The Religion Of Peace In All It’s Glory: Viewer Warning [Archive] - Debate Policy

jimnyc

05-20-2014, 08:26 AM

How about a little Cliff's Notes for those not wanting to watch the video?

The video is about apartheid, and segregation & the bad things that Israel does. The video covers what Israel does and doesn't do at the end - but first covers a handful of other countries in the Middle East.

Lebanon

Christians are persecuted. The Palestinians, who so many care about who are being held back by Israel - not allowed to own homes in Lebanon. They aren't allowed to be lawyers, engineers or doctors.

Syria

No free elections. Major discrimination against women

Saudi Arabia

Worst discrimination against women in the world. 5% of women work, worst in the world. Many "Muslims Only" areas. Some need permission for medical procedures. Homosexuals are penalized from flogging to death

Yemen

Worst record in world for forced children marriage

Palestine - Hamas

Homosexuals flee to Israel to avoid death penalty. Public hangings/executions. Sell land to a Jewish person results in death. No freedom of expression. No freedom of the press.

Egypt

Severe persecution of Coptic Christians. No freedom of expression. Journalists are often jailed. HUGE percentage of women abused. HUGE percentage of men admit to the abuse of women. Palestinians have much difficulty in working in Egypt, or studying - or becoming citizens.

Jordan

Jews cannot become citizens

Iran

Adultery is punishable by death. Homosexuality is punishable by death. Public executions are the norm (hanging, beheading, stoning). No freedom of expression of of the press. No freedom of movement. Number 1 in the world in executing juvenile offenders. State mandated beatings of women caught not wearing their veil.

My first thought is of Palestinians, and why the condemnation of their treatment supposedly by Israel, and then barely a hand held out by so many other ME countries. So many of these people/countries condemn the USA. I'd love to see them point out the blatant segregation still here that is arranged by the state, ruled by the state and ran by the state. Where do we hold public executions for anyone to walk up and enjoy? Where do we beat women with permission from the government? Blatant restriction of speaking? Press? Movement?

The ONLY country over there with a Democracy is Israel. BOTH Christians and Muslims have rights in Israel and religious discrimination is forbidden. Where in Israel does the state condone abuse of women? Abuse/discrimination of religion? Public executions? State mandated beating of women? Children marriages? Juvenile executions? Permission for medical procedures? Homosexual death sentences from the state?

jafar00

05-20-2014, 03:14 PM

aboutime

05-20-2014, 04:00 PM

jimnyc

05-20-2014, 04:05 PM

NightTrain

05-20-2014, 06:24 PM

Well, considering what we call these countries today, didn't exist as we know it over 100 years ago. The whole area including the former Ottoman Empire was arbitrarily carved up by the British and the French according to their interests and "western friendly" dictatorships set up.

This brutality didn't exist before western imperialism set it up. If you want someone to blame, blame your forefathers and their politics. Leave Islam out of it!

Always with the lame excuses that it's the U.S. or the U.K. that made your culture a bunch of barbarians from the 4th century.

Look at every one of those countries and they are completely built upon Islam in their official documents, governments, law and actions.

And here you are, Jafar, constantly denying the truth and willfully ignoring the facts of history and modern day events - just like the muzzies in every one of the above countries.

How familiar with Taqqiya are you, Jafar?

Taqqiya - A Tactic of Lying, Concealment

Islamists interpret their scripture to say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals.

Taqiyya is an idea of Islamic jurisprudence that has been redefined and appropriated by Islamists as part of their political strategy. This piece is not about use of the concept in mainstream theology.

Hard to define exactly, it has been variously translated as dissimulation, concealment, lying and diplomacy. Other words that are used are kitman and idtirar. These Arabic terms all have subtly different meanings.

Nevertheless they are used to describe the same overall strategy as practiced by Islamists: using deceit as a religious and political weapon.

It has been used by Islamists in a different context. Their interpretations of scripture say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals, namely world conquest.

http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/taqqiya-tactic-lying-concealment

Taqqiya would certainly explain your methods here on this board with your waffling back and forth and unwillingness to talk about demonstrable truth. You flee threads where you're cornered and carry on in others with more bullshit propaganda. You've never been genuine here as far as I can see.

jafar00

05-20-2014, 07:32 PM

Always with the lame excuses that it's the U.S. or the U.K. that made your culture a bunch of barbarians from the 4th century.

Look at every one of those countries and they are completely built upon Islam in their official documents, governments, law and actions.

And here you are, Jafar, constantly denying the truth and willfully ignoring the facts of history and modern day events - just like the muzzies in every one of the above countries.

How familiar with Taqqiya are you, Jafar?

http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/taqqiya-tactic-lying-concealment

Taqqiya would certainly explain your methods here on this board with your waffling back and forth and unwillingness to talk about demonstrable truth. You flee threads where you're cornered and carry on in others with more bullshit propaganda. You've never been genuine here as far as I can see.

Stop trying to twist these bad people somehow into representatives of Islam when clearly they are not. They are simply bad people.

NightTrain

05-20-2014, 11:54 PM

Stop trying to twist these bad people somehow into representatives of Islam when clearly they are not. They are simply bad people.

So, your contention is that the entire Middle East are not true muslims and don't represent islam.

Is that correct?

jafar00

05-21-2014, 01:08 AM

So, your contention is that the entire Middle East are not true muslims and don't represent islam.

Is that correct?

Not at all. The Middle East is full of Muslims. Too bad none of them are ruled by Islamic leaders.

We need the kind of leader of old. LIke Omar Ibn Al Khattab. The kind of leader that, on feeling responsible for it, disguised himself and went to cook for a widowed woman with children because she couldn't afford to feed them. There is not a single leader like him in the world today.

NightTrain

05-21-2014, 01:14 AM

Not at all. The Middle East is full of Muslims. Too bad none of them are ruled by Islamic leaders.

How is it possible that not even one Islamic country is not ruled by - using your definition here - a "true muslim"?

Jeff

05-21-2014, 04:00 AM

jafar I can go with some of what you are saying but what about the laws against woman? They are laws all real and fake ( as you say ) Muslims live by, so no matter who put what were y'all still have some screwy rules to say the least. The atrocities that take place in all these so called Muslim area's are seen by all, how can you try and tell people that all those involved all over the world are fake, it just isn't flying any longer.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

05-21-2014, 09:45 AM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

05-21-2014, 09:48 AM

How is it possible that not even one Islamic country is not ruled by - using your definition here - a "true muslim"?

You will get no answer to that which has any truth in it.
For Jafar must admit either Allah is impotent or else all those murdering Sharia compliant governments are the true will of Allah.
Either way , his goose is soundly and completely cooked.-Tyr

Drummond

05-21-2014, 12:36 PM

Not at all. The Middle East is full of Muslims. Too bad none of them are ruled by Islamic leaders.

'NONE of them'. Interesting.

OK, so, that has to mean that Hamas isn't Islamic, either. Which is surely a problem for you, since their Charter tries to 'sell' Hamas as not only Islamic, but as a standard-bearer for Islam. Indeed .. isn't their opposition to Israel painted as having an indivisibly Islamic side to it ?

Logically, it should follow that you'd therefore distance yourself from Hamas ... what they preach, what they do, what they stand for. But the reality is that, though you've expressed criticism of Hamas before, you never distance yourself from them entirely and unequivocally.

Perhaps, Jafar, you'll take this opportunity to do that now ? Show us that what Hamas is, and what it does, is all that you CANNOT find reason to identify with.

None at all ...

aboutime

05-21-2014, 01:39 PM

NightTrain

05-21-2014, 04:00 PM

Jafar, the fact that you say that NOT EVEN ONE Islamic Nation is true to Islam can only mean one of two things:

1) You don't understand Islam and you're being duped by muslims for nefarious reasons and are in imminent danger of having your head sawed off on video.

or

2) You are attempting to dupe the infidels with misinformation & propaganda about the true nature of Islam its goals.

It is preposterous to think that every Islamic Nation on earth got it wrong, according to you.

jafar00

05-21-2014, 04:02 PM

Does anyone know? Or, has anyone been keeping a count on the number of EXCUSES presented by jafar so far?

No matter what anyone says here. We can all depend on the "EXCUSER" to jump in to defend, and make countless reasons to defend either Muslim, or Islam thought, actions, intentions, or PROPAGANDA we have all heard, possibly thousands of times?

I don't make excuses. I present opinions. It's not possible to make excuses for the lies presented on this forum. You can't excuse stupid!

Jafar, the fact that you say that NOT EVEN ONE Islamic Nation is true to Islam can only mean one of two things:

1) You don't understand Islam and you're being duped by your fellow muslims for nefarious reasons

or

2) You are attempting to dupe the infidels with misinformation & propaganda about the true nature of Islam its goals.

It is preposterous to think that every Islamic Nation on earth got it wrong, according to you.

Ask any Muslim today and each will tell you that they yearn for the rightly guided Islamic leaders of old.

aboutime

05-21-2014, 04:19 PM

I don't make excuses. I present opinions. It's not possible to make excuses for the lies presented on this forum. You can't excuse stupid!

Ask any Muslim today and each will tell you that they yearn for the rightly guided Islamic leaders of old.

Wrong jafar. Your first sentence above IS another Excuse. You sound more, and more like Obama every time you post here. I agree. YOU can't excuse stupid. So..why do you do it?

jimnyc

05-21-2014, 05:30 PM

I don't make excuses. I present opinions. It's not possible to make excuses for the lies presented on this forum. You can't excuse stupid!

Ask any Muslim today and each will tell you that they yearn for the rightly guided Islamic leaders of old.

Yearning for leaders of old & stating that none of the leaders in the ME are Islamic are 2 different things. The 2nd is preposterous, you just may disagree with them and/or their policies, but that hardly makes them non-Islamic. You have no claimed all the leaders of Islamic nations aren't in fact Islamic. Iran, in your opinion, is not Islam/Muslims. Pretty much 99 1/2% of the bad people who have done anything wrong at all, couldn't possibly be Muslims. Imam's and local leaders and such that implement and laws or policies you disagree with, also not Muslims.

At this point, it's safe to assume that there are only a few thousand Muslims in the world. It must be nice to just dismiss anything and everything that you perceive to paint Islam in a bad light.

Drummond

05-21-2014, 06:13 PM

Ask any Muslim today and each will tell you that they yearn for the rightly guided Islamic leaders of old.

'Nicely' put, since according to you, so many who claim to be Islamic supposedly 'aren't' ... meaning that 'any Muslim' by YOUR criteria, is only a fraction of the total known !!

Honestly, Jafar, your sanitising efforts have had to be taken to such lengths that the picture we now have is a ludicrous one.

By the way, you ignored my previous post on Hamas. Where's that blanket distancing I was asking for, on the grounds that the Hamas leadership, therefore the entire direction Hamas takes, 'cannot be Islamic', as they claim ??

.. Or do you need to remain silent on that one .. ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

05-21-2014, 06:18 PM

Yearning for leaders of old & stating that none of the leaders in the ME are Islamic are 2 different things. The 2nd is preposterous, you just may disagree with them and/or their policies, but that hardly makes them non-Islamic. You have no claimed all the leaders of Islamic nations aren't in fact Islamic. Iran, in your opinion, is not Islam/Muslims. Pretty much 99 1/2% of the bad people who have done anything wrong at all, couldn't possibly be Muslims. Imam's and local leaders and such that implement and laws or policies you disagree with, also not Muslims.

At this point, it's safe to assume that there are only a few thousand Muslims in the world. It must be nice to just dismiss anything and everything that you perceive to paint Islam in a bad light.

Nice it may be more importantly it allows and infinite number of denials to exist!
And that's the number one reason Jafar has adopted it as his shield. So much truth hits
him here he simply must have an invincible shield regardless of how absurd and laughable it may be!
Islam would dearly punish him should he dare speak the TRUTH of it's goals and it's abject and utter contempt for ALL infidels..
In Islam every infidel is no more than a bug to be crushed.

jafar00

05-21-2014, 07:38 PM

Yearning for leaders of old & stating that none of the leaders in the ME are Islamic are 2 different things. The 2nd is preposterous, you just may disagree with them and/or their policies, but that hardly makes them non-Islamic. You have no claimed all the leaders of Islamic nations aren't in fact Islamic. Iran, in your opinion, is not Islam/Muslims. Pretty much 99 1/2% of the bad people who have done anything wrong at all, couldn't possibly be Muslims. Imam's and local leaders and such that implement and laws or policies you disagree with, also not Muslims.

At this point, it's safe to assume that there are only a few thousand Muslims in the world. It must be nice to just dismiss anything and everything that you perceive to paint Islam in a bad light.

Their policies can be non Islamic. All ME countries have parts of their systems of law derived from or "inspired by" Sharia, but none of them are 100% Islamic. Others like Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan etc.. have complete fabrications which they dress up as Sharia to fool the people into accepting them. The apostasy punishment is one of them. There is no punishment for apostasy in this world according to the Qur'aan, yet the death penalty exists in some places. So, where do they get it from?

NightTrain

05-21-2014, 08:11 PM

Their policies can be non Islamic. All ME countries have parts of their systems of law derived from or "inspired by" Sharia, but none of them are 100% Islamic. Others like Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan etc.. have complete fabrications which they dress up as Sharia to fool the people into accepting them. The apostasy punishment is one of them. There is no punishment for apostasy in this world according to the Qur'aan, yet the death penalty exists in some places. So, where do they get it from?

It wasn't hard to find the answer to that :

The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_capital_punishment) or imprisonment until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-KEY-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

jafar00

05-22-2014, 01:17 AM

It wasn't hard to find the answer to that :

[/FONT][/COLOR]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

And who wrote/edited wikipedia?

Contemporary Islamic Shafi`i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%60i) jurists such as the Grand Mufti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mufti) Ali Gomaa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Gomaa),[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Gomaa-64)[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Tawab-65) Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam) jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ayatollah_Hossein-Ali_Montazeri),[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Jami-66) and some jurists, scholars and writers of otherIslamic sects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam), have argued or issued fatwas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-news.bbc.co.uk-1)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Fatwa_on_Intellectual_Apostasy-20)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-rahman1972p10-13-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-shafaat2006feb-22)

Reference [1 and 20] from Qaradawi doesn't say death is for apostasy alone.
Reference [21] from S A Rahman is also against it.

S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an).[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-75)
Reference [22] from Ahmad Shafaat actually argues against the death penalty for Apostasy and I wonder if whoever added that to the wiki bothered to read past the first paragraph?!?

Actually on reading the rest of the wiki, it doesn't support the death penalty for apostasy either. Why did you link that one sentence which doesn't actually list anything from any scholars of Islam? If fact, one of the references, Oliver Leaman is JEWISH.

NightTrain

05-22-2014, 01:36 AM

And who wrote/edited wikipedia?

It's a worldwide collaborative effort. When something is added or edited, it is heavily scrutinized and researched by multitudes of other people. It's impressively accurate, I've checked more than a few times when I didn't agree with something.

But feel free to argue your case with Wiki, I'm sure they'd love to hear your mountains of facts that you've educated me with.

Reference [1 and 20] from Qaradawi doesn't say death is for apostasy alone.
Reference [21] from S A Rahman is also against it.

Reference [22] from Ahmad Shafaat actually argues against the death penalty for Apostasy and I wonder if whoever added that to the wiki bothered to read past the first paragraph?!?

Reading comprehension is key here. "MOST Muslim scholars..."

Actually on reading the rest of the wiki, it doesn't support the death penalty for apostasy either. Why did you link that one sentence which doesn't actually list anything from any scholars of Islam? If fact, one of the references, Oliver Leaman is JEWISH.

If you click those magically glowing blue links behind those statements, you'll see the reference that was used to back the statement up. That's how things work - you have to back up your assertions with FACTS, not the distortions and propaganda & outright lies you've presented me.

By the way, your little map you tried to engage me with about Israel and what land they've given up still makes me chuckle. Thank you, it really was pathetically funny.

I don't know anything about Oliver Leaman. Or if he's even Jewish. I do know he has a PH.D. from Cambridge, which is a hefty piece of paper to hang on the wall. Looks like he's published a great deal, as well.

Other than your accusation that he's Jewish, what do you think about Dr. Leaman? If he is Jewish, what does that mean to you?

Try to be honest and forthright this time, Jafar.

jafar00

05-22-2014, 06:08 AM

It's a worldwide collaborative effort. When something is added or edited, it is heavily scrutinized and researched by multitudes of other people. It's impressively accurate, I've checked more than a few times when I didn't agree with something.

But feel free to argue your case with Wiki, I'm sure they'd love to hear your mountains of facts that you've educated me with.

Reading comprehension is key here. "MOST Muslim scholars..."

That statement could do with some clarification. WHICH Muslim scholars? 0% of the ones I know would agree on the death for apostasy charge. Neither does the Qur'aan or it wouldn't have verses like...

Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way. (4:137)

If the penalty for apostasy was death, did these people come back to life in between believing and disbelieving multiple times? If you read that verse even at face value, in English, logic suggests that the death penalty for apostasy is a violation of God's command and therefore, non Islamic.

I don't know anything about Oliver Leaman. Or if he's even Jewish. I do know he has a PH.D. from Cambridge, which is a hefty piece of paper to hang on the wall. Looks like he's published a great deal, as well.

Other than your accusation that he's Jewish, what do you think about Dr. Leaman? If he is Jewish, what does that mean to you?

Try to be honest and forthright this time, Jafar.

Would you get your information about Buddhism from the Pope? No? So, why would you take information about Islam from a Jew? It's not going to be accurate is it?

jimnyc

05-22-2014, 08:03 AM

One can argue forever that it's not Islamic or not in the Quran....

But it happens ALL the time, punishments delivered from MUSLIMS, punishments designed by MUSLIMS and claimed to be of SHARIA.

And now ask, if SO many countries are still offering these penalties for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy (death penalties) - where are the other countries that are complaining about the barbarism? The other leaders? Imams? Councils or commissions? Everyday Muslims? If not Islamic, and agreed that it is outdated and barbaric - WHY is it still happening by Muslims and controlled by Muslims, without a peep from Muslims around the world?

Why is Sharia different about every 10 feet you walk, and Islam allows such a thing? I though Sharia was Sharia? And if none of these people are even Islam/Muslims, then no one should mind me pointing out that they are REALLY just animals stretching some wording to get their jollies off.

NightTrain

05-22-2014, 11:37 AM

That statement could do with some clarification. WHICH Muslim scholars? 0% of the ones I know would agree on the death for apostasy charge. Neither does the Qur'aan or it wouldn't have verses like...

Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way. (4:137)

If the penalty for apostasy was death, did these people come back to life in between believing and disbelieving multiple times? If you read that verse even at face value, in English, logic suggests that the death penalty for apostasy is a violation of God's command and therefore, non Islamic.

I beg to differ :

Qur'an (4:89) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php#004.089) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Bukhari (52:260) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.

Bukhari (83:37) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/083-sbt.php#009.083.037) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (89:271) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/089-sbt.php#009.089.271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: "An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution."

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: "Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."

Would you get your information about Buddhism from the Pope? No? So, why would you take information about Islam from a Jew? It's not going to be accurate is it?

There you go. Definitely non-Jewish sources there.

Your own prophet said to kill apostates; your own scholars say the same.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that lovely verse from the Koran or however the hell you spell it.

jimnyc

05-22-2014, 12:58 PM

^^ NT, prepare thyself for denials of epic proportions. Your sources are no good. Bad interpretations. Hate sites. Not all scholars think alike. The Jews made it up! LOL

aboutime

05-22-2014, 02:01 PM

^^ NT, prepare thyself for denials of epic proportions. Your sources are no good. Bad interpretations. Hate sites. Not all scholars think alike. The Jews made it up! LOL

jimnyc. Lately. Trying to reason, at all with jafar is much like, or similar to trying to hold an honest conversation with AL Sharpton at a CRACKER-BREAKING CONVENTION.

http://youtu.be/6sUjlle7ZVo

jafar00

05-22-2014, 02:23 PM

Bukhari (83:37) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/083-sbt.php#009.083.037) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

That hadith spells it out. There is no death penalty for apostasy alone.

Thanks for agreeing with me at last. The death penalty is for the high treason. Any scholar will tell you that.

Drummond

05-22-2014, 02:26 PM

.... Yes, well ... I've just independently researched this. My findings seem to pretty much duplicate NightTrain's.

So, I'm posting this ....

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist." This verse is speaking of infidels (ie. "slay the infidels wherever you find them" 9:5) who obviously became Muslim to escape the sword, but the Hadith make no distinction of how a Muslim came to be a Muslim. Apostasy is always punished by death.

Other verses that seem to support the many Hadith demanding death for apostates are Qur'an verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

Advocates for killing apostates have pointed out that the supporting hadith are reliable and thus qualify as law according to verse 4:80 - "Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah."

From the Hadith:

The reason why executing apostates has always been well-ensconced in Islamic law is that there is an indisputable record of Muhammad and his companions doing exactly that.

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - "[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'"

Abu Dawud (4346) - "Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?" Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to "repent" under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad's former scribe who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine "revelations" upon finding out that he could suggest grammatical changes. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 - "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed." (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).

Additional Notes:

While the rest of the world generally believes that if God wanted people dead over their religious beliefs, then he would do the job himself, apostasy is taken so seriously by Muslims that it spawned the first of many major internal wars.

Immediately after Muhammad's death, several tribes wanted to leave Islam and return to their preferred religion. In a conflict known as the Riddah (apostasy) Wars, they were slaughtered in such places remembered as "Garden of Death" and "Gulley of Blood" by caliph Abu Bakr's aggressive and violent campaign to force submission (and keep the tribute payments flowing back to Mecca). Within months, a great many people were dead, including Muslims who had memorized the Qur'an by heart.

Although it has been perfectly acceptable under Islamic law to kill Muslims who choose to embrace another religion, contemporary Muslims have realized how weak and draconian this causes Islam to appear. (A sound philosophy does not require a death threat to retain believers). As such, there is a contemporary tendency to deny fourteen centuries of Islamic teaching and even the very words of Muhammad himself - at least for Western ears.

I expect Jafar's standard 'All this comes from hate sites' is a 'given' ... I really can't see Jafar claiming otherwise. But here's my challenge: forget about any consideration of where any of this is from, Jafar, and tell us if these verses are truthfully rendered, or not .. and how they can possibly support YOUR stance, over that of others here.

Drummond

05-22-2014, 03:15 PM

Would you get your information about Buddhism from the Pope? No? So, why would you take information about Islam from a Jew? It's not going to be accurate is it?

Actually, Jafar, I think I'd argue that taking, and relying on, information about Islam from a Jew was an eminently reasonable thing to do.

Ask yourself what race on this planet is better equipped to comment on Islam's harmful effects than the Jewish race !!

If I want critical opinion, I think it best to seek it out from those most justifiably expert to supply it !!!!!

aboutime

05-22-2014, 04:20 PM

Actually, Jafar, I think I'd argue that taking, and relying on, information about Islam from a Jew was an eminently reasonable thing to do.

Ask yourself what race on this planet is better equipped to comment on Islam's harmful effects than the Jewish race !!

If I want critical opinion, I think it best to seek it out from those most justifiably expert to supply it !!!!!

jafar. Would you like to explain to ALL OF US, how BOOKS...without a Jewish, Muslim, Islamic, Catholic, Christian identity are able to provide INFORMATION?

Just because you hate Jews so much, and pretend to call some your friends...doesn't justify your attempts to disavow information provided from the lips of a Jew..calling the information false. That is the height of Propaganda..coming from you, and your hate filled hypocrisy.

NightTrain

05-22-2014, 05:50 PM

That hadith spells it out. There is no death penalty for apostasy alone.

Thanks for agreeing with me at last. The death penalty is for the high treason. Any scholar will tell you that.

Not so fast there, Buckshot.

That sentence seems pretty clear to me, other than having an extra 'and' inserted there. We can disregard 'fighting against' allah or muhammed, since that's clearly impossible in the physical sense. The only thing left, then, is to convert to a different religion and spread the other religion - which is a pretty consistent theme in all major religions. That would be apostasy from an islamic point of view, young Jafar, and calls for death as the punishment.

What he said was pretty clear in the others I provided and you somehow ignored.

Hadiths aside for a moment, what did your Qur'an say?

Qur'an (4:89) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php#004.089) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."
Your contention is that the Qur'an is illegitimate, un-islamic and should not be followed by True Muslims, right?

Drummond

05-22-2014, 06:48 PM

Your contention is that the Qur'an is illegitimate, un-islamic and should not be followed by True Muslims, right?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

jafar00

05-22-2014, 08:39 PM

.... Yes, well ... I've just independently researched this. My findings seem to pretty much duplicate NightTrain's.

So, I'm posting this ....

I expect Jafar's standard 'All this comes from hate sites' is a 'given' ... I really can't see Jafar claiming otherwise. But here's my challenge: forget about any consideration of where any of this is from, Jafar, and tell us if these verses are truthfully rendered, or not .. and how they can possibly support YOUR stance, over that of others here.

I'm not going to argue with you when you use such sources as thereligionofpeace.com

Using a cherry picked English interpretation of 4:89 out of context for example.

Let me copy/paste something of my own to explain where sites like thereligionofpeace.com are wrong. After reading this, you must agree that the way hate sites are misquoting the Qur'aan and hadiths is wrong. They provide support and excuses for terrorists so why do you fill your mind with such poison?

But if they turn away, catch them and slaughter them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89)
This verse has been misquoted like the previous verse, out of context. Here is the full passage:

4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them

So in the same manner as the first verse, this verse also only commands Muslims to fight those who practice oppression or persecution, or attack the Muslims. And in the event of a battle, the same laws of war are in place and a Muslim who transgresses limits should prepare for the punishment of God. In response to a question on verses 4:88-89, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi quotes the verses in their full context and then asks the following:

Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

It is also important to note that the Qur’an clearly condemns murder. The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder,

6:151 Take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom. 17:33 Nor take life, which God has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas(retribution) or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law) 5:32…if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_489_commentary/

NightTrain

05-22-2014, 09:04 PM

I'm not going to argue with you when you use such sources as thereligionofpeace.com

Using a cherry picked English interpretation of 4:89 out of context for example.

Qur'an (4:89) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php#004.089) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them

Looks like we've got a mystery on our hands, Scooby. These two verses are saying different things. Which one is real?

I'll have to dig for an online Qur'an and find out, because these two cannot be reconciled.

In the meantime, Jafar, if indeed you are correct, then how do you explain all the Hadiths saying to kill the apostasy-loving infidels?

NightTrain

05-22-2014, 10:12 PM

I'm not going to argue with you when you use such sources as thereligionofpeace.com

Using a cherry picked English interpretation of 4:89 out of context for example.

Okay then.

Source : Quran.com
Verse 4:89

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Source : http://askmufti.co.za (ask mufti? lol)
Verse 4:89

4: 89: And they wish that you should disbelieve like they have, then you will be equal; so take them not as your friends until they migrate in the Path of Allah. And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or helper.

Source : http://www.alim.org/library/quran/
Verse 4:89

Their real wish is to see that you become a disbeliever, as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may become exactly like them. So you should not take friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as protectors or helpers.

Source : https://www.usc.edu/
Verse 4:89

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.

Source : Islamawakened.com
Verse 4:89

They wished for you to be ungrateful as they were ungrateful so you become equals. So take not to yourselves protectors from them until they emigrate in the way of God. Then, if they turned away, then, take them and kill them wherever you found them. And take not to yourselves from them either a protector or a helper.

They wished you would desert faith in favour of disbelief and be infidel as they are so that you be both alike. Therefore, do not make a friendly intimacy with them until they have emigrated as purposed by Allah and be resolved to fight in His cause. Should they turn a deaf ear, then beset them on all sides. and kill them wherever you find them and join none of them in intimacy nor lean upon any of them to afford you help.

Fain would they that ye disbelieved even as they have disbelieved, so that ye may be all alike. Wherefore take not friends from among them until they migrate for the sake of Allah; and if they turn away, then lay hold of them and slay them, wheresoever ye find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

They would like you to be kafir as they are kafir so that you will all be the same. Do not take any of them as friends until they have made hijra in the Way of Allah. But if they run away then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. Do not take any of them as either a friend or helper.

Their real wish is to see that you become a disbeliever, as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may become exactly like them. So you should not take friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as protectors or helpers.

So the wording is a little different, but the mainstream muslim thought is the same.

Your definition, Jafar, is in a very small minority according to the results I've found.

Here, translate this yourself and tell us what it means - don't worry, it wasn't written by a Jew :

وَدُّوا لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُوا فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاءً فَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ حَتَّىٰ يُهَاجِرُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلَا نَصِيرًا

jafar00

05-23-2014, 02:37 AM

Qur'an (4:89) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php#004.089) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them

Looks like we've got a mystery on our hands, Scooby. These two verses are saying different things. Which one is real?

I'll have to dig for an online Qur'an and find out, because these two cannot be reconciled.

In the meantime, Jafar, if indeed you are correct, then how do you explain all the Hadiths saying to kill the apostasy-loving infidels?

Where is the mystery?

Okay then.

Source : Quran.com
Verse 4:89

Source : http://askmufti.co.za (ask mufti? lol)
Verse 4:89

Source : http://www.alim.org/library/quran/
Verse 4:89

Source : https://www.usc.edu/
Verse 4:89

Source : Islamawakened.com
Verse 4:89

So the wording is a little different, but the mainstream muslim thought is the same.

Your definition, Jafar, is in a very small minority according to the results I've found.

Here, translate this yourself and tell us what it means - don't worry, it wasn't written by a Jew :

وَدُّوا لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُوا فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاءً فَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ حَتَّىٰ يُهَاجِرُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلَا نَصِيرًا

You are still taking it out of both historical and literary context.

You are also discounting at the very least, the next verse which forbids fighting against those who are NOT fighting you. This is a common theme in the Qur'aan. Limits to fighting are only against those who start and continue a fight with you.

Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (4:90)

Also, you clearly didn't read what I quoted above.

These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”.

It was a time of turmoil and fighting. Permission was given for self defence.

There is a little literary and historical context for you. Now do you still see the religionofpeace website as the whole truth?

jimnyc

05-23-2014, 07:17 AM

I did some reading throughout the citations for the Wiki entry below:

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): ردة‎ riddah, literally means: "relapse (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relapse)" or "regress (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regress)" but usually translates to "apostasy (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apostasy)", or ارتداد irtidād) is commonly defined in Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) as the rejection in word or deed of one's former religion (apostasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy)) by a person who was previously a follower of Islam. Islamic scholarship differs on the appropriate punishment for the apostate (or murtad مرتد ), which ranges from execution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Islam) – based on an interpretation of certain hadiths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadiths) – to no punishment at all as long as they do not rebel against the Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic) society or religion.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-news.bbc.co.uk-1) The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_capital_punishment) or imprisonment until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-KEY-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-4) Several contemporary Muslim scholars, including influential Islamic reformers have rejected this, arguing for religious freedom instead.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-KEY-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-alBanna_rejects_apostasy-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Kutty_rejects_apostasy-7) Converts from Islam to Christianity have likewise criticized the traditional position.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-8) According to Islamic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) apostasy is identified by a list of actions such as conversion to another religion, denying the existence of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_Islam), rejecting the prophets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam), mocking God or the prophets, idol worship, rejecting the sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia), or permitting behavior that is forbidden by the sharia, such as adultery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina) or the eating of forbidden foods or drinking of alcoholic beverages.

Now, Jafar states that the Quran doesn't state a penalty for Apostasy. In stating just that, he is correct. But I think the way this scholar states it is MORE correct, as in he just blurts out reality instead of skirting the definitions and leaving out the rest.

Freedom of belief is enshrined in the Koran - the foremost textual authority in laying down the principles of Islamic law. But there is disagreement among Muslim scholars as to the limits of that freedom.

"There is no compulsion in religion" (al-Baqarah, 256); is one of the most quoted phrases from the Koran to back up freedom of belief.

There is no clear-cut text in the Koran, however, that calls for the killing of apostates. But those who call for the execution of Muslims who abandon their faith base their judgement primarily on the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, also known as the hadith.

These constitute a secondary textual authority - albeit weaker than the Koran itself - used in formulating Islamic law, or Sharia.

Abdelsabour Shahin, an Islamist writer and academic at Cairo University, told the BBC that although Islam in principle enshrined freedom of belief, there were severe restrictions on that freedom.

"If someone changes from Islam to kufr (unbelief), that has to remain a personal matter, and he should not make it public," he said.

In other words, an apostate in a Muslim society, according to this view, forfeits his freedom of expression. If he goes public he should be executed, says Dr Shahin.

But if the Koran has not stipulated the killing of apostates, how does Dr Shahin come to this judgement?

He says there is an authoritative and unambiguous hadith (saying of the prophet) which calls for the killing of the apostate - "He who changes his religion should be killed", says Dr Shahin, quoting from the sayings of the prophet.

The black bold above is just showing the authority I have presented. The University is one of the best in the world for Islamic studies. The green part is more or less what Jafar is stating, that if someone leaves the faith, that they are not killed for doing so. But it continues... the red part - A Muslim shouldn't exactly brag, or even talk about the fact that he denounced his faith, In fact, it sounds like his freedom of expression has been limited as a result (the extreme overwhelming majority of Islamic countries don't have freedom of speech and/or expression and/or press anyway). Then he places it altogether in the blue portion, pointing to a hadith where it is clear that one who changes his religion should be killed.

This hadith:

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” — Bukhari 9.84.57 ‘baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu’

http://sheikyermami.com/apostasy-whoever-changes-his-islamic-religion-kill-him/

Lastly, good reading here but too much to paste and hard to grab just one thing.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/apostasy.htm

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

05-23-2014, 09:32 AM

Does my old heart good to see these many "infidels" question Jafar's version of Islam and his denial of reality!
TRUTH shall prevail over wickedness and it many, many allies.
Many of which are so blinded that THEY THINK THEY ARE DEFENDING TRUTH!

Jafar relies on a false premise he himself created.
That is , all those evil deeds engaged in by millions of Muslims are not of Islam..
Even though that's the motive behind those deeds!

Folks , what that means is that in Jafar's world , muslim mistakes are to be excused as just unimportant little mistakes!! As long as they obey the spirit of the Koran and pay blinded homage to Allah..

All these bombings, head -choppings , stonings , hangings , burnings and shootings are not important first because they are mostly dealing with infidels and secondly because all we infidels ask for it!!!--Tyr

Drummond

05-23-2014, 01:42 PM

I'm not going to argue with you when you use such sources as thereligionofpeace.com

Using a cherry picked English interpretation of 4:89 out of context for example.

Let me copy/paste something of my own to explain where sites like thereligionofpeace.com are wrong. After reading this, you must agree that the way hate sites are misquoting the Qur'aan and hadiths is wrong. They provide support and excuses for terrorists so why do you fill your mind with such poison?

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_489_commentary/

I think NightTrain's answer to you is a good answer for most of this, and I don't have much of a need to add to it.

Two points, however ...

One .. you've just assumed that I used 'thereligionofpeace.com' for my material. I'm not surprised that you'd think this, but on this occasion I didn't. Granted, it wasn't a site that could be regarded as particularly neutral -- but that, of itself, doesn't disqualify what it offered.

Second point. Jafar, unless I missed it .. and I don't believe I have .. isn't there an important factor missing from this discussion ?

I refer to ABROGATION.

Jafar, you'll recall that some time ago I posted a webpage from 'Arrsepedia', which is a spoof offering of a version of 'Wikipedia' which the British Army unofficially maintains (mainly for their own amusement). Well .. I'm going to post it again, right now. A spoof site it may be, laced with their version of humour -- but, that doesn't mean that a serious point isn't made all the same. Here's what I'm referring to:-

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Koran

KORAN

A 7th Century book of Monotheistic Arabic Mysticism which Muslims believe was dictated to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. It borrows heavily from Christian and Jewish traditions but without the "Love thy Neighbour" and "Turn the other cheek" bits.

Rather like a bad Quentin Tarantino film, the Koran is arranged in no meaningful order. It contains 114 Suras, the first of which is, logically enough, called "The Opening". The other 113 are ranged not in any meaningful chronological order, in which they have to be interpreted, but in decreasing order of length.

But why is the order so important? Well, Mohammed, I mean God, liked to change his mind. These changes of mind, properly called " abrogations", conveniently happened whenever Mohammed was having problems with things he, I mean God, had previously decreed. For instance, Mohammed, I mean God, decreed that believers could have four wives. But our Mo wanted a few more, so there is a sudden revelation that Mohammed can have more, indeed as many as he liked. But of course this revelation explicitly only provides Mohammed with the exception, and not the rest of the believers.

Alcohol is another case in point - 16:67 accepts it, then 4:43 prohibits turning up to worship drunk, and finally 5:90 prohibits it. Perhaps the most relevant abrogation today relates to attitudes towards nonbelievers (including the "people of the book") - the so-called Verse of the Sword, 9:5, aggregates and therefore cancels out no fewer than 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses, including the famous "there is no compulsion in religion" (which appears chronologically earlier). The vast majority of Islamic scholars agree that Sura 9 was chronologically the last to be "revealed", and - shock horror - an awful lot of the really nasty stuff appears in this sura and cancels out anything it contradicts!

The mainstream view is also that the Koran should only be read in the original classical Arabic, and that translations into modern languages are merely "interpretations" with no validity. This has the unfortunate consequence that many Muslims have never actually read the Koran, since they are not provided it in a language they can understand, much like the Latin Bible in medieval Catholicism. Oh, and according to a related view, only Muslims can understand it anyway, so there's no point in you reading it, infidel.

Strangely, I always enjoy reading that entry.

But you see the point, Jafar. It's clear from this that contradictory verses can be expected to be seen in the Quran. What matters from this is, yes, a matter of context .. but also chronology. Which verse supersedes an earlier one, so, which is to be best 'respected' as a valid reference ??

The author of the above piece concludes that the 'nastier' material carries the greater authoritative weight.

And here's something else to chew over. You talk about context, as though past contexts have little value. BUT ... what if terrorist Muslims disagree ? What if they think that today's world throws up a modern reason for repeating older versions of enmities, with savageries duplicated on a like-for-like basis ?

If so ... this all boils down to what's perceived by the individual Muslim as relevant to his or her worldview. Thus ... Islam actually DOES support what they strive to do.

In all its murderous savagery, Jafar.

You still haven't explained how it is that so many terrorist Muslims, from so many locations across the world, manage to see Islam as their inspiration for what they get up to. 'Coincidence' .. it can't be.

Can it, Jafar ?

jimnyc

05-23-2014, 01:53 PM

You still haven't explained how it is that so many terrorist Muslims, from so many locations across the world, manage to see Islam as their inspiration for what they get up to. 'Coincidence' .. it can't be.

:clap::clap::clap:

NightTrain

05-23-2014, 02:40 PM

You are still taking it out of both historical and literary context.

You are also discounting at the very least, the next verse which forbids fighting against those who are NOT fighting you. This is a common theme in the Qur'aan. Limits to fighting are only against those who start and continue a fight with you.

Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (4:90)

Also, you clearly didn't read what I quoted above.

It was a time of turmoil and fighting. Permission was given for self defence.

There is a little literary and historical context for you. Now do you still see the religionofpeace website as the whole truth?

I wasn't using religionofpeace, I have used actual muslim sites with regard to my links to you (with the exception of the university site).

Here is a former muslim, who is very familiar with your argument and seems to neatly destroy your argument :

RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT #2
The main thrust of this argument is that apostates were committing treason and deserved to be killed. However, if you examine the cases where an execution occurred, treason is not always mentioned or implied. Rather, the only reason given consistently to execute apostates was that they left the faith.
Robert Spencer addresses this argument:

But it is not true that Muhammad ordered the execution only of apostates who joined the enemies of Islam. His statement baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu -- if anyone changes his religion, kill him -- includes no caveat. He didn't say, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him only if he joins the enemies of Islam." He simply said, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." This statement is amply attested in the Hadith, and is accepted as authentic by all except the most disingenuous Islamic scholars. It appears in various forms in Bukhari, Ibn Majah, An-Nasai, Tayalisi, Malik, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and other authorities.
Nor does Muhammad make any exception when enunciating the principle in this way: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims" (Bukhari, vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17).[28]

As you read the various historical stories of the apostates who were murdered by Muslims you often find no mention of opposition to the state, rather you find people who searched their own consciences and soul and decided that Islam was not true. As seen above, the Christians said to Ali,

"By God, our religion from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties." And they returned to their former religion."

There is no mention of rebellion. There is no mention of fighting Islam. These Christians realized they had made a mistake in believing that Islam contained truth and righteousness. They saw the deeds of Islam and it repulsed them. In good conscience they could no longer follow such a criminal faith and they left it. Their stand cost them their lives but it carried an eternal weight of glory. They stood up to a Satanic power, and that faith, that precious faith, is something God values and rewards.

At the top of the page is this interesting read about Western Muslims, Jafar, which IMO describes you :

The punishment for apostasy from Islam is a controversial topic for Muslims living in the West and for ex-Muslims everywhere. That’s because Islam teaches that apostates are to be killed. We know from historic Islamic documents that during Muhammad's lifetime, and the lifetimes of the next four "Rightly Guided Caliphs", tens of thousands of Muslims left the faith of Islam and thousands were killed. On a large scale the Muslims made war on groups that chose to leave Islam and massacres of apostates occurred. On a smaller scale individual apostates were executed. This death sentence is in effect whether or not the apostasy occurred in or out of the Islamic state.

Many Muslims living in Islamic countries have no problem with the rule of putting apostates to death. The examples of Robert Hussein[1] of Kuwait, Abdul Rahman[2] of Afghanistan, and Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad[3] of Egypt come to mind. These ugly Muslim governments are succored by the West’s finances and blood while they impose an imperial and brutal religion upon its citizens.

On the other hand, Muslims living in the West are embarrassed by this death sentence. The West values the freedoms of thought and speech, Islam does not, and these virtues have never blossomed under Islamic rule. Consequently, when asked about the Islamic law for apostates many Western Muslims do their best to cover up Islam’s edict. Motivated by conviction, or shame, they make up various defenses and say whatever they can to put your mind at ease and make Islam more acceptable to a naïve, gullible, and ignorant Western audience. It is not difficult to make the Quran dance and say what you want it to say. More on these arguments later.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm

jafar00

05-23-2014, 08:44 PM

I wasn't using religionofpeace, I have used actual muslim sites with regard to my links to you (with the exception of the university site).

Here is a former muslim, who is very familiar with your argument and seems to neatly destroy your argument :

At the top of the page is this interesting read about Western Muslims, Jafar, which IMO describes you :

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm[/FONT][/COLOR]

And here is the response to this guy which destroys his argument from an actual, current Muslim :)

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
Many prominent scholars throughout the centuries have held the view that apostasy is not a hadd (singular for hudud = capital) offence. This view is founded on the fact that the Qur'an is completely silent on the death penalty for apostasy. In fact, freedom of religion is a fundamental tenet of Islam. In Surah al-Baqarah, 2:256, Allah explicitly states: "Let there be no compulsion in religion". This Medinan verse was revealed when some Companions asked the Prophet for permission to compel their relatives to profess Islam. It has been widely interpreted to mean that no one can be compelled to embrace Islam because religion depends upon faith and will, and this would be meaningless if induced by force. Islam itself means submission to the will of God; and the willing submission of the self to faith and
belief must be attained through conviction and reason, not through coercion and duress.
Islam began by inviting and persuading people to embrace it on the merit of its rationality and truth. In Surah Yunus, 10:99, a verse revealed in Mecca at the advent of Islam, Allah says: "Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Do you then force people to become believers?" This and verse 2:256, together with the norm of Shari'a which affirms freedom of religion, have led many Muslim countries today to include in its Constitution an article on freedom of religion as a fundamental right.
In his book, The Punishment for Apostasy in Islam, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, noted that even though the subject of apostasy occurred no less than 20 times in the Qur'an, the Holy Book remained silent on death as a punishment. Surah An-Nisa', 4:137-138, state that "Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path. Give to the hypocrites the tidings that there is for them a painful torment." If indeed it was Allah's intention to impose the death penalty for apostasy, then such occasion of repeated apostasy could have provoked such a punishment. But neither the first instance of apostasy, nor repeated apostasy brought about capital punishment.
Those who advocate the death penalty for apostasy based their reasoning on a hadith which proclaims, "kill whoever changes his religion". But this hadith is open to varying interpretations on several grounds.
First, this hadith is considered a weak hadith with just a single isnad (this means there is only one chain of transmission or narration) and thus according to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not enough to validate the death penalty.
Second, this hadith is also considered a general ('amm) hadith in that it is in need of specification (takhsis); for it would otherwise convey a meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious reading of the hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the intention of the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, when a text is interpreted once, it becomes open to further interpretation and specification. Therefore, many scholars interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high treason (hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or God or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.
Third, and most importantly, there is no evidence to show that Prophet Muhammad saw or his Companions ever compelled anyone to embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of the faith.
Based on these three reasons and the Qur'anic principle of freedom of religion, prominent ulama (scholars) from the seventh to the twentieth centuries have come out with the position that there can be no death penalty for apostasy. According to Professor Hashim Kamali in his award-winning book, Freedom of Expression in Islam, two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions, Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences, it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.
In modern times, the celebrated Sheikh of al-Azhar University, the late Mahmud Shaltut who was esteemed for his vast knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and Qur'anic interpretation, wrote that many ulama are in agreement that hudud cannot be established by a solitary hadith and that unbelief by itself does not call for the death penalty. The current Sheikh of al-Azhar, who was Egypt's former Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also declared that apostasy is not a capital crime.
Many scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaltut and Tantawi, said that the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith, but to hirabah, that is, when apostasy is accompanied by rebellion against the community and its legitimate leadership.
Extracts from
http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/letterstoeditors/22071999.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm

NightTrain

05-23-2014, 09:17 PM

And here is the response to this guy which destroys his argument from an actual, current Muslim :)

http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm

I might take your argument more seriously if not for the facts that :

100% of Islamic Nations embrace the argument that I presented from your own muslim texts.

You can't deny that muhommed and the qur'an both give clear instructions to kill people abandoning islam.

You can't deny that for over a thousand years, muslims have been killing people for leaving islam to this very day.

You can't refute the fact that this OP is about apostasy, and that Christian woman has been railroaded by your holy islamic fellows.

You can't refute the fact that your claims in this matter amounts to a very tiny minority in overall opinion within Islam.

Have you ever played Chess, Jafar? I get the feeling that you don't, or if you do, you're horrible at it.

Don't think I've forgotten about the other points that you've ducked. They're coming.

jafar00

05-23-2014, 11:56 PM

I might take your argument more seriously if not for the facts that :

100% of Islamic Nations embrace the argument that I presented from your own muslim texts.

No they don't.

You can't deny that muhommed and the qur'an both give clear instructions to kill people abandoning islam.

If you bothered to read when I posted, you would clearly see that the above statement is wrong. Neither Mohamed (saw), nor the Qur'aan say anything like it.

You can't deny that for over a thousand years, muslims have been killing people for leaving islam to this very day.

True, some hypocrites have behaved badly but it's hardly been widespread. To kill someone for apostasy alone is a grave sin.

You can't refute the fact that this OP is about apostasy, and that Christian woman has been railroaded by your holy islamic fellows.

I agree she has been unfairly judged. She wasn't even raised as a Muslim in the first place. I'm with you in condemning the Sudanese "judge".

You can't refute the fact that your claims in this matter amounts to a very tiny minority in overall opinion within Islam.

Actually, I have presented a mainstream opinion or is a fatwa from Al Azhar and other mainstream sources of Islamic Law not enough?

Have you ever played Chess, Jafar? I get the feeling that you don't, or if you do, you're horrible at it.

Don't think I've forgotten about the other points that you've ducked. They're coming.

I was in a chess club when I was younger. Geek and proud!