Man sentenced to death for sorcery.

[spursrule68]

lol funny guy

god exists

 

[Sahar]

Which laws?

IMO, in general, the laws of non-Muslim countries don't require a person to follow an Islamic way of life, but they do allow it.

I don't know of any country that prohibits Muslim prayer, for instance, or requires people to eat bacon once a week. At least in the west, Muslims are generally free to follow the dictates of their faith as they see fit.

You are clearly confused about the nature of Islam. Islam is not a group of rituals and prayers only, Islam is a complete way of life; Islam has its say in politics, in economics, etc. As I am used to repeat myself a dozen of times, the fact that my country is not ruled by Islamic Shari'a is a problem to me and doesn't represent my will. At least, Muslims in a Muslim dominated countries should strive to an Islamic state whose constitution and systems are derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah/Islamic Shari'a.
Religious rituals are a different thing.

However, Islam is not only a religion about your personal relationship with God or treating those around you with good character and compassion and of course these two elements are very essential but also Islam is a political system, Islam is an economic system, Islam is a social system. Islam is a complete way of life.

 

[AxisMundi]

no law of God says that people who abandone Islam should be killed. there is only one death penalthy mentioned in Qur'an and that would be for people who attempt to kill messenger of God

.

Capital Punishment in Islam

 

[Sahar]

Capital Punishment in Islam

Good point. Death penalty is mentioned in the Qur'an in cases of Qisas for murder (it's optional to the family of victim) and in cases of Hirabah (piracy); spreading corruption and terrorism in land (a range of penalties can be applied depending on the case).

 

[.lava]

Capital Punishment in Islam

should i interpret your opinion on my own? would you share what you're saying?

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean democratic system?

No, I mean a voluntary system. If a person is not free to leave, then IMO the government should be less free to impose restrictions on him, even if that government is supported by a majority of the people.

You are clearly confused about the nature of Islam.

I'm certainly confused about the nature of your last post.

Islam is not a group of rituals and prayers only, Islam is a complete way of life; Islam has its say in politics, in economics, etc.

And in what was is a person not free to follow Islam if they live in a secular country?

As I am used to repeat myself a dozen of times, the fact that my country is not ruled by Islamic Shari'a is a problem to me and doesn't represent my will.

I don't care. It's unreasonable for you to expect people to follow Shari'a who do not agree with it.

At least, Muslims in a Muslim dominated countries should strive to an Islamic state whose constitution and systems are derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah/Islamic Shari'a.

So... Muslims who have political and religous freedom should work to deny that freedom to others? This seems hypocritical to me.

 

[.lava]

Good point. Death penalty is mentioned in the Qur'an in cases of Qisas for murder (it's optional to the family of victim) and in cases of Hirabah (piracy); spreading corruption and terrorism in land (a range of penalties can be applied depending on the case).

Qisas is not exactly death penalthy. death penalthy means death alone, don't you think?

there is another verse about Qisas but still it is up to person;

5:45 And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.


edit: this is what i mean by death penalthy:

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

.

 

[Sahar]

No, I mean a voluntary system. If a person is not free to leave, then IMO the government should be less free to impose restrictions on him, even if that government is supported by a majority of the people.


I'm certainly confused about the nature of your last post.


And in what was is a person not free to follow Islam if they live in a secular country?


I don't care. It's unreasonable for you to expect people to follow Shari'a who do not agree with it.


So... Muslims who have political and religous freedom should work to deny that freedom to others? This seems hypocritical to me.

I don't know how I can clarify my point more.
Choose any country say Egypt. Assume that freedom of forming political parties is available. There is a political party x that calls for liberal values and another one calls for Islamic values. Both went into elections. There are people who would choose the Islamic party to form a government and others would choose the other party. Of course this is very simplistic. Based on the majority choice, the nature of the ruling government would be determined. And if the Islamic party was elected, then the Islamic ideology would be the ground for the different political, economic and social values and views. And at the same time, this doesn't mean that the Christian can't go to his church anymore, wear a cross around his neck, or apply his Christian rulings in disputes regarding family, inheritance and such matters.

then IMO the government should be less free to impose restrictions on him, even if that government is supported by a majority of the people.

If he was violating the law, then he would be punished accordingly. What's new about this?

It's unreasonable for you to expect people to follow Shari'a who do not agree with it.

The same can be said, it's unreasonable to expect people to follow secular and non Islamic systems and laws, who don't agree with them. :sarcastic

 

[Sahar]

Qisas is not exactly death penalthy. death penalthy means death alone, don't you think?

there is another verse about Qisas but still it is up to person;

5:45 And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.


edit: this is what i mean by death penalthy:

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

.

If it means death only, then the last ayah you quoted doesn't state death only.

 

[Father Heathen]

bloody hell how many times will i have to say this, do not judge others with your perspective.

But not only do you judge from your perspective, you openly state your desire to see people murdered for petty, trivial reasons.

 

[.lava]

If it means death only, then the last ayah you quoted doesn't state death only.

yes, i've noticed. never had my attention before. just wanted to share verse i am talking about

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know how I can clarify my point more.
Choose any country say Egypt. Assume that freedom of forming political parties is available. There is a political party x that calls for liberal values and another one calls for Islamic values. Both went into elections. There are people who would choose the Islamic party to form a government and others would choose the other party. Of course this is very simplistic. Based on the majority choice, the nature of the ruling government would be determined. And if the Islamic party was elected, then the Islamic ideology would be the ground for the different political, economic and social values and views.

Not if that ideology violates basic rights and freedoms. Just about every democracy I know has a constitution that requires much, much more than a majority to change.

And at the same time, this doesn't mean that the Christian can't go to his church anymore, wear a cross around his neck, or apply his Christian rulings in disputes regarding family, inheritance and such matters.

Would it mean his church could still buy wine for their religious observances?

Would it mean that a Muslim would be free to decide to become a Christian?

If he was violating the law, then he would be punished accordingly. What's new about this?

It's a serious matter if the law is unjust, but I do agree that unjust laws are nothing new. That doesn't mean we want to encourage them, though.

The same can be said, it's unreasonable to expect people to follow secular and non Islamic systems and laws, who don't agree with it. :sarcastic

And when we can't come to a decision about who should impose their views on others, the reasonable thing to do is to let both sides be free to behave as they want. Which system would allow this to happen?

 

[Sahar]

Penguin, a very simple example, in a non Islamic country usage of loudspeakers to call for prayers is prohibited which is non-Islamic but Muslims have to follow this rule and violating this rule will make them susceptible to any kind of penalty.

 

[Sahar]

Not if that ideology violates basic rights and freedoms. Just about every democracy I know has a constitution that requires much, much more than a majority to change.

Yes, of course but consider it like a revolution that will end up in changing the constitution itself; a self determination issue. In the same example of Egypt, in reality forming a religious political party is disallowed.

Would it mean his church could still buy wine for their religious observances?

I guess yes (need to search this point, though).

Would it mean that a Muslim would be free to decide to become a Christian?

I think he should.

Which system would allow this to happen?

What if the secular system doesn't represent the people's will?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin, a very simple example, in a non Islamic country usage of loudspeakers to call for prayers is prohibited which is non-Islamic but Muslims have to follow this rule and violating this rule will make them susceptible to any kind of penalty.

First of all: is it non-Islamic? I don't typically hear the call to prayers around here, but I just found out that the local Muslim centre performs it over the radio. Is that not allowed?

Second: I think you're comparing apples to oranges. On the one hand, some secular countries have rules against broadcasting the call to prayer over loudspeakers, but this is for a justifiable reason: the disturbance this represents to non-Muslims. On the other hand, some nominally Muslim governments will execute people for "crimes" like sorcery and apostasy. Do you really think these are equivalent?

It seems like you're saying that because secular governments ask Muslims to compromise a little in the name of cooperation, Muslim governments shouldn't have to cooperate at all with others, even when people's lives are on the line. These two things are not proportional.

 

[Perfect Circle]

I'll bet you any amount of money that if I converted to Islam, started practicing "sorcery" (which is a ridiculous enough notion in itself), and then subsequently went to Mecca... I would not be executed. Once again... I will bet you any amount of money on this.

Do you know why? It's because my government's military exists in force over there. We protect the Saudi government. I'll bet that political leverage trumps the precious laws of Islam...

keep dreaming mate. i'll bet you the whole wealth of this earth that if you, a non-muslim, killed an inocent person and having evidence against you,the saudi government will put you to death if the family of the victim does not forgive you instead?

What in the hell are you talking about? That's an entirely different situation. Murder is illegal in the US, the crime will have been committed in the borders of Saudi Arabia, and I would be non-muslim. Re-read the post you're responding to over a few times to let it soak in because you obviously aren't very good with the whole reading comprehension thing.

Oh, and BTW, you might not want to head over to Saudi Arabia yourself seeing as how you want to "bet you whole wealth of this earth". I don't think they'd look too kindly on that given what's written in your holy book...

"O you who believe, truly intoxicants and gambling and divination by arrows are an abomination of Satan's doing; avoid them in order that you may be successful." (Al-Ma'idah: 93)

 

[Erebus]

Penguin, a very simple example, in a non Islamic country usage of loudspeakers to call for prayers is prohibited which is non-Islamic but Muslims have to follow this rule and violating this rule will make them susceptible to any kind of penalty.

Is this really necessary though? I know that plenty of Muslims hold seminars, meetings, hand out fliers etc in England in order to advertise their beliefs. No loudspeakers doesn't prevent people from advertising their faith, but it does prevent noise pollution.
Secular states are by no means perfect, but I think they are pretty understanding of most religious practices.

 

[Sahar]

Yes, of course but consider it like a revolution that will end up in changing the constitution itself; a self determination issue. In the same example of Egypt, in reality forming a religious political party is disallowed.

Moreover, if we are talking about an already Islamic state whose constitution is derived from Islamic Shari'a; not every thing is up to the majority choice. Anything that opposes God's Shari'a is not subjected to people's opinion as Dr Badawi puts it;
For example: When the majority, in a Western democracy, decide that the drinking age should be lowered to 13 or 14, no matter how harmful this may be, it becomes a law, because that’s what the majority of people want. Under Islamic law, the Qur’an itself prohibits drinking, so it shall be prohibited regardless of what the people want. Another example regards the rights of minorities. Suppose in a given society the majority of people, who belong to a particular race or class or group, decided to deprive minorities of their rights. Even if the constitution prohibited this, the constitution itself can be changed. So, if a decision is taken to oppress a certain minority or minorities, it could be done under democracy, theoretically at least. Yet, under an Islamic system it cannot happen because the rights of the minorities are rights which are enshrined in the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition, and as such no human being can supersede that.

 

[Sahar]

First of all: is it non-Islamic? I don't typically hear the call to prayers around here, but I just found out that the local Muslim centre performs it over the radio. Is that not allowed?

Broadcasting the call for prayers by mosques is essential. Airing the adhan and prayers on TV and radio is another thing.

Second: I think you're comparing apples to oranges. On the one hand, some secular countries have rules against broadcasting the call to prayer over loudspeakers, but this is for a justifiable reason: the disturbance this represents to non-Muslims.

Yet, it would not be the case in an Islamic country. And non Muslims will have to bear the disturbance.

On the other hand, some nominally Muslim governments will execute people for "crimes" like sorcery and apostasy. Do you really think these are equivalent?

Sorry, my context went into becoming general and discussing general and various ideas.
But I'd like to say, if Muslim governments will execute people for these reason (whether we agreed or not), they are applied on MUSLIMS. If Muslims believe that adultery is a crime and punished those who committed such crimes, sorry you have no say in this. And we are not going to ask the adulterer if he want to be punished or not. If you think that adultery should be practiced freely, dude you are free to think whatever you want, if you are happy to see it this way where you live, okay but you can't expect Muslims to run their lives according to what makes you happy.

I don't know, some Westerners are very arrogant, they are expecting Muslims to view life through their eyes. And if they don't, they are not modern and civilized like them.

 

[Sahar]

What if the secular system doesn't represent the people's will?

What do you think, Penguin?