kafir

[FunctionalAtheist]

The following excerpt from wikipedia, yea I know. This is really a question more than debate, but I don't think it's a great idea to ask in the islam forum. According to this article, an atheist such as myself, is subject to murder or enslavement. The reference given is 142 Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im (1996): p. 352.

Can anyone tell me where the basis of this rule can be found in the quran?


Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"According to scholars[15][140][141] of traditional Islamic law, the applicable rules for religious conversion under Sharia are as follows:

• If a person converts to Islam, or is born and raised as a Muslim, then he or she will have full rights of citizenship in an Islamic state.
• Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion. Before executing the death penalty, Sharia demands that the individual be offered one chance to return to Islam.[citation needed]
• If a person has never been a Muslim, and is not a kafir (infidel, unbeliever), he or she can live in an Islamic state by accepting to be a dhimmi, or under a special permission called aman. As a dhimmi or under aman, he or she will suffer certain limitations of rights as a subject of an Islamic state, and will not enjoy complete legal equality with Muslims.[citation needed]
• If a person has never been a Muslim, and is a kafir (infidel, unbeliever), Sharia demands that he or she should be offered the choice to convert to Islam and become a Muslim; if they reject the offer, he or she may either be killed, enslaved, or ransomed if captured.[142]"

 

[Faybull]

What is it about, "according to scholars", that gives a question in my mind as to why is it not according to the book itself, instead of "according to scholars"?

 

[Faybull]

What is it about, "according to scholars", that gives a question in my mind as to why is it not according to the book itself, instead of "according to scholars"?

The "teaching of men".

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

What is it about, "according to scholars", that gives a question in my mind as to why is it not according to the book itself, instead of "according to scholars"?

I believe the 'according to scholars' refers to the interpretation of scriptures. I'm interested in seeing the scriptural basis for this interpretation (right or wrong) for myself. In all honesty a few minutes of google revealed numerous death sentences in sharia law.

 

[Faybull]

yes, but the "sharia" law is based "according to scholars"...that is what I was getting at

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

So no one can tell me if, as an atheist, I am under a standing death warrant from islam? And no one can say I'm not? I find this disheartening!

 

[Augustus]

The Quran does not call for the death penalty for apostasy, it states they will be punished in the afterlife.

There are hadith that relate to a death penalty, but many scholars interpret these as being akin to treason against the state, rather than simple apostasy. Other scholars believe it applies to all apostasy.

I'm can't remember what it says regarding unbelief in general, but historically I think most groups were simply treated as 'people of the book'. Was a very long time before Muslims became the majority in the Middle East.

 

[thau]

I believe the 'according to scholars' refers to the interpretation of scriptures. I'm interested in seeing the scriptural basis for this interpretation (right or wrong) for myself. In all honesty a few minutes of google revealed numerous death sentences in sharia law.

I see no reason to doubt the interpretation of Shariah Law by the counsel of many scholars. Surely we have seen their laws exacted out in many horrific ways for the past number of decades.

I, myself, question any semblance of a "religion of peace?" There is virtually no good or godliness in a religion that has given birth to all these murderous fringe factions. And when I say fringe, it doesn't really look like fringe. The outer extreme core of Islamic ideology may be comprised of hundreds of millions. No true religion from God above could be the source of so many diabolic murderous off shoot creeds.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I see no reason to doubt the interpretation of Shariah Law by the counsel of many scholars. Surely we have seen their laws exacted out in many horrific ways for the past number of decades.

I, myself, question any semblance of a "religion of peace?" There is virtually no good or godliness in a religion that has given birth to all these murderous fringe factions. And when I say fringe, it doesn't really look like fringe. The outer extreme core of Islamic ideology may be comprised of hundreds of millions. No true religion from God above could be the source of so many diabolic murderous off shoot creeds.

As my opinions have changed, I'm coming to believe that while there is the same range of behaviors exhibited among christians and muslims (they both have their best and worst) there are real differences. While the bad are bad, there seem to be a much higher percentage of fringe, fundamentalist, outliers, etc. among muslims than christians. There also seems to be a bigger gap between fundamentalist and average christians, than between fundamentalist and average muslims. Meaning the average christian really does not in any way support the fundamentalist, while the average muslim seems to at least be sympathetic. I.e. they may condemn the action but at the same time say things like you should expect it, or it's understandable.

 

[Augustus]

I see no reason to doubt the interpretation of Shariah Law by the counsel of many scholars. Surely we have seen their laws exacted out in many horrific ways for the past number of decades.

I, myself, question any semblance of a "religion of peace?" There is virtually no good or godliness in a religion that has given birth to all these murderous fringe factions. And when I say fringe, it doesn't really look like fringe. The outer extreme core of Islamic ideology may be comprised of hundreds of millions. No true religion from God above could be the source of so many diabolic murderous off shoot creeds.

The Muslim world used to be comparatively more enlightened than the Christian world. There was a rich tradition of scientific and philosophical enquiry, and the Renaissance was facilitated by advancement in the Muslim world (not all of which were by Muslims though), just as advancements there were facilitated by knowledge from the Greek, Roman and Persian world.

Calling any religion a 'religion of peace' is a bit nonsensical, they can be peaceful, they can be violent, just like most other ideologies. Neither is intrinsically inevitable. People tend to focus a bit too much on recent history though, over a longer term Islam doesn't stand out as unusually violent compared to other ideologies that were contemporaneous.

Today, it is undeniable that Islam is used by some as a justification for horrendous acts which are carried out in the name of Islam, and this interpretation of Islam is no more or no less valid than any other, but you shouldn't overstate the representativeness of such actions.

Just as it is silly to pretend that such actions have nothing to do with Islam, it is also silly to believe that Islam is necessarily something incompatible with other belief systems. Religions evolve and adapt, and they exist in the actions of people rather than in some abstract form. Most belief systems are also capable of justifying the unconscionable on occasions, 'liberal progress' has been used as a justification for many recent wars after all.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The Muslim world used to be comparatively more enlightened than the Christian world. There was a rich tradition of scientific and philosophical enquiry, and the Renaissance was facilitated by advancement in the Muslim world (not all of which were by Muslims though), just as advancements there were facilitated by knowledge from the Greek, Roman and Persian world.

Calling any religion a 'religion of peace' is a bit nonsensical, they can be peaceful, they can be violent, just like most other ideologies. Neither is intrinsically inevitable. People tend to focus a bit too much on recent history though, over a longer term Islam doesn't stand out as unusually violent compared to other ideologies that were contemporaneous.

Today, it is undeniable that Islam is used by some as a justification for horrendous acts which are carried out in the name of Islam, and this interpretation of Islam is no more or no less valid than any other, but you shouldn't overstate the representativeness of such actions.

Just as it is silly to pretend that such actions have nothing to do with Islam, it is also silly to believe that Islam is necessarily something incompatible with other belief systems. Religions evolve and adapt, and they exist in the actions of people rather than in some abstract form. Most belief systems are also capable of justifying the unconscionable on occasions, 'liberal progress' has been used as a justification for many recent wars after all.

A very good post, well reasoned. But my concern at this point is the specific, if islam does in fact justify the killing of nonbelivers, doesn't this make it somewhat incompatible with the beliefs of nonbelievers. Even if 'most' muslims do not adhere to this interpretation? Even if most muslims who do see this as a legitimate interpretation do not see it as a practical interpretation?

If my death is proscribed; or if my death is suggested; or if my death is even symbolically at steak, do I not have an imperative to oppose such a belief system.

I agree with you entirely that the current violence in islam does not stand out from a historical perspective. But I'm concerned with the future.

 

[thau]

The Muslim world used to be comparatively more enlightened than the Christian world. There was a rich tradition of scientific and philosophical enquiry, and the Renaissance was facilitated by advancement in the Muslim world (not all of which were by Muslims though), just as advancements there were facilitated by knowledge from the Greek, Roman and Persian world.

Calling any religion a 'religion of peace' is a bit nonsensical, they can be peaceful, they can be violent, just like most other ideologies. Neither is intrinsically inevitable. People tend to focus a bit too much on recent history though, over a longer term Islam doesn't stand out as unusually violent compared to other ideologies that were contemporaneous.

Today, it is undeniable that Islam is used by some as a justification for horrendous acts which are carried out in the name of Islam, and this interpretation of Islam is no more or no less valid than any other, but you shouldn't overstate the representativeness of such actions.

Just as it is silly to pretend that such actions have nothing to do with Islam, it is also silly to believe that Islam is necessarily something incompatible with other belief systems. Religions evolve and adapt, and they exist in the actions of people rather than in some abstract form. Most belief systems are also capable of justifying the unconscionable on occasions, 'liberal progress' has been used as a justification for many recent wars after all.

Mankind (for centuries now) has long been a more civilized world where ethical treatment of opposing ideologies and malcontents is no longer treated with brutal tortures, executions or banishment. Save for many factions of Islam (and some godless despots like hitler and stalin). IOW, even if some can claim Christian dealings with disagreeable neighbors or hostile elements was more in line with the way kingdoms and dominant regimes dealt with their adversaries (i.e. imprisonment, torture, hangings, etc.), Christianity understood and grew with civilization. Islam never really has. Note: I would submit that Christianity actually was the greatest factor in civilizing the world (especially Europe) and not any kind of detriment or conqueror with brutal designs.

In addition, I submit there are multitude of reasons to impugn Islam over most other religions or pagan ideologies. Its origins are not very convincing of a divine element and are wrought with conversion by conquering peaceful neighbors. Christianity was born of martyrdom and peaceful witness and forgiveness. Which is more manifest of a God of love? Christianity had to fight back conquering hoardes in Europe and the Middle East. They did not send the crusaders to conquer anyone but to rescue the holy land from the subjugation of a belligerent occupier.

I do not agree that Islam was more advanced than the contributions of Christianity, back then or since. One can surely isolate accomplishments the other did not have, but I choose to look at the whole. In fact, one can legitimately give more credit to the Jewish race for the greatest accomplishments in all of the sciences and arts and inventions and bringing the world together in a more modern setting. I believe it speaks to the Jewish G-d’s real presence.

I could say much more in my defense, but I will just reiterate this point: If Islam’s god is God, then in no way would we so much evil come from it. Especially in the most modern and civilized times of man. We all look upon it with horror. It has no rival. It speaks to me in a most disturbing way as a believer in God and the devil.

 

[Augustus]

If my death is proscribed; or if my death is suggested; or if my death is even symbolically at steak, do I not have an imperative to oppose such a belief system.

I agree with you entirely that the current violence in islam does not stand out from a historical perspective. But I'm concerned with the future.

You don't have an imperative to oppose the belief system per se, you have an imperative to prevent the belief system becoming a threat to you, or to minimise the threat.

How to do that is the big question. Hypothetically though, if excessive hostility to those who may nominatively be part of the belief system serves to push them towards the extremes, then it would be wrong not to adopt a more nuanced approach.

I personally believe that the key thing is not the ideology itself but the societal conditions that make it possible for extremism to flourish. I am pessimistic about the near future in that regard.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Mankind (for centuries now) has long been a more civilized world where ethical treatment of opposing ideologies and malcontents is no longer treated with brutal tortures, executions or banishment. Save for many factions of Islam (and some godless despots like hitler and stalin). IOW, even if some can claim Christian dealings with disagreeable neighbors or hostile elements was more in line with the way kingdoms and dominant regimes dealt with their adversaries (i.e. imprisonment, torture, hangings, etc.), Christianity understood and grew with civilization. Islam never really has. Note: I would submit that Christianity actually was the greatest factor in civilizing the world (especially Europe) and not any kind of detriment or conqueror with brutal designs.

In addition, I submit there are multitude of reasons to impugn Islam over most other religions or pagan ideologies. Its origins are not very convincing of a divine element and are wrought with conversion by conquering peaceful neighbors. Christianity was born of martyrdom and peaceful witness and forgiveness. Which is more manifest of a God of love? Christianity had to fight back conquering hoardes in Europe and the Middle East. They did not send the crusaders to conquer anyone but to rescue the holy land from the subjugation of a belligerent occupier.

I do not agree that Islam was more advanced than the contributions of Christianity, back then or since. One can surely isolate accomplishments the other did not have, but I choose to look at the whole. In fact, one can legitimately give more credit to the Jewish race for the greatest accomplishments in all of the sciences and arts and inventions and bringing the world together in a more modern setting. I believe it speaks to the Jewish G-d’s real presence.

I could say much more in my defense, but I will just reiterate this point: If Islam’s god is God, then in no way would we so much evil come from it. Especially in the most modern and civilized times of man. We all look upon it with horror. It has no rival. It speaks to me in a most disturbing way as a believer in God and the devil.

While there is some truth in what you say, picking it out is rather difficult. Christianity has been subdued, rather than learned. The arabic world at one time gave us tremendous accomplishments, and by association islam gets some credit. On the other hand christianity was nothing but a detriment to civilization and progress, and gets little to no credit for the accomplishments of the west.

Your understanding of the conquest is repulsive and ignorant.

All of that said, islam is associated with the current events which threaten civilization.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You don't have an imperative to oppose the belief system per se, you have an imperative to prevent the belief system becoming a threat to you, or to minimise the threat.

Em, I disagree. It is in my best interest to do all I can to convince people that my death is not justified on any grounds; whether they be ideological or practical. To believe that in any sense the universe or any part of it should justify my death, is 100% anti-FA. I have every imperative to oppose that understanding.

How to do that is the big question. Hypothetically though, if excessive hostility to those who may nominatively be part of the belief system serves to push them towards the extremes, then it would be wrong not to adopt a more nuanced approach.

I agree with this for the most part. However, while education might serve to widen the gap between fundamentalist and most muslims, and isolate extremists, the extremists themselves should always be dealt with extreme prejudice. Take a look at the western world. There are christians every bit as savage as some muslims. But the christians extremists are pushed aside and excluded from mainstream thought. This is not because they were dealt with gingerly. It is because a lot of eggs were broken, and a lot of moderates were insulted, and educated, along the way.

I personally believe that the key thing is not the ideology itself but the societal conditions that make it possible for extremism to flourish. I am pessimistic about the near future in that regard.

I can't say the social conditions do not play a huge factor. But to say it's mostly social, rather than cultural, would be a mistake.

If a 1000 years of culture has acknowledged the justice of killing non-believers, even if most have not actually practiced this, how can we say it is not part of the culture? How can we say it is mostly related to current economics and politics? A person that does not take up the sword, but merely nods there head and says 'yea, that's what islam says' is a cultural and religious problem more than a social problem.

Thanks for reasoned response.

 

[Augustus]

Mankind (for centuries now) has long been a more civilized world where ethical treatment of opposing ideologies and malcontents is no longer treated with brutal tortures, executions or banishment.

Did you miss the US torture report? Recent wars?

I would submit that Christianity actually was the greatest factor in civilizing the world (especially Europe) and not any kind of detriment or conqueror with brutal designs.

Might want to look at the history of Europe before saying it wasn't a brutal conquerer.

Although, modern Europe is indeed a product of Christianity, for whatever it is worth.

Its origins are not very convincing of a divine element and are wrought with conversion by conquering peaceful neighbors.

I hardly think that the Roman and Persian Empires could claim to be peaceful

Christianity had to fight back conquering hoardes in Europe and the Middle East. They did not send the crusaders to conquer anyone but to rescue the holy land from the subjugation of a belligerent occupier.

You don't have a very good understanding of history.

The crusades featured many fanatical Christians who were an almost exact analogue of ISIS today who were outside the 'official' armies of the day and were horrific in their brutality.

I do not agree that Islam was more advanced than the contributions of Christianity, back then or since. One can surely isolate accomplishments the other did not have, but I choose to look at the whole.

Then you are wrong. I'm no saying that it was necessarily the result of the religion, but they were the richest, most powerful and most cosmopolitan empire and certain leader lavishly funded scholars and the pursuit of knowledge. Why would they not have been more advanced?

Knowledge is a chain, and the Islamic empires were, for a time, the most important link in that chain. No more or no less important than other links that came before or after though.

I could say much more in my defense, but I will just reiterate this point: If Islam’s god is God, then in no way would we so much evil come from it. Especially in the most modern and civilized times of man. We all look upon it with horror. It has no rival. It speaks to me in a most disturbing way as a believer in God and the devil.

So much evil has also come from Christianity and secular ideologies.

 

[Pegg]

These 7th century ideals are precisely why Muslims find it hard to integrate into a modern civilized society.