Atheist Ideology?

Apostate - its an area of great misunderstanding and usually its passed over as inaccurate knowledge - its an area I would not claim that I even have full understanding of... Typically, any deaths resulted in this, would usually involve other facts and not just because they turned away imo... That is the simplicity used though I have never heard of this being practiced before - As for if its practiced now, well thers several things which are practiced wrongly.

format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau

You're quite right. I've seen so many different assertions from many Muslims with many different articles - these range from

1. Public Apostasy should be punished.
2. Apostasy in all forms should be punished.
3. Public Apostasy and then attacking the state should be punished.
4. Apostasy should not be punished.

What is your view on the issue?

Is this a deflection from grazing over the issue, so that you have no real understanding of what was written? Now you expect a sublimated reponse to gratify you for what people spend years learning and perfecting? Are you kidding me?
these statements are tantamount to someone asking you do you have the time? and you respond by Yes! Pls give some thought to what you write or query so we are not wasting each other's time!

Here is a condemnation right here then. I condemn their death.

Your disapprobation ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE state law in the free world.. don't like it tough, same under an Islamic state, don't like it tough.. you are always welcome to live a lawless life, uni-bomber style some where in the woods, be malodourous and unkempt.
Plenty of people refuse state law and do just that. But frankly you don't have a case here, you'll be mocked at best... Perhaps you fancy Atheists a progressive bunch?.. to me it is a state of decay to animal like lusts, otiose vagabonds with no real purpose in society except to satisfy the immediate!

Correct usage of argument ad absurdum.
An argument ad absurdum is a technique in debate where you come with an argument that is opposite or alternative but also analogous to your opponents argument. Usually the proponent of this argument knows that his argument is incorrect. A textbook example of this is the flying spaghetti monster.

To those whom this technique seems appealing, I would like to point out some points to consider:
* The argument ad absurdum is meant to point out that just because an argument is not easily defeated, that doesn't make it probable. If your opponent doesn't get that there is not much point of continuing your argument and you should tell him that out of courtesy.
* An argument ad absurdum is not meant to indulge, because then it will only trail the discussion of topic.
* If you insist that you believe in this absurdum even when you don't, your opponent will often realize your dishonesty and this will damage mutual trust in the debate.
* Even though the argument is brought forward because of the analogy, to insist that it is equal is offensive. Let's not forget we both agree it's absurd, so in effect you are calling the opponents view equal to absurd. I'd say that's rather offensive.

That being said I would like to give a general reminder that it is under no circumstances acceptable to attack members personally regardless of what they say or what their viewpoints are! I've just removed a total 10 posts of both sides of the debates from just the last few hours. That is a high frequency for insults to be thrown back and forth. One more and the thread gets closed.

format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau

Fine, don't answer me.

too lazy to use the search button, or too lazy to read? Which is it?
would you like to be spoon fed the replies? here it is again, might require some five minutes of your time but will be well worth it so you may avoid being so pleonastic!

In order to understand this issue, we need to examine the Islamic law on apostasy. Since religion is looked on as a personal affair in western society, the notion of state intervention in one's personal choice would naturally seem excessive. However, from the Islamic perspective, a number of points must be observed with regard to apostasy:
1. Islam has never compelled anyone to accept the religion. Anyone who becomes a Muslim does so purely through objective study of the religion. As Allah has informed us in the Qur'an:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.
10:99 So would you (O Muhammad) then compel people to become believers?

Likewise, Islam encourages its followers to reflect and contemplate upon the universe around us and to ponder over the beauty of the Qur'anic message:

47:24 Do they not ponder over the Qur'an or are their hearts locked up?

51:20-21. And on earth are signs for those endowed with inner-certainty; and [likewise there are signs] in yourselves, do you not observe?

29:20 Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

Thus, Islam requires that one's faith be constructed upon logical investigation and study of the universe in which we live. Through logical contemplation, one realizes the supreme authority of the Creator and the veracity of Muhammad's (saws) claim to prophethood. Thus we find that, in the history of Islam, no knowledgeable Muslim has ever left Islam. The only cases we find of former Muslims are people who were never practicing Muslims in the first place, nor did they ever have a good understanding of Islam. Yet on the other hand, the list of educated converts to Islam is immense, and it includes educated leaders such as priests, rabbis and atheists.

2. Those who have left Islam have historically fallen under three categories: those who left having never properly understood the religion often due to social circumstances, those who faked a conversion into Islam in order to undermine the Islamic community from within, and those who left to support opposing forces in battle against the Muslims. Because of the first category, Islam requires that the person who has chosen to forsake the religion be consulted with in order that his doubts may be clarified to him if there is any specific issue of confusion, or so that he may learn the proper Islamic teachings that he may otherwise have not been exposed to. As for the second and third category, this was the original reason behind the Prophet's statement on apostasy. The Qur'an records (3:72) that the Jews of Madinah decided to initiate the practice of pretending to accept Islam and then publicly declare their rejection of it, so as to destroy the confidence of the newly-converted Muslims. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh ruled that a punishment should be announced so that those who decide to accept Islam do so because of a firm conviction not in order to harm the Muslim community from within.

3. Coming to the actual law of apostasy, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did say, in the above historical context, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him" (Bukhari, Abu Dawud) but how exactly do we understand this statement and does it conflict with the principles of freedom? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself clarified this statement in another hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim where he mentioned that the one who was to be fought against was the one who "abandons his religion and the Muslim community". It should be noted that every country has maintained punishments, including execution, for treason and rebellion against the state (See Mozley and Whitley's Law Dictionary, under "Treason and Treason Felony," pp. 368-369). Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it is a complete system of life which includes a Muslim's allegiance to the Islamic state. Thus, a rejection against that would be akin to treason. Rebellion against God is more serious than rebellion against one's country. However, one who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down and assassinated, nor would one who remains inside the state conforming to outward laws be tracked down and executed. The notion of establishing inquisition courts to determine peoples' faith, as done in the Spanish Inquisition, is something contrary to Islamic law. As illustrated by the historical context in which it was mandated, the death penalty is mainly for those who collaborate with enemy forces in order to aid them in their attacks against the Islamic state or for those who seek to promote civil unrest and rebellion from within the Islamic state. When someone publicly announces their rejection of Islam within an Islamic state it is basically a challenge to the Islamic government, since such an individual can keep it to themselves like the personal affair it is made out to be.

4. From Islamic history, we can gain a better understanding of how this law has been implemented. Although the Prophet Muhammad pbuh threatened the death penalty in response to the attempts against the Muslim community, no such executions took place in his time (Imam Shawkani, Nayl Al-Awtar, vol. 7, p. 192) even though there is a report that a Bedouin renounced Islam and left Madinah unharmed in his time (Fath Al-Bari vol. 4, p.77 and vol. 13 p. 170; Sahih Muslim biSharh An-Nawawi, vol. 9, p. 391). Thus, we find that context plays an important role in determining how to deal with apostates. The case of one who enlists nations to fight against the Islamic state is more serious, for example. That is why the scholars of the Hanafi school of thought felt that the punishment only applies to the male apostate and not the female apostate because the latter is unable to wage war against the Islamic state. If someone simply has some doubts concerning Islam, then those doubts can be clarified.
So an Islamic state is certainly justified in punishing those who betray the state, committing treason and support enemy forces. As for anyone else, if they do not publicly declare their rejection of Islam, the state has no interest in pursuing them; if their case does become public, however, then they should be reasoned with and educated concerning the religion so that they have the opportunity to learn the concepts they may not have understood properly and they can be encouraged to repent.

From another of my posts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Quote:
Originally Posted by blunderbus
If a predominantly Christian country were going to execute a former Christian who converted to another religion (in this hypothetical case, Islam) would you be ok with that?

As a side note, this has already happened, examples include the spanish inquisition. But on to your question...

First of all, the law on apostasy has been explained here (My view on muslims) and here (Islam and Apostasy). It is commonly taken out of context, but the point to note is that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) clarified that the one to be punished was the one who rebelled against the community. This is quite similar to state laws on treason. A state is justified in taking action against those who pose a significant threat. But the idea of setting up an inquisition to examine the beliefs of the people is against Islamic teachings, so someone who personally changes their religious convictions will be insignificant in the eyes of the state. It is the one who publically announces his rebellion, stirring civil unrest, who must be opposed. While the Christian inquisitions were bent on examining (through the use of torture) the beliefs of those Muslims and Jews who outwardly professed conversion to Christianity, in an Islamic state, someone who even outwardly professes acceptane of Islam is left alone because they cause no harm to society, and the Islamic state is only interested in the security of its society.

If someone poses a threat to a state's security, then they are justified in taking action against them. But if someone changes their personal religious views, then it is quite extreme for the state to attempt to pry into the hearts of its citizens to determine their faith and punish them. http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...-apostasy.html

I'll have to continue to live in my ignorance over what the punishment for Apostasy (if any) under Islam is.

read freely and enlighten yourself! You can only be ignorant by choice.. took me 0.02 seconds for search results to come up! I don't see why it is so daunting for you?

Never said it would.

ok then, one state or another wouldn't make all that much difference!

Is that your response to criticisms of the subjugation of civil liberties under Islam? Under an Islamic state, I would like to know how my rights would be affected - and if any of my rights or the rights of others in such a state be affected then I would oppose the creation of such a state.

There is no subjugation of civil liberties in islam! You'll have to bring more to the table than sweeping generalization!

Except I'm not propagating a lawless life. I'm propagating a life where I and others keep our liberties.

To the naked eye, you are actually disseminating hypocrisy-- you can't be for and against something at the same time.. or what else would you call that?
Your adultery disgusts me.. please carry on!

Eh?

which part was hard for you to understand?

I have no time to entertain elaborate (yet childish) ad hominems.

Don't engage in a topic then, if you can't handle a proper delineation as to what an Atheist is to most folks!

format_quote Originally Posted by strider

Md Mashud,


In your opinion it may be illogical not to believe in God and no doubt you arrived at that opinion based on your personal religious beliefs. For you, there may be absolute proof of the evidence of God, however it is not a fact written in stone. You may look to the clouds and see an elephant and somebody else may look to the same clouds and see a sheep.

I think my comment was absolutely necessary, even though you may not have appreciated it.

Yet again, you dodge my initial proposition - Show me the evidence or deductions that leads to belief of the contrary, nonexistant by miles. Its not merely an opinion, its a factful observation.

Existance.

strider, you are like the anti-dawah here lol.....

format_quote Originally Posted by strider

Where is the proof that God exists?

your kidding me?

as a muslim dont you read the Quran?

Why not support it, you support homosexuality as it is!

format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau

That proves only that we exist. Not a God of any description.

Existance proves we exist? No, existance means we exist, get it right.

The ideology behind existance is that everything - in the material/physical world of matter, requires creation, whether by chemicals, forces, or a mixture of whater it may be.

What God means is, the one thing that did not have to be created being out of bound of being mateiral/physically limited - for that alone would be the cause of there being an existance ideology to begin with.

The real difference between a theist and atheist is not if God exists or not, rather if God is intelligent. Its actually improper to discuss if God exists or not.

If you think deep and hard, you would arrive at the conclusion of the previous statement. There is no such thing as no God, even as an Atheist. I believe Richard Dawkin came to this conclusion in one of his talks and tried to justify that God cannot be intelligent, poorly albeit.

format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau

I missed this post.



You attempted to give a piddly explanation for how homosexuality infringes upon potential brides, but it was flawed. Yours was.

1. Homosexual men could be the husbands of wives
2. Being homosexual eradicates this
3. Therefore they ought to be the husbands of wives
4. Therefore homosexuality ought to be outlawed.

It is the same as:

1. A small proportion of Able bodied men could be bought into slavery to improve the standard of life for the majority.
2. Them being free eradicates this possibility.
3. Therefore they ought to be bought into slavery so the standard of life increases for the rest.
4. Therefore the rights of them ought to be sacrificed.


Translation: I don't agree with your 'explanations' and therefore I am not a free-thinker.

Considering I am not even a Muslim, why on earth would I support death for Apostatising from Islam?

ok now go on to refute the other points such as fornication etc.
homosexuality is only a disease of the minds. if it didnt exist before the time of Lot then it neednt exist now, clearly something ill natured which society had been breeding caused this outbreak of homosexuality.


The Apostacy issue will always have bias and double standards. But you can go ahead and refute my other points, which clearly show how they affect the people. just to remind you:


fornication/adultery/exposure of skin etc: creates a shameless environment unfit for children, makes it harder for young men to control themselves, causes STD's to spread at greater rates, far far greater rates, increases rape etc.