The qur'an

[Badran]

I think that the knowledge that is not inherent in us does not really play the primary factor in understanding the Quran. Such knowledge does have secondary role to play in certain case for it may supplement or reaffirm what we read in the Quran. However since already has there is a huge historical bias in using outward knowledge for understanding (so much so that this approach is already ingrained in us and creeps in silently anyway), I feel that requirement at the moment is to focus on the primary mode of understanding which is through the heart.

Thank you for the explanation A-ManESL. I think i would pretty much agree with this. The way i see it is that indeed the primary factor would be that which is inherent in us, in addition to the secondary factor, which is the acquirable knowledge. So i think i also understand what you meant in the first post about this, that the primary factor should be our main concern. As for the acquirable knowledge, while secondary, the more it increases, our understanding would too.

Is my understanding correct?

Badran if you have a few hours to spare I would suggest you read Imam Ghazali's autobiography available here. (It is not very long). Imam Ghazali in his quest to understand the true nature of things turned to theology, philosophy and to authoritarianism and after finding them all inadequate (and also after demolishing some of their ideas through books: Islamic philosophy for example never truly recovered after Imam Ghazali's attacks) finally turned towards Sufism. This was what which finally clarified his thoughts.

Regards

Thank you for the recommendation. I will read it as soon as i can.

 

[Godwilling]

Stating an opinion about a book should not be seeing as offensive in a free and democratic country. Books are reviewed the world over without much notice or consequences. The moment you publish a book and sell it, the book becomes the property of the buyer, who can then evaluate it, critique it, and then love it or toss in the garbage if that is the owner's prerogative. If an author does not want his/her book treated as a commodity, then the author should not sell it. Why should any particular book be any different?

Mohammed was illiterate. He could not read or write, and it is well known by Muslims that the Quran was written by third parties. Muslims in North America and Europe are free to believe as they wish. That is not true of most Muslim countries, and Israel where the majority religion imposes their beliefs on the minorities in various ways and degrees.

As long as we are all willing to tolerate all views on our religious books, we are guarantied the freedom to hold our own opinion about our own religious books. The moment we attempt to dictate views on our religious books, we introduce the possibility that others may dictate their views to us on our own religious books.

Believers attach meanings to their religious books (even those who cannot read) that others could not find in those books no matter how hard they try. Those meanings given by believers do not define those religious books. They define the believers.

 

[TJ73]

Stating an opinion about a book should not be seeing as offensive in a free and democratic country. Books are reviewed the world over without much notice or consequences. The moment you publish a book and sell it, the book becomes the property of the buyer, who can then evaluate it, critique it, and then love it or toss in the garbage if that is the owner's prerogative. If an author does not want his/her book treated as a commodity, then the author should not sell it. Why should any particular book be any different?

Mohammed was illiterate. He could not read or write, and it is well known by Muslims that the Quran was written by third parties. Muslims in North America and Europe are free to believe as they wish. That is not true of most Muslim countries, and Israel where the majority religion imposes their beliefs on the minorities in various ways and degrees.

As long as we are all willing to tolerate all views on our religious books, we are guarantied the freedom to hold our own opinion about our own religious books. The moment we attempt to dictate views on our religious books, we introduce the possibility that others may dictate their views to us on our own religious books.

Believers attach meanings to their religious books (even those who cannot read) that others could not find in those books no matter how hard they try. Those meanings given by believers do not define those religious books. They define the believers.

Being offended is as much a part of free speech as tolerance is. I can be offended, you could be offended .You may also debate their criticisms and assert your opinion. but at the end of the day you both get to go home without sentence. And that's what happens here.

 

[Starsoul]

Am i allowed a bit of free speech?

What a Rant thread i swear, Auto's posts are the most obnoxious nasty anti-Islamic rubbish of all and I'm amazed at how much the amount of lying/bullying she gets away with, (oh is it only because she trashes religion out of self pity or self preserverence? or Athiests know nothing better besides feeling so miserable about religion ?, poor souls tsk tsk,)

You actually have the intelligence to burn your intellect on the religion you trash all the time, go ahead, do it till you turn to dust, if religion was such a lack of intellect, self acclaimed Intelligent people like you would not waste their time or energies in bashing it over and over like a stuck record, an athiest cannot sell his lame idiotic perception of a religion to a believer,

so please save yourself some grace and try working on improving your obvious deranged wobbly loon-like rants, so bad for health to hate something for such a long time hahah )

 

[England my lionheart]

Apostate (Mirtad),there are two types,fitri and milli,Murtad fitri is a Muslim born into the faith and then rejects Islam,of the two this is the most grievious and the punishment,whether he repents or not is death as its seen as Treason against God.

Murtad milli is a convert to Islam who then rejects Islam which is seen as Treason to the Muslim community,he is given a chance to repent,if he does he lives if not he dies but if he escapes he should not be pursued,In regards to Women the sentence is life imprisonment.

The above is pretty much agreed by both Shia and Sunni Jurists,at the time of Muhammed and the early Caliphs it is understandable that they would come down hard on the Tribes that turned away from Islam which was called Waq atu r-ridda "the event of Apostacy.

There is no mention of punishment for Apostacy in the Qur'an other than in the hereafter,now heres the crux of the matter,if anything contradicts the Qur'an it cannot be correct ,true? yet the ahadith and Sharia say otherwise.

One thing that has always puzzled me about Muslims,if the Qur'an was sent down as a clear message in which your God never mentions the need for the ahadith or Sunnah,the hadith causes many problems,which ones are authentic etc,i've posted stuff like Sahih Bakhari to be told its not authentic because it contradicts the Qur'an,many hadith contradict the Qur'an but are still responsible for some horrendous killings.

These ahadith IMO should be viewed in the context of the age they were witten,they have no revelance in todays world,killing someone because they changed their faith is so wrong,killing someone by the slow process of stoning is pretty disgusting.

 

[Autodidact]

I disagree one is inherently more evil, but good thing no such thing is prescribed in Islam for either case.

Then why bring up racism, since it makes no difference.

However, I believe the qur'an does prohibit capturing Muslims into slavery, while permitting non-Muslims to be captured, so I disagree with your characterization of the qur'an.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to look at their post-colonial history...

Then why did you raise the issue of colonialism?

No it's embarrassing because it aptly shows you know absolutely nothing of the claims you make. It is embarrassing because Shariah law is implemented in India and yet you try and paint the picture as if Islam hindered Pakistan. It is embarrassing that such a person would openly reveal their ignorance.

Surely you're not asking us to believe that India practices Sharia law in the same manner as Pakistan?

Asking a question I clearly answered IS an explicit admission that you did not read my post.

Which question is that?

I'm still waiting for an answer to the simple question: Slavery--are you in favor, or against. As a non-Muslim, this question is trivially easy to answer. As a Muslim, you seem to find it difficult.

Are you really this thick?

Can you really not discuss something in an adult manner without resorting to insults?

Yes, I'm really so thick that at this point I have no idea what your position is. You seem to be arguing that at some point Islam would prohibit slavery, and your position is "the same as Islam," so is it your position that at some point slavery should be outlawed, but not yet?

Of course I do. So why don't you go through my post and tell me where the hadith and verses are wrong.

Of course you disagree that there has been 14 centuries of Muslim slave trade? Of course you disagree that Islamic authorities have prescribed slavery as a punishment for disbelief?

[SIZE=-1]33.50: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those [slaves] whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her -- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1] Abu Bakr, (Hadith) "I have been ordered to fight the people until they profess that there is no god but God and that Mohammad is the messenger of God"[/SIZE]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]According to Ibn Khaldun, the captives were “brought from the House of War to the House of Islam under the rule of slavery, which hides in itself a divine providence; cured by slavery, they enter the Muslim religion with the firm resolve of true believers…”
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Ibn Khaldun; Ibar, trs. by Bernard Lewis in Islam, 98.

[/FONT]Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:Sahih Bukhari 1:8:36
We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.'

So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home. The Messenger took some people captive, including Safiyah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself.
Tabari VIII 116, See also: Ishaq 511

 

[Autodidact]

I thought the thread is about Qura'n, and not about what mistakes Muslims have done for centuries.
I do agree that Muslims had done miserable and unprovoked acts, but what this has to do with Qur'an or Islam.

What is has to do is that the Qur'an, which is supposed to be the Muslim's guidance from God, permits it. The prophet, whom Muslims are supposed to emulate, captured, bought, sold and owned slaves.

It is not odd that Muslims find justification for it, it is the fact that some of them wanted to do it. Parallel to this, they could manipulate the meaning of verses to fit and rationalize their own interest, in addition do not forget that Islamic scholars during that time were hindered and not permitted to say the truth. If they tried to point to the leaders that what they were doing is wrong and not allowed in Islam, they would end up in prison if they were lucky. Otherwise, they would be beheaded certainly.

Are you trying to claim that the Qur'an or hadith somewhere do prohibit slavery? Where?

I agree, but I don't think its Muslim's problem if non-Muslims do not want to understand. They should look around them to see that these things happened everywhere, not only in Islamic history.

the ever popular Muslims, "But Johnny does it too," defense.

"Things happening" are not supposed to be the equivalent of God telling His messenger on earth what he wants of us. Apparently, according to the Qur'an, the prophet and the hadith, He wants us to capture infidels and enslave them.

 

[Autodidact]

Am i allowed a bit of free speech?

What a Rant thread i swear, Auto's posts are the most obnoxious nasty anti-Islamic rubbish of all and I'm amazed at how much the amount of lying/bullying she gets away with, (oh is it only because she trashes religion out of self pity or self preserverence? or Athiests know nothing better besides feeling so miserable about religion ?, poor souls tsk tsk,)

Then you should have no problem showing where I have lied. You may begin any time.

You actually have the intelligence to burn your intellect on the religion you trash all the time, go ahead, do it till you turn to dust, if religion was such a lack of intellect, self acclaimed Intelligent people like you would not waste their time or energies in bashing it over and over like a stuck record, an athiest cannot sell his lame idiotic perception of a religion to a believer,

What? You seem to be saying that if religion is wrong, why do I bother saying so? Does that make any sense to you?

so please save yourself some grace and try working on improving your obvious deranged wobbly loon-like rants, so bad for health to hate something for such a long time hahah )

I ask my readers to judge which is more of a deranged wobbly loon-like rant, my OP or this post.

 

[Starsoul]

Apostate (Mirtad),there are two types,fitri and milli,Murtad fitri is a Muslim born into the faith and then rejects Islam,of the two this is the most grievious and the punishment,whether he repents or not is death as its seen as Trason against God.

Murtad milli is a convert to Islam who then rejects Islam which is seen as Treason to the Muslim community,he is given a chance to repent,if he does he lives if not he dies but if he escapes he should not be pursued,In regards to Women the sentence is life imprisonment.

The above is pretty much agreed by both Shia and Sunni Jurists,at the time of Muhammed and the early Caliphs it is understandable that they would come down hard on the Tribes that turned away from Islam which was called Waq atu r-ridda "the event of Apostacy.

There is no mention of punishment for Apostacy in the Qur'an other than in the hereafter,now heres the crux of the matter,if anything contradicts the Qur'an it cannot be correct ,true? yet the ahadith and Sharia say otherwise.

One thing that has always puzzled me about Muslims,if the Qur'an was sent down as a clear message in which your God never mentions the need for the ahadith or Sunnah,the hadith causes many problems,which ones are authentic etc,i've posted stuff like Sahih Bakhari to be told its not authentic because it contradicts the Qur'an,many hadith contradict the Qur'an but are still responsible for some horrendous killings.

These ahadith IMO should be viewed in the context of the age they were witten,they have no revelance in todays world,killing someone because they changed their faith is so wrong,killing someone by the slow process of stoning is pretty disgusting.

(This post is ONLY directed to the above post, I'm not looking to participate in any trashy Thread, or reply to any trashy poster. Thank you.)

England, There are many things that are not detailed in the Quran, the description of which are found in Sahih Hadith, and these things are many. And that enhances the importance of Hadith. But a sahih Hadith Never contradicts with the Quran. I can discuss the importance of that later, with my limited know how.

The whole concept of punishment can Never be understood if one is not from that faith or from their families, or the societies that have actually suffered greatly at the hands of the conspirational overthrowing elements that the apostates posed to the muslims. For instance, Apostates have always been invloved in murder and instigating huge evil riots ( fitna) creating massive schemes against the prominent muslims and their leaders ( quoting history of old times) which caused heavy loss of innocent lives to the muslims.

If faith operates on the knowledge of Allah, he KNOWS who, is going to do what next. And the predictable repetitive pattern of apostates's severe enimity was evident even at that time, their punishment was for the safety of innocent Muslims, and the practice of apostasy's punishment was similar in Judaism and Christianity.

All apostates indulge in anti-religion enimity through one way or the other.

Besides, why doesn't anyone ever discuss that CHRISTIANITY and JUDAISM both have texts that call for punishment of the apostates with Death? If these two religions happily claim to 'progress'with the society/world at large after renovating their religious text in harmony with their own desires with every turn of the century, why would God send another text which was claimed never to be changed. (And since i am only trying to clarify things here, I'm not up for an argument, i know you don't believe in any of it all, i honestly just don't understand the point of useless commentary over something that 'some' people don't even like, for instance i really dislike alcohol, do people see me going on and on, thread after thread, about why XYZ are having it all the time and killing people under influence and committing suicide/rape etc?)

People at large don't have much self-interest in executing people, that is the general human sentiment everywhere. But, when people used to hesitate to implement these punishments upon the convicts even in the old days, they were reminded of the verses which Entitle all mercy to the Almighty, where it is said that ' do people consider themselves of having more mercy than the Almighty?

The concept of punishment is ' washing away all that person's sins completely so that he can enter heaven all sinless on they day of judgment', a limited punishment Vs eternal torment DUE to lack of limited punishment is more unbearable. Depriving him of that punishment is depriving him of the final mercy of Almighty , which according to some kinder spirits of today, is brutal. But , In the eyes of God, it is his last chance to heaven, and letting him go of that last chance, is actually really brutal. It all comes down to Belief in One God and the concept of heaven and hell, None of it goes without the other.

Similarly, there were instances where a person was accused of offering a bit more punishment than was actually sanctioned by the word of God, it was then said," Do people think that they outsmart (grow) in their anger more than the Almighty?"

Historically, both Judaism and Christianity harshly punished apostasy as well, while the non-Abrahamic religions tend to deal with apostasy less strictly. The 'old/new age' ommittances from and additions to religious text is only a human interference with the law of God, a non-beliver will never understand it. To understand all of the it, one has to understand everything rather just distant portions of things.

Judaism
In the Hebrew Bible, apostasy is equated with rebellion against God, His Law, and and worshiping any god other than the Hebrew deity, Yahweh. The penalty for apostasy in Deuteronomy 13:1-10 is death.

"That prophet or that dreamer (who leads you to worship of other gods) shall be put to death, because… he has preached apostasy from The Lord your God… If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods… do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him… You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God.


Here are several examples where strict punishment was indeed given to those who caused the Israelites to violate their faith in Yahweh alone.

When the Hebrews were about to enter Canaan, Israelite men were reportedly led to worship the local deity Baal-Peor by Moabite and Midianite women. One of these men was slain together with his Midianite wife by the priest Phinehas (Numbers 25). The Midianite crime was considered so serious that Moses launched a war of extermination against them.

Apostates in the State of Israel are forbidden to marry other Jews.

In CHRISTIANITY

Torture was freely employed to extract confessions and to encourage recantations. Apostates and schismatics were not only excommunicated from the Church but persecuted by the state.

Apostasy on a grand scale took place several times. The “Great Schism” between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism in the eighth century resulted in mutual excommunication. The Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century further divided Christian against Christian. Sectarian groups often claimed to have recovered the authentic faith and practice of the New Testament Church, thereby relegating rival versions of Christianity to the status of apostasy.

Now, the Romans after decades of warfare in Europe, Christian tradition gradually came to accept the principle of tolerance and religious freedom. Today, no major Christian denomination calls for legal sanctions against those who apostasize, although some denominations do excommunicate those who turn to other faiths, and some groups still practice shunning


Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Apostasy

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi Abibi,

In response to your comments on slavery and the Qur'an:

1. As I already said, I'm not disagreeing with you about the remarkable racism and barbarism practiced against black and Native American slaves by the Spanish, Americans, and so on. There is absolutely no equivalence between these forms of racist or religious slavery, and the form of slavery condoned by the Qur'an.
2. I'm also not disagreeing with you that, as far as non-abolitionist philosophies go, what is written in the Qur'an and perhaps what was practiced early in Islam was an enormous step forward, at the time.
3. However, I am pointing out that slavery in antiquity did not always have the magnitude of brutality as the later Atlantic slave trade. Slavery in many societies (Pagan, Greek, Jewish, Egyptian, Native American) did not generally include any idea of racial superiority. This doesn't change your basic conclusion, it's just interesting to consider one case, for example, ancient Athens. It might interest you to know that in ancient Athens, slaves were welcomed as members of the family and the law forbade the killing or even the striking of slaves. It was also tolerated for slaves to insult their masters. It was illegal to rape a slave or a citizen. They were given religious freedom and invited to participate in important ceremonies, they could not be executed without trial, they owned their own businesses or performed domestic chores for the family, they could claim asylum at a temple just as free men could. Slaves were often very loyal to their families, for example a Persian slave famously helped the Athenians against an army of Persians. Slaves could purchase their freedom 1,000 years before the idea of "mukatabah". Athenian slaves fought together with free men in famous battles and were memorialized in monuments. When the city was under siege citizens were expected to save their women, children, and slaves.
4. I am skeptical of your view of Islamic slavery. You make it sound like "slaves" were equivalent to prisoners of war (even the females? even the children? even the ones that were bought, not captured in battle?) Undoubtedly the Muslims were attacked, as were the Greeks and Romans and Persians. Many societies obtained their slaves primarily through victory in warfare, not just the early Muslims. (One wonders how many times the aggression of an enemy has been exaggerated in the version of history written by the victors, and how many times the decision to sack a city was influenced by the promise of slaves and "war booty" as well as for defense.) My main problem is that you haven't supplied many actual quotes from the Qur'an (which is the topic) or the hadith, and the quotes we have seen either do not support your view, or contradict it.

Let me expand on point #4 by responding to your comments:

By the definition of slavery:
Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages. ...

This certainly does not sound like the system of "slavery" that was practiced under the Ummah.

To me this sounds exactly like the definition of slavery according to the Qur'an. Let's break it down. First, the Qur'an recognizes that a slave is property:

[16.75] Allah sets forth a parable: (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from Ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? [emphasis added]
​

That makes sense since this has always been part of the definition of "slave" throughout history. The Qur'an also refers to "those whom your right hands possess". This implies ownership of a person by force. You quoted a hadith which says we should not "overburden" our slaves. There's no need to say this if the slaves aren't performing any labor.

Does the Qur'an acknowledge that you can compel your slaves to do things? Well, look at this verse:

[24.33] ... and do not compel yourslave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life;
​

Why is it necessary to say that you may not compel your slave girls to do a specific task (prostitution), when it is already understood that you cannot compel slaves to do anything against their will, at all? According to the picture you painted, these "slave girls" were subdued and captured on the battlefield, and they cannot be released or they will destroy the helpless Ummah. They must be very dangerous girls, indeed. On the other hand, the common-sense interpretation of the text and it's historical context, is that you cannot compel your slave girls to prostitution, but it is still understood that you may compel them to do other forms of labor.

The Qur'an also talks about how freeing slaves is an act of generosity:

[90.12] And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is?
[90.13] (It is) the setting free of a slave,
[90.14] Or the giving of food in a day of hunger
​

How do you "free" someone who cannot be held against their will? If slaves cannot be deprived of their right to leave, then they cannot be set "free" because they are already free. So clearly the Qur'an recognizes that slaves can be held against their will and they can be deprived of their right to leave.

Conclusion: "slaves" in the Qur'an are indeed slaves, by the definition you provided, which also would have been roughly the definition understood at the time: slaves are property, they perform labor, they can be compelled by force, they do not have the right to leave.

 

[Autodidact]

The whole concept of punishment can Never be understood if one is not from that faith or from their families,

It's true. Only a Muslim could understand why someone should be killed for their beliefs.

or the societies that have actually suffered greatly at the hands of the conspirational overthrowing elements that the apostates posed to the muslims. For instance, Apostates have always been invloved in murder and instigating huge evil riots ( fitna) creating massive schemes against the prominent muslims and their leaders ( quoting history of old times) which caused heavy loss of innocent lives to the muslims.

Slander, anyone?

If these spurious allegations were true, then why not punish them for those crimes?

Try this thought experiment. A boy is raised Muslim. He thinks hard, and decides there is no God. He posts as his facebook status: "I no longer believe there is a God." That is his only action. Does he deserve to be killed?

If faith operates on the knowledge of Allah, he KNOWS who, is going to do what next. And the predictable repetitive pattern of apostates's severe enimity was evident even at that time, their punishment was for the safety of innocent Muslims,

Muslims have to be protected from someone merely for believing differently from them?

and the practice of apostasy's punishment was similar in Judaism and Christianity.

There's that everpresent Muslim cry of "But Johnny does it to." When was the last time you heard of someone being executed or threatened with execution for leaving Judaism or Christianity, by the way?

All apostates indulge in anti-religion enimity through one way or the other.

Anti-religion enmity is punishable by death? I hate religion. Do I deserve to die?

Besides, why doesn't anyone ever discuss that CHRISTIANITY and JUDAISM both have texts that call for punishment of the apostates with Death? If these two religions happily claim to 'progress'with the society/world at large after renovating their religious text in harmony with their own desires with every turn of the century, why would God send another text which was claimed never to be changed. (And since i am only trying to clarify things here, I'm not up for an argument, i know you don't believe in any of it all, i honestly just don't understand the point of useless commentary over something that 'some' people don't even like, for instance i really dislike alcohol, do people see me going on and on, thread after thread, about why XYZ are having it all the time and killing people under influence and committing suicide/rape etc?)

Because no one is trying to bring you under the dominion of alcohol drinkers, or force you to drink alcohol or pay a tax for failing to do so, obviously.

People at large don't have much self-interest in executing people, that is the general human sentiment everywhere. But, when people used to hesitate to implement these punishments upon the convicts even in the old days, they were reminded of the verses which Entitle all mercy to the Almighty, where it is said that ' do people consider themselves of having more mercy than the Almighty?

Got you. Islam is anti-mercy.

The concept of punishment is ' washing away all that person's sins completely so that he can enter heaven all sinless on they day of judgment', a limited punishment Vs eternal torment DUE to lack of limited punishment is more unbearable. Depriving him of that punishment is depriving him of the final mercy of Almighty , which according to some kinder spirits of today, is brutal. But , In the eyes of God, it is his last chance to heaven, and letting him go of that last chance, is actually really brutal. It all comes down to Belief in One God and the concept of heaven and hell, None of it goes without the other.

This is just plain sickening, and in itself, with nothing else in this thread, provides justification for every decent person of any religion to oppose Islam with every breath in their bodies. If you can't see why, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Judaism
In the Hebrew Bible, apostasy is equated with rebellion against God, His Law, and and worshiping any god other than the Hebrew deity, Yahweh. The penalty for apostasy in Deuteronomy 13:1-10 is death.

Notice any Jews trying to enforce this lately?

In CHRISTIANITY

Torture was freely employed to extract confessions and to encourage recantations. Apostates and schismatics were not only excommunicated from the Church but persecuted by the state.

Apostasy on a grand scale took place several times. The “Great Schism” between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism in the eighth century resulted in mutual excommunication. The Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century further divided Christian against Christian. Sectarian groups often claimed to have recovered the authentic faith and practice of the New Testament Church, thereby relegating rival versions of Christianity to the status of apostasy.

Now, the Romans after decades of warfare in Europe, Christian tradition gradually came to accept the principle of tolerance and religious freedom. Today, no major Christian denomination calls for legal sanctions against those who apostasize, although some denominations do excommunicate those who turn to other faiths, and some groups still practice shunning[/quote]


I thought you were going to cite all those Christian verses calling for execution of apostates. Unless you were just wrong?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Fredrick Douglas didn't say to treat slaves fairly because the treatment of slaves in American and Europe was horrendous. He demanded their freedom. Their freedom from working like cattle.

Have you read his autobiographical work, Narrative of Frederick Douglass? Because you have completely missed the point of his argument. While Douglass did decry the cattle-like working conditions of many slaves, his argument against slavery was much stronger than "freedom from working like cattle". He argued for freedom from any kind of slavery, at all. Douglass himself was brought as a child to a well-to-do family, to be a playmate for their white son. He reports that he was well-fed and taken care of, he was better off than many of the poor white boys in the town, who became his close friends. He ran errands and did chores and the mother even began teaching him how to read, and treating him, at first, the way any mother treats a small boy. Nevertheless, he still was not free, he still was a slave, and that position would never allow him to be treated as a full and equal human being. He didn't have a future of cattle-like manual work ahead of him, but he also didn't have a future of equal opportunity and choice as the white son of the family. Sub-human treatment is still wrong even if it does not descend to the level of animal-like treatment.

Islam never ascribed that system to begin with. There was no system of "manual work" for economic gain pure and simple.

I wonder what the slaves were doing then ... watching TV?

And when a slave had shown his willingness to be a peaceful helpful member of society he was freed.

You have not quoted any part of the Qur'an which says this.

 

[Autodidact]

I wonder what the slaves were doing then ... watching TV?

Domestic servants and sex slaves. That's why most Muslim slaves were female.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Abibi you also mentioned many slaves converted to Islam, this could be due to the qualities of Islam but it could also be due to the fact that the Qur'an gives preferential treatment to believing slaves. When the non-believing slaves saw their believing brothers and sisters in bondage being freed (for example as payment after an accidental killing) they probably had motive to convert.

 

[England my lionheart]

(This post is ONLY directed to the above post, I'm not looking to participate in any trashy Thread, or reply to any trashy poster. Thank you.)

England, There are many things that are not detailed in the Quran, the description of which are found in Sahih Hadith, and these things are many. And that enhances the importance of Hadith. But a sahih Hadith Never contradicts with the Quran. I can discuss the importance of that later, with my limited know how.

Maybe theres another thread for that as i disagree

The whole concept of punishment can Never be understood if one is not from that faith or from their families, or the societies that have actually suffered greatly at the hands of the conspirational overthrowing elements that the apostates posed to the muslims. For instance, Apostates have always been invloved in murder and instigating huge evil riots ( fitna) creating massive schemes against the prominent muslims and their leaders ( quoting history of old times) which caused heavy loss of innocent lives to the muslims.

As i said,i understand why it was done then,i just cannot see any excuse for it now with all the knowledge we should have accrued to date.

If faith operates on the knowledge of Allah, he KNOWS who, is going to do what next. And the predictable repetitive pattern of apostates's severe enimity was evident even at that time, their punishment was for the safety of innocent Muslims, and the practice of apostasy's punishment was similar in Judaism and Christianity.

All apostates indulge in anti-religion enimity through one way or the other.

Besides, why doesn't anyone ever discuss that CHRISTIANITY and JUDAISM both have texts that call for punishment of the apostates with Death? If these two religions happily claim to 'progress'with the society/world at large after renovating their religious text in harmony with their own desires with every turn of the century, why would God send another text which was claimed never to be changed. (And since i am only trying to clarify things here, I'm not up for an argument, i know you don't believe in any of it all, i honestly just don't understand the point of useless commentary over something that 'some' people don't even like, for instance i really dislike alcohol, do people see me going on and on, thread after thread, about why XYZ are having it all the time and killing people under influence and committing suicide/rape etc?)

Its not the same though,everybody should be free to choose,there is "no compulsion in religion" thats what its says in the Qur'an and thats how it should be.

People at large don't have much self-interest in executing people, that is the general human sentiment everywhere. But, when people used to hesitate to implement these punishments upon the convicts even in the old days, they were reminded of the verses which Entitle all mercy to the Almighty, where it is said that ' do people consider themselves of having more mercy than the Almighty?

The concept of punishment is ' washing away all that person's sins completely so that he can enter heaven all sinless on they day of judgment', a limited punishment Vs eternal torment DUE to lack of limited punishment is more unbearable. Depriving him of that punishment is depriving him of the final mercy of Almighty , which according to some kinder spirits of today, is brutal. But , In the eyes of God, it is his last chance to heaven, and letting him go of that last chance, is actually really brutal. It all comes down to Belief in One God and the concept of heaven and hell, None of it goes without the other.

For obvious reasons i can't agree with this

Similarly, there were instances where a person was accused of offering a bit more punishment than was actually sanctioned by the word of God, it was then said," Do people think that they outsmart (grow) in their anger more than the Almighty?"

Historically, both Judaism and Christianity harshly punished apostasy as well, while the non-Abrahamic religions tend to deal with apostasy less strictly. The 'old/new age' ommittances from and additions to religious text is only a human interference with the law of God, a non-beliver will never understand it. To understand all of the it, one has to understand everything rather just distant portions of things.


Historically my Country has suffered enough from Christianity,sure i know of the things written in those scriptures,the difference is they don't do it now,thats really all that matters.

The whole idea that a Human being would contemplate killing someone because they no longer believe in a religion and then dig a hole and throw stones at them till they die a slow death so they may enter Heaven or have another chance is just beyond my comprehension.

 

[croak]

Because, as I say, Muslims and Muslims countries are disproportionately represented among the most miserable, impoverished, oppressed (by their Muslims leaders) and least happy people in the world. I can provide statistics if you like. Overall, the happiest, most prosperous and free people live in secular democracies.

I wouldn't disagree.

I think it is causation, because we can see the connection. Islam draws its culture from the past. It has not caught up to more successful, modern approaches. It disdains democracy. It obliterates individual liberty. And IMO crucially, it oppresses women. What we see the world over is that the better a society is for women, the happier and more prosperous it is for everyone.

If you can only think it on the basis of a perceived connection, I don't think it can be anything but just another correlation.

You would be mistaken.

Of course. But why wouldn a person saying that the Qur'an was responsible for the suffering of Muslims not be mistaken?

Who knows. It's hard to say, as well as irrelevant. I would put much more emphasis on the Enlightenment.

Public hospitals, public libraries, universities... even something as basic as paper.
Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The introduction of Greek philosophy and science into the culture of the Latin West in the Middle Ages was an event that transformed the intellectual life of Western Europe. It consisted of the discovery of many original works, such as those written by Aristotle in the classical period, commentaries on his works written in late Antiquity, and commentaries from early Muslim philosophers in the Arab world, or Muslim world, written during the Islamic Golden Age from the ninth to twelfth centuries.

Transmission of the Classics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean, really, without the Islamic Golden Age, you wouldn't have had the Renaissance, and so you clearly would not have had the Enlightment. Sure, Europe could have progressed without the sharing of knowledge, I'm sure, but I'm also pretty sure that, considering that they would be starting from scratch, rather than with the help of several centuries of knowledge, they would have needed a lot longer.

Basically, I think it is very relevant.

Meanwhile, in the modern world, Islam is overwhelmingly a force that contributes to and perpetuates human suffering.

Islam itself, not the dictators and terrorists who purport to adhere to it? Fascinating.

Hard to say. It seems remotely possible. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be moving in that direction.

I guess I think there is a conflict developing now between Conservative, fundamentalist Muslims and those who would like to reform Islam in a modern, secular direction. Unfortunately, Islam is not quite a compatible with this approach as Christianity eventually turned out to be. I guess I still think it's possible, not certainly not inevitable.

How is it not compatible? There are plenty of Muslim Americans, for instance, who don't go around blowing themselves up. In fact, most of the people in the Muslim world don't. Most people just want to live their lives.

Barely.

At least a 20% difference.

Would there were more countries that take this approach.

That I hope.

First, we also observe that Muslim countries are among the most violent and war torn in the world. Second, I can't think of a reason that a war against the Taliban would repress freedom to criticize Islam, can you?

The fact that the Taliban are still around and don't appreciate criticism? also, the fact that people usually keep their heads down and try not to attract attention during wartime. It's just common sense.

To be continued....

 

[croak]

And continued:

And then there's Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan...The correlation is extremely high. Either misery causes Islam, or Islam causes misery. Or possibly there is a third factor that causes both, but I have no idea what that might be.

Maybe that third factor is actually an amalgam of factors?

A good comparison is India to Pakistan. Which one is more prosperous, more free, and happier? Which has made the most progress? Which is not Muslim? Do you think it's mere coincidence?

Historical events?

From 1947 to 1956, Pakistan was a Dominion of Pakistan in the Commonwealth of Nations. It became a Republic in 1956, but the civilian rule was stalled by a coup d’état by General Ayub Khan, who was president during 1958–69, a period of internal instability and a second war with India in 1965. His successor, Yahya Khan (1969–71) had to deal with a devastating cyclone—which caused 500,000 deaths in East Pakistan—and also face a civil war in 1971. Economic grievances and political dissent in East Pakistan led to violent political tension and military repression that escalated into a civil war.[36] After nine months of guerrilla warfare between the Pakistan Army and the Indian backed Bengali Mukti Bahini militia, Indian intervention escalated into the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and ultimately to the secession of East Pakistan as the independent state of Bangladesh.[37]

Civilian rule resumed in Pakistan from 1972 to 1977 under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, until he was deposed and later sentenced to death in 1979 by General Zia-ul-Haq, who became the country's third military president. Zia introduced the Islamic Sharia legal code, which increased religious influences on the civil service and the military. With the death of President Zia in a plane crash in 1988, Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was elected as the first female Prime Minister of Pakistan. Over the next decade, she fought for power with Nawaz Sharif as the country's political and economic situation worsened. Pakistan got involved in the 1991 Gulf War and sent 5,000 troops as part of a U.S.-led coalition, specifically for the defence of Saudi Arabia.[38]

Military tensions in the Kargil conflict with India were followed by a Pakistani military coup d'état in 1999 in which General Pervez Musharraf assumed vast executive powers.[39][40] In 2001, Musharraf became President after the controversial resignation of Rafiq Tarar. After the 2002 parliamentary elections, Musharraf transferred executive powers to the newly elected Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali, who was succeeded in the 2004 prime-ministerial election by Shaukat Aziz. On 15 November 2007, the National Assembly, for the first time in Pakistan's history, completed its tenure and new elections were called. The exiled political leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were permitted to return to Pakistan. However, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto during the election campaign in December led to postponement of elections and nationwide riots. Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) won the largest number of seats in the elections held in February 2008 and its member Yousaf Raza Gillani was sworn in as Prime Minister.[41] On 18 August 2008, Pervez Musharraf resigned from the presidency when threatened with impeachment,[42] and was succeeded by current president Asif Ali Zardari. By the end of 2009, more than 3 million Pakistani civilians have been displaced by the on going conflict in North-West Pakistan between the government and Taliban militants.

Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, India doesn't border Afghanistan. That's a bonus.

And as a result, is one of the most prosperous, free, and modern of all Muslim majority countries, especially in that part of the world. Of course, it's government is the least Islamic, isn't it? No coincidence.

Well, secular countries tend not to have religious governments.

Good example. Which African countries are the most impoverished, war-torn, repressive and miserable? Which are the most prosperous, free and happy? Break it down. Again, no coincidence.

I was hoping my questions were straightforward enough. All right, all right. I'll be using List of Muslim majority countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and First, Second, and Third World - Nations Online Project as a reference. (I didn't want to use the deprecated Three Worlds Model, but I wanted to make a quick point. Apparently that didn't work out.)

Muslim majority countries in Africa: Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Tunisia, Guinea, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Libya, Chad, Mauritania, The Gambia, and Djibouti. (18)

First or second world countries in Africa: None. (I thought South Africa counted, but apparently not.)

I hope you're advocating racial superiority. It's not race that makes the difference, it's ideology. After all, Europe went through a horrible, decimating, destroying war. It has recovered, because of its secular, Enlightenment values. The same could happen to any people. It's about culture, values and beliefs, not race.

You hope? I hope you are being sarcastic. Actually, I was trying to get at the influence colonialism and imperialism, among other things, have, but apparently you didn't see that. I'll put up statistics, anyway.

Muslim majority countries that were part of the Soviet Union: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. (4)

Former states that are first or second world: I shot myself in the foot with this one. By default they are second world, due to having been part of the Soviet Union. If you don't mind, I'll refer to the Human Development Index (HDI) from now on.

Former states that have a high HDI (based on a top 30 list, which I know is somewhat restrictive): None.

Muslim majority countries that are former colonies, formerly under occupation, or were part of an empire (let's say in the past century or so): Am I allowed to say nearly all of them?

Countries with a high HDI outside of Europe that are not ruled by European descendants/have a large population of them (based on a top 30 list): Hong Kong, Singapore, Barbados (the latter two are part of the Commonwealth, though). (3).

As for why Europe recovered: I think the United States played a bigger role, with various loans and especially with the Marshall Plan. Then again, this is not my field of expertise.

It was and is not about race. It was and is definitely about economics. Culture, values, and beliefs can take a side seat, for the most part.

No relationship there. Switzerland, Finland, Germany, Spain, even Japen are resource poor compared to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, even Nigeria. Where is there freedom and relative happiness? Where is there repression and suffering?

Aha, you totally missed my point. I am getting tired of scrounging for statistics, and I have been spending at least two hours on this post, so forgive me for stating it bluntly. I suppose I could back up my claims later.

Most third world countries are resource-wealthy. Most first world countries are resource-poor.

Cont....

 

[croak]

I wish I had faster Internet. By my tail feathers, it's slow.

Final continuation:

I'll throw in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-South_divide

O.K., I'll grab a few.

I should have read the pages I've missed (pretty much every one after this one). If it ends up my thoughts have been stated more eloquently by someone else... well, I hope I learned something by putting two hours into a post.

I take full responsibility for any errors or omissions (so long as they really are my errors and omissions).

 

[savethedreams]

I have posted this topic in another religions site thingy and Koran after getting into Islam has me SCARED TO DEATH. Its not uplifting, after you were realized in a christian belief that god is love, and go into Buddhism. Islam doesn't have that same feeling. Its quite demanding, and it puts down Judaism, and Christianity quite harshly.

islam means submit, and not love. Islam is not a religion of peace, there no where in tHE quran that suggest that in an open view, on in 'peace with in ourselves'....... i'll pass and serve one god who is not a idol or human and is loving. Islam is not that.

 

[Sahar]

I just want to correct an ignorant statement; the wife doesn't need a reason to get divorce and it's called in this case khul'.