Islam: when is a person considered a Muslim?

[viole]

How Atheists' ism is different and better in this connection please?
If yes, then kindly quote from one's ism, please.
Right?

Regards

Well, I am also against calling them atheists. Those labels are simply not applicable to little kids.

ciao

- viole

 

[Shakeel]

You cannot be serious, why would they risk their lives like that?

When they're anonymous. Didn't you notice on the aforementioned article that the woman said she and her sister would hide their IDs and diplomas? Would she then reveal her name in an interview that goes to international news? She seemed secure enough to give the interview.

Now you're not even being serious. "Do this or die" is not a meaningful choice.

You didn't mention meaningful. Though I think "do this or die," is possibly the most meaningful choice one can make.

It isn't so simple anyway. There are tons of apostates living in Muslim countries. The impression that the government is just hunting out for apostates to get them executed is false. Getting executed as an apostate requires you to repeatedly affirm that you disbelieve. It is basically a suicide.

Is it difficult to hide? Let's see, a man takes 15 minutes of his day to pray - he probably wouldn't need to pray all prayers (when no one is watching, or any if no one cares) - says he believes if asked and refrains from clear acts of disbelief.

For a woman the same thing. If she is from a religious family and wants to keep up appearances, wear hijab.

I think there are worse ways of living, don't you?

 

[Shakeel]

Your link said beating and threats do, and puberty strikes at 11-12 for a lot of people: those are still children. Don't be dishonest: you support murdering sapient and sentient children.

In Islam someone who has reached puberty is no longer a child. Did you notice it said if a child becomes an apostate his wife will become unlawful for him? If he's old enough to marry, he's old enough to choose to live or die.

It's not murder when it's legal.

Honestly, at this point this isn't a discussion anymore. These beliefs are so atrocious, so inhuman, so disgusting, that I have nothing more to say.

You mean, you don't want to debate further because you don't have any arguments to make?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was clear that you referred to this thread - if not, it was an unclear comment. You said there are variations on the opinion about when a person becomes a Muslim.

Your comment:

No, it obviously referred to the world as a whole. When people do not even agree on a small thread what chance is there of worldwide agreement?

Muslims may believe the myth that people are Muslim at birth, but that is quite easily refutable. And that is not the belief about some Christians about Christianity. And since Christianity is the older religion then they should have the prior claim to that nonsense.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why Muslims experience more discrimination than other faith groups in America

Jews target of 58% of all religiously motivated hate crimes in US

 

[Meow Mix]

When they're anonymous. Didn't you notice on the aforementioned article that the woman said she and her sister would hide their IDs and diplomas? Would she then reveal her name in an interview that goes to international news? She seemed secure enough to give the interview.

Talking about hiding IDs and diplomas doesn't risk being murdered.

You didn't mention meaningful. Though I think "do this or die," is possibly the most meaningful choice one can make.

It isn't so simple anyway. There are tons of apostates living in Muslim countries. The impression that the government is just hunting out for apostates to get them executed is false. Getting executed as an apostate requires you to repeatedly affirm that you disbelieve. It is basically a suicide.

Is it difficult to hide? Let's see, a man takes 15 minutes of his day to pray - he probably wouldn't need to pray all prayers (when no one is watching, or any if no one cares) - says he believes if asked and refrains from clear acts of disbelief.

For a woman the same thing. If she is from a religious family and wants to keep up appearances, wear hijab.

I think there are worse ways of living, don't you?

You're just casually explaining how people can live a lie to avoid being murdered by people around them for merely being different. This is just casual to you? "There are worse ways of living?"

What more can be said to someone that casually condones murder?

 

[Meow Mix]

In Islam someone who has reached puberty is no longer a child. Did you notice it said if a child becomes an apostate his wife will become unlawful for him? If he's old enough to marry, he's old enough to choose to live or die.

A pubescent person is not an adult, they are still developing. They're a child. The article you posted said that if a child hasn't reached puberty yet and they reject Islam that they should be beaten and threatened until puberty. When puberty hits, if they still don't accept Islam, they should be murdered.

You condone this. You literally advocate murdering sapient and sentient children, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

It's not murder when it's legal.

You mean, you don't want to debate further because you don't have any arguments to make?

"It's not murder when it's legal," I guess the Holocaust was legal in Germany, wasn't it?

These beliefs are sociopathic. That a person could call them good is unfathomable. I am disgusted, and I see the worldview for what it is: barbaric, cruel, and vile.

While we're here, I'll go ahead and say that it's also disgusting to murder adults for mere nonbelief.

I look forward to some day when Muslims that are good people squash this evil worldview that you should murder children (or even adults) once and for all.

I have nothing more to say to you on this Shakeel. My time is reserved for discussing with worldviews that aren't literally murderous. Nothing constructive or civilized can come from casually talking about child murder.

I don't see how I could ever trust you when you advocate such heinous beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jews target of 58% of all religiously motivated hate crimes in US

If you are a member of a group that used to subjugate others then when your ability to do so is limited that can be seen by them as "discrimination". I see that complaint coming from both Christians and Muslims at times.

 

[JustGeorge]

No, it doesn't.
Muslims who live like that, are like the moderate christians, who cherry pick their religious fundamentals.
The fundamentals remain. They are just ignored.

To an extent, one has to cherry pick, as the Qur'an seems to be interpreted different ways. There are verses where Allah says to go after the unbelievers, and verses where it says to leave them alone. (The same could be said of the Bible.) So which one is the fundamental, the peaceful or the violent, I'm not sure, but its kind of up to the follower.

I can't help but think these 'religious wars/conflicts' are just political power trips from a few(but very loud) that try to use religion as a disguise for their agendas. Its easier to guilt people into doing something they'd normally disagree with this way....

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well I'm a Muslim. There is no choice in what to believe as a Muslim. Don't you know what Islam teaches about it? I have already explained the case of apostasy shortly in my first post and provided an article later on many specifics of it. None of what I believe is invented by me and none have I chosen to believe out of convenience. If a book says pink elephants can fly and I say I believe that book is correct, I cannot say I don't believe in flying pink elephants.

The fact that there are millions of Muslims who don't share your beliefs suggests the situation isn't as helpless as you're portraying it to be. I used to have similar beliefs to yours about apostasy, except that I didn't believe those rules should be applied to pubescent children like you apparently do, and I later realized that such a strict, narrow view wasn't the only possible one even within a fairly conservative Islamic framework.

That you're okay enough with such rules to defend them so persisently seems to me extremely problematic in the same way I would find it problematic if someone believed Muslims should be sent to concentration camps or be killed and doubled down by enthusiastically defending such beliefs.

They more or less do though there are minor differences between scholars. There are no fundamental differences to be gotten from the Islamic sources.

"The Islamic sources" according to what you believe, that is... thankfully not according to the numerous Muslims who don't share your beliefs (including some scholars).

The Chinese government hates all religions. Not just minorities. That has nothing to do with the topic though.

That doesn't mean killing apostates doesn't have parallels with what the Chinese regime does to Uyghur Muslims. If you're not okay with one, it's inconsistent to be okay with the other.

Hell is worse.

How is that relevant? For one thing, the ex-Muslims who are the targets of these rules wouldn't believe in the Islamic Hell to begin with. For another thing, your statement looks to me akin to saying "Hell is worse, so murder is okay." Of course a concept of eternal, deeply torturous hell would theoretically be worse than anything we could think of in the world, but that has no real relevance when talking about real-world situations and freedoms rather than concepts about a specific version of an afterlife.

Don't tell me you care about honesty. You know it is in Islamic law that apostates should be executed if all conditions are fulfilled. **mod edit**

I know it is in Islamic law according to a subset of Islamic scholars and believers. Again, your beliefs aren't the only way for someone to be a Muslim.

Sometimes

French government orders dissolution of leading Muslim rights group

Why Muslims experience more discrimination than other faith groups in America

‘Law against Islam’: French vote in favour of hijab ban condemned

But what does that have to do with Islamic law?

There are sometimes going to be some discriminatory rules even in diverse, multicultural nations—which doesn't mean people don't still coexist in other nations or stand in solidarity with one another when rules like these are implemented by authorities. I believe we should all call out such rules and oppose them, not endorse them like you've been doing in this thread by endorsing the killing of apostates.

What it has to do with Islamic law is that, if one looks at some of the more diverse and pluralistic societies, I think it should be clear that there's absolutely no need for laws like ones that target apostates or seek to execute or otherwise punish them for disbelief. People can go on with their lives without forcing anyone else to believe the same as they do, as we can see in multiple societies around the world. So it seems to me that on top of being abusive, the death penalty for apostasy is made even more immoral by being so unnecessary and avoidable.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Is it difficult to hide? Let's see, a man takes 15 minutes of his day to pray - he probably wouldn't need to pray all prayers (when no one is watching, or any if no one cares) - says he believes if asked and refrains from clear acts of disbelief.

For a woman the same thing. If she is from a religious family and wants to keep up appearances, wear hijab.

I think there are worse ways of living, don't you?

You're oversimplifying what it's like to live in that level of secrecy and unsafety. For example, your response overlooks the need of many (but not all, since the level of conservatism of their families might differ) ex-Muslims to protect themselves by pretending to fast during Ramadan, pray consistently (rather than taking 15 minutes out of their day as you stated in an oversimplified manner), or even marry a Muslim or ostensibly/nominally Muslim person to avoid issues.

This is especially true for women: I have befriended multiple ex-Muslim women, and almost all of them have restrictions imposed on them by their parents as to the beliefs of the men they can marry. One of them has even had to settle for someone she dislikes because her family threatened to send her to another country and have her get married to an even worse person if she didn't comply. Why? Because they found out she was an apostate.

I strongly suspect you have no idea about the extent of harm that your beliefs enable, but if you do and still don't care, then I find that a lot more problematic. I see no point whatsoever in adopting a certain worldview if it doesn't make one's beliefs more empathetic and more reasonable, and the things you've espoused in this thread certainly sound neither empathetic nor reasonable to me.

 

[Meow Mix]

If hell is worse, why kill apostates in the first place? It doesn’t make sense: where is the compassion? The belief is that killing them sends them directly to hell, wouldn’t the compassionate thing be to try to convince them instead to save them? Or just leave them be, shun them if you’re (general “you”) so terrified of them?

These beliefs are the depths of depravity, honestly, and I’m not going to pretend they’re not.

Disclaimer: I want to again note as DS does that many Muslims don’t have these beliefs, I’m not calling Islam depraved. I’m calling these particular, murderous, extremist beliefs vile.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, it doesn't.
Muslims who live like that, are like the moderate christians, who cherry pick their religious fundamentals.
The fundamentals remain. They are just ignored.

And the Harris quote isn't talking about moderates. It's talking about fundamentalists.
And the same goes for christian fundamentalists for that matter. The problem there isn't the fundamentalists. It's the fundaments of the religion.

He also gives the example of Jainism to contrast his statement.
If a person is a fundamentist "jainist", then that is a person that nobody in society should be worrying about. Because due to the fundamentals of the religion, that person will even be worried about accidentally stepping on a bug resulting in death.

A fundamentalist muslim or christian however.... those people are a threat to secular society. Sometimes violently, other times psychologically. They are rotten apples that corrupt the basket that is peaceful, tolerant civilization.

And the reason for that, are the fundamentals of the religions in question.

No fundamentalist christian or muslim, for example, would ever be okay with equal rights for gay people. Or with gay people, period.

The fundamentals according to whom or to what, though? According to starkly traditionalist, literalist interpretations of Islam, or according to more progressive ones that embrace pluralism and dialogue as essential aspects of Islamic faith?

I also don't see Jainism as very comparable to Islam; a more popular religion like Hinduism or Buddhism would be a much better fit. This is because the more popular a religion or ideology is, the more variations thereof are going to result from the diversity and sheer number of followers and supporters it has. This goes for both progressive variations and extremist ones.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fundamentals according to whom or to what, though?

All the nasty bits written in their "holy" scriptures, which are seen as the rulebook on how to live.

According to starkly traditionalist, literalist interpretations of Islam, or according to more progressive ones that embrace pluralism and dialogue as essential aspects of Islamic faith?

The fact that you can ask the question, makes the point.

This is because the more popular a religion or ideology is, the more variations thereof are going to result from the diversity and sheer number of followers and supporters it has.

Sure. Yet, they all get it from the same book.

This goes for both progressive variations and extremist ones.

Indeed.
Progressives tend to ignore certain parts, or assume that it says one thing but really means something else.
Extremists, will be less likely to do that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To an extent, one has to cherry pick, as the Qur'an seems to be interpreted different ways. There are verses where Allah says to go after the unbelievers, and verses where it says to leave them alone. (The same could be said of the Bible.) So which one is the fundamental, the peaceful or the violent, I'm not sure, but its kind of up to the follower.

I can't help but think these 'religious wars/conflicts' are just political power trips from a few(but very loud) that try to use religion as a disguise for their agendas. Its easier to guilt people into doing something they'd normally disagree with this way....

Sure, religion is easily abused by those in power to get people to do certain things.

The thing is though, those people must actually believe the religion in order to be able to be motivated into action through it. It's kind of hard to get an atheist to join a crusade for religious reasons.

 

[firedragon]

If hell is worse, why kill apostates

haha. Thats a good one honestly.

 

[firedragon]

There are verses where Allah says to go after the unbelievers, and verses where it says to leave them alone.

What you would notice if you read the Qur'an is, where ever it speaks of "unbelievers", and if it speaks of "war", there is a correlation.

But when it says "leave them alone" it is general.

Also the way you used the word unbelievers looks very arbitrary. It is much more complicated than that. I know that even some Muslims use it very arbitrarily. There are Muslims who would call a muslim a kaafir at the drop of a hat. But this is very childish in my honest opinion.

Scholarship has gone way beyond that. Even in the earliest days in the 8th century.

SO this rabbit hole is much deeper. As educated people who do googling all the time, we can use it to actually put some study into this rather than making arbitrary statements with preconceived notions about what certain things mean.

You can consider that a request.

 

[JustGeorge]

What you would notice if you read the Qur'an is, where ever it speaks of "unbelievers", and if it speaks of "war", there is a correlation.

But when it says "leave them alone" it is general.

Actually, this is what I took from it as well(I did read the Qur'an, rather recently). Most of the cases where it mentioned violence was pertaining to specific situations and at very specific times. It didn't seem general at all.

I didn't really find the Qur'an to be a violent book, generally speaking, as the okays to do harm seemed to be, if my understanding was right, only approving such within specific situations(that I believe have long passed).

Also the way you used the word unbelievers looks very arbitrary. It is much more complicated than that. I know that even some Muslims use it very arbitrarily. There are Muslims who would call a muslim a kaafir at the drop of a hat. But this is very childish in my honest opinion.

Scholarship has gone way beyond that. Even in the earliest days in the 8th century.

SO this rabbit hole is much deeper. As educated people who do googling all the time, we can use it to actually put some study into this rather than making arbitrary statements with preconceived notions about what certain things mean.

You can consider that a request.

Another impression I got was the Qur'an was for specific peoples. There was no mention of anyone outside the area, really.

Sorry if my wording for something was wrong. I'm not always the most eloquent.

As far as googling, actually, I don't. I learn from talking with people, or books. The internet is about 90% full of crap, and I don't like sifting through it. People and books can be full of crap, too, but its less much to wade through. So if there's something you'd like me to learn, I ask you present it to me yourself instead of requesting I go on a google adventure, as I simply haven't the time/energy for such.

 

[JustGeorge]

Sure, religion is easily abused by those in power to get people to do certain things.

The thing is though, those people must actually believe the religion in order to be able to be motivated into action through it. It's kind of hard to get an atheist to join a crusade for religious reasons.

I agree to an extent. Rather than the religion, I feel its a 'group mind' thing. Someone could fabricate it over just about anything that stirs up emotions. Atheists don't generally get emotional about their atheism, but if you found a group that did, for whatever reason, it could be detrimental as well.

Actually, locally, we have an atheist group that can be really volatile. They haven't started any wars, but the leader was kinda on a mission to 'convert' people, and they sure caused a lot of grief just to cause grief for awhile. (Actually, quite a few atheists shied away from them because they didn't approve of the group's hostility.)

 

[Shakeel]

Many Muslims I've known (students that come to the US many of them) tell me that a woman wearing any sort of veil is not Islam at all -- its Arabic culture.

They're wrong. What are the chances they follow other rulings of Islam?

One of the most modest women I knew was someone in my Islamic religion and literature class at the University. She was from Lebanon, and she dressed like a princess. She wore no head covering. She said that was not required. Her dress was incredibly tasteful and modest. I admired her a lot.

She dressed like a princess and modestly? I think I know what you mean. Dressing in beautiful clothing (in the sense of it being attractive in itself) is also prohibited for women in public.

That changes the law no more than a Muslim drinking alcohol removes the prohibition of drinking alcohol.