Why is there a punishment for leaving Islam? Shouldn't everyone be free to choose their religion? And no, don't tell me what can be worse than a person leaving Islam. I just see the punishment as unnecessary and makes Islam look like a religion controlled by fear.
Yes plus it Prevents people, from playing with the Deen.
And it's treason against Allah tala
Does somebody who was never a believer, but pretended to be, and played with the Deen as you say, qualify as an "apostate"? Is this what you are really looking to stop? Outsiders from messing with your internal religious workings?
If so, what then of actual true believers that then lose their faith and become actual nonbeliever aspostates? Are they to be treated differently?
Does somebody who was never a believer, but pretended to be, and played with the Deen as you say, qualify as an "apostate"? Is this what you are really looking to stop? Outsiders from messing with your internal religious workings?
If so, what then of actual true believers that then lose their faith and become actual nonbeliever aspostates? Are they to be treated differently?
Yeah, that's like the west saying that whoever leaves us shall be executed, it doesn't make any sense to me. It's the same as being executed for divorcing someone.
afaik, those who knew the religion, inside out, and memorised the Quran 100% etc. And left, they are to be executed. Cuz their life is pointless and empty.
The one who knew the truth, practiced it, and left it, is to be executed. Cuz his life bears no value. Cuz knowing the truth, practicing it,and leaving it is the worst thing one can do.
May Allah forgive me if I said anything wrong. Ameen.
And Allah knows best.
afaik, those who knew the religion, inside out, and memorised the Quran 100% etc. And left, they are to be executed. Cuz their life is pointless and empty.
The one who knew the truth, practiced it, and left it, is to be executed. Cuz his life bears no value. Cuz knowing the truth, practicing it,and leaving it is the worst thing one can do.
May Allah forgive me if I said anything wrong. Ameen.
And Allah knows best.
Well, thank God I didn't memorise the Quran.
And does that not make Islam the opposite of mercy "their life is pointless and holds no value".
To declare that somebody else's life is pointless and empty because they don't share your beliefs, and to declare that they therefore have no value and so we should murder them.... I don't even know what to say to that.
That ranks up there with when Abz told me he wants to hunt down and murder homosexuals for engaging in sex he doesn't approve of.
So many calls for murder in this peaceful religion of yours.
So many calls for all sorts among the ones who seek it - this is not reflective of Islamic teaching at all - but of perversion in practice.
Pygo - Muslims all have the same fundamental beliefs - ie: one God, Muhammad last prophet pbuh, salaat, sawm, zakaat, hajj...
But when it comes to the matters such as the ones we discuss here - many will not even think to consider what the scholars have said on the issue and instead prefer to rant with their bias affecting their opinion... not scholarly, not correct, and definitely not worth wasting your time over.
Muhammad has provided you with some excellent food for thought, but I feel you have not honestly taken a look at what he is suggesting to you and instead you are only seeking to object due to your own bias.
If we play the bias, what chance do we have to learn something new?
^ indeed. I've heard from enough different Muslims to know that there is no one universal Islam that you all believe in. Your Islam (or what you believe is the true Islam) may be very different than the Islam of the person above who said non-muslims have no value so should be murdered (what they believe to be the true Islam). You can dismiss such things as that and calls for murdering homoxexuals, apostates, etc, as not the true Islam (as you see it), but that doesn't change or undo what other people who also call themselves "Muslims" believe (and claim is the true Islam). I am left to address both you and them, and I use the label you each give yourselves, "Muslim" and "Islam". I do make an effort to address you individually and not paint all of you with a broad brush, though that can be challenging sometimes. i would hope the same is true of how you consider non-muslims (who vary even moreso between each other, since all we have in common is that we are not muslims).
format_quote Originally Posted by Timi Scar
Muhammad has provided you with some excellent food for thought, but I feel you have not honestly taken a look at what he is suggesting to you and instead you are only seeking to object due to your own bias.
And you with yours, of course. We all have bias. By interacting and explaining our positions, we can try to see passed those biases and explore the ideas involved.
I appreciate Muhammad's posts, have found him to be polite and thoughtful, and am learning his perspective and considering his ideas. At the end of the day I can not and will not share it (even if I wanted to), as I simply don't think as a religious person does, or as a Muslim in particular does, but I do appreciate learning his outlook and approach, as well as yours. I hope the reverse is true as you read what I write about my own perspective and viewpoint. We don't have to agree with each other's worldviews to coexist or acknowledge the honesty or thoughtfulness in the other. In fact, seeking to understand the viewpoints of others is a good step towards peaceful coexistence and broader empathy and respect, and is a safeguard against that "they think different from me, so they should die" mentality referenced above.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 03-23-2016 at 09:27 PM.
The death penalty for apostasy is obviously morally unacceptable to any decent person, and no amount of attempted justification can alter that. It's a primitive solution to the problem of keeping people in a religious group, and it's the kind of ruling cult groups like the Scientologists wish they could invoke, were it not for the fact that it is so obviously barbaric.
'Morally unacceptable', 'primitive solution', 'obviously barbaric'... these are subjective terms. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. The fact that numerous countries across the world, both religious and secular, apply death penalties to various crimes illustrates that the alleged immorality here is not as obvious as you think.
I don't say that obedience to God necessarily causes moral failures, but I do note that the suicide bombing community is almost exclusively made up of religious people, as is the female genital mutilation community, and the forced marriage community. I'd say a bit more godlessness would be highly beneficial for the victims of those evil acts.
The question arises as to whether it is godliness, or religiosity, that drives people to do these things, just as one wonders whether it was atheism that, for instance, drove communist leaders to purge millions for not conforming to state control. You'll remember from previous discussions that research is emerging to show that religious ideology is not an underlying driver of violence, rather a host of other factors play a far more significant role, such as political grievances, state violence and a climate of alienation and suspicion.
I do not say that externalization of your moral values to an imagined authority (what you call obedience to God) is necessarily going to lead to immoral actions, but I do believe that externalization of your moral values to any authority, imagined or otherwise, places a barrier to your own senses of empathy and fairness. It can lead to farming out your judgments of good and bad, which I view as an avoidance of moral judgment and an avoidance of personal responsibility,
The same God who placed within us our moral compass is our Law-Giver. There can be no conflict between these two. This is evident if a person studies Islam's teachings, they will find how it commands noble characteristics like truthfulness, justice and kindness, and prohibits evil characteristics. Moreover, as mentioned, our judgements of good and bad are limited. God's judgements are based upon perfect knowledge and wisdom. When we need help from the doctor, we trust in his qualification and expertise even though he may give us a bitter medicine. We don't subject everything he tells us to our own judgement.
Yes, it is. Unless your God is not all powerful, of course. If an all powerful being willed us to know and understand him, we would know him and understand him. We don't... so he doesn't. Simple as that.
We cannot blame God's Will for lack of belief. The fact that He has sent numerous Prophets and scriptures shows He does want us to know Him. We have to exert the faculties He has given us to take action, learn and apply. In our worldly affairs, we strive to attain what is in our best interests and to take care of it. If we fail to act and lose out, we would only blame ourselves, not pre-decree. Thus it should be with religion also.
There is compulsion in belief. Not compulsion by some threat by a religious person, but compulsion by your own senses. If I put an apple in your hand, you are compelled to believe you have an apple in your hand.
This is why there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam (which is the compulsion we were referring to earlier). Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear, like that apple in someone's hand. Whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty.
Because you are Mulsim. The Hindu and the Christian tell me the exact same thing about how their religion is the only one with good foundation, intellect and scripture.
Each one can be analysed and you will see for yourself which one has the good foundation, supported by intellect and scripture. : )
That isn't what I asked. I asked if you believe that there are those of us who do not see any need for guidance. I accept that you wrongly believe that you need some external purpose and guidance to your life imposed by an external all powerful being. Do you accept that I very wrongly (in your view) dismiss your belief as without rational foundation?
I don't know. The thing is, if you are telling me you see no need for guidance, and presumably, there is no meaning or value to this universe (in your view), then that begs the question as to why you are concerned with objective meaning and morality.
I think we established above that it is God's will that makes us either believe or not believe he exists,
God has a Will, but we humans also have a will and ability to make choices. We are not compelled to make the choice of disbelief, rather we are shown both ways.
I further posit that people who lose belief in the existence of God do not do so willingly, anymore than you willingly believe that the apple you ate is no longer in your hand. You don't choose to believe that the apple is no longer in your hand. It just isn't, and you believe that it isn't because your senses compel you to.
You are positing that the rationale for leaving or rejecting Islam is as strong as for entering it, which you would have to prove. I posit there is none.
I then look to the concept of punishing or murdering somebody for it
We're not talking about murder, just as we are not accusing the US government of murdering their death-sentenced prisoners. We are talking about a capital punishment carried out by due process of law. Let us not confuse the issue here.
'Morally unacceptable', 'primitive solution', 'obviously barbaric'... these are subjective terms. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person.
A subjective account of morality is the only game in town, philosophically speaking. The idea that morality is objective is nonsensical for various reasons. Morality is an evolving set of conventions that is always based ultimately on human opinion. Attributing the basis of morality to a supernatural source and following its commands gives rise to obedience, not moral behaviour.
The fact that numerous countries across the world, both religious and secular, apply death penalties to various crimes illustrates that the alleged immorality here is not as obvious as you think.
It's a diminishing list, and the death penalty tends to be used in countries that are either still under the sway of religion to a great degree, or less developed countries, which explains my use of the word 'primitive' earlier.
The question arises as to whether it is godliness, or religiosity, that drives people to do these things, just as one wonders whether it was atheism that, for instance, drove communist leaders to purge millions for not conforming to state control.
Lust for power drove the communist purges you speak of. This has nothing to do with a simple lack of belief in God.
Let's one of the examples I mentioned: are you really suggesting, as a thinking adult, that you can see no connection at all between the certain belief in the rewards of an afterlife and the practice of suicide bombing?
You'll remember from previous discussions that research is emerging to show that religious ideology is not an underlying driver of violence, rather a host of other factors play a far more significant role, such as political grievances, state violence and a climate of alienation and suspicion.
As before, the text as you have given it to me is incomplete. Again, you don't seem to have understood its contents, despite having had plenty of time to reread it since the last time you showed it to me.
The text is arguing against a reductionist account of terrorism, particularly terrorism committed in the name of Islam, and is also concerned with evaluating counter-terrorism responses. The text emphatically does not discount the role of religious ideology in enabling violence, as you claim. For example [my emphasis]:
This suggests that religious ideology gives coherence to a group of individuals
who are already engaged in terrorism but is not what drives them into becoming
terrorists in the first place – which has more to do with a desire to join others in
the adventure of fighting a dominant power.
Wouldn't we all be better off without systems of thought that give coherence to those already engaged in terrorism? It makes no difference whether religion is the first cause of violence (it isn't necessarily), and as you rightly say, other factors are involved, but the end result is the same.
I note you decided to ignore my question:
Can you think of any criminal act that tends to be committed only by non-believers?
^ indeed. I've heard from enough different Muslims to know that there is no one universal Islam that you all believe in. Your Islam (or what you believe is the true Islam) may be very different than the Islam of the person above who said non-muslims have no value so should be murdered (what they believe to be the true Islam). You can dismiss such things as that and calls for murdering homoxexuals, apostates, etc, as not the true Islam (as you see it), but that doesn't change or undo what other people who also call themselves "Muslims" believe (and claim is the true Islam). I am left to address both you and them, and I use the label you each give yourselves, "Muslim" and "Islam". I do make an effort to address you individually and not paint all of you with a broad brush, though that can be challenging sometimes. i would hope the same is true of how you consider non-muslims (who vary even moreso between each other, since all we have in common is that we are not muslims).
I believe you have failed to factor in that for us Muslims, learning of an apostate within out own communities is actually very rare - in my forty years I have still yet to meet an apostate from Islam, or to learn of one from my community - now you may argue that this is because one may apostate in private for fear of being butchered etc lol - but the truth is that is quite the dishonest opinion to take - simply because for me as a Muslim, the only time the apostate issue comes up Pygo - is when non Muslims bring up the subject.
I've looked into the issues regarding apostacy in great detail, as I was asked this question on VC - and there I had to go up against a forum full of bible belt Christians who wanted a willy waving match lol... but no.
Instead I spent a good few days learning the issue and made my post - the proverbial thread killer, in VC v2.
Since then the apostate topic doesn't appear there anymore... (we now on VC v5 btw) because that thread kill was epic.
The good thing about that place is that the people there are willing to entertain anothers premise without necessarily accepting it... a sign of intelligence imo.
The simple truth regarding apostacy law is this - you do not have to worry if you are a Muslim and now wish to not remain so - no one gonna kill you - unless you wish to dissent from Islam for the sake of treason... and to my knowledge, treason is still the only crime the Brits will kill you for - that in the Great of Britain... why would it be so bad because it's another people?
After all that's been written in this thread, I believe it is beating dead horses if we keep going - time to let this one die eh Pygo?
Scimi
EDIT:
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygo
I've heard from enough different Muslims to know that there is no one universal Islam that you all believe in.
We're like skittles mate - sour and sweet, but never salty
The same God who placed within us our moral compass is our Law-Giver. There can be no conflict between these two. This is evident if a person studies Islam's teachings, they will find how it commands noble characteristics like truthfulness, justice and kindness, and prohibits evil characteristics.
I see what you are saying, and I suppose that could make sense if you buy into it enough, but I'm also sure you can see what I am saying, when you look at people of other religions or interpretations of Islam (those who get it wrong in your view). It isn't hard to think of a situation where religious doctrine or inspiration (other than your own) runs directly against empathy, fairness and morality. Yes? Can you see how externalizing our moral value judgments to a third party could compromise them?
Moreover, as mentioned, our judgements of good and bad are limited. God's judgements are based upon perfect knowledge and wisdom. When we need help from the doctor, we trust in his qualification and expertise even though he may give us a bitter medicine. We don't subject everything he tells us to our own judgement.
I believe that this is the best point that I think you have. It is true that when we lack knowledge, we often trust in people who have superior knowledge. I get that analogy. It fails with me for 3 reasons. First, because an all powerful being would not likely have such limitations. Any analogy between an all powerful being and limited humans is going to falter a little. Second, because I see no reason to believe such a being exists. Auto mechanics and Doctors are real flesh and blood people I can visually see who have gone to brick and mortar universities and learned their expertise and have degrees and diplomas to show for it. Third, because even if such a being exists, them being benevolent seems inconsistent with what I see around me. Auto mechanics and Doctors can be shady characters out to exploit or harm or rip me off. I see no reason to give such a being the benefit of the doubt, or pre-define him as benevolent. Power corrupts as they say.
A similar point to the one you make above is that at least in the human realm,sometimes something bad has to happen so something good can. You running up and pushing me would seem abhorent, until I realize you pushed me out of the path of an incoming locomotive. That is why I can't really fault those annoying people who I would otherwise view as disrespectful, such as Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, or other missionaries. They may be doing that because they care enough to genuinely want to help eople (or the more cycnical side of me suspects because they want brownie points with Gods). I once saw a missionary try to convert a 6 year old right in front of her parents. That is shockingly disrespectful, but even then, it may be motivated with good intentions. Same as when a Christian comes to try to convert you and save you with Jesus from Islam. As the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
We cannot blame God's Will for lack of belief.
We will have to agree to disagree on that. An all powerful being could make us believe whatever he wants us to believe, and since belief isn't really intentional on our part anyway, it wouldn't rob us of free will. If he was giving us truth, then it would actually enable free will, and allow us to make informed decisions.
The fact that He has sent numerous Prophets and scriptures shows He does want us to know Him.
It really really doesn't. Humans have produced hundreds, maybe thousands of different "prophets", "holy books" and understandings of the Gods and what they/he/she wants us to know. The fact that we have so many earnest and well meaning
seekers, finding such a wide array of conflicting "answers" makes it crystal clear to me that any God that actually does exist, can not want to be known by all. I see no way of getting around that. And the mere existence of human messengers (prophets) and holy texts, bringing with them all the human flaws of memory, perception, communication and spoken and written word amplifies that. An all poweful being would not be so limited, and could simply have us know what he wanted us to know, perfectly and without misunderstanding, with no need for such theatrics as written or spoken human language.
The fact that these so-called prophets and holy texts look so much like what we would expect from man-made fabrications amplifies it even more. The Quran and the Bible both read like texts written by people of that time with the cultures and knowledge of that time. If the Quran told us that germs rather than spirits make us sick, for example, that would be impressive! The Bible doesn't even get the question of slavery right.
This is why there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam (which is the compulsion we were referring to earlier). Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear, like that apple in someone's hand.
Maybe to you. Certainly not to me. All I see is an empty hand.
Whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty.
So you do believe it is Allah's decree that decides if we are going to be believers or not? I thought you were saying the opposite above?
Each one can be analysed and you will see for yourself which one has the good foundation, supported by intellect and scripture. : )
A lot of us do that. And we come to radically different conclusions. That tells me something. How do you explain that away?
I don't know. The thing is, if you are telling me you see no need for guidance, and presumably, there is no meaning or value to this universe (in your view), then that begs the question as to why you are concerned with objective meaning and morality.
First, not seeing a need for moral guidance from an all powerful being, does not equate to seeing no meaning or value to the universe, or in your life. That is a misunderstanding about atheists that I encounter in a lot of theists. It ranks right up there with "you can't be good without God" and "atheists are rebelling against God". These are all fundamentally wrong statements about atheism. My life actually has plenty of meaning, as does the universe. That meaning just isn't imposed by some external all powerful authority figure.
Second, my concern with "objective meaning and morality" mostly centers on the religious person's claim of it. I do not believe that morality or meaning exist in a vacuum where no mind is present to create or judge them. The closest I can get to a belief in "objective morality" is recognizing that as a social species we have evolved innate senses of empathy and fairness. I can see why we evolved that way and can see why it is mostly universal (aside from sociopaths) and why it is getting stronger in our species over time as we cooperate in bigger and bigger groups.
We are not compelled to make the choice of disbelief, rather we are shown both ways.
"The choice of disbelief" you say. I am sad to see that we are right back where we started. If you see and feel me put that apple in your hand can you choose to disbelieve it is an apple, and believe it is a banana or a grape? Is that some power you have that I lack?
We're not talking about murder, just as we are not accusing the US government of murdering their death-sentenced prisoners. We are talking about a capital punishment carried out by due process of law. Let us not confuse the issue here.
Murder is culpable (unjustified) homocide (human killing). I call killing apostates murder because I find it completely unjustified, and I don't any legal authority in your religious belief, especially when applied to those who no longer share that belief.
The simple truth regarding apostacy law is this - you do not have to worry if you are a Muslim and now wish to not remain so - no one gonna kill you - unless you wish to dissent from Islam for the sake of treason... and to my knowledge, treason is still the only crime the Brits will kill you for - that in the Great of Britain... why would it be so bad because it's another people?
What exactly qualifies as "treason" in Islam? Blowing up a mosque? Drawing a cartoon? Merely speaking against Islam? ls Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali an apostate that committed treason against Islam? Is she to be killed? Is Salman Rushdie?
If a person born in England moves to America and speaks about dissolving the monarchy, or speaks against or makes fun of England, they are not killed for treason against England. Everyone from Christopher Hitchens to John Oliver would be put to death if that were the case. I am Canadian and I can write that the Queen of England is ridiculous and should absolutely not be our head of state, ceremonial or otherwise, that our Prime Minister is weak willed, and that our flag looks ridiculous (a leaf? really?). Nobody is going to want to kill me for saying that.
What exactly qualifies as "treason" in Islam? Blowing up a mosque? Drawing a cartoon? Merely speaking against Islam? ls Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali an apostate that committed treason against Islam? Is she to be killed? Is Salman Rushdie?
Treason is treason - you leave one camp in order to go the enemies camp and give them knowledge of the first camps particulars - treason is not an opinion dude - it's an act of war.
Did you honestly not know this?
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
If a person born in England moves to America and speaks about dissolving the monarchy, or speaks against or makes fun of England, they are not killed for treason against England. Everyone from Christopher Hitchens to John Oliver would be put to death if that were the case. I am Canadian and I can write that the Queen of England is ridiculous and should absolutely not be our head of state, ceremonial or otherwise, that our Prime Minister is weak willed, and that our flag looks ridiculous (a leaf? really?). Nobody is going to want to kill me for saying that.
Treason is treason - you leave one camp in order to go the enemies camp and give them knowledge of the first camps particulars - treason is not an opinion dude - it's an act of war.
Did you honestly not know this?
You didn't answer. Are Ayan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie guilty of treason? What exactly is Treason as it pertains to a religion? Treason when it relates to a country usually means acts of wanton destruction or at least endangering the lives of people of your own country.
You say opinions are opinions. So it is not "treason" for an ex-Muslim to speak against Islam? Just want to be clear. Because a death fatwa was put on Rushdie and Ali has received many death threats as well. These are from false Muslims?
The simple truth regarding apostacy law is this - you do not have to worry if you are a Muslim and now wish to not remain so - no one gonna kill you - unless you wish to dissent from Islam for the sake of treason... and to my knowledge, treason is still the only crime the Brits will kill you for - that in the Great of Britain... why would it be so bad because it's another people?
This claim often pops up in this debate, but in fact the death penalty was completely abolished in the UK in 1998.
format_quote Originally Posted by saif-uddin
Salaman Rushdie is Shataans excrement,
He's got poop on his brain,
And yes he deserves death,
If that's the best argument you can come up with to support putting a man to death, then you don't deserve to read the excellent novels Salman Rushdie has written. You wouldn't understand them anyway.
To declare that somebody else's life is pointless and empty because they don't share your beliefs, and to declare that they therefore have no value and so we should murder them.... I don't even know what to say to that.
Why are you speechless? Do you believe that murder is wrong Pygoscelis?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks