Should ex-Muslims be killed for renouncing their religion?

[Vishvavajra]

Christians don't go by the reasonings of men which are as often false as true but by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Ideally, yes. But in reality it's not as simple as that. A whole lot of Christians claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them, and may even genuinely believe it, but they end up following their own base impulses and calling it God.

 

[Looncall]

Christians don't go by the reasonings of men which are as often false as true but by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

How do you go about fact checking this statement?

 

[Nakosis]

How do you go about fact checking this statement?

A person lets a voice in their head do their thinking for them. Some call it the Holy Spirit, others call it introspection. There's only them running around in there. Even non-religious folks talk to themselves on occasion. I imagine calling this the Holy Spirit gives the introspection a little more authority feel to it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I am suddenly very upset that my ancestors were only able to sack & burn a handful of your cities.

And I'm a bit miffed that neither Alexander nor the Diadochi could extend their empires that far into Arabia. If they had then the tribes dwelling their might have been exposed to civilised societies more directly.

 

[Ashraf]

NBC is reporting that a Saudi man has been sentenced to death for apostasy:

An Islamic court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced a man to death for renouncing his Muslim faith, the English-language daily Saudi Gazette reported on Tuesday. The man, who is aged in his 20s, posted an online video ripping up a copy of Islam's holy book, the Quran, and hitting it with a shoe, the newspaper reported.

The Saudi Gazette has more details:

The General Court has sentenced to death a young Saudi man in his 20s for denouncing Islam as his faith and various other acts of blasphemy, Al-Sharq reported.
A source from the court reported that the convict documented his apostasy by capturing a video and posting it on the social networking site Keek.
The source said: “In the video he cursed God, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his daughter Fatimah and ripped a copy of the Holy Qur’an and hit it with a shoe.
“The death sentence was issued after his apostasy was proven.”

The man was asking for trouble. He could have left his religion without provoking in a very despicable way the whole country. But he chose trouble and he got what he wanted

 

[gsa]

The man was asking for trouble. He could have left his religion without provoking in a very despicable way the whole country. But he chose trouble and he got what he wanted

So he deserves to die ?

Religion of peace indeed.

 

[Cephus]

So he deserves to die ?

Religion of peace indeed.

While I certainly wouldn't say he deserves death, he absolutely acted in a foolish fashion and actions, like it or not, have consequences. Local law states that what he did was illegal and carried a certain penalty. Not liking the law is no excuse for not following the law.

 

[Ingledsva]

The man was asking for trouble. He could have left his religion without provoking in a very despicable way the whole country. But he chose trouble and he got what he wanted

Every person in the world deserves the right to choose their own religion, or none, - and to move to another if they find the one they are in - to be false, and even to tell others why they think so, or did so.

Or should we murder every person in the world whom has given up their religion to become Muslim, and is out there spreading the word of Muhammad??????

*

 

[gsa]

While I certainly wouldn't say he deserves death, he absolutely acted in a foolish fashion and actions, like it or not, have consequences. Local law states that what he did was illegal and carried a certain penalty. Not liking the law is no excuse for not following the law.

Some laws are illegitimate. This one in particular clearly defies the norms embodied in the universal declaration of human rights, and as a UN participant Saudi Arabia is bound by those fundamental guarantees.

There is also something known as civil disobedience, and with unjust laws and regimes that is the only way to bring about change.

 

[Tumah]

I feel like this isn't really a fair question. It's like going into a Buddhist temple and asking if someone should be kicked out of the church for not praying to Jesus.
You're speaking mostly to people who are not Muslim and asking whether Muslim Law should apply. You're probably only going to get one answer.

A better question would be to see how Muslims view it. Those that are more religious and those that are more secular. That's where the question would have some value.

 

[gsa]

I feel like this isn't really a fair question. It's like going into a Buddhist temple and asking if someone should be kicked out of the church for not praying to Jesus.
You're speaking mostly to people who are not Muslim and asking whether Muslim Law should apply. You're probably only going to get one answer.

A better question would be to see how Muslims view it. Those that are more religious and those that are more secular. That's where the question would have some value.

I disagree. It is a fair question. It is only unfair because so many Muslims have a socially unacceptable response to the question. And the question is open to Muslims and non-Muslims, because it affects Muslims and non-Muslims.

If Muslims want to debate the issue in the segregated DIR spaces that's fine too.

 

[Tumah]

I disagree. It is a fair question. It is only unfair because so many Muslims have a socially unacceptable response to the question. And the question is open to Muslims and non-Muslims, because it affects Muslims and non-Muslims.

If Muslims want to debate the issue in the segregated DIR spaces that's fine too.

Whose "social"ly unacceptable?
That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[gsa]

Whose "social"ly unacceptable?
That's what I'm trying to say.

That certainly depends on the context. Probably acceptable in KSA to make this argument, not so much in the broader Anglosphere or elsewhere in the West, where most of the participants (including Muslims) here hail from.

 

[Tumah]

That certainly depends on the context. Probably acceptable in KSA to make this argument, not so much in the broader Anglosphere or elsewhere in the West, where most of the participants (including Muslims) here hail from.

But its not happening in the West, its happening in societies that do deem it "socially" acceptable.

 

[gsa]

But its not happening in the West, its happening in societies that do deem it "socially" acceptable.

True , in the West they are killing people who "mock" their prophet.

But the West (and the East and every non-Islamic region for that matter) also has an interest and say, at least at the international level. If the questions of human rights and freedom of conscience stop at international borders, what is the point of the United Nations and what have we learned since the Second World War?

 

[Tumah]

True , in the West they are killing people who "mock" their prophet.

But the West (and the East and every non-Islamic region for that matter) also has an interest and say, at least at the international level. If the questions of human rights and freedom of conscience stop at international borders, what is the point of the United Nations and what have we learned since the Second World War?

OH, are we pretending that the UN is actually effective at something?

But really though. With out going into objective morality, I don't see how we can impose on another people our values. We can say something like: in order to join our UN, you must first maintain a certain level of human rights. And then punish those that break the rules. But for people that choose to live that way? By what right? Theoretically, knowing SA, history, the ex-Muslim knew the danger he was in and chose not to leave or go to an embassy for refuge. On some level, he was trying to impose his belief that he shouldn't be killed on the people of SA.

 

[gsa]

OH, are we pretending that the UN is actually effective at something?

But really though. With out going into objective morality, I don't see how we can impose on another people our values. We can say something like: in order to join our UN, you must first maintain a certain level of human rights. And then punish those that break the rules. But for people that choose to live that way? By what right? Theoretically, knowing SA, history, the ex-Muslim knew the danger he was in and chose not to leave or go to an embassy for refuge. On some level, he was trying to impose his belief that he shouldn't be killed on the people of SA.

Yes well I prefer that the world not be mired in barbarism. That means some societies need to progress, grow, develop, change. Including KSA.

 

[Tumah]

Yes well I prefer that the world not be mired in barbarism. That means some societies need to progress, grow, develop, change. Including KSA.

And since you prefer it, they must too?

 

[gsa]

And since you prefer it, they must too?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is agreed to in principle by the overwhelming majority of human civilization. This is not my preference alone.

Some criminals prefer to murder and rape. That doesn't mean that we let them set our standards.

 

[Tumah]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is agreed to in principle by the overwhelming majority of human civilization. This is not my preference alone.

Some criminals prefer to murder and rape. That doesn't mean that we let them set our standards.

There is a difference between a decision of the individual and a decision of entire countries. What you are saying is that the majority of civilization get to set the standard on morality. Why?