiles, and we know that China has mach 10. Russia and China seem to side with each other, and we certainly can't take on either one, let alone both together. We therefore can't even contemplate forcing our will upon their nations (how can we stop the invasion of the Ukraine)?

Last I heard, the Ukraine took a vote and wanted to rejoin the Russians. Ukrainian leaders, on the other hand, are reticent and unwilling to turn over their power to another nation. Should the US intervene?

Should the US intervene in the Chinese aquisition of Hong Kong and Taiwan (remember there is a One China pact with Taiwan and both were scheduled to be turned back over to China in about two decades)?

Please give me an example of the UN corrupting Islamics.
 
Top