Killing for apostacy is against Quran.

[Link]

Sure it does. But that is exactly what I am talking about. You have taken the meaning and done your own assumption of the meaning of the sentence. The Quran gives it an explicit definition.

Nevertheless, as I said, rape is life imprisonment.

Using the punishment for murder and rape, if a child is kidnapped, I suppose assault would be considered rape, thus life imprisonment. Over and above that, it should be as we deem is appropriate as punishment. That is the usage of your Akal.

Maybe you are right. I will reflect over the verses you quoted and see ahadith as well.

 

[firedragon]

Where does Quran talk about rape for prison for life?

I will be back to you on that specifically.

 

[Link]

By the way "or" for non-Arabs, sometimes takes on the meaning as "or rather..." and @firedragon is saying the verse says the type of taking a life is fasadan fel arth, and this makes sense, as believers also take a life of disbelievers who were fighting them, but they type to be killed are the ones who do fasad fel arth or rather is that.

His explanation makes linguistic sense, but I'm not sure, if reason says no one else should be killed. I will have to see ahadith and reflect.

 

[Link]

@firedragon thank you for the insights you provided from Quran. I haven't thought about that from the angles you provided.

 

[epronovost]

None of them are speaking of an apostate. NONE.

So can you please provide the exact reference yourself? Directly!!

Okay, then of whom are they talking about in those verses and why would you say so?

Someone who has "relapsed into unfaith" as stated in this verse (Surat An-Nisaa 4 : 88) is an apostate by the standard definition of it. Why would you say it doesn't refer to an apostate?

a·pos·tate

noun

1. a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, then of whom are they talking about in those verses and why would you say so?

Someone who has "relapsed into unfaith" as stated in this verse (Surat An-Nisaa 4 : 88) is an apostate by the standard definition of it. Why would you say it doesn't refer to an apostate?

a·pos·tate

noun

1. a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

It does not say "relapsed into unfaith".

 

[epronovost]

It does not say "relapsed into unfaith".

Yes it specifically does:

Why should you be two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them relapse [into unfaith] because of their deeds? Do you desire to guide someone Allah has led astray? Whomever Allah leads astray, you will never find any way for him.

The parenthesis makes it so that unfaith is implied or that the words being translated refers to a relapse into a former faith or into doubt. That would make a person an apostate.

 

[firedragon]

Yes it specifically does:

No it doesnt epronovost. It doesnt. If you see clearly, your cut and paste has brackets. That is not the Qur'an, it is someones imposition.

But I understand why you said that so its perfectly fine.

It does not say anything about apostasy. It says "they have regressed from what they earned" which some people think means coming into religion and then leaving it. But this is what some people think. The words dont mean it. Its simply meaning regression from what ever you earned. I mean literally. Its also talking about Munafiks, which means hypocrites. If you read the Quran you will understand that Munafiks are people who pretend to be righteous.

Also, its simple language. Rakasa means to regress in simple English. If you wish to elaborate, it is like going back on how much you have gained and this verse specifically mentions the word Kasab which means "earned". Thats not necessarily money, just regression from where you are as a whole.

Even if you want to use the "unfaith", this is not about apostasy as in leaving a religion completely. This is regression. It has nothing to do with apostasy.

Qur'an says there is no karaha or any force in the dheen which means religion or system. Thats the Quranic principle.

Lakum dheenukum wa liaddheen. To you is your system, to me is mine. This is Quranic principle.

 

[epronovost]

It does not say anything about apostasy. It says "they have regressed from what they earned" which some people think means coming into religion and then leaving it. But this is what some people think. The words dont mean it. Its simply meaning regression from what ever you earned. I mean literally. Its also talking about Munafiks, which means hypocrites. If you read the Quran you will understand that Munafiks are people who pretend to be righteous.

Well, from the wider context of the text of what other forms of regression could it be, but a "regression" from believing in the "truth" of Islam back to the "lies" of whatever religion these people had prior or even none? In what other context would the word "regression" be used? They can't have regressed from adult to children. So it's not age regression. They did not regress technologically either. So it's not technical regression. They did not regress to a prior form in their evolutionary tree. So it's not evolutionary regression either. That leaves you to intellectual regress or spiritual regress. As in reverting back to a prior level of ignorance. If you gained faith and knowledge of the Quran and then decide to ditch it because you think it's full of feces, you are regressing back to a prior belief or state of ignorance from the point of view of someone who holds the Quran as something great. The entire passage doesn't make any sense otherwise. At best, you could also say that this paragraph also refers to what the Spaniard of the 16th century would call the "false converts" that is people who claim to have adopted Islam but were lying about it. Though one would not say that a liar has "regressed" since it's not really apt to describe what they did. It could also, if you really stretch it, refer to people who have a different interpretation of the Quran or support of a different leadership but with whom you agreed on a prior point and then would qualify those people who once agreed with you and no longer do as hypocrites and traitors, but from such a point of view that would make them apostate.

 

[firedragon]

Well, from the wider context of the text of what other forms of regression could it be, but a "regression" from believing in the "truth" of Islam back to the "lies" of whatever religion these people had prior or even none? In what other context would the word "regression" be used? They can't have regressed from adult to children. So it's not age regression. They did not regress technologically either. So it's not technical regression. They did not regress to a prior form in their evolutionary tree. So it's not evolutionary regression either. That leaves you to intellectual regress or spiritual regress. As in reverting back to a prior level of ignorance. If you gained faith and knowledge of the Quran and then decide to ditch it because you think it's full of feces, you are regressing back to a prior belief or state of ignorance from the point of view of someone who holds the Quran as something great. The entire passage doesn't make any sense otherwise. At best, you could also say that this paragraph also refers to what the Spaniard of the 16th century would call the "false converts" that is people who claim to have adopted Islam but were lying about it. Though one would not say that a liar has "regressed" since it's not really apt to describe what they did.

Yeah. I will ignore of course all your sarcastic "regression" theories.

This regression will mean just regression. Of course no reasonable person would think of those illogical ones you spoke of. Iif you want it to be about apostasy, apostasy is leaving a system. Denouncing a system by ones own accord, not a hypocrite who has been forced to regress because of his evil deeds.

 

[epronovost]

Denouncing a system by ones own accord, not a hypocrite who has been forced to regress because of his evil deeds.

No apostasy is abandoning a religion/system of belief. How and why is not mentioned and of no importance. As long as you don't believe or have abandoned that religion and its tenets, you are an apostate.

To a 8th century Muslim living in a theocratic empire, rejecting Islam is rejecting the authority of those in power and the law of the land. That would make you a wicked and dangerous person who must either be chassed away or killed if they refused. Then the next verses basically present the exceptions which are broadly, if they come back and demand pardon, if they live in an allied nation, cause problem in an enemy nation or just submit to the rule and law of the Muslims even they are not and don't rock the boat.

In many Muslim schools of thought, there is no such thing as free will, everything is under the auspice of God who controls everything. Everything is down to His Grace. If you believe and are righteous it's because Allah wants it. If you are not, this is also his will. It seems the author does subscribe to such a view to a large extent and that's why he specifically mentions that it's useless to try to convince people like that to change because they are evil and God made them rebel and only He can bring them back.

 

[firedragon]

No apostasy is abandoning a religion/system of belief.

Are you calling them hypocrites? Were they hypocrites in the first place?

 

[epronovost]

Are you calling them hypocrites? Were they hypocrites in the first place?

It depends on the situation. If they still claim they are X even though they have rejected X, they are hypocrites. If they claim to be descent and good people and have rejected Islam and you believe Islam to be good then they have rejected good and are thus evil and hypocrites. In a sense, you are right the term apostate could also be exchanged for heretic, but an heretic can be an apostate at the same time especially if you are of the "my truth is the only truth" sort of crowd.

 

[Link]

@firedragon the first irtidad mentioned is about the fact they already have, and this inwardly. The 2nd "if they..." is about if they outwardly do it, as they already inwardly did it. The Muslims were called to battle their opponents and many of the hypocrites didn't mind Islam till that point. But to deal with this horrible situation, the Quran said, if they are from a people who their a covenant, then it does not matter, but if they are from the a group that are fighting you from polytheists, make sure they promise not to fight you, offer peace and withdraw from you. If they don't, then you can kill them.

It's obvious brother, it's about apostasy but in a dire situation, where they could not just be ignored. But the Quran didn't allow to even kill them if they offered peace. It's clear brother.

So we have many verses that prove the issue of killing apostates is not only not allowed, but forbidden per Quran.

 

[firedragon]

It depends on the situation. If they still claim they are X even though they have rejected X, they are hypocrites. If they claim to be descent and good people and have rejected Islam and you believe Islam to be good then they have rejected good and are thus evil and hypocrites. In a sense, you are right the term apostate could also be exchanged for heretic, but an heretic can be an apostate at the same time especially if you are of the "my truth is the only truth" sort of crowd.

No. You didnt answer the question. Were they hypocrites in the first place? Before even beginning to discuss this so called "regression", were they hypocrites as apostates? Is that what you are saying?

 

[epronovost]

No. You didnt answer the question. Were they hypocrites in the first place? Before even beginning to discuss this so called "regression", were they hypocrites as apostates? Is that what you are saying?

As I said, "it depend on the circumstances". If they call themselves "good people" then in the mind of a devout Muslim, they are hypocrite. You can't be "a good moral person" and reject God's message at the same time since God' message is good. That would make someone a hypocrite in the proper sense of the term,; a person who lacks self criticism.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon the first irtidad mentioned is about the fact they already have, and this inwardly. The 2nd "if they..." is about if they outwardly do it, as they already inwardly did it. The Muslims were called to battle their opponents and many of the hypocrites didn't mind Islam till that point. But to deal with this horrible situation, the Quran said, if they are from a people who their a covenant, then it does not matter, but if they are from the a group that are fighting you from polytheists, make sure they promise not to fight you, offer peace and withdraw from you. If they don't, then you can kill them.

It's obvious brother, it's about apostasy but in a dire situation, where they could not just be ignored. But the Quran didn't allow to even kill them if they offered peace. It's clear brother.

So we have many verses that prove the issue of killing apostates is not only not allowed, but forbidden per Quran.

Bro. So you have gone to the ahadith for this.

Okay. Tell me. Who's riwayah was the ahadith about killing apostates as commanded by Ali? Can you just give me the name?

 

[firedragon]

As I said, "it depend on the circumstances". If they call themselves "good people" then in the mind of a devout Muslim, they are hypocrite. You can't be "a good moral person" and reject God's message at the same time so yes.

refer to the verse. Its speaking about hypocrites. So you cant just make stuff up like this. Its simply speaking about hypocrites.

Anyway. You missed this. I told you that this regression is from "what they earned". You speaking about regression from the evolved state, reducing in age etc etc and all kinds of most nonsensical so called "regressions" as if you didnt see this "what they earned".

So what did these hypocrites earn?

 

[epronovost]

refer to the verse. Its speaking about hypocrites. So you cant just make stuff up like this. Its simply speaking about hypocrites.

Anyway. You missed this. I told you that this regression is from "what they earned". You speaking about regression from the evolved state, reducing in age etc etc and all kinds of most nonsensical so called "regressions" as if you didnt see this "what they earned".

So what did these hypocrites earn?

These people have "regressed" from belief to unfaith and are hypocrites because they still think they are good or deserving of respect and honor despite it. Also this translation (Surat An-Nisaa 4 : 88) doesn't use the term "earned" but the term "deeds". It says the hypocrites have regressed to unbelief due to their deeds. Basically, hypocrites refer to the people who are apostates and/or heretics, who claim to be good, but are not because they don't behave like proper Muslims and have rejected the teachings of the Quran or the authorities of the Islamic Empire. "What they earned" would be a turn of phrase to mean "what their actions have brought upon them", in that case being qualified of hypocrites, traitors and apostates because they don't believe in the message of the Quran.

 

[firedragon]

These people have "regressed" from belief to unfaith and are hypocrites because they still think they are good or deserving

Nope. The verse says hypocrites before that.

doesn't use the term "earned" but the term "deeds".

It does say earned. Kasaba means earned.

but are not because they don't behave like proper Muslim

It doesnt say anything of that. You have inserted it.