Why Do Islamic States Persecute Atheists ?

[gnostic]

If there is no compulsion, then why did Muhammad for all idols to be destroyed in Mecca? That's not showing religious tolerance.

 

[Sees]

If there is no compulsion, then why did Muhammad for all idols to be destroyed in Mecca? That's not showing religious intolerance.

And have it done in other parts of Arabia...vandalizing people who didn't attack Muslims at all and had yet to convert, killing the ones who tried to protect their sacred places. In Muhammad's lifetime and with his blessing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The existence of God is not a scientific finding, it is based on faith. Which means the conclusion is not forced by evidence, but the conclusion is arrived at by choosing it. The choosing is sustained with emotions. Faith has the inherent fragility, and strength of emotions.

A fact one can just throw in the back of their mind and disregard it, and when one retrieves the fact months later, the fact would normally be unchanged. An opinion, if you throw it in the back of your mind, and retrieve it months later, it will be different, or gone.

So people do the job of sustaining faith, keep it alive, and then atheists come along to undermine that faith. Atheists generally reject all subjectivity, intellectually they only accept facts, not opinions. Atheism generally undermine the emotions of all people including themselves, like a stereotype of the coldhearted calculating mr Spock. What is also noticeable of atheists is that besides not accepting subjectivity is valid, atheists also do not accept freedom is real, in the way people talk about it in common discourse. According to atheists everything is forced, and no choosing takes place at all.

So to protect emotions of people, states make laws against people trying to destroy people's emotions, and laws against atheism are part of that.

In that way such laws are reasonable, but it would have to counterbalanced to the fact that only faith which is chosen is actual faith. Meaning only if one chooses the conclusion God exists, is the faith genuine. And if you put punishments on deciding God is not real, then one may become forced to the conclusion God is real, through fear of punishment, and that would make faith not genuine.

One can simply solve this issue by making requirements for having practical knowledge about how choosing works for much of any job. Any job has a social element, or morale element, and it can be done better if one knows how choosing works. That way atheism will be sidelined also, as it depends on denying freedom is a reality.

I commonly find myself wondering when reading your posts if you've ever even met an atheist. Perhaps you should write a letter to norway and explain to them that half of their country are unfeeling Mr Spock clones who dont believe in freedom. Heck, write a letter to Australia. The response would be sufficiently colourful to illustrate not all atheists are unfeeling calculators.

 

[leibowde84]

True.

You think it is wrong to do such things though, right, no matter what the justification is?

 

[gsa]

The existence of God is not a scientific finding, it is based on faith. Which means the conclusion is not forced by evidence, but the conclusion is arrived at by choosing it. The choosing is sustained with emotions. Faith has the inherent fragility, and strength of emotions.

An interesting admission.

A fact one can just throw in the back of their mind and disregard it, and when one retrieves the fact months later, the fact would normally be unchanged. An opinion, if you throw it in the back of your mind, and retrieve it months later, it will be different, or gone.

So people do the job of sustaining faith, keep it alive, and then atheists come along to undermine that faith. Atheists generally reject all subjectivity, intellectually they only accept facts, not opinions. Atheism generally undermine the emotions of all people including themselves, like a stereotype of the coldhearted calculating mr Spock.

Setting aside your definition of atheist, which is inaccurate, what is the problem with requiring factual support for Islam? And questioning doctrines that cannot be supported by empirical observations and logical argument?

What is also noticeable of atheists is that besides not accepting subjectivity is valid, atheists also do not accept freedom is real, in the way people talk about it in common discourse. According to atheists everything is forced, and no choosing takes place at all.

Atheists disagree on the "free will" problem, so I don't know where you are getting this. But this really doesn't make your hypothetical atheist much different from believers who emphasize predestination.

So to protect emotions of people, states make laws against people trying to destroy people's emotions, and laws against atheism are part of that.

Translation: People's emotional states are too fragile to handle truth, so we need to suppress the truth about Islam to prevent people from having an emotional breakdown.

In that way such laws are reasonable, but it would have to counterbalanced to the fact that only faith which is chosen is actual faith. Meaning only if one chooses the conclusion God exists, is the faith genuine. And if you put punishments on deciding God is not real, then one may become forced to the conclusion God is real, through fear of punishment, and that would make faith not genuine.

Such laws are completely unreasonable and totalitarian.

One can simply solve this issue by making requirements for having practical knowledge about how choosing works for much of any job. Any job has a social element, or morale element, and it can be done better if one knows how choosing works. That way atheism will be sidelined also, as it depends on denying freedom is a reality.

What?

 

[gsa]

You think it is wrong to do such things though, right, no matter what the justification is?

I doubt that you will receive a straight answer to this question.

 

[gnostic]

We dont agree on this.
According to u they are merely criticizing. According to me and many muslims they commit treason and call for destruction of islam (not peaceful apostates).

With such kind of warlike apostasy u can choose force them into exile or execution.

But where do you draw a line of what is considered to be "treason" and what isn't?

A person writing a book that criticize a religion, like Islam, is not committing a violent act, NO MATTER HOW OFFENDED YOU FEEL.

You have the rights to feel offended and you have the rights to protest against the book, but you don't have no rights to call judgement to kill, injure or punish any author or apostate.

If any apostate has not committed a violent act towards Muslims, or vandalized their property, then you have no cause to commit violent act against this apostate, no matter how offensive he has been towards criticism of (or insulting to) Islam, prophet or Allah.

If an apostate leave Islam, then it may be possible that he have a good personal reason to leave Islam. And if he chose to criticize Islam (or the prophet or god), then how can even be hold accountable to treason when he is no longer a "Muslim".

Seriously, who is fair and just can say what is treason and what isn't treason? Why should Muslims get to kill or punish an apostate for insult or criticism? You? Your neighbors? The Muslim community? The Muslim local police? The Muslim court, judge and jury?

Do you remember some years back, one Afghan has openly declared that he has converted to a Christian? His name was Abdul Rahman.

He wasn't insulting the prophet, god or Islam, but his own immediate family turn on him, the police arrested him, and most of the community wanted the law to have him beaten or executed for "apostasy", for "treason" and for "blasphemy", and for possessing a bible at home.

The court was seriously considering have the death sentence pass.

It is only through international pressures that Rahman was released. I remember that the government back then try to find a loophole to have Rahman released, like declaring him mentally insane.

No, Servant. I don't trust Muslims (including Muslim families, society, community leaders, law enforcement or court, government) on the matter of handling issues of apostasy. Sure, not all Muslims feel that way, but as can be seen with Abdul Rahman's case, even his own family turned against him and reported him to the police, don't speak well of their judgements.

 

[TashaN]

Why is it true?

You think it is wrong to do such things though, right, no matter what the justification is?

That is not for me to say because i don't know the details. This need to be handled at the court.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We dont agree on this.
According to u they are merely criticizing. According to me and many muslims they commit treason and call for destruction of islam (not peaceful apostates).

With such kind of warlike apostasy u can choose force them into exile or execution.

That's disgusting! Seems that Ms. Hirsi Ali is right about your religion!

Ofcourse our religion is incompatible with liberal democrasy. Because we have rules on apostasy, gays etc.
And the same with the teachings of the Bible, it is incompatible with todays western law.

No, it isn't.

The only reason Europe is now at peace with gays, apostates etc is because they locked bible in the closet. Separation between State and Church.

I can assure you if Europe is to rule according to bible anyone who insults his parents will be executed, and so too apostates & homosexuals.

No, they wouldn't. Stop acting like Christianity is so similar to Islam - it isn't.

The Earth is big enough for all of us to rule by liberalism or by the teachings of quran/bible.

No, the Earth isn't big enough to share your ideas as well as democracy and liberty. One has to go because one is always trying to wipe out the other one.

 

[TashaN]

If there is no compulsion, then why did Muhammad for all idols to be destroyed in Mecca? That's not showing religious tolerance.

Because it's the holy land and there were no idols there in the past when Abraham peace be upon him built it with his son Ishmael. That's why non-Muslims like Jews and Christians were allowed to practice in the rest of Muslim lands.

 

[TashaN]

But where do you draw a line of what is considered to be "treason" and what isn't?

A person writing a book that criticize a religion, like Islam, is not committing a violent act, NO MATTER HOW OFFENDED YOU FEEL.

You have the rights to feel offended and you have the rights to protest against the book, but you don't have no rights to call judgement to kill, injure or punish any author or apostate.

If any apostate has not committed a violent act towards Muslims, or vandalized their property, then you have no cause to commit violent act against this apostate, no matter how offensive he has been towards criticism of (or insulting to) Islam, prophet or Allah.

If an apostate leave Islam, then it may be possible that he have a good personal reason to leave Islam. And if he chose to criticize Islam (or the prophet or god), then how can even be hold accountable to treason when he is no longer a "Muslim".

Seriously, who is fair and just can say what is treason and what isn't treason? Why should Muslims get to kill or punish an apostate for insult or criticism? You? Your neighbors? The Muslim community? The Muslim local police? The Muslim court, judge and jury?

Do you remember some years back, one Afghan has openly declared that he has converted to a Christian? His name was Abdul Rahman.

He wasn't insulting the prophet, god or Islam, but his own immediate family turn on him, the police arrested him, and most of the community wanted the law to have him beaten or executed for "apostasy", for "treason" and for "blasphemy", and for possessing a bible at home.

The court was seriously considering have the death sentence pass.

It is only through international pressures that Rahman was released. I remember that the government back then try to find a loophole to have Rahman released, like declaring him mentally insane.

No, Servant. I don't trust Muslims (including Muslim families, society, community leaders, law enforcement or court, government) on the matter of handling issues of apostasy. Sure, not all Muslims feel that way, but as can be seen with Abdul Rahman's case, even his own family turned against him and reported him to the police, don't speak well of their judgements.

I possessed a bible at home myself, KJV. It would have been a crime if i was at Saudi Arabia, lol.

Today i don't think any Muslim majority land are practicing true Islam. True Islam state that justice must be established and ALL must abide by the law, not to punish some and leave others depending on the ruler's mood and his/her political interest. You could say that Muslims are experiencing their own dark age today.

 

[TashaN]

I remember when i was a university student i wrote a play. We have prepared everything and then they canceled it at the last moment because they thought it was *too political*.

In short, the play was about a Muslim ruler, also an ally of the US. He was playing on both grounds. He was trying to be as loyal as he can to the US government and he was also pretending to be a Muslim zealot in front of the public.

This Muslim ruler was using religion to attract people to him, and he was also using the same card against the US government claiming that he was under pressure from his people to meet their demands, of course the extremists side demands, and he needed to secure his chair in power.

The US government knew he was fooling around, but they had no choice, he was the only loyal dog they could get, and they just have to manage him till they find an alternative.

Although i didn't use clear countries names or clear presidents names but they canceled it anyway, lol.

I hope you understood what i'm getting at by telling you this story. That's if you really want to understand, not just blaming Islam.

We are in a total dark, believe me, many Muslims no longer know what is the true Islam anymore. I have hope in future generations, who will no longer fall for systematic brainwashing, oppression and propaganda by corrupted politicians and dictators who uses their public as toilet papers.

It's exactly as one wise Muslim scholar told me once, he said "it's as if Muslims today are hypnotized."

We just have to do our best so the next generation will be more wiser and more knowledgeable than us, God willing.

 

[gnostic]

Because it's the holy land and there were no idols there in the past when Abraham peace be upon him built it with his son Ishmael. That's why non-Muslims like Jews and Christians were allowed to practice in the rest of Muslim lands.

That's only a story told by Muhammad and in Islamic legend.

Elsewhere, including that of Genesis, it only state that Hagar alone took her son into the desert, in Edom - the wilderness of Zin or the wilderness of Paran, when God persuaded Abraham to banish his own son. And that Ishmael grew up to be a great hunter. Other than turning up for Abraham's burial, and listing his children and descendants, it doesn't anything more about Ishmael.

Nothing in Genesis say Abraham travelling with his son into the Arabian peninsula, to build a home for Ishmael, before travelling back to Canaan. This so-called house of Ishmael, in Mecca, and Beersheba, is about 1200 kilometres apart (and that's flying distance).

Do you really think that Abraham would travel that far to build a home for his son, then travel another 1200 to get back home? Highly unlikely, now that Abraham was over a hundred years old.

I possessed a bible at home myself, KJV. It would have been a crime if i was at Saudi Arabia, lol.

I find it utterly barbaric and tyrannic that possessing a book would get anyone arrested in this day and age.

That one of his charges was possessing the bible in Abdul Rahman's own home, showing how ridiculous some Muslims are, in some countries.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

But where do you draw a line of what is considered to be "treason" and what isn't?

A person writing a book that criticize a religion, like Islam, is not committing a violent act, NO MATTER HOW OFFENDED YOU FEEL.

You have the rights to feel offended and you have the rights to protest against the book, but you don't have no rights to call judgement to kill, injure or punish any author or apostate.

If any apostate has not committed a violent act towards Muslims, or vandalized their property, then you have no cause to commit violent act against this apostate, no matter how offensive he has been towards criticism of (or insulting to) Islam, prophet or Allah.

If an apostate leave Islam, then it may be possible that he have a good personal reason to leave Islam. And if he chose to criticize Islam (or the prophet or god), then how can even be hold accountable to treason when he is no longer a "Muslim".

Seriously, who is fair and just can say what is treason and what isn't treason? Why should Muslims get to kill or punish an apostate for insult or criticism? You? Your neighbors? The Muslim community? The Muslim local police? The Muslim court, judge and jury?

Do you remember some years back, one Afghan has openly declared that he has converted to a Christian? His name was Abdul Rahman.

He wasn't insulting the prophet, god or Islam, but his own immediate family turn on him, the police arrested him, and most of the community wanted the law to have him beaten or executed for "apostasy", for "treason" and for "blasphemy", and for possessing a bible at home.

The court was seriously considering have the death sentence pass.

It is only through international pressures that Rahman was released. I remember that the government back then try to find a loophole to have Rahman released, like declaring him mentally insane.

No, Servant. I don't trust Muslims (including Muslim families, society, community leaders, law enforcement or court, government) on the matter of handling issues of apostasy. Sure, not all Muslims feel that way, but as can be seen with Abdul Rahman's case, even his own family turned against him and reported him to the police, don't speak well of their judgements.

Which apostate is so suicidal to insult islam within an islamic country where the law of Allah is applied?
I dont agree with the case of Rahman, he did nothing wrong, he just left the religion and this is his right to do so. Allah swt gave us that right when He said: No compulsion in religion.
But to leave islam and then to insult it within islamic country, that is not smart thing to do so when you know such acts can lead to capital punishment or banishment. Their(apostate that insults religion) deep hatred for the islam would be violent if the apostate got more followers and strength. The insults is an sign of enmity.

Allah swt says:
If they gain dominance over you, they would be to you as enemies and extend against you their hands and their tongues with evil, and they wish you would disbelieve. (60:2).
The verse is about polytheists, but let say the apostates gained numbers/dominance, they would commit mischief, finish off the believers. Because they have shown their hatred in words, so changing that into violent deeds would be easy.
But ofcourse such apostate should be advised to repent, last options are banishment or execution.

 

[Jumi]

There are Muslims in non-believer countries living in peace, not being persecuted. Where I eat lunch I usually heard Farsi and other languages. Non-believers have even given them use of prayer rooms. How is this finishing them off??

 

[gnostic]

Which apostate is so suicidal to insult islam within an islamic country where the law of Allah is applied?
I dont agree with the case of Rahman, he did nothing wrong, he just left the religion and this is his right to do so. Allah swt gave us that right when He said: No compulsion in religion.

Well, Rahman didn't insult Islam. He just told his family that he left islam, and became a Christian. It was his own family that reported him to the police.

Do you understand irony, servant?

The irony is what one of the judges said to the media about Islam being a religious tolerance. He stated that Islam is a religion of tolerance, and that everyone will forgive him, if and only IF HE WAS TO BECOME A MUSLIM AGAIN. And if he convert back they will drop the death sentence.

What I am hearing is that Islam is religious tolerance, but not if you leave Islam for another religion.

If that's not compulsion than what is it?

As I understand it, the Afghan law courts followed a 8th century Sunni jurisprudence called Hanafi school, one of the oldest. And the Hanafi is one that apostasy is a punishable crime, regardless if the apostate insult Islam or not. And the punishment is death. It say nothing about criticising or insulting Islam; it only say that male apostate must die.

The only way to escape death sentence is by converting back to Islam. This is not religious tolerance; this is compulsion. This is convert or face death compulsion.

 

[Poeticus]

... warlike apostasy ...

... what's next, a much needed "warlike retraction"? I apologize, folks, but that was just way too funny. Okay, I'll stop now. Hehe.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

... what's next, a much needed "warlike retraction"? I apologize, folks, but that was just way too funny. Okay, I'll stop now. Hehe.

Lol

Enemy apostate, wild apostate, obsessive apostate?
Maybe better terms?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Well, Rahman didn't insult Islam. He just told his family that he left islam, and became a Christian. It was his own family that reported him to the police.

Do you understand irony, servant?

The irony is what one of the judges said to the media about Islam being a religious tolerance. He stated that Islam is a religion of tolerance, and that everyone will forgive him, if and only IF HE WAS TO BECOME A MUSLIM AGAIN. And if he convert back they will drop the death sentence.

What I am hearing is that Islam is religious tolerance, but not if you leave Islam for another religion.

If that's not compulsion than what is it?

As I understand it, the Afghan law courts followed a 8th century Sunni jurisprudence called Hanafi school, one of the oldest. And the Hanafi is one that apostasy is a punishable crime, regardless if the apostate insult Islam or not. And the punishment is death. It say nothing about criticising or insulting Islam; it only say that male apostate must die.

The only way to escape death sentence is by converting back to Islam. This is not religious tolerance; this is compulsion. This is convert or face death compulsion.

Thats why iam saying punishment of peaceful apostasy is not mentioned in quran and hadith.
Hadith says "kill those who change their religion". But that hadith goes against Quran and many other hadiths. So we cant ask such hadith above Quran and other authentic hadiths.
It is illogical to accept one hadith and reject quran and other hadiths that promote freedom of religiouse choice.


Sadly this belief(to kill apostate for changing his religion) is hold by some muslims, i disagree with them.

 

[gnostic]

Thats why iam saying punishment of peaceful apostasy is not mentioned in quran and hadith.
Hadith says "kill those who change their religion". But that hadith goes against Quran and many other hadiths. So we cant ask such hadith above Quran and other authentic hadiths.
It is illogical to accept one hadith and reject quran and other hadiths that promote freedom of religiouse choice.

Sadly this belief(to kill apostate for changing his religion) is hold by some muslims, i disagree with them.

Neither criticism, nor insult is deem to be "warlike".

Neither of them are considered physical violence. They are just words, and rhetoric or different opinion.

If it was warlike, then it would be with killing or physical violence.

And beside all that, how can you insult Islam?

Islam is not a person, nor do IT have feeling to hurt.

If Muslims have to defend Islam, from criticism or insult, and retaliate with actual violence, then I am afraid these Muslims are actually insecure or weak in their faith.

Strength in faith, don't require defending or to seek revenge for negative words or negative feeling. Only violent people and people who kill, have "warlike" attribute.

Do you really believe that criticism and insult is the same as "making war"?