No compulsion in religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jd7
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 97
  • Views Views 13K
snakelegs said:
i didn't really want to focus on apostasy particularly. but there are situation where the gov't or the 'morality police' enforce religious duties on muslims - like ordering people to say their prayers, for example. (which seems a strange concept to me).
when i read about the laws in some muslims countries, it strikes me that non-muslims are better off when it comes to the law.
i think "no compulsion in religion" doesn't really apply to muslims - the state will enforce their religious practice and obligations.
Click to expand...

I think I know what you mean.I read that in Malaysia for example you can get fined for not praying in mosque in friday or for not obeying Ramadan. This is really strange for me. Is this also in other muslim countries?
 
Woodrow said:
the pseudo religion of Xarstepistooken condones murder and in fact makes it mandatory that each citizen murder at least one person every ten years. I therefore see the USA of imposing their silly religious practices upon people and people are actually punished under law if they follow Xarstepistooken and faithfully practice their religion. People are compelled to obey the USA ritual of abstaining from murder if they choose to live in the USA. there are laws on the book that prevent people from practicing it and converts from USA mainstream will be severely punished and often face execution if they convert to Xarstepistooken and follow their faith.

Although i carried it to a rediculous extreme, the principal is the same.
Click to expand...

no it isn't. you are talking about a secular country preventing someone from practicing their religion because their practice violates secular law. it is not comparable at all.
if the u.s. became a christian country (:scared:) and now the gov't compelled christians to go to church and say their prayers - that would be comparable.
for the sake of argument, suppose the christians didn't force us to become christian (which they probably would - esp. if they were all the same denomination) - you and i would be better off because the gov't doesn't care about these aspects of our lives. noone is going to tell us where when and how to pray.
i think when a partially shariah state requires muslims to perform their religious obligations re: prayer, etc - this is compulsion in religion too.
so the shariah state has certain things that it imposes on non-muslims, but does not require them to become muslims. but it does compell muslims to practice.
so i still maintain that "no compulsion in religion" only applies to non-muslims.
 
Aaron85 said:
I think I know what you mean.I read that in Malaysia for example you can get fined for not praying in mosque in friday or for not obeying Ramadan. This is really strange for me. Is this also in other muslim countries?
Click to expand...

actually, i was thinking of malaysia, but also of frontier province in pakistan when the religious coalition was elected in 2002 and enforced some shariah stuff on the populace.
i am not sure about other countries, but a number of muslim countries have a partially shariah gov't.
 
Woodrow said:
the pseudo religion of Xarstepistooken condones murder and in fact makes it mandatory that each citizen murder at least one person every ten years. I therefore see the USA of imposing their silly religious practices upon people and people are actually punished under law if they follow Xarstepistooken and faithfully practice their religion. People are compelled to obey the USA ritual of abstaining from murder if they choose to live in the USA. there are laws on the book that prevent people from practicing it and converts from USA mainstream will be severely punished and often face execution if they convert to Xarstepistooken and follow their faith.

Although i carried it to a rediculous extreme, the principal is the same.
Click to expand...
One difference is that the Xarstepistookenians in your example chose to live under the United States regime, while dhimmis did not choose to be violently conquered by the Muslims.
 
Qingu said:
One difference is that the Xarstepistookenians in your example chose to live under the United States regime, while dhimmis did not choose to be violently conquered by the Muslims.
Click to expand...

the conquered one were the aggressors. In todays world they would be considered POWs. The majority of dhimmis are so by choice, not coercian. When you chose to live in a country, it is usually because you find better living there than you have found elsewhere.
 
Aaron85 said:
I think I know what you mean.I read that in Malaysia for example you can get fined for not praying in mosque
Click to expand...

Actually i never heard of this.... i've asked everyone (everybody that i knew... of course)... everybody said they never heard of this.
 
SYARIAH CRIMINAL OFFENCES (FEDERAL TERRITORIES) ACT 1997

Section 14 - Failure to perform Friday prayers.
Any male person, being "baligh", who fails to perform Friday prayers in a mosque within his "Kariah" (parish) for 3 consecutive weeks without "Uzur Shar'ie"or without any reasonable cause shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM 1,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.

from this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/55410-malaysian-row-over-word-god.html
 
snakelegs said:
SYARIAH CRIMINAL OFFENCES (FEDERAL TERRITORIES) ACT 1997

Section 14 - Failure to perform Friday prayers.
Any male person, being "baligh", who fails to perform Friday prayers in a mosque within his "Kariah" (parish) for 3 consecutive weeks without "Uzur Shar'ie"or without any reasonable cause shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM 1,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.

from this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/55410-malaysian-row-over-word-god.html
Click to expand...

funny...none of my friends never seen or heard anyone getting fine over this. lol. I guess it will be easy for them (the offender) to give excuses.

But actually how the authority going to proof that :?
 
snakelegs said:
SYARIAH CRIMINAL OFFENCES (FEDERAL TERRITORIES) ACT 1997

Section 14 - Failure to perform Friday prayers.
Any male person, being "baligh", who fails to perform Friday prayers in a mosque within his "Kariah" (parish) for 3 consecutive weeks without "Uzur Shar'ie"or without any reasonable cause shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM 1,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.

from this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/55410-malaysian-row-over-word-god.html
Click to expand...

As Sister syilla mentions just above me. That is basically an unenforceable law. About the only way a person could be found guilty would be if during 3 consecutive Fridays they participated in an overt anti-Islamic activity, blatantly pointing out their refusal to attend Jummah on Friday.
 
it's true that it would probably be too hard to enforce.
i was speaking more in principle. the point i was making is that i think "no compulsion in religion" applies toward non-muslims, but not to muslims.
in NWFP (pakistan) when the MMA (religious coalition) won the election of 2002, one of the things they did was force people to close their shops and pray.
question is should the gov't really be in the business of enforcing religious practice? to me that is a clear case of "compulsion in religion".
 
snakelegs said:
it's true that it would probably be too hard to enforce.
i was speaking more in principle. the point i was making is that i think "no compulsion in religion" applies toward non-muslims, but not to muslims.
in NWFP (pakistan) when the MMA (religious coalition) won the election of 2002, one of the things they did was force people to close their shops and pray.
question is should the gov't really be in the business of enforcing religious practice? to me that is a clear case of "compulsion in religion".
Click to expand...

I think I finally understand where you are coming from. I believe there are at least 3 different ways this needs to be answere.

1. From the viewpoint of a person born Muslim

2. From the view point of a Muslim who wants to leave Islam

3. From the view point of a revert.


I can only answer from view 3. As a Muslim I am under compulsion to live as a Muslim and there is no turning back. But, it is by my choice to be Muslim and that is by my own free will. I knew this before I reverted. It was of my own free will and without compulsion I accepted the compulsions of Islam. So, in that sense this is all my choice and not by compulsion.
 
you are compelled by God because you have chosen to be a servant of God.
that is quite different from being compelled by a government, isn't it?
you say your prayers because God has ordered you to and you serve God -not because some government employee makes you.
big difference. (at least to me)
a shariah state would (as i understand it) take it upon itself to enforce God's commands. and to me, this is "compulsion in religion". which is why i said that it doesn't seem to apply to muslims, only non-muslims.
 
My question would be what is the difference between paying a tax for being non-Muslim and paying tribute to a conquering entity? When the Golden Horde (Mongols) invaded and destroyed Kiev and basically the whole of Russia, the Mongols demanded only tribute...a tax, and the people were left to their own devices.
 
snakelegs said:
a shariah state would (as i understand it) take it upon itself to enforce God's commands. and to me, this is "compulsion in religion"...
Click to expand...

In a shariah state, when they "force" muslims to pray, it is for there own good. If at the time the person does not "feel" like, say, pray then they would certainly regret having the "feeling" after the prayers are done.

And in such a state, if a person denies to follow the commands of God, then he is not a beliver and the person can tell the "state" that they aren't belivers and the should be left alone. Simple as that.

_-----------------------------------_____------------------_____-----
About "compulsion in religion"... if one chooses, as woodrow might have been trying to say, to follow the commands of God, then they must follow ALL of the commands, and thus, they are CHOOSING their own "compulsion" and have no regrets. The one thing that you should understand is Islam was not spread by the point of a sword (force) people CHOSE Islam as a way of life, and any "compulsion" they themselves have gladly chosen to accept.
______________________________________________________________

Peace and blessing of Allah be with you brother . :)

Omari
 
Omari said:
In a shariah state, when they "force" muslims to pray, it is for there own good. If at the time the person does not "feel" like, say, pray then they would certainly regret having the "feeling" after the prayers are done.

And in such a state, if a person denies to follow the commands of God, then he is not a beliver and the person can tell the "state" that they aren't belivers and the should be left alone. Simple as that.

_-----------------------------------_____------------------_____-----
About "compulsion in religion"... if one chooses, as woodrow might have been trying to say, to follow the commands of God, then they must follow ALL of the commands, and thus, they are CHOOSING their own "compulsion" and have no regrets. The one thing that you should understand is Islam was not spread by the point of a sword (force) people CHOSE Islam as a way of life, and any "compulsion" they themselves have gladly chosen to accept.
______________________________________________________________

Peace and blessing of Allah be with you brother . :)

Omari
Click to expand...

hi omari and welcome to the forum!
i know intent is very important in islam. do you think the prayer of someone who was made to pray by a government official has the same weight as a prayer that was by someone obeying God?
yes, you choose to submit to God and obey his commandments. you do not to it because you are compelled by man to do it.
to me, that is compulsion in religion, so i don't think "no compulsion in religion" applies to muslims - only to non-muslims.
i guess as a non-muslim, i just see it differently.
 
Peace snakelegs,
Thank you for your welcome to the forums, I am very glad I joined because I am accomplishing my mission to learn more about Islam and Comparative religions. :)

______________________________________________________________

snakelegs said:
i guess as a non-muslim, i just see it differently.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're right, and not just as a non muslim, but as another person with different view points as a whole. And I certainly agree with you, a prayer made by somone who has the initiative to do it himself, and is not "compelled" by anyone definatly weighs more than somone who is forced to do it. But then again somone who is forced to pray is not the best muslim is he? :)

And I once again agree with you when you said that this topic applies to muslims more than non-muslims.

peace be with you :)

Omari
 
snakelegs said:
something that is rarely discussed is that "no compulsion in religion" doesn't seem to apply to muslims.
Click to expand...

"no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim. And that's pretty much all. It doesn't mean that a Muslim is free to disobey God as he likes because there's "no compulsion in religion". These are two different things. It's compulsory for a Muslim to pray, fast during Ramadhan, and pay annual Zakat. A Sharia state has the right to make sure a Muslim does obey the command of God which is deemed compulsory. When you fine someone for speeding, does that mean that you are forcing them to slow down. It's merely a reminder as I see it. I'm not good in giving examples but I hope you get my point.
 
Hmmm5 “ "no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim”.
That isn’t correct at all. The ONLY way there is NO compulsion in religion, by the state, is to eliminate any and all religious distinctions by the state.

Snake Legs, you are loosing sight of the forest for the trees.

You have agreed that Islam compels a Muslim behave a certain way and perform certain duties and is under the threats of punishment if the Muslim doesn't perform. You have not seen that same mindset, as it applies to non-believers (non-believer= non-Muslim ) for what it is, compulsion in religion.

There is compulsion in religion in Islam, for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim alike.

Debating which is worse is really a non-argument as far as this thread is concerned.
 
jd7 said:
Hmmm5 “ "no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim”.
That isn’t correct at all. The ONLY way there is NO compulsion in religion, by the state, is to eliminate any and all religious distinctions by the state.

Snake Legs, you are loosing sight of the forest for the trees.

You have agreed that Islam compels a Muslim behave a certain way and perform certain duties and is under the threats of punishment if the Muslim doesn't perform. You have not seen that same mindset, as it applies to non-believers (non-believer= non-Muslim ) for what it is, compulsion in religion.

There is compulsion in religion in Islam, for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim alike.

Debating which is worse is really a non-argument as far as this thread is concerned.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. What I meant is that a Muslim is not allowed to disobey GOD because the Qur'an merely says there's "no Compulsion in religion". Of course he has freewill and can do whatever he wants but NOT BECAUSE the Qur'an said that there is "no Compulsion in religion". Maybe you saw it differently. I do believe that when the state does take such measure it's for the benefit of the Muslim himself.

Just like when you get fined for not wearing a helmet on a motorbike or not tying your seatbelt when driving. Those two preventive matters are necessary and can be a difference between life and death when an accident happenes. Maybe as an Atheist you don't see the importance of reminding each other to obey GOD because it can make a difference between Heaven and Hell when a Muslim dies.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top