What are somethings that non-believers of Islam should know?

[mickib]

Ooh, I just noticed you are in Jamaica! Have you ever heard of Dr. Bilal Philips? He was born in Jamaica before moving to Canada and ultimately Qatar. He has done many, many excellent lectures on the basic tenets of Islam, and you can find a great deal of them on Youtube. I'd highly suggest checking some of them out!

I've never heard of him:hiding:But I'll certainly check him out! Thank you for your references:statisfie

 

[mickib]

No.. Jihad is a huge part of Islam. And it is way more comprehensive than you can learn from this forum. But that was just an idea of what it is. And Islam doesn't promote peace. Islam promotes the Oneness of God, and complete Submission to Him..

Maybe I should reword my comment...
For such a peaceful religion, the idea of Jihad (Jihad as in, religious wars) seemed strange. I'm not speaking about Jihad in the sense of fighting inner desires and whatnot, but religious wars. As you said

The first resort of calling to Islam has always been with mercy and justice. Preaching peacefully, and spreading knowledge of the Religion

When persons speak of Islam, they speak of peace, mercy and equality (though some believers may not show this).Yes, peace is not the primary focus, but it is a part of it.
Learning about Jihad in the past, I often questioned it. Similarly, in the past,conversion to Christianity was forced rather than encouraged. One of the reasons Spain headed to the New World was to convert heathens. African Slaves were forbidden to practice their religion, and they had to do it in secret. Do you see my point? It always confuses me when followers deliberately do something in contrast with their faith Slavery went against the 'love everyone like you love yourself' rule. Jihad (that is, the wars) went against Islam.

I hope I wrote makes sense....
Of course, if I'm still to be corrected, please do so. I can't say I know everything.

Oh, and by deliberately, I mean in a sense where we completely disregard a characteristic of our faith in favour of something else.Slavery is a perfect example. "Yeah, it's bad, but it's making us rich!".

 

[mickib]

Maybe I should reword my comment...
For such a peaceful religion, the idea of Jihad (Jihad as in, religious wars) seemed strange. I'm not speaking about Jihad in the sense of fighting inner desires and whatnot, but religious wars. As you said


When persons speak of Islam, they speak of peace, mercy and equality (though some believers may not show this).Yes, peace is not the primary focus, but it is a part of it.
Learning about Jihad in the past, I often questioned it. Similarly, in the past,conversion to Christianity was forced rather than encouraged. One of the reasons Spain headed to the New World was to convert heathens. African Slaves were forbidden to practice their religion, and they had to do it in secret. Do you see my point? It always confuses me when followers deliberately do something in contrast with their faith Slavery went against the 'love everyone like you love yourself' rule. Jihad (that is, the wars) went against Islam's whole peace stuff. At least, that's what I thought.

I hope I wrote makes sense....
Of course, if I'm still to be corrected, please do so. I can't say I know everything.

Oh, and by deliberately, I mean in a sense where we completely disregard a characteristic of our faith in favour of something else.Slavery is a perfect example. "Yeah, it's bad, but it's making us rich!".

 

[mickib]

• Jihad
In Islam Jihad does not mean "Holy war". And is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews, as some people want it to be perceived. Jihad literally means "striving, struggling or exerting more effort than usual for the betterment of one's elf and the community at large." It has an internal, societal and combative dimension.
- The internal dimension of Jihad encompasses the struggle against the evil inclinations of the self; it involves every Muslim's earnest, moral efforts to resist all internal or external inclination towards sin of all kinds. This includes the struggle to overcome problems, difficulties, tasks, and temptations.
- The social dimension includes struggling against social injustice and creating a communal identity based on charity, respect and equality. Also it takes the form of calling people with the community to enjoin good and forbid evil.
- Finally, the combative aspect of jihad is in the form of a just war to be used against aggression or to fight forces of tyranny and evil oppression, and, even then, to observe the strict limits of conduct prescribed by Islam that preserves the life of innocents and the sanctity of the environment.
- Islam rejects all forms of terrorism, extremism, fanatism and fundamentalism. The religion of Islam guarantees the sanctity of life (the life of a non-Muslim is considered as sacred as that of a Muslim), honor, property, and freedom to embrace and practice any religion they freely choose, and all other conducts as long as those conducts do not hurt others. To terrorize people or spread fear in any society or hurt others; all are considered major sins in Islam; Allah prescribed severe punishments for those who are involved in such actions.

islamicbulletin. org/newsletters/issue_24/beliefs.aspx#jihad

I read this earlier.

 

[Delete.]

Maybe I should reword my comment...
For such a peaceful religion, the idea of Jihad (Jihad as in, religious wars) seemed strange. I'm not speaking about Jihad in the sense of fighting inner desires and whatnot, but religious wars. As you said


When persons speak of Islam, they speak of peace, mercy and equality (though some believers may not show this).Yes, peace is not the primary focus, but it is a part of it.
Learning about Jihad in the past, I often questioned it. Similarly, in the past,conversion to Christianity was forced rather than encouraged. One of the reasons Spain headed to the New World was to convert heathens. African Slaves were forbidden to practice their religion, and they had to do it in secret. Do you see my point? It always confuses me when followers deliberately do something in contrast with their faith Slavery went against the 'love everyone like you love yourself' rule. Jihad (that is, the wars) went against Islam.

I hope I wrote makes sense....
Of course, if I'm still to be corrected, please do so. I can't say I know everything.

Oh, and by deliberately, I mean in a sense where we completely disregard a characteristic of our faith in favour of something else.Slavery is a perfect example. "Yeah, it's bad, but it's making us rich!".

I understand what you are saying. But there is something to understand and that is nothing is just black and white. Something that seems violent and "evil", may be for a good cause. And something that the whole world perceives as good, might actually be an evil. The wisdom behind some things is only with Allah. "We hear and we obey." We can't say that Jihad (fighting physically for Allah's Religion to be superior) is bad and it goes against the teachings of Islam, it's not correct. Do you understand me too? I hope so! I don't want to confuse you, but it is not a simple topic, and not easy to explain on text as many misunderstandings can happen. I'm trying to keep it simple. Allah knows best.

 

[Delete.]

• Jihad
In Islam Jihad does not mean "Holy war". And is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews, as some people want it to be perceived. Jihad literally means "striving, struggling or exerting more effort than usual for the betterment of one's elf and the community at large." It has an internal, societal and combative dimension.
- The internal dimension of Jihad encompasses the struggle against the evil inclinations of the self; it involves every Muslim's earnest, moral efforts to resist all internal or external inclination towards sin of all kinds. This includes the struggle to overcome problems, difficulties, tasks, and temptations.
- The social dimension includes struggling against social injustice and creating a communal identity based on charity, respect and equality. Also it takes the form of calling people with the community to enjoin good and forbid evil.
- Finally, the combative aspect of jihad is in the form of a just war to be used against aggression or to fight forces of tyranny and evil oppression, and, even then, to observe the strict limits of conduct prescribed by Islam that preserves the life of innocents and the sanctity of the environment.
- Islam rejects all forms of terrorism, extremism, fanatism and fundamentalism. The religion of Islam guarantees the sanctity of life (the life of a non-Muslim is considered as sacred as that of a Muslim), honor, property, and freedom to embrace and practice any religion they freely choose, and all other conducts as long as those conducts do not hurt others. To terrorize people or spread fear in any society or hurt others; all are considered major sins in Islam; Allah prescribed severe punishments for those who are involved in such actions.

islamicbulletin. org/newsletters/issue_24/beliefs.aspx#jihad

I read this earlier.

Correct. I should have mentioned to you that Murder is also a major sin in Islam (regardless of religion).

 

[mickib]

I understand what you are saying. But there is something to understand and that is nothing is just black and white. Something that seems violent and "evil", may be for a good cause. And something that the whole world perceives as good, might actually be an evil. The wisdom behind some things is only with Allah. "We hear and we obey." We can't say that Jihad (fighting physically for Allah's Religion to be superior) is bad and it goes against the teachings of Islam, it's not correct. Do you understand me too? I hope so! I don't want to confuse you, but it is not a simple topic, and not easy to explain on text as many misunderstandings can happen. I'm trying to keep it simple. Allah knows best.

Ohhhh. Well, thank you for clearing that up

 

[Al Sultan]

What???? but people told me Allah switched his soul with a similar looking soul who looked like Jesus (AS)....But oh well Jazak Allah khairan for explaining this to me brother <3

 

[Delete.]

What???? but people told me Allah switched his soul with a similar looking soul who looked like Jesus (AS)....But oh well Jazak Allah khairan for explaining this to me brother <3

You should go speak with someone knowledgeable and trustworthy and ask them to explain it to you in full detail and to show you evidence from the Quran and Ahadeeth.

 

[Al Sultan]

Okay thanks brother

 

[sister herb]

But we don't believe Jesus was crucified ?., and also why did he get back to life ? I thought Allah switched his soul with another being who looked like him...

That example wasn´t about what we believe or not but that Muslims and Christians can co-operate and trust to each others. Nowadays the media only shows Islam and Muslims in negative light and tries to claim that Muslims attitude against others (like to Christians) is hostile.

 

[OmAbdullah]

-Islam doesn't mean "Peace". It means "Submission", from "Aslama" which literally means "to surrender". Because we completely submit ourselves to Allah. But the word "Salam" (Peace) has the same root as "Islam".


-Allah is not a "name" for another god. Allah is the Arabic word for God. The word "Allah" is without a gender, cannot be made plural, and just means "One God" (to roughly translate). Christians and Jews who speak Arabic also refer to God as Allah. It doesn't mean "moon god" (or anything else that may be attributed to 'Allah')


-We believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was one of the greatest Prophets of Allah. We do not believe he was the son of God. His miracles were done with the Permission of Allah, and he was a human being.


-Islam was not spread violently or spread "by the sword". There was no forcefulness in the spread of Islam. If you'd like to know more about how Islam was spread that is another, very long topic to discuss. But I'd be glad to, God willing.


-Women have MANY rights in Islam, we are NOT oppressed! I cannot stress this enough. Just as women in the West choose to go out in shorts, Muslim women choose to cover their bodies when they go out. We have a right to our money, education, raising our children, we have rights over our husbands, and many more. It is another very in depth topic to discuss. But the main point is, we have rights, we love our Religion, we love to dress modestly.

-Every single Muslim participates in Jihad, every day. Surprised? Yes we do! We practice Jihad by controlling our inner desires, and negative feelings. When we speak a good word to our parents even though we are angry, it is Jihad. When we wake up at 6AM even though we are exhausted, it is Jihad. It is a Jihad against our own souls, and according to our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) it is the greatest Jihad we can do.

-We believe that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the last and final Prophet.

I could go on and on... Just let me know if you are interested!

Masha-Allah, Jazaak-Allaho khaira.

 

[Al Sultan]

I have to agree with you on that,well I kind of misunderstood it

 

[OmAbdullah]

When we are ignorant-ahem-uneducated about something, we tend to be disrespectful to it-Islam is no exception.
What are some general things that non-believers should know, in order to further our understanding of the religion?

[SUB]Sorry if a similar post was already written. Please post a link [/SUB][SUB]to[/SUB][SUB] the post if it happens to [/SUB][SUB]exist[/SUB][SUB], please[/SUB].

Alhamdulillah that a sister gave you a very proper detailed answer. The only thing that I have to say is that:


The Great Creator and Sovereign has created us for HIS worship only and has very clearly informed us through all the Prophets, but especially through the Final Prophet Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam, that in case of disbelief the unbeliever shall be punished in Hell for ever. The punishments in Hell are described in the Holy Quraan. Therefore everyone must try to understand it to know about the horrible lasting punishments. Also that this life is given to us to obey and worship Allah so that we get protected from Hell. This life is the only chance and we never know the time of death. So we must wake up and try to protect ourselves from Allah's Anger before death overtakes us.

 

[Delete.]

Masha-Allah, Jazaak-Allaho khaira.

Wa iyyaki sister

 

[cooterhein]

Hello! So, I am quite sure I misunderstood you in some points, but I'll try to answer from what I did understand, and maybe you could clarify what I missed in your next post, God willing. I'd also like to begin as you began with saying, I am a believer in Jesus (peace be upon him) and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

Okay. I can't help but wonder if Jesus would say you have believed in him and been born again, as he describes in John 3. That's a massively important chapter in the New Testament, do take a look at that if you get the chance. Anyway, thanks for saying you believe in multiple prophets, including Jesus who was a Jew and the founder of Christianity.

Firstly, "there is no compulsion in Religion" is a hugely misunderstood verse of the Quran. There is no need to force people to accept Islam because the Religion itself is clear from the start for those with understanding. Anyone who gains knowledge on the proper teachings of Islam will enter it on his or her own terms, without compulsion, because of the evident proof and its soundness of being the True Religion. (That was just to explain this verse) Allah knows best.

Thanks for the explanation. I had been under the impression that it's generally used to say that compulsion, for religious reasons, is wrong. Which is to say, not only is it wrong to force someone into a fake conversion, but it is also wrong to enslave a woman and tell her the only way to be free and have a better life is to become a Muslim. Just as an example. Or, it is wrong to force someone to obey Islamic law if that person is not a Muslim, or even if that person is a Muslim, she can leave Islam or stop obeying parts of Islamic law without being forced to do otherwise. No you don't have to encourage people to do this, no you don't have to say it's good or that it's right, all you're being asked to do is urge people to non-violence and to avoid the use of force. No compulsion means you don't force people to do things, you don't compel them.

You have a bit of a different explanation though, and yours actually seems....falsifiable, if I may say so. Anyone who gains knowledge of Islam's proper teachings, you say. And under those circumstances, these people will....enter it on their own terms. Or, just as another possibility, they might not. Really, they might not, and you wouldn't force them to do otherwise because that is the sine qua non of "no compulsion." It is the ability to do otherwise. If anyone is lacking the ability to do otherwise when it comes to Islam, you've got a problem with compulsion.

Secondly, (this is the part of yours I didn't understand I think), wanting Shari'a Law in a Muslim dominated country is not wrong.

Insofar as Sharia is made the law of the land, and insofar as people are compelled to obey these laws- which are specifically Islamic laws- then you've got a problem with compulsion, and a specifically religious problem at that. Remember, in order for religious freedom to be a thing, and in order for there to be no compulsion in your religion, people need to have the ability to do otherwise. So if a country is mostly Muslim (or Muslim dominated as you so astutely put it), and there are laws being enforced that Force people to obey Islamic law, that is some serious compulsion. That will definitely get you some low marks in all measures of religious freedom. That is a rather serious problem, and it is most certainly wrong. It absolutely is.

On the contrary, this is logic. Muslims who believe in Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and believe in the revelation of the Quran, and the Laws of Allah, will naturally want Shari'a Law, not secularism. No Muslim would be in favor of a secularist society.

No Muslim? Really? I have some empirical data that says otherwise.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Now, there's a lot going on here, and it covers a variety of topics and issues that relate to Sharia law. Is it the revealed word of God, are there multiple interpretations, wait keep going there it is, should it be the law of the land? And should it apply to non-Muslims as well as to Muslims? The results vary from place to place, and from region to region. Interestingly enough, the countries that stick out as the most hard-line on all these issues (including killing apostates and stoning for adultery) are also some of the least educated and most illiterate countries on the planet. This has been pointed out to me in the past- perhaps the crazy and intolerant things they do are not because of Islam, but because they are uneducated and culturally backward for reasons that don't directly pertain to Islam.

Of course this varies from issue to issue, and there certainly are a large number of mostly-Muslim countries where a good majority of Muslims would agree with you. But it's clearly not all, and of course there are broader issues that are complicated and more involved than just this single issue. To the specific point you made, though, that "no Muslim would be in favor of a secularist society"- that is plainly false on the face of it, you can't possibly believe that no true Muslim could be anything but an Islamist. You may want to return to that point and "clarify," which is to say "change what you said so it's not wrong."

This is not forcing someone to convert to Islam, on the contrary, Shari'a Law is not only for Muslims, it has laws in favor of Non-Muslims as well, who reside in Muslim lands. (I don't even want to bring up the whole topic of Colonialism).

It doesn't force anyone to convert to Islam, but it sure does force non-Muslims to follow Islamic laws. For example, attempting to convince someone to leave Islam is a punishable offence. Building a church that has visible and obvious Christian imagery is a punishable offence. Non-Muslim women who walk around in their normal clothes as they normally do, may be forced to adhere to an Islamic dress code. Because certain things may be a punishable offense. Of course this is not how it is in all Islamic countries, but it is possible, it happens in some places, and these are varying examples of coercion from place to place.

I'm not just talking about forced conversions. I'm talking about Anything. In a legal code, that is enforceable through fines punishments and other penalties. That would force anyone- including Muslims- to obey Islamic law. Religion must be optional, it Cannot be mandatory in any way and people, non-Muslims and Muslims alike, must have the ability to do otherwise. I don't mind at all if all Muslims freely choose to do a certain thing, just as long as everyone has the Ability to Do Otherwise without being compelled by some type of punishment. Creating laws that punish people for "doing otherwise," specifically when it comes to Islam, is coercion. It is wrong. It must stop. And it will stop, one way or the other. Get on the right side of this, please.

 

[Delete.]

@cooterhein - Okay, I read your post, and I'd like to advise you to actually learn about Islam and Shari'a Law before you form your opinions about it and attempt to argue it (if possible, from an unbiased perspective). It's clear from your post that you've never studied Islamic Law from the scholars who spent their lives learning it from the Qur'an and Ahadeeth. You can't claim to know about Islam and Shari'a Law just because you follow what the media tells you, or websites, or even what you see some Islamic countries doing. It can only be studied through the scholars who dedicated themselves to learning it through Qur'an and Ahadeeth. I don't mean to sound harsh at all but a conversation like this must be done strictly and so it may seem unkind on my part (which is not my intention). I simply cannot refute each and every one of your points, that would take a very long time and much effort because you don't know anything about it to begin with!

You misunderstood my whole point and interpreted it in favor of your own argument, which is very incorrect. Also, picking and choosing and plucking out a few Islamic Laws in order to make your point is ignorant, and a reasonable argument cannot be made by doing that. You need to study them together, in context, why they were made, for what reason, with what authority, what are the prerequisites to even practice those punishments, etc. Again, why argue what you don't have knowledge on?

Yes, Shari'a Law forces non-Muslims to follow Islamic Laws.. Of course it does, if you are living in a Muslim country as a non-Muslim, what else would you expect? As the Westerners would say "Don't like it? Move to another country! Go back to 'your country'!" Why do you want to enforce your views on a whole nation of people who prefer to follow Shari'a?

If this is a logical argument (which it is not), you can't throw in your own opinions and assumptions. And anyways, with the opinions that you are spewing you would be against Democracy itself. Don't they enforce through fines and punishments? Didn't democratic countries ban Muslim women to wear the face veil? Some countries have even outright stated that they want to ban the practice of Islam altogether. Don't be so arrogant as to think only your views are correct, only your opinion is on the "right side". It is ironic because you are the one expressing oppressive views, you want to force your "non-religious" beliefs on the world, yet you are "against" countries who abide by a Religious Law.

In summary: First learn about true Shari'a Law as prescribed by the Qur'an and Ahadeeth before you start an argument about it. Secondly, don't move to a country that enforces Shari'a Law if you don't want to be obliged to practice it.

I'll await your reply but please don't expect one back from me. Frankly, you don't have the right nor the qualifications to discuss Shari'a Law.

And Allah knows best.

 

[Al Sultan]

It doesn't force anyone to convert to Islam, but it sure does force non-Muslims to follow Islamic laws.

Brother...you know whats funny here? back then when the Jizya (tax of non muslims) existed,many Christians preferred living under an Islamic State or rule,because first,they weren't even required to fight,every Muslim should protect that non muslim from every directions at ALL costs,no muslim should harm him,and should protect him until the war or battle is over. second,it was much more stable than living under a Christian state or rule,since they changed over time (in many churches you will find priests who say drinking is prohibited and you will get another priest telling you its not prohibited for example).Many Christians were comfortable living like this,and jews too,so were they FORCED to follow it? no,its for their benefits,you cant live in a muslim country just freely ? (back then) people had to understand that this is God's laws,not man made laws,this is why its strict on many subjects but the way I see it you should educate yourself and learn about Sharia Law,its not cutting hands and heads every day of every non muslim,its not like that,if you TRULY study it DEEPLY and carefully you'll realize that this Sharia Law is WAY different than how the media interprets it.

but it is also wrong to enslave a woman and tell her the only way to be free and have a better life is to become a Muslim

brother,you're talking about slavery,right? again,where does it say that? no Muslim has EVER told a slave "oh hey,become a muslim,and you'll be free,isnt that better?" first of all,Slaves are those who attacked islam and muslims back then and muslims took them as captives/slaves..But wait,do we mistreat them? do we molest the dead corpses? do we execute all of them? no,if you study slavery (again,which seems to be you don't know about and you should educate yourself on knowing it before speaking against it) Islam,IS THE ONLY RELIGION in human history to raise it's voice against slavery,(Christianity only said to treat them well and that was the limit,on the other occasions it was quite about it) First of all,NEVER EVER mistreat a slave,dont call him a slave,call him or her,sister,brother,cousin,friend,son,daughter,uncle,and so on.They should be well fed,dress good clothes like you,eat food with you,and drink with you,and care for him/her don't harm her/him (if so the Islamic State or law will take away that slave from you) and do not make him work too much,if he is having trouble working,YOU SHOULD WORK WITH HIM TOO,help him too,and provide for him/her shelter and a bed to sleep.what is this? is this slavery? Islam spits and makes fun of slavery! it just makes it look like a small ant,This is how Islam treats slaves,they give rights to slaves you know? And also the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) encouraged Muslims to free slaves,marry them and live a normal life with them...

attempting to convince someone to leave Islam is a punishable offence.

Why would it not be? its trying to protect its people from corruption,confusion and who knows what that person might do? what if he tries to convince someone to do something horrible? I don't see that as a problem,infact,its protecting the Ummah...

Building a church that has visible and obvious Christian imagery is a punishable offence.

Because putting up images of Jesus and God is not allowed in islam,and also in Christianity (I forgot the verse in the bible but you can search it up) its offensive,and we should respect these people and respect God and not make statues of them,because we Muslims ATLEAST respect Jesus,Allah,Mohammed,and we don't want to make images of them,we don't know what and how they look like and that shouldn't be in a worshipping place (to be honest with you) and since when was it a punishable offence? I've never heard of that,nor I've seen a hadith talking about,mind sharing me the HADITH?? because Sharia Law comes from the Holy Quran,and Ahaadiths..

Creating laws that punish people for "doing otherwise," specifically when it comes to Islam, is coercion. It is wrong.

So we should leave people to rape other people? to encourage sinful homosexual relationship and acts that can lead to diseases (AIDs) ? let people kill? let people steal? let people lead the righteous people to confusion and corruption? we should leave people commit adultery? we should leave people do whatever they want? no,this is a retarded point of view to be honest with you,we Muslims live by Allah's rules,we don't see it cruel or wrong,its STRICT BECAUSE ITS MAKING SURE TO PROTECT US FROM CONFUSION AND CORRUPTION.Sharia Law is God's law,not man made laws,is there a sharia law in Christianity? does that even exist? we use Sharia Law to protect the people,the country,from all means of corruption,confusion,killing,stealing,other bad things.



I'm sorry dear brother, but I don't think you understand Sharia Law,im saying this as nice and as much as I can because people talk about things they don't even know about,you should research and know as much as possible about it, before talking about it,not saying things according to the media? because some of what you said exactly represents the media..its just that you listen and trust it sadly...Don't know Sharia Law? ask about Sharia Law,dont know about it but still talk about it is not logical and unacceptable dear brother,you have to study it specifically

Peace be to you brother.

 

[kritikvernunft]

it is also wrong to enslave a woman and tell her the only way to be free and have a better life is to become a Muslim. Just as an example.

"Freeing a woman from her bonds" amounts to "divorcing her". So, you are saying: If the woman becomes a Muslim, her owner/husband will finally be able to divorce her, and that will give her a better life. This is quite often not true. Especially when there are children involved, divorce is rarely an improvement for the woman.

Or, it is wrong to force someone to obey Islamic law if that person is not a Muslim ...

If someone breaks the law, but there are no victims, usually nothing happens, unless it amounts to disturbing public order. If you have broken the law and created claimants somewhere or other plaintiffs, then these persons will want reparations. In that sense, you should stay clear from disturbing public order or otherwise ending up with victims/plaintiffs. Regardless of your religion, you would indeed be made to retribute under Islamic law.

... or even if that person is a Muslim, she can leave Islam or stop obeying parts of Islamic law without being forced to do otherwise...

In your mind, you can already have left, as long as you do not publicly declare so. Furthermore, this will still not exempt you from not damaging other people's rights.

... all you're being asked to do is urge people to non-violence and to avoid the use of force ...

Your views sound like pacifism. Violence can easily be the lesser evil. In that sense, there can never be a blanket ban on violence. Pacifism does not bring peace. Pacifism only brings contempt.

No compulsion means you don't force people to do things, you don't compel them.

Just like HMRC does not force people to pay VAT or income taxes !? "They don't compel them !?" If there is a blanket ban on violence or compulsion, declaring it evil, then the State itself is the most egregious form of evil. If there isn't such ban, then your views are contradictory. Sometimes you agree to violence and compulsion, while sometimes you don't, with your own choices made on ideological grounds. Well, everybody can have their own views on when violence is allowed and when not. Why on earth would they have to adopt yours?

... there are laws being enforced that Force people to obey Islamic law, that is some serious compulsion ...

Enforcement only occurs when there are complaints, i.e. victims or plaintiffs. Otherwise, nobody cares. Victimless crimes are a western invention. Nobody else believes in that.

That will definitely get you some low marks in all measures of religious freedom. That is a rather serious problem, and it is most certainly wrong. It absolutely is.

Absolutely not. You can do whatever you like, as long as nobody can show that he suffered damage from what you did, as a victim or other plaintiff. The religion itself is not a party to a conflict or to any occurrence of enforcement. It is always plaintiffs that are. Religious freedom does not mean that you can alienate other people, as you please, by for example publishing ugly cartoons that offends them. Religious freedom means that you can practice your own religion in peace. Blaspheming or ridiculing other people's religion is not a form of religious freedom.

To the specific point you made, though, that "no Muslim would be in favor of a secularist society"- that is plainly false on the face of it, you can't possibly believe that no true Muslim could be anything but an Islamist.

Means and goal are often easy to reverse. You can reject the legitimacy of secular laws and secular governments and enlist Islam as a means to achieve that. In that case, Islam is not the goal but the instrument, to achieve the goal of sinking man-made forms of law. This is not an Islamist point of view. This is just common sense. If you want to beat the hell out of a dog, you will first need to go looking for a stick. Does that always reflect obsession with sticks? Of course, it doesn't.

 

[cooterhein]

"Freeing a woman from her bonds" amounts to "divorcing her". So, you are saying: If the woman becomes a Muslim, her owner/husband will finally be able to divorce her, and that will give her a better life. This is quite often not true. Especially when there are children involved, divorce is rarely an improvement for the woman.

I was talking about actual slavery. It was a major part of the spread of Islam. And that part of how it was spread, was so very wrong.

If someone breaks the law, but there are no victims, usually nothing happens, unless it amounts to disturbing public order. If you have broken the law and created claimants somewhere or other plaintiffs, then these persons will want reparations. In that sense, you should stay clear from disturbing public order or otherwise ending up with victims/plaintiffs. Regardless of your religion, you would indeed be made to retribute under Islamic law.

The very fact that I might at some point find myself "under Islamic law," is the first problem we need to address. Let's rectify that with all possible speed.

In your mind, you can already have left, as long as you do not publicly declare so. Furthermore, this will still not exempt you from not damaging other people's rights.

Other people do not actually have, among their rights, the right to enforce religious law.

Your views sound like pacifism. Violence can easily be the lesser evil. In that sense, there can never be a blanket ban on violence. Pacifism does not bring peace. Pacifism only brings contempt.

My views actually sound a lot more like that of someone who's not an anarchist, that of someone who entrusts the state with ensuring law and order, and in a certain sense this is an articulation of the "monopoly on violence" concept as a core concept of modern public law and as a defining part of how one conceives of the state.

To that end, especially when it comes to the "monopoly on violence" bit, it strikes right at the heart of why the state must, absolutely must, be secular in nature. If you're going to entrust a coercive entity with a monopoly on violence in the society that you must live in, do you want a religion to have that monopoly? Do you honestly want Islam to be known as the religion that craves, demands, absolutely must have the monopoly on violence? Is that how a religion of peace ought to behave? I think not; the monopoly on violence should belong to no particular religion and all religions ought to be treated fairly and equally, and with an absence of hostility.

With that being said, I have no problem at all with legitimate use of force being used by agents of the state in service of the public good. I'm not employed by the state in any such capacity at this time, but I'd have no problem with getting into that line of work. That's quite a bit different from pacifism.

Just like HMRC does not force people to pay VAT or income taxes !? "They don't compel them !?" If there is a blanket ban on violence or compulsion, declaring it evil, then the State itself is the most egregious form of evil.

It's a blanket ban on religious compulsion. The key word there is "religious." Religion must, or should at least, absolutely abhor compulsion. Of course there is plenty of compulsion in this world, the State itself is incredibly compulsory in all that it does. It should be held accountable, it should be held in check, we should keep an eye on what it's doing and how it's doing it. And this compulsion thing should be something that Islam, and all other religions, stays out of. That's not their game, and Muslims ought to do a better job of making that really clear. Hence, my initial response- this is something that I, as a non-Muslim, would like to hear from Muslims.

If there isn't such ban, then your views are contradictory. Sometimes you agree to violence and compulsion, while sometimes you don't, with your own choices made on ideological grounds.

Sometimes I agree to violence and compulsion, when it's carried out in a secular manner. Other times I don't, like for example every single time we're talking about religious compulsion. If you look for it, you'll start to see that pattern.