Proselytizing in an Islamic state

[blunderbus]

How do Muslims reconcile the fact that they do not allow non-Islamic religious recruiting in their countries, yet set up Mosques and try to recruit in non-Islamic countries?

Is it something along the lines of "It's ok for us to deny non-Muslims what we demand from non-Muslims because we're right and they are wrong"?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

How do Muslims reconcile the fact that they do not allow non-Islamic religious recruiting in their countries, yet set up Mosques and try to recruit in non-Islamic countries?

Since we've moved from apostasy to proselytizing, I'm assuming that you're satisfied with my answer on apostasy.

With regard to proselytizing, it depends on the form. Non-muslims are free to set up their own religious institutions and websites where they explain their religions and seek to clarify them. Methods that would be forbidden include some of the tactics practiced by dishonest missionaries like fake copies of the Qur'an which actually preach Christianity. Or moving into areas where there are impoverished and ill Muslims, and attempting to win easy converts there, not through fair discussion but through some of the tactics posted by br. Abrar. Also prohibited would be slandering Islam and insulting the Prophet Muhammad pbuh which again is a big part of missionary preaching. These things really have no parallel with Muslims because we cannot slander the Prophet Jesus nor can we use deceit in our Da'wah.

Is there any other form of proselytizing you had in mind?

[HeiGou]

With regard to proselytizing, it depends on the form. Non-muslims are free to set up their own religious institutions and websites where they explain their religions and seek to clarify them. Methods that would be forbidden include some of the tactics practiced by dishonest missionaries like fake copies of the Qur'an which actually preach Christianity. Or moving into areas where there are impoverished and ill Muslims, and attempting to win easy converts there, not through fair discussion but through some of the tactics by br. Abrar. Also prohibited would be slandering Islam and insulting the Prophet Muhammad pbuh which again is a big part of missionary preaching. These things really have no parallel with Muslims because we cannot slander the Prophet Jesus nor can we use deceit in our Da'wah.

Is there any other form of proselytizing you had in mind?

Explain and seek to clarify them? What if that comes into conflict with Islamic teachings? May a Christian assert that Christ was the Son of God, was crucified and rose from the Dead? May a Jew assert that no Jew has ever, ever once, claimed that Ezra was the Son of God?

You say prohibited would be slandering Islam and insulting Muhammed. What could this cover? Wouldn't asserting any basic Christian or Jewish doctrine on later prophets or Muhammed constitute slander?

Muslims do, from a Christian perspective, slander Jesus all the time. From a Christian perspective every time a Muslim says Jesus was not the Son of God and did not rise from the dead they are commiting blasphemy. And whatever the theoretical rules for Dawa are, some Muslims do use tricky tactics - look at the answering-christianity site which is full of, well, basically, lies.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Hei Gou,

Explain and seek to clarify them? What if that comes into conflict with Islamic teachings? May a Christian assert that Christ was the Son of God, was crucified and rose from the Dead?

Again, depends on the form. They are free to teach such doctrines in their religious insititutions, organizations, conferences and websites.

May a Jew assert that no Jew has ever, ever once, claimed that Ezra was the Son of God?

Answered here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/115321-post2.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/118405-post6.html

You say prohibited would be slandering Islam and insulting Muhammed. What could this cover? Wouldn't asserting any basic Christian or Jewish doctrine on later prophets or Muhammed constitute slander?

One can say, "Christians do not believe in later prophets after so-and-so" instead of saying, "Muhammad was a liar" or something offensive, na'oodhubillah.

Muslims do, from a Christian perspective, slander Jesus all the time.

"christian" perspective? Christians themselves hold even more varying views on Jesus,

From a Christian perspective every time a Muslim says Jesus was not the Son of God and did not rise from the dead they are commiting blasphemy.

Which is not the same as slander.

And whatever the theoretical rules for Dawa are, some Muslims do use tricky tactics - look at the answering-christianity site which is full of, well, basically, lies.

Look at the site which it was designed to respond to ( a site which you admit to using). I don't endorse either website, nor do I use them as the quality of the material tends to be unscholarly.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[HeiGou]

Hello Hei Gou,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for such a prompt response.

Again, depends on the form. They are free to teach such doctrines in their religious insititutions, organizations, conferences and websites.

...to other Christians? How about to Muslims? How about simply publishing, in public, a basic statement of Christian belief - Pakistan has a law against defaming Muhammed. Almost everything Christians might want to say could be so interpreted.

Answered here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/115321-post2.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/118405-post6.html

Well they are interesting but they do not really answer my question. Nor are they all that informative as of course Tabari, who is not known for his strict accuracy as you say so yourself, post-dates the Revelation of the verse. Some objective evidence would have been interesting. But of course still not relevant to my question. I do not care if the verse is correct or not. I am interested to know whether in an Islamic state a Jew can say it is not.

One can say, "Christians do not believe in later prophets after so-and-so" instead of saying, "Muhammad was a liar" or something offensive, na'oodhubillah.

Well that would be less offensive, but it is a statement of what Christians think and not what, they believe, is true. Compare the two statements "Christians believe that there is no Revelation after Jesus Christ" and "There is no Revelation after Jesus Christ". Can they say the second?

"christian" perspective? Christians themselves hold even more varying views on Jesus,

Well all Christians of any importance tend to believe Jesus was the Son of God. Can they say, in public, in an Islamic state, Jesus was the Son of God?

Which is not the same as slander.

Well what matters is where the shoe pinches and that can only be told by the wearer. If you were in a Christian country or talking to a Christian, I would not be so sure that would not be seen as a slander as well as blasphemy.

Look at the site which it was designed to respond to ( a site which you admit to using). I don't endorse either website, nor do I use them as the quality of the material tends to be unscholarly.

I admit to having a look at both. But the outrageous lies of a-islam is not reflected, as far as I can tell, by the other one. I would not encourage you to find me an example, but if you know of one I would be happy to hear of it.

Yet it also misses the point - some Muslims do some pretty low things in the course of Dawa. Just as Christians do. Who started it or who is worse is not the issue.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi HeiGou,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for such a prompt response.

Your most welcome. :)

...to other Christians? How about to Muslims?

Simply educating others about one's beliefs is not a crime. It really depends on how it is done.

How about simply publishing, in public, a basic statement of Christian belief - Pakistan has a law against defaming Muhammed. Almost everything Christians might want to say could be so interpreted.

If it is just clarifying their beliefs without attacking Islamic beliefs, then there's no problem. The scholars of Islam used to have debates and dialogues with Christians which is only possible when there is input from both sides.

I am interested to know whether in an Islamic state a Jew can say it is not.

How can one make such a comment if they do not even know what kinds of groups, heretical or otherwise, were in existence. They could claim that whoever said such was not a true Jew, but saying what you mentioned really seems to simply be targeting the verse in the Qur'an.

Can they say the second?

They could, although the former is more polite.

Well all Christians of any importance tend to believe Jesus was the Son of God. Can they say, in public, in an Islamic state, Jesus was the Son of God?

I would expect that they would naturally do that. Unless you had something else in mind about saying it in public.

Yet it also misses the point - some Muslims do some pretty low things in the course of Dawa. Just as Christians do. Who started it or who is worse is not the issue.

I clearly said I endorse neither site.

Regards

[mirage41]

Already answered:
http://www.islamicboard.com/229873-post41.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/230403-post44.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/230808-post46.html

So does that mean that in a Shariah state I can publicly hand out pamphlets and welcome Muslims to join my local Christian chapel and invite them to the "true religion of the Gospel"? The posts you directed me to are actually quite vague, they don't answer the question whether a person can preach another religion or not, they simply state that they can set up "institutions" and "websites" to "explain" their religion. An "explaination" is quite different from full blown preaching. So the question still hasn't really been answered.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

So does that mean that in a Shariah state I can publicly hand out pamphlets and welcome Muslims to join my local Christian chapel and invite them to the "true religion of the Gospel"? The posts you directed me to are actually quite vague

The problem is your suggestion is equally vague. What form does "welcome Muslims to join my local Christian chapel" take? Welcoming is a word that encompasses a variety of different actions. Be specific in your question and you get a specific response.

An "explaination" is quite different from full blown preaching.

'full blown preaching' is again being vague. What do you mean by 'full blown' ?

[mirage41]

The problem is your suggestion is equally vague. What form does "welcome Muslims to join my local Christian chapel" take? Welcoming is a word that encompasses a variety of different actions. Be specific in your question and you get a specific response.

'full blown preaching' is again being vague. What do you mean by 'full blown' ?

Full blown preaching is vague? Umm, okay. Let me help you out:

If I handed out a pamphlet saying simple christian ideas about the life of Christ that's and "explaination". Now if I handed out a pamphlet saying the Christ was the lord, the only way and you must convert and accept Christ to be saved or damned in hellfire - that's full blown preaching.




Oh and thanks for penalizing me for daring have a different opinion. Its sad that you abuse your priveleges as a administrator to attack people whose opinions you don't agree with.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

If I handed out a pamphlet saying simple christian ideas about the life of Christ that's and "explaination". Now if I handed out a pamphlet saying the Christ was the lord, the only way and you must convert and accept Christ to be saved or damned in hellfire - that's full blown preaching.

Like I said before, they are perfectly free to expound their beliefs but attacking others as being damned in hellfire for following Islam is absolutely not allowed. What you refer to as 'full blown preaching' involves, whether explciit or implcit, attacks on Islam which is not acceptable.

Typically, what some missionaries will do is they will go to poor villages or war-torn areas where people can be more easily influenced and are not very knowledgeable about their religion. Such low tactics are not acceptable. Different faith groups are more than welcome to engage in educated and formal dialogue and debate, but evading dialogue and instead pushing anti-islamic propaganda is unacceptable.

Oh and thanks for penalizing me for daring have a different opinion. Its sad that you abuse your priveleges as a administrator to attack people whose opinions you don't agree with.

No warnings are ever given for having a different opinion. Warnings are given for evading discussion through refusal to view others' perspectives and attacking Islam and Muslims. I don't have a problem with your different opinion. I have a problem with how you EXPRESS your different opinion. Please do it respectfully.

[mirage41]

Like I said before, they are perfectly free to expound their beliefs but attacking others as being damned in hellfire for following Islam is absolutely not allowed. What you refer to as 'full blown preaching' involves, whether explciit or implcit, attacks on Islam which is not acceptable.

Typically, what some missionaries will do is they will go to poor villages or war-torn areas where people can be more easily influenced and are not very knowledgeable about their religion. Such low tactics are not acceptable. Different faith groups are more than welcome to engage in educated and formal dialogue and debate, but evading dialogue and instead pushing anti-islamic propaganda is unacceptable.

Who said anything about attacking Islam? If someone says "accept christ or you will burn in hell" it's preaching. And why can't people attack Islam? If so, that means Islam is against freedom of conscience and therefore inferior to the more advanced systems of secular liberal democracy.

Like I said before, they are perfectly free to expound their beliefs but attacking others as being damned in hellfire for following Islam is absolutely not allowed. What you refer to as 'full blown preaching' involves, whether explciit or implcit, attacks on Islam which is not acceptable.

Typically, what some missionaries will do is they will go to poor villages or war-torn areas where people can be more easily influenced and are not very knowledgeable about their religion. Such low tactics are not acceptable. Different faith groups are more than welcome to engage in educated and formal dialogue and debate, but evading dialogue and instead pushing anti-islamic propaganda is unacceptable.


No warnings are ever given for having a different opinion. Warnings are given for evading discussion through refusal to view others' perspectives and attacking Islam and Muslims. I don't have a problem with your different opinion. I have a problem with how you EXPRESS your different opinion. Please do it respectfully.

Evading discussions????!!! Are you serious? So going downstairs to have lunch or going out for a run or going to school is evading discussion??????? Lets face it, you don't like my opinions and are punishing me for it - a preview to the coming Khalifa!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Who said anything about attacking Islam? If someone says "accept christ or you will burn in hell" it's preaching.

The latter half of the statement contains the implied attack that Islam leads people to hell.

And why can't people attack Islam? If so, that means Islam is against freedom of conscience and therefore inferior to the more advanced systems of secular liberal democracy.

No it doesn't. You've made numerous errors here:
1. Islam is not against any freedoms, but like EVERY MODERN SOCIETY in balances individual freedoms with the rights of the general public
2. Every modern society places what they view 'reasonable limits' on freedoms. Freedom is not absolute.
3. Freedom of conscience has nothing to do with it. Your above comment betrays utter ignorance on the meaning of 'freedom of conscience'. It refers to one's personal beliefs and views, and they are of course entitled to have whatever such beliefs and views they want. The issue here is freedom of expression.

Evading discussions????!!!

Refer to the Dhul-Qarnayn thread. You refused to respond to any arguments and continued to restate what had been debunked. You even out-right refused to read the link I provided you with my responses to all allegations against the Qur'an, indicating that you had no desire to consider other perspectives and learn, but only to propagate your own hateful and twisted perception of Islam.

Are you serious?

Absolutely.

So going downstairs to have lunch or going out for a run or going to school is evading discussion???????

You were penalized for your posts not the absence of posts.

Lets face it, you don't like my opinions and are punishing me for it

Not at all. I suggest you take this warning seriously and be more open-minded and respectful on the forums.

Regards

[cloehadi]

How do Muslims reconcile the fact that they do not allow non-Islamic religious recruiting in their countries, yet set up Mosques and try to recruit in non-Islamic countries?

Is it something along the lines of "It's ok for us to deny non-Muslims what we demand from non-Muslims because we're right and they are wrong"?

From what I've read in response to this question, I gather the following:
1. It's ok to explain a religion other than Islam (in non-islamic countries).

2. If a muslim likes the "explanation" of the other religion, they are not allowed to adopt that religion

Is this correct? If so, what blunderbus states above seems pretty accurate.
1. No conversions from Islam to another religion allowed (Islamic countries)

2. Conversions from other religions to Islam allowed (in non-Islamic countries)

So, can anyone answer blunderbus? How does Islam reconcile this fact? What's the justification?

[mirage41]

Disallowing someone to preach against Islam or convert to another religion is not a "reasonable limit" it does not harm society as a whole. Making people watch a stoning harms society, your average Ahmed, Ali or Yusuf accepting a new god harms no one. Those aren't reasonable limits based on sound reasons, those are limits based on the imposition of your own personal religious dogma.

[Syed Nizam]

I do believe that preaching & proselytising is TWO different matters altogether. To preach is ok, but, to proselytising is a different things altogether which the later have a more element of deceit in it.

[cloehadi]

It is possible to not agree with a religion and still have respect for it. Just because someone doesn't agree with the religion doesn't mean they are insulting it.

[mirage41]

I do believe that preaching & proselytising is TWO different matters altogether. To preach is ok, but, to proselytising is a different things altogether which the later have a more element of deceit in it.

Preaching is an aspect of Proselyting. The hijab is an example of discreet proselytising, which is why French schools banned it. (which im against by the way).

[cloehadi]

I do believe that preaching & proselytising is TWO different matters altogether. To preach is ok, but, to proselytising is a different things altogether which the later have a more element of deceit in it.

I like your statement:)

[cloehadi]

From what I've read in response to this question, I gather the following:
1. It's ok to explain a religion other than Islam (in non-islamic countries).

2. If a muslim likes the "explanation" of the other religion, they are not allowed to adopt that religion

Is this correct? If so, what blunderbus states above seems pretty accurate.
1. No conversions from Islam to another religion allowed (Islamic countries)

2. Conversions from other religions to Islam allowed (in non-Islamic countries)

So, can anyone answer blunderbus? How does Islam reconcile this fact? What's the justification?

Do you think that Islam is taking advantage of the freedoms in Western countries? :?

[blunderbus]

"It is possible to not agree with a religion and still have respect for it. Just because someone doesn't agree with the religion doesn't mean they are insulting it."

Brother, are you ever in the wrong place

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Cloehadi :)

From what I've read in response to this question, I gather the following:
1. It's ok to explain a religion other than Islam (in non-islamic countries).

2. If a muslim likes the "explanation" of the other religion, they are not allowed to adopt that religion

Is this correct?

we're bouncing back and forth between two different issues. Initially blunderbus asked about the question of apostasy which you have just asked now and I answered it for him. Then he asked about proeslytizing so I made this seperate thread and answered it here for him. Now you're going back to apostasy, so I'm going to refer you to my previous answer:
http://www.islamicboard.com/20595-post1.html
To see blunderbus's question and my answer, please scroll to the end of that post. After you've read that, if you have further questions please let me know.

Hello mirage,
In response to my list of arguments you wrote:

Disallowing someone to preach against Islam or convert to another religion is not a "reasonable limit" it does not harm society as a whole.

Considering the fact that you are unable to distinguish between freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, as I demonstrated in this post, I think we will take your views on 'reasonable limits' with a grain of salt!

Yes, limiting others from attacking Islam is a reasonable limit. If they feel their arguments against Islam are strong and convincing then they can express them in the format of a respectful debate.

Making people watch a stoning harms society

For someone who is supposed to have known about Islam, you display even more myths concerning Shari'ah law than I find in non-muslims who's only understanding comes through TV!

Do yourself a favour and learn about the hudud and ta'azir on unlawful relations.

your average Ahmed, Ali or Yusuf accepting a new god harms no one

If it's their personal choice, you're right it harms no one but themselves, so since the Islamic state's function is the protection of society, it takes no action against such people.

Those aren't reasonable limits based on sound reasons

Sound reasons? Like how you responded to my absolute refutation of your 'silver bullet'? You couldn't even touch my answer so you resorted to immature attacks on Muslims:
http://www.islamicboard.com/271758-post27.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/271772-post31.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/271800-post42.html

[sardab]

Islamic social structure is like a clock, every piece is crucial. When a single part malfunctions, the whole process is at risk.

Muslim family maintains close ties, unlike the western family. Muslim parents has the task of teaching their children their religion. If one someone changes religion, his/her relations poses a threat to the health of the society. A Muslims childe cannot be trusted to non-Muslim parents.

So basicly if someone converts to other religions, Islam cannot allow him maintain his relations, since he might carry others to the same mistake, especially weaker ones, like children. So if he does not hide his religion or leave the society by his will, he should be forced to come back to Islam or be removed from the society.

A comparision between Muslim countries and Western countries is wrong, since their society and culture depends on sperate values. But it might be hard for westerners to understand this. They are in a Catch 22 position. If they do not allow Muslims in their countries, then they would be rejecting the foundations of their liberal culture, and will invite serious internal inconsistencies and problems. But there's no reciprocity either, which is clearly hard to accept. But this is the case.

[Nicola]

Or moving into areas where there are impoverished and ill Muslims, and attempting to win easy converts there, not through fair discussion but through some of the tactics posted by br. Abrar

a few points to this statement ...why aren't Muslims helping these poor people. Instead of leaving it to Christian missionaires.
Also it doesn't really matter if they try and win converts this way, because if they aren't born-again... then they aren't really Christian...saying your a Christian is totaly different than really being one.

And lastly at least they are being fed and clothed, which is a major concern for them and their children I should think.

No matter how you look at it...both the two main religions in this world contradict each other...both say the other will go to hell. Both are insulting to the other..though in Christianty we don't force someone to stay by threats of death etc. What is the point if their heart isn't in it. Thats what Christianity is all about freewill and freedom.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Nicola,

a few points to this statement ...why aren't Muslims helping these poor people

Some Muslims are some Muslims aren't. You can't make sweeping generalizations like that. Those that aren't helping are committing sins.

Instead of leaving it to Christian missionaires.

We would like to believe that others would help the impoverished becuase they are fellow human beings without the vested interest in trying to change their religion.

Also it doesn't really matter if they try and win converts this way

Maybe not to Christians! Would it be acceptable to you if you had a young child and other people were trying to change his/her religion while they had not yet learned their faith properly. It is one thing for a missionary to debate religion with a Muslim da'ee, it is another for a missionary to do so with an uneducated child.

And lastly at least they are being fed and clothed, which is a major concern for them and their children I should think.

Why should one's food and clothing be at the expense of their religion?

The issue of apostasy has been discussed in the other thread.

Regards

[nimrod]

pros•e•ly•tize
v. pros•e•ly•tized, pros•e•ly•tiz•ing, pros•e•ly•tiz•es
v. intr.
1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

v. tr.
To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.


Ansar Al-‘Adl, some of your replies have left me very confused:
“Non-muslims are free to set up their own religious institutions and websites where they explain their religions and seek to clarify them”.

Jesus taught that anyone who doesn’t accept him as Lord will be cast out where there is wailing and gnashing of the teeth. He also taught that the other name for that place is Hell.

Mirage used the example of what the bible teaches “the Christ was the lord, the only way and you must convert and accept Christ to be saved or damned in hellfire” as an example teaching what Jesus taught.

Your reply “Like I said before, they are perfectly free to expound their beliefs but attacking others as being damned in hellfire for following Islam is absolutely not allowed”.

I am completely confused.

I am also confused as to whether or not the topic in the thread title was ever answered:

Proselytizing in an Islamic state

“How do Muslims reconcile the fact that they do not allow non-Islamic religious recruiting in their countries”

I don’t understand how a person can be free to explain their beliefs when they are restricted from stating one its most fundamental tenets. For Christians the belief that Jesus was the Son of God on Earth and that rejecting him as such results in being condemned to Hell is as fundamental as it gets.

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

I am also confused about how there is no compulsion in religion yet one faith would be free to explain how a person who rejects it is condemed by God, yet other faiths are not free to make the same claim as freely and as publicly as the first.

Probably a different topic though.

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

I am also confused as to whether explaining to a Jewish person that if he doesn't accept Christianty, he is condemed as well, is viewed the same by Islamic teachings.

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

Is this not the same sort of Islamic teaching "shirk in one's worship of Allah. Allah the Most High has said, "Verily Allah does not forgive that partners be ascribed to Him, while He forgives what is less than that for whomever he wants." And He, the Most High, has said, "Verily whoever ascribes a partner to Allah, then Allah has made Paradise haraam(impermissible) for him(i.e. He will never enter it), and his abode is the Fire."?

Thanks
Nimrod

[NJUSA]

Perhaps Muslims should work to have religious freedom respected everywhere- it benefits Muslims, b/c they can be Muslims the world over, and if Muslims decide to exercise their freedom by leaving the faith, that is their choice, and may God guide us all.

[sardab]

Perhaps Muslims should work to have religious freedom respected everywhere- it benefits Muslims, b/c they can be Muslims the world over, and if Muslims decide to exercise their freedom by leaving the faith, that is their choice, and may God guide us all.

Hi.. There is religious freedom in Islam. But proselytizing is a different issue. Centuries before social contract of Rousseau, Prophet of Islam declared all Muslims brethren and united them under one ummah. That is in a way social contract. One cannot just say "I'm not Muslim and no more binded by this contract," given the extend of his relationships. He is no more a single point in society, he is a working part of the Islamic society. He cannot be allowed to continue his role. So he'd better choose a voluntary exile.

[sardab]

I'm talking more about apostasy, but we cannot understand why proselytizing is not allowed withour understanding how Islam deals with apostasy first.

[HeiGou]

Perhaps Muslims should work to have religious freedom respected everywhere- it benefits Muslims, b/c they can be Muslims the world over, and if Muslims decide to exercise their freedom by leaving the faith, that is their choice, and may God guide us all.

Perhaps, and I am actually serious if I think about it, non-Muslims ought to work to have religious freedom restricted everywhere. Let's execute anyone who leaves any religion except for the official religion of the country. Or at least let's execute anyone who converts to Islam outside the Islamic world.

That would not achive much but it would be equality.

[Nicola]

Perhaps, and I am actually serious if I think about it, non-Muslims ought to work to have religious freedom restricted everywhere. Let's execute anyone who leaves any religion except for the official religion of the country. Or at least let's execute anyone who converts to Islam outside the Islamic world.

That would not achive much but it would be equality.

I believe it is going to come to that, but it won't be the governments doing..but done by non-religious people taking things into their own hands in their own countries.
I know this happens in Muslim countries already with or without the governments laws, but I think it will begin to happen in western countries.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hey Nimrod,
It's a little bit easier for me if you use one post instead of four next time, but no matter.

Jesus taught that anyone who doesn’t accept him as Lord will be cast out where there is wailing and gnashing of the teeth. He also taught that the other name for that place is Hell.

Mirage used the example of what the bible teaches “the Christ was the lord, the only way and you must convert and accept Christ to be saved or damned in hellfire” as an example teaching what Jesus taught.

Saying that Christians believe that non-christians and muslims will go to hell-fire is very different from saying to a specific Muslim, convert to Christianity or you will burn in hell.

I don’t understand how a person can be free to explain their beliefs when they are restricted from stating one its most fundamental tenets. For Christians the belief that Jesus was the Son of God on Earth and that rejecting him as such results in being condemned to Hell is as fundamental as it gets.

They can certainly expound such fundamentals but the issue is when they are directly calling for Muslims to abandon their religion.

I think this answers your other points too. As for whether this applies to other religions too, I think this is subject to opinion.

Some members are brining up the issue of apostasy again, which is being discussed in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...-apostasy.html

We can continue that discussion there.

Regards

[NJUSA]

Perhaps, and I am actually serious if I think about it, non-Muslims ought to work to have religious freedom restricted everywhere. Let's execute anyone who leaves any religion except for the official religion of the country. Or at least let's execute anyone who converts to Islam outside the Islamic world.

That would not achive much but it would be equality.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind- Gandhi.

[nimrod]

HeiGou “I am actually serious if I think about it”. Surely you don’t mean that.

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl “Saying that Christians believe that non-Christians and Muslims will go to hell-fire is very different from saying to a specific Muslim, convert to Christianity or you will burn in hell”.

I would assume that if I said publicly in an Islamic country (Assuming one did currently exist for the example):

Christians believe that anyone who rejects Jesus as Lord will burn in Hell.
The likely reply would first be “well you are wrong, let me explain why”.

The exchange would most likely go back and forth till the question was posed.

Well what about me, are you saying that if I do not convert to Christianity, I will burn in Hell?

If I answer “Yes you will”, then that would not be allowed?

A second question, if you don’t mind:

Are outdoor public rallies (Or revivals) allowed?


Thanks
Nimrod

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Nimrod,
Thanks for your post :)

I would assume that if I said publicly in an Islamic country (Assuming one did currently exist for the example):

Christians believe that anyone who rejects Jesus as Lord will burn in Hell.
The likely reply would first be “well you are wrong, let me explain why”.

The exchange would most likely go back and forth till the question was posed.

Well what about me, are you saying that if I do not convert to Christianity, I will burn in Hell?

If I answer “Yes you will”, then that would not be allowed?

Context is very important. Since this comment takes place within the context of a dialogue, this is only explaining religious beliefs. Dialogues and debates with non-muslims were something the Muslim scholars used to engage in, throughout Islamic history.

A second question, if you don’t mind:

Are outdoor public rallies (Or revivals) allowed?

For the most part, yes. But in every country, muslim or non-muslim, you will find that such activites will depend on a variety of things and it can sometimes be subjective. Sometimes rally leaders will unintentionally end up going too far in their comments against other societal groups or the government, for example. Sometimes a rally is really more of a riot. It is always looked at by exmaining harm caused to society.

I've moved and answered your other question in the apostasy thread.

Regards