What is the punishment for converting from Islam?

[Estro Felino]

Again this kind of speeches full of twisting and lies are much disrespected, however they should not be punished by any means since they are just words not including summoning for any military act.

what do you mean by disrespecting them?
in secular western countries there is the freedom of speech. So any speech is supposed to be respected.

You can say : "I respect your view, but I don't agree with you, because I think that what you say is false"

That's what I call respect

 

[Estro Felino]

I refuted some of the lies she said in the former post



What is the punishment for converting from Islam? | Page 2 | ReligiousForums.com



I continue to clear up these fakes



She Said that the prophet invented Islam to preserve the Arabian culture in opposition to the Christian and Jewish Culture, This is a complete lie.

For more than 14 years the fight was only between the prophet and the Arabian pagans

The fight did not come to Jews until Jews betrayed the Muslims state, hence trying to murder the prophet, and trying to kill Muslims women ad children as illustrated before.

The fight did not come to Christians until the “Ghasasena” Killed the messenger of the prophet, then afterwards they along with the Byzatines prepared an army to conquer medina and kill all Muslims.

Islam came with a system that is against many crimes that had been constantly done in the Arabian culture.

So what was the origin of the fight between the prophet and the pagans?, to understand this we must understand the economic religious system of those pagans.

Pagans knew that Prophet Ibrahim “Abraham” with his son “Ismail” had built the Kabaa to worship God, They knew God the one the only which meant in the Arabic Language Allah. But with this they believed in many Sub-Gods or Idols, these were introduced to the Arabian culture after the death of Prophet Ibrahim and Ismail by many years. The Pagans believed that these Idols are the mediators between them and God.

But this is not the real reason why they fought the prophet, you see, after hundreds of years of worshipping Idols, the Idols around the Kabaa in Mecca were not just for worship, they were economical treaties, yes every Arabian tribe Idol around the kabaa was a treaty between “Quraish” and that particular tribe to secure the trade caravans of Quraish carrying goods and trade to Syria, Iraq, Palestine, in the north where the Byzantine Roman empire and the Persian Empire were, and to south to Yemen.

So then prophet Muhammad comes with a religion which worships Only God the one the only, and asks them to remove all these Idols first from their hearts then afterwards from around the Kabaa. His only request to them was “Khallo Baynee wa Bayn Alnas” which means”Kindly leave me talk to people, do not prevent people from hearing me”, but “Quraish” feared that if people started believing in Islam that eventually the population in Mecca which will become Muslim will ask to remove the Idols from around the Kabaa, thus destroying the guarantee for the “Quraish” trade caravans security.



So After 13 years of oppression to the Prophet and Muslims in Mekka, Pagan in “Yathreb”: Medina Most of them converted to Islam and agreed willingly to protect the Prophet and Muslims in their country where they formed the majority, Jews tribes were a minority in Medina. Still the Prophet did not oppress them, he signed with hem a treaty called “Sahefa” where they had all religious, cultural, and financial rights. But the Jews were the ones who betrayed this treaty as illustrated before.



Now we get to another lie she said regarding this issue, she said the first military battle between the prophet and Quraish was because the prophet wanted to steal their caravan, what a twist of facts.

The facts are as follows:

1- The about 200 Quraish Muslims in Mekka who immigrated to medina many of them were very wealthy, but Quraish forced them to leave all their money with Quraish leaders in order to allow them to immigrate. With this stolen money from Muslims Quraish prepared a Caravan to Trade with this stolen money and get profit. That was the caravan the prophet attacked.

See how she turns the victim who wants his stolen money back to be the oppressor.

2- Quraish refused to let the Arabian tribes listen to the prophet, even against the advice some of its own older politicians, hence it started to attack the new Muslims state with three wars.

3- When the Muslim state was strong enough to counter attack the prophet did not choose war, else he chose to sign a peace treaty with Quraish which was called “Alhudaybeya” Treaty at year 6 higri, and the holy Quran described this peace treaty as the great “Fath” which means the great opening, while even most Muslims did not understand why it’s an opening. But then they realized the wisdom of the Holy Qur’an and the prophet, Because by this peace treaty the Arabian tribes started listing to Muslims, and in only two years the Muslim numbers were Multiplied by 4.

4- Only when Quraish betrayed and violated this treaty by killing over 20 Muslims in Mekka, some even inside the Kabaa itself, then the prophet attacked Mekka, but even in this attack he managed to surprise them so as not to have to kill anyone, they surrendered and he pardoned them all.







Now we get to another lie she told, she said the prophet had 11 wives along with sex slaves thus implying that he was a sex obsessed person.



Here are the facts:



1- The first marriage of the prophet was with “Khadija”, he was 25 years old, she was 40 years old, he stayed with her without marring any other wife for 25 years till she died, he loved her very dearly.

2- Then for two years he did not mary anyone because he was in grieve by his los in “Khadija”.

3- Then he married Sawda who was old, he married her to honor her because her older husband died in Habasha.

4- Afterwards he Married Aisha who was the daughter of his dearest companion “Abu Bakr”, she had reached puberty, her age is debatable, opinions vary form 9 years old to 21 years old, that is because the Arabs did not concern of registering the age, keep in mind that they grew up much more sooner and earlier than girls of nowadays. While even nowadays some girls reach puberty and grow very early.

The prophet loved Aisha dearly; he even died in her arms.

5- All other marriages were either a humanitarian marriage to honor the widows of a Dead companion, or political marriages to fasten the relation between that particular tribe and the Medina State. All these marriages were in the last 8 years of his life while he was busy by Preaching, politics, defensive wars, etc.







Again this kind of speeches full of twisting and lies are much disrespected, however they should not be punished by any means since they are just words not including summoning for any military act.





Regards,

Mahmoud

The problem is that you don't separate religion from politics.
Religion is something spiritual. It has nothing to do with historical events.
when you decide to separate faith from politics, I will be able to answer you logically

 

[Smart_Guy]

You can say : "...because I think that what you say is false"

That's what I call respect

I don't think saying the above is respectful. Things like "I'm not convinced" sounds better to me. Respect is not just a choice of words, but also a behavior in saying them

Also, spreading lies stating them as facts is disrespectful (generally speaking, I'm not talking about someone specific). I think I get Mahmoud's general point (not necessarily his exact meaning) in this.

Freedom is a good thing, but everything has a limit. We can't claim absolute freedom, otherwise governments (and all of them so far did) wouldn't have put laws.

Remember, harmful riots start with a simple speechs. Simple speeches => protest => riots => properties damage and people hurt.

 

[Estro Felino]

Remember, harmful riots start with a simple speechs. Simple speeches => protest => riots => properties damage and people hurt.

It's like I said that the French Revolution was not something good. It was, actually and it is one of the best achievements in the history of European secularism

I am truly convinced that bad things happen when politics and religion are melt into one ideology. And in fact the worst crimes against humanity were committed when the Church had political power.
that's why I said that secularism is an achievement

 

[melk]

There is no Holocaust, may be the Jamat Preacher was talking about these verses from chapter 17.

4- And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture that, "You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness.


5- So when the [time of] promise came for the first of them, We sent against you servants of Ours - those of great military might, and they probed [even] into the homes, and it was a promise fulfilled.


6- Then We gave back to you a return victory over them. And We reinforced you with wealth and sons and made you more numerous in manpower


7- [And said], "If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, [you do it] to yourselves." Then when the final promise came, [We sent your enemies] to sadden your faces and to enter the temple in Jerusalem, as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had taken over with [total] destruction.


8- [Then Allah said], "It is expected, [if you repent], that your Lord will have mercy upon you. But if you return [to sin], We will return [to punishment]. And We have made Hell, for the disbelievers, a prison-bed."


This verses predict a war in Palestine between Muslims and Jews over the Eastern Jerusalem Aqsa Mosque. But it did not tell the exact time or date, and how it will be.


Keep in mind that these talks about soldiers and buildings, no innocent civilian should be hurt as it’s described clearly in the holy Qur’an and the prophet’s life and actions.

Israel itself does not want peace, Israel is formed by a mixture of Jews from numbers of many cultures, countries and backgrounds, if peace happens these portions will turn against each other and there will be at least disturbance and tension in Israel, or even civil war. Israel needs the Arabs to be enemies in the picture, but to a certain extent, only to have its citizens forgetting their differences.

But If two Arabian Countries unite and defeat the Israeli armies occupying their lands thus causing unacceptable deaths to Israelis, like Egypt and Syria in 1973, then why not have peace with Egypt to get her out of the equation, then help destabilize Syria and divide it at the end.

But as temporary solution, may be if Israel stops dreaming of Building the Jewish temple over the Aqsa Mosque, so may be the final battle will not be in our lives or even our grandchildren lives, I hope so

Sounds peaciful, but what you are doing is (mis)using your scripture texts to foment muslim beligerance against Israel. Not that the jews are saints and didn't do the same to establish and consolidate their State. But...is this really the right path we must go through? Is this a dispute between YAVEH and ALAH to realize who is the true God? Is this a dispute between Isac and Ismael for the primacy of the blessings given by Abraam? Or is this just a human dispute between people that needs an outside enemy to assert their value?
I think the fight that really matters for a man, be him a christian, a muslim or a jew, is the fight he experiences against himself, against his desire of supremacy over the others, against his trend not to giving up of anything. I know there are muslims that think the same, as there are christians and jews. They may be few, but they could make the difference. Otherwise, we will just keep going to the Armagedon, when the god we believe may not be suficient to save us.

 

[FearGod]

@Hay85

No problem with opinions but the problem is to present lies as a mere facts.

It is like saying your father is a thief without any evidence supporting my opinion, hence such opinion is unacceptable and dishonest.

It is OK to say that there are some groups that use Islam in the wrong way but to attack Islam itself without strong evidences is the wrong way and unacceptable.

 

[Smart_Guy]

It's like I said that the French Revolution was not something good. It was, actually and it is one of the best achievements in the history of European secularism

Yes, it could give good results as well. I just personally don't think it is worth it to risk the lives of the innocent to have a revolution that we cannot tell for sure that its result will be good. I'd go against any kind of revolution if the current status are peaceful. People for some reason start riots to achieve personal demands because of their misunderstanding for freedom.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Hay85

No problem with opinions but the problem is to present lies as a mere facts.

It is like saying your father is a thief without any evidence supporting my opinion, hence such opinion is unacceptable and dishonest.

It is OK to say that there are some groups that use Islam in the wrong way but to attack Islam itself without strong evidences is the wrong way and unacceptable.

She didn't attack the religion. A religion is supposed t be something that transcends people, historical facts, politics.
Because religion is a spiritual values system.

I don't understand why people are not able to separate religion from politics. All Christians condemn Theodosius for persecuting and killing the Pagans.
so I don't understand why Christians can separate religion from politics, whereas Muslims can't

 

[mahmoud mrt]

I can give you an example. Jaclyn is my personal heroine and I really love this video

She is respectful , she did not force her belief on others, and to her knowledge she did not tell lies, this is different,


However sad as it is, if she did the same to Islam with this peaceful attitude in many Muslims countries, she would receive threats by some ignorant Muslims, or even convicted by court.


This is because of the disaster of the claimed Apostacy death penalty, This is a very huge problem in the Islamic Culture, and its not based on a single Quranic verse, although it’s not the only scholar opinion as I illustrated, Some very high degree scholars old and new through ages did not and still do not agree with it, but still it’s the opinion of many of scholars. thanks God this is not applied in Egypt my country.

but...why Christians don't bother her?

why doesn't she receive any death threat for that video?


because we Christians like criticism

If this happened only 200 years ago, she would have been killed by Christians,



Christians nowadays like criticism because they reached enough maturity, this was begun by driving away Christianity as a ruler of the state.



I hope the we Muslims reach the same maturity and throw away the middle ages scholars opinion stating the shamed death penalty for the apostate. Or else as I said in the other thread, Islam as proposed by many extremists should never be allowed to rule the state. That’s why I elected President “Sisi” because he presented a modern educated version of Islam along with the country need for stability.





Regards

Mahmoud

 

[mahmoud mrt]

what do you mean by disrespecting them?

in secular western countries there is the freedom of speech. So any speech is supposed to be respected.


You can say : "I respect your view, but I don't agree with you, because I think that what you say is false"


That's what I call respect

Disrespect is when you lie about a fact that is very clear, and proven, when you know the real events and facts.


She lived in Egypt, she know the history and Quranic facts, however she chooses to lie about it


So disrespect for this speech as the same meaning as disregard.


Regards

Mahmoud

 

[mahmoud mrt]

The problem is that you don't separate religion from politics.

Religion is something spiritual. It has nothing to do with historical events.

when you decide to separate faith from politics, I will be able to answer you logically

Did she separate religion from politics?! She did not, she just lied about every aspect she talked about and combined politics with Islam as one bundle. Thus this needed me to reply accordingly.

I very well separate religion from politics, have you read my posts?!



Regards,

Mahmoud

 

[Lyndon]

We have a lot of Political leaders in America who lie about everything, especially lie ABOUT being religious, then do just the opposite, but we have no death penalty for that!! Maybe they should be arrested and deported from the country!!!

 

[Lyndon]

For more than 14 years the fight was only between the prophet and the Arabian pagans

The fight did not come to Jews until Jews betrayed the Muslims state, hence trying to murder the prophet, and trying to kill Muslims women ad children as illustrated before.

The fight did not come to Christians until the “Ghasasena” Killed the messenger of the prophet, then afterwards they along with the Byzatines prepared an army to conquer medina and kill all Muslims.

Islam came with a system that is against many crimes that had been constantly done in the Arabian culture.

So what was the origin of the fight between the prophet and the pagans?, to understand this we must understand the economic religious system of those pagans.

Pagans knew that Prophet Ibrahim “Abraham” with his son “Ismail” had built the Kabaa to worship God, They knew God the one the only which meant in the Arabic Language Allah. But with this they believed in many Sub-Gods or Idols, these were introduced to the Arabian culture after the death of Prophet Ibrahim and Ismail by many years. The Pagans believed that these Idols are the mediators between them and God.

But this is not the real reason why they fought the prophet, you see, after hundreds of years of worshipping Idols, the Idols around the Kabaa in Mecca were not just for worship, they were economical treaties, yes every Arabian tribe Idol around the kabaa was a treaty between “Quraish” and that particular tribe to secure the trade caravans of Quraish carrying goods and trade to Syria, Iraq, Palestine, in the north where the Byzantine Roman empire and the Persian Empire were, and to south to Yemen.

So then prophet Muhammad comes with a religion which worships Only God the one the only, and asks them to remove all these Idols first from their hearts then afterwards from around the Kabaa. His only request to them was “Khallo Baynee wa Bayn Alnas” which means”Kindly leave me talk to people, do not prevent people from hearing me”, but “Quraish” feared that if people started believing in Islam that eventually the population in Mecca which will become Muslim will ask to remove the Idols from around the Kabaa, thus destroying the guarantee for the “Quraish” trade caravans security.



So After 13 years of oppression to the Prophet and Muslims in Mekka, Pagan in “Yathreb”: Medina Most of them converted to Islam and agreed willingly to protect the Prophet and Muslims in their country where they formed the majority, Jews tribes were a minority in Medina. Still the Prophet did not oppress them, he signed with hem a treaty called “Sahefa” where they had all religious, cultural, and financial rights. But the Jews were the ones who betrayed this treaty as illustrated before.



Now we get to another lie she said regarding this issue, she said the first military battle between the prophet and Quraish was because the prophet wanted to steal their caravan, what a twist of facts.

The facts are as follows:

1- The about 200 Quraish Muslims in Mekka who immigrated to medina many of them were very wealthy, but Quraish forced them to leave all their money with Quraish leaders in order to allow them to immigrate. With this stolen money from Muslims Quraish prepared a Caravan to Trade with this stolen money and get profit. That was the caravan the prophet attacked.

See how she turns the victim who wants his stolen money back to be the oppressor.

2- Quraish refused to let the Arabian tribes listen to the prophet, even against the advice some of its own older politicians, hence it started to attack the new Muslims state with three wars.

3- When the Muslim state was strong enough to counter attack the prophet did not choose war, else he chose to sign a peace treaty with Quraish which was called “Alhudaybeya” Treaty at year 6 higri, and the holy Quran described this peace treaty as the great “Fath” which means the great opening, while even most Muslims did not understand why it’s an opening. But then they realized the wisdom of the Holy Qur’an and the prophet, Because by this peace treaty the Arabian tribes started listing to Muslims, and in only two years the Muslim numbers were Multiplied by 4.

4- Only when Quraish betrayed and violated this treaty by killing over 20 Muslims in Mekka, some even inside the Kabaa itself, then the prophet attacked Mekka, but even in this attack he managed to surprise them so as not to have to kill anyone, they surrendered and he pardoned them all.







Now we get to another lie she told, she said the prophet had 11 wives along with sex slaves thus implying that he was a sex obsessed person.



Here are the facts:



1- The first marriage of the prophet was with “Khadija”, he was 25 years old, she was 40 years old, he stayed with her without marring any other wife for 25 years till she died, he loved her very dearly.

2- Then for two years he did not mary anyone because he was in grieve by his los in “Khadija”.

3- Then he married Sawda who was old, he married her to honor her because her older husband died in Habasha.

4- Afterwards he Married Aisha who was the daughter of his dearest companion “Abu Bakr”, she had reached puberty, her age is debatable, opinions vary form 9 years old to 21 years old, that is because the Arabs did not concern of registering the age, keep in mind that they grew up much more sooner and earlier than girls of nowadays. While even nowadays some girls reach puberty and grow very early.

The prophet loved Aisha dearly; he even died in her arms.

5- All other marriages were either a humanitarian marriage to honor the widows of a Dead companion, or political marriages to fasten the relation between that particular tribe and the Medina State. All these marriages were in the last 8 years of his life while he was busy by Preaching, politics, defensive wars, etc.







Again this kind of speeches full of twisting and lies are much disrespected, however they should not be punished by any means since they are just words not including summoning for any military act.





Regards,

Mahmoud

Yes but this is how Muslims were taught to deal with people 1400 years ago, but today in America and many other countries we deal with problems like this with much less actual violence, (although with perhaps no less injustice), why do we need 1400 year old ways of running society today, haven't we learned anything in 1400 years, there must be a better way, PEACEFUL NON VIOLENCE, TOLERANCE, but still fight a "war" on injustice.

 

[FearGod]

Here is one example for how police and those of power dealing with the free speech.
Of course they won't care if you speak against religion, actually that would pleased them.

 

[Estro Felino]

I very well separate religion from politics, have you read my posts?!

if you do separate religion from politics, why don't Egyptians write a secular constitution?
what prevents them from doing that?
what do people do in Egyptian law schools? they are under a terror regime?

and by secular constitution I mean a constitution where it states:
- all religions are equally juridically irrelevant before the law.
- any application of religious law is illegal

as all European countries did.

we want facts. Not words

 

[Woodrow LI]

I know this is a bit of an oversimplification, but isn't most of the sectarian violence we see between Muslims based on the idea that one sect believes the members of the other sect to be apostates?

So, regardless of how individuals on this forum choose to interpret Islamic scripture, isn't the evidence in the world that millions of Muslims believe and act on the idea that apostates should be harshly punished for their apostasy?

It is not all that clear as apostasy is virtually impossible to prove. In order to prove apostasy one needs to show there is crime a committed that is related to it.

In an Islamic nation to be an Apostate not only leaves his religion, he is forfeiting his citizenship. One reason why many Muslims get so upset of Apostates is because they not only leave Islam, they turn against their community and family.

A member of another sect is not considered apostasy, unless you leave the sect you follow to join another. The big issue between Sunni and Shi'ite in the Mideast is mostly an issue between Iranians and Arabs. For many generations going back to before Muhammad(saaws) Persians (Iranians) and Arabs have been trying to conquer each others land.

While many Muslims do believe an Apostate will be severely punished, I think you will find most believe the punishment will come from God(swt) in the hereafter. We do believe that apostasy will condemn the apostate to eternal hellfire.

 

[YmirGF]

Here is one example for how police and those of power dealing with the free speech.
Of course they won't care if you speak against religion, actually that would pleased them.

Ahhh, the utterly moronic Occupy "Movement". Heck, I would have hit them with flame throwers.

 

[YmirGF]

In an Islamic nation to be an Apostate not only leaves his religion, he is forfeiting his citizenship. One reason why many Muslims get so upset of Apostates is because they not only leave Islam, they turn against their community and family.

In theory, the simple turning away from Islam in an Islamic community could be construed as an aggressive act. How could someone turn away from their own community? Why would someone ever contemplate such a heinous act in full knowledge of the consequences? Likewise, even answering the question "why" to ones family and/or friends would, necessarily, take the devout Muslim down a road they do not want to go. The explanation itself could be used as a sign of hostility towards the community/family.
I would think that many good Muslims would view a former Muslim with a great deal of suspicion and would take ANY comments made by such folks way, way out of context.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ahhh, the utterly moronic Occupy "Movement". Heck, I would have hit them with flame throwers.

You're a softy....I'd have used limericks.

 

[icehorse]

It is not all that clear as apostasy is virtually impossible to prove. In order to prove apostasy one needs to show there is crime a committed that is related to it.

In an Islamic nation to be an Apostate not only leaves his religion, he is forfeiting his citizenship. One reason why many Muslims get so upset of Apostates is because they not only leave Islam, they turn against their community and family.

A member of another sect is not considered apostasy, unless you leave the sect you follow to join another. The big issue between Sunni and Shi'ite in the Mideast is mostly an issue between Iranians and Arabs. For many generations going back to before Muhammad(saaws) Persians (Iranians) and Arabs have been trying to conquer each others land.

While many Muslims do believe an Apostate will be severely punished, I think you will find most believe the punishment will come from God(swt) in the hereafter. We do believe that apostasy will condemn the apostate to eternal hellfire.

On one level I think you're right. But if one Muslim kills another and says it's because of apostasy, are you not being bigoted to say that you don't believe his reason?