Germany...Again

[Delibirb]

if those who say "america has bled enough" are also in agreement with the statement "enough is enough" then how exactly is it hypocritical? "america has bled enough" is merely a more narrow version of "enough is enough" if you acknowledge both, then there is nothing hypocritical about saying one instead of the other. but this really should be focused on Germany, so  that particular discussion angle would do well to be dropped out of this conversation anyway.

 

also, it's not by any means overzealous to stand by your opinion of a subject, which people here are doing. the discussion is related to Islam, terrorism, immigration, and Germany which means i have to at least admit there was no reason to drag america into this particular discussion, in fact, how did america get dragged into this discussion? and as such, holding a discussion on Islam, immigration, or German policy here is at least as valid as anywhere else.

It's overzealous in relation to this event. Discuss your opinions in a thread about something more impactful, or in debates.

[chairman ali]

Winter has yet again shown excessive ignorance of Islam.

 

The Quran isn't a western book, so you need to stop approaching it in a western methodology. The Quran didn't come down in one day. It came down in verses revealed at certain incidents. Each verse has 7 meanings ['Tabaqaat]. The meaning cannot be explained by normal folk. It can only be explained by the Prophet and his successors. So reading the Quran on your own will lead you nowhere. That's why their are Seminaries [Najaf, Qum, etc.].

 

In Ghadir Khum the Prophet told his final order from Allah [god]. These are the words:

 

"O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance...The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times)."

 

Therefore you cannot hold onto one without the other. Westerners don't get that it is VERY important to read Ahadith. The Quran isn't like the bible. 

 

And before someone tells me "The quran said kill the non-muslims" I repeat, the verse was revealed in a certain event, you need to know that event to understand what the verse is talking about. 

 

I'm sorry if this is off topic but I'm getting fed up with how people approach Islam. It seems to me that people keep pasting names of terrorists or some people with different agendas than what Islam has taught. Why do we not see the names of people whom awed the world? Shaheed Al-Sadr, may god have mercy on his pure soul, for example, is held high not only by Muslims but by westerners of different beliefs as well, yet some of you have probably never heard of him. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The only name I posted was a Muslim man who wanted moderation and tolerance. And was executed for it.

 

Actions speak louder than words, especially words that apparently very few people can understand

[Resident Fascist]

 

And before someone tells me "The quran said kill the non-muslims" I repeat, the verse was revealed in a certain event, you need to know that event to understand what the verse is talking about. 

 

I'm sorry if this is off topic but I'm getting fed up with how people approach Islam. It seems to me that people keep pasting names of terrorists or some people with different agendas than what Islam has taught. Why do we not see the names of people whom awed the world? Shaheed Al-Sadr, may god have mercy on his pure soul, for example, is held high not only by Muslims but by westerners of different beliefs as well, yet some of you have probably never heard of him. 

 

Wasn't the event something to do with the new group of Muslims being outright attacked? Also, I haven't heard of Shaheed Al-Sadr, what did he actually do? I mean, my major problem with Islamism is the fact that they take the Quran as "Kill the Non-believers" which is hideously toxic. Somehow I doubted that was the case. And I can understand Muslims being upset with how the religion is approached. Unfortunately many people's first experiences of Islam is hearing about Islamism-Inspired Terrorism, which gets people off to a bad start.

 

 I mean, I'm personally not a Muslim, but I highly doubt a religion that features scripture that states to kill anyone who isn't a believer would have lasted as long as it has. Islam as a religion still has room to evolve and change, as does every religion. Islamism is the problem, not the actual religion itself, which unfortunately people tend to mix up.

[chairman ali]

The only name I posted was a muslim man who wanted moderation and tolerance. And was executed for it.

 

Did I say "The link that winter posted in this thread?" no. 

 

 

 

It seems to me that people keep pasting names of terrorists or some people with different agendas than what Islam has taught.

 

"People" does not mean "Winter" or "one person". "Keep pasting names of terrorists" doesn't mean on this forum only.

[Aerion Brightflame]

You generally don't see the positive members of a group being mentioned when the media is doing it's best to create a negative image of one. There's obviously a majority of Muslims who aren't followers of Islamism. But fear tries to play it off as if all Muslims are terrorists. 

 

It's wrong, but fear sells. 

 

It's why people should refer to the issue as Islamism rather than Islam - There is no inherent issue with Islam that is greater than any equivalent religion. The issue is the direction a small group of radicals take it. Or the way a specific culture takes it, because all religions have the capacity to change. All beliefs do really. 

[Resident Fascist]

You generally don't see the positive members of a group being mentioned when the media is doing it's best to create a negative image of one. There's obviously a majority of Muslims who aren't followers of Islamism. But fear tries to play it off as if all Muslims are terrorists. 

 

It's wrong, but fear sells. 

 

It's why people should refer to the issue as Islamism rather than Islam - There is no inherent issue with Islam that is greater than any equivalent religion. The issue is the direction a small group of radicals take it. Or the way a specific culture takes it, because all religions have the capacity to change. All beliefs do really. 

 

This. So much this. I hate any sort of Us and Them style approach. Ignorance and fear creates this caricature that all Muslims are terrorists. Even though Islam is no more fundamentally violent than Judaism, Christianity, Hindhuism, Sikhism, any of those. I hate how people stick labels on people. If anything happens involving a Muslim, it's always the faith that's questioned first. Why is it when a Christian bombs an abortion clinic, they're just a crazed psycho? Why is Christianity and the Bible not brought into question? Hell, extremists exist in every religion. People think there aren't extreme Buddhists. Myanmar disagrees. Extreme Hindhus? Tamil Tigers. While these groups may or may not be smaller than the threat of Islamism inspired terrorism, they no doubt exist. Hell, even Athiesm has terrorists.

 

Also @Al specificly here, what exactly are Seminaries? Sorry, I've just never heard the word used.

[chairman ali]

Wasn't the event something to do with the new group of Muslims being outright attacked? Also, I haven't heard of Shaheed Al-Sadr, what did he actually do? I mean, my major problem with Islamism is the fact that they take the Quran as "Kill the Non-believers" which is hideously toxic. Somehow I doubted that was the case.

 

Anyone who reads the Quran without the original reason of revelation [sabab Al-Nuzool] is basically doing their own thing and not the commands of the prophet. The hadith [narration] I posted confirms that you cannot understand one without the other. There are many rules to reading the Quran. It isn't a normal book. There are chapters that are Madani [revealed when the prophet was in Madina] and others Makki [when he was in Mecca]. Knowing this will give you an general idea when the verses where revealed so you can look through history and Hadith books [there are thousands of them] to understand the verse.

 

When you read a Hadith book, you need something called 'Ilm Al-Rijal [The knowledge of men]. 'Ilm Al-Rijal is a way to know how strong [authenticity] a narration is by looking at its chain. The chain is basically the narrators. 'Ilm Al-Rijal looks at all the people who narrated the hadith and tells you if it is Saheeh [correct], 'Dhaeef [weak], etc. Not all Ahadith [plural of hadith] are accepted. We have to look at it's strength first. The Rijal [chain narrators] need to be studied as well. Scholars spend a lot of time reading the biographies of each and every narrator of the hadith [sometimes there are up to 9] to ensure that the person is not a liar or to know where he was when the previous narrator had told it and what's his connection with the previous narrator.

 

There is so much that goes own before you can understand a single verse of the Quran. It's not an easy task, that's why it becomes frustrating when someone who has no idea about the actual way of reading the quran starts talking about a certain verse.

[Resident Fascist]

Anyone who reads the Quran without the original reason of revelation [sabab Al-Nuzool] is basically doing their own thing and not the commands of the prophet. The hadith [narration] I posted confirms that you cannot understand one without the other. There are many rules to reading the Quran. It isn't a normal book. There are chapters that are Madani [revealed when the prophet was in Madina] and others Makki [when he was in Mecca]. Knowing this will give you an general idea when the verses where revealed so you can look through history and Hadith books [there are thousands of them] to understand the verse.

 

When you read a Hadith book, you need something called 'Ilm Al-Rijal [The knowledge of men]. 'Ilm Al-Rijal is a way to know how strong [authenticity] a narration is by looking at its chain. The chain is basically the narrators. 'Ilm Al-Rijal looks at all the people who narrated the hadith and tells you if it is Saheeh [correct], 'Dhaeef [weak], etc. Not all Ahadith [plural of hadith] are accepted. We have to look at it's strength first. The Rijal [chain narrators] need to be studied as well. Scholars spend a lot of time reading the biographies of each and every narrator of the hadith [sometimes there are up to 9] to ensure that the person is not a liar or to know where he was when the previous narrator had told it and what's his connection with the previous narrator.

 

There is so much that goes own before you can understand a single verse of the Quran. It's not an easy task, that's why it becomes frustrating when someone who has no idea about the actual way of reading the quran starts talking about a certain verse.

 

Not exactly sure if I understand all that, but essentially scholars research accounts of different events to see if it was possible for that person to be there at that time and pass on the information to the next person? I'm sorry, I'm just pretty curious and you are probably the best source to ask here.

[chairman ali]

Not exactly sure if I understand all that, but essentially scholars research accounts of different events to see if it was possible for that person to be there at that time and pass on the information to the next person? I'm sorry, I'm just pretty curious and you are probably the best source to ask here.

 

Let us say you are reading a Hadith book about Islamic Law. You came upon a narration and decided to see how authentic it is. You look at the last narrator, research him, and then look at the one that narrated before him and research him, until you reach the end of the chain. [it isn't necessarily a 'him', it could be a 'she'.] That's how it works. If one narrator has something fishy about him or is known that he's not trustworthy the hadith is labelled as 'weak' or whatever [since I myself don't know the labeling method].

 

This is used for Hadith books and there are many types of them [Jurisprudence, history, ethics, spirituality, etc.]

[Resident Fascist]

Let us say you are reading a Hadith book about Islamic Law. You came upon a narration and decided to see how authentic it is. You look at the last narrator, research him, and then look at the one that narrated before him and research him, until you reach the end of the chain. [it isn't necessarily a 'him', it could be a 'she'.] That's how it works. If one narrator has something fishy about him or is known that he's not trustworthy the hadith is labelled as 'weak' or whatever [since I myself don't know the labeling method].

 

This is used for Hadith books and there are many types of them [Jurisprudence, history, ethics, spirituality, etc.]

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. Also, isn't one of the core beliefs of Islam to never force anyone to join the religion and to respect the beliefs of others? That's what I heard.

[chairman ali]

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. Also, isn't one of the core beliefs of Islam to never force anyone to join the religion and to respect the beliefs of others? That's what I heard.

 

Yes,

 

[2:256]:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.

[vla1ne]

Yes,

 

[2:256]:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.

does that include the penalty for leaving?

[chairman ali]

does that include the penalty for leaving?

Why do people have to know you're leaving? Leave without making a show out of it.

[vla1ne]

Why do people have to know you're leaving? Leave without making a show out of it.

that wasn't the question. whether or not the person leaving brags about it is irrelevant. the question was does that apparent tolerance also include leaving the religion?

 

well, actually, that reminds me of another question, what is the penalty for not accepting allah?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why do people have to know you're leaving? Leave without making a show out of it.

Why should /I/ have to indulge /your/ intolerance 

 

As for making a show. Trying to go to church could be considered making a show. Should I feel ashamed of my religion because your's cannot tolerate diversity

[chairman ali]

vla1ne, please elaborate I don't understand your question.

 

Why should /I/ have to indulge /your/ intolerance 

 

As for making a show. Trying to go to church could be considered making a show. Should I feel ashamed of my religion because your's cannot tolerate diversity

Muslims are not prohibited from going to church, so none would know you have left the religion just because you entered a Church.

[vla1ne]

vla1ne, please elaborate I don't understand your question.

 

on the first question, it is dictated by the words and actions of muhamad, and the words of allah in the quran and accompanying passages, that those who wish to discard the religion are to be slain. that much has been accepted as truth among muslims for ages, even today, there are still stories about people who have left islam, and have had to flee their country for fear of being killed. alongside that are stories of people actually being killed, for leaving islam. so under that context, even if there is to be no compulsion to accept islam, is there not a clear compulsion to not leave it (that compulsion being a mandatory death sentence if any other muslim finds out you left)?

 

as for the second question, regardless of deeds, if you do not accept allah (after hearing of him), the scripture clearly states you go straight to hell, regardless of actions. now, ignoring the fact that such statements mean nothing to an atheist, when combined with the death penalty for leaving, and eternal torture for either rejecting or not accepting allah, that sounds to me, like a clear compulsion to join if there ever were one.

[chairman ali]

on the first question, it is dictated by the words and actions of muhamad, and the words of allah in the quran and accompanying passages, that those who wish to discard the religion are to be slain. that much has been accepted as truth among muslims for ages, even today, there are still stories about people who have left islam, and have had to flee their country for fear of being killed. alongside that are stories of people actually being killed, for leaving islam. so under that context, even if there is to be no compulsion to accept islam, is there not a clear compulsion to not leave it (that compulsion being a mandatory death sentence if any other muslim finds out you left)?

 

as for the second question, regardless of deeds, if you do not accept allah (after hearing of him), the scripture clearly states you go straight to hell, regardless of actions. now, ignoring the fact that such statements mean nothing to an atheist, when combined with the death penalty for leaving, and eternal torture for either rejecting or not accepting allah, that sounds to me, like a clear compulsion to join if there ever were one.

 

There are two kinds of "Irtidad" [irtidad: lit. backing (away), meaning going from Islam to another religion or no religion] Fi'tri (being born a Muslim because of parents) and Milli (becoming Muslim from another religion or from not believing at all but then he disbelieves in Islam and returns to what he was on).

 

The laws on the Fi'tri is that the person is killed ONLY if he understood the Islamic laws/message. If he does not then he is left because he was never really a Muslim by heart; he only 'inherited' it from his parents.

 

4:115

And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.

Notice where it says "after guidance". After guidance means a lot of things. It means the guidance of the soul and the guidance of knowledge. (I'll say this again, English translations of the Quran are very vague and don't have the correct meaning. They need to be explained to you.)

 

The Irtidad Milli is different. You are given 3 days. From what I think (this is my own understanding so take it with a grain of salt. I haven't really researched this very much) it is so you can debate with scholars and they could guide you if you are confused or if you have certain questions that led you to denounce Islam. It also gives you the chance to pack your things and leave if you still are not convinced.

 

Does this answer your questions? If not, then I'll take your questions to someone who is more learned than me because I'm not a seminary student or a scholar.

 

I also want to include that the only way for this to happen is if you announce it to the public. And for it to be done you have to be in your full capacity of thinking (if you're mentally ill no one will really do anything to you because it is not your fault), you have to be mature (passed puberty), and you must have the choice (you may be forced by someone).

 

These things aren't simply carried out. The adulterers, for example, are not lashed or stoned simply because one person says he saw them engage in sexual intercourse. There are a lot of requirements before the punishment is served, so much that it is nearly impossible to carry them out. This is because in Islam we believe Allah (god) gives many chances, regardless of the sins you commit. Allah will forgive you as long as you're really repenting and bettering yourself as a human being.

 

The stuff carried out by the Saudi law is garbage. It is unislamic to say the least. I remember Ayatollah Al-Khamanaei saying that not everything carried out by the current Islamic countries is the right course of action. This is because you cannot compare the Prophet (a messenger from god and who is guided by god) to a normal person.

[vla1ne]

There are two kinds of "Irtidad" [irtidad: lit. backing (away), meaning going from Islam to another religion or no religion] Fi'tri (being born a Muslim because of parents) and Milli (becoming Muslim from another religion or from not believing at all but then he disbelieves in Islam and returns to what he was on).

 

The laws on the Fi'tri is that the person is killed ONLY if he understood the Islamic laws/message. If he does not then he is left because he was never really a Muslim by heart; he only 'inherited' it from his parents.

 

4:115

And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.

Notice where it says "after guidance". After guidance means a lot of things. It means the guidance of the soul and the guidance of knowledge. (I'll say this again, English translations of the Quran are very vague and don't have the correct meaning. They need to be explained to you.)

 

The Irtidad Milli is different. You are given 3 days. From what I think (this is my own understanding so take it with a grain of salt. I haven't really researched this very much) it is so you can debate with scholars and they could guide you if you are confused or if you have certain questions that led you to denounce Islam. It also gives you the chance to pack your things and leave if you still are not convinced.

 

Does this answer your questions? If not, then I'll take your questions to someone who is more learned than me because I'm not a seminary student or a scholar.

 

I also want to include that the only way for this to happen is if you announce it to the public. And for it to be done you have to be in your full capacity of thinking (if you're mentally ill no one will really do anything to you because it is not your fault), you have to be mature (passed puberty), and you must have the choice (you may be forced by someone).

 

These things aren't simply carried out. The adulterers, for example, are not lashed or stoned simply because one person says he saw them engage in sexual intercourse. There are a lot of requirements before the punishment is served, so much that it is nearly impossible to carry them out. This is because in Islam we believe Allah (god) gives many chances, regardless of the sins you commit. Allah will forgive you as long as you're really repenting and bettering yourself as a human being.

 

The stuff carried out by the Saudi law is garbage. It is unislamic to say the least. I remember Ayatollah Al-Khamanaei saying that not everything carried out by the current Islamic countries is the right course of action. This is because you cannot compare the Prophet (a messenger from god and who is guided by god) to a normal person.

your explanation doesn't make it any better. it still justifies the killing of innocents simply for leaving the religion. how is that still not a compulsion? if the pope announced he was leaving his religion, would it be any different than people killing him? your explanation, even if narrowed, is still making excuses for murder and eternal torture. it's essentially the same as saying if i leave a group, i have no choice but to shut my mouth or they'll kill me, and i can see no justification for such a decree.

 

in addition, you did not answer the eternal hellfire question. does the threat of eternal hellfire not count as compusion? and under what context would eternal torture be anything but unjust? an infinite being should be above something as basic as nonbelief, and if they are not, then why would they not simply present sufficient evidence of their existence?

[chairman ali]

your explanation doesn't make it any better. it still justifies the killing of innocents simply for leaving the religion. how is that still not a compulsion? if the pope announced he was leaving his religion, would it be any different than people killing him? your explanation, even if narrowed, is still making excuses for murder and eternal torture. it's essentially the same as saying if i leave a group, i have no choice but to shut my mouth or they'll kill me, and i can see no justification for such a decree.

 

in addition, you did not answer the eternal hellfire question. does the threat of eternal hellfire not count as compusion? and under what context would eternal torture be anything but unjust? an infinite being should be above something as basic as nonbelief, and if they are not, then why would they not simply present sufficient evidence of their existence?

 

Maybe I'm bad at the English language? I don't know, but lets try again. I'll simplify it this time.

 

Someone born Muslim -> Lived his life without proper Islamic guidance -> denounced Islam = not killed because he was never properly guided or understood the religion.

 

Someone born atheist, hindu, buddhist, etc. -> converted to Islam -> converted to something else or denounced Islam -> given 3 days = killed if he did not leave or say he accepts Islam.

 

Firstly, if you convert to Islam then revert or convert to something else then it is your fault for not doing enough research. No one will convert simply because "they felt like it". They have to be properly guided. There were people during the prophet's time that were called "Al-Mu'alafati Qulubuhum" [those whose hearts are to be reconciled], they just said they were Muslims to save their skins after attacking the Muslims and losing the battle. They weren't Muslims by heart, just by tongue. 

 

3 days is enough time to leave the country. No one will hold you in prison for three days. You're free to roam around the country all you want. You can even lie on the fourth day and claim you're a Muslim just to save your skin and no one will ever know. You can live your life normally, do whatever you want. How will anyone know you're still not a Muslim?

 

Even if someone was properly guided and then turned to another belief, how would you know they were properly guided? You will have no idea, absolutely none. 

 

In addition, these laws can only be carried out in a country under Muslim rule and under a just leader. So if someone denounced Islam in the US nothing will happen regardless of the above criteria. Muslims in the US CANNOT and MUST NOT do anything to him.

 

Your second question makes no sense. Why would an Atheist believe in hellfire if he doesn't believe in god? Makes absolutely no sense.

[vla1ne]

the issue i have lies within your justification of murder. it does not matter how faithful they were, nor does it matter how or why they became muslim, the fact that it is ok to kill somebody, for leaving the religion, is what i'm taking issue with in this particular instance. you are justifying murder, in the name of a diety, it does not matter that you give them 3 days, the very fact that your religion at all calls for their murder is what i have issue with. and it does not matter that that rule can only be enacted in a muslim country, the fact that it is supported at all is something that goes against any claim of peace. if it were peaceful, there would be no call for murder at all. piled on top of that is the supposed eternal torture of those who leave, or those who refuse to believe.

 

my second question makes sense under the context laid out. i already placed the atheist disclaimer on it. yes, i am an atheist, but that does not excuse the scripture itself from questioning by any means. it is still the advocation of infinite punishment over nothing more than disbelief. I have already stated that i don't believe in it, but i am arguing against the the quran's claim of there being no compulsion, whether or not i believe in said compulsion is irrelevant, because the threat of eternal torture, whether you or i buy into it or not, definitely falls under the category of compulsion.

 

telling somebody that they will burn forever is an attempt, however ineffective it may be, at persuasion, and that goes to every related religion, be it the current muslims who desire to leave the religion, christians, catholics, or any other religion with similar threats. it is clearly compulsion, yet it's treated as if there were nothing keeping people from leaving or forcing them to join. (speaking as a former christian) if somebody has doubts about a religion they grew up with, the threat of eternal torture, regardless of deeds is often enough to keep them scared for years to come. and that is what i'm currently taking issue with.

[chairman ali]

the issue i have lies within your justification of murder. it does not matter how faithful they were, nor does it matter how or why they became muslim, the fact that it is ok to kill somebody, for leaving the religion, is what i'm taking issue with in this particular instance. you are justifying murder, in the name of a diety, it does not matter that you give them 3 days, the very fact that your religion at all calls for their murder is what i have issue with. and it does not matter that that rule can only be enacted in a muslim country, the fact that it is supported at all is something that goes against any claim of peace. if it were peaceful, there would be no call for murder at all. piled on top of that is the supposed eternal torture of those who leave, or those who refuse to believe.

 

I asked someone who's more knowledgeable than me to explain it. Here's what he had to say:

 

 

 

To properly deal with this question we have to understand the evolution of identity. 1400 years ago, there was no idea of a nation-state. If you were a Muslim, you were a citizen of the Islamic nation. Islam was the social fabric that became the foundation of ethics, law, economics, fashion, art, and communal relations. Islam was central to society, much more than the Constitution or the Bible was to America. In the United States, one who commits treason and betrays America is subject to the death penalty. Similarly, Islamic apostasy laws in essence are not to take the sword to all who blaspheme or have shortcomings in religion, but to those who are seen as combatants.

Women, children, the mentally ill, and non-Muslims are not subject to execution, no matter what they say about Islam. This punishment does not apply to them whatsoever.

As for mature sane men, who were usually military conscripts, one is only considered an apostate if he publicly condemns or fundamentally changes Islam. Once a public claim is made, it is investigated and he is asked to repent. He is separated from his wife, his property is divided up between his family, and he is given three days to repent. If he does not repent, he is killed on the fourth day.

Muslims who sin are not considered apostates - even if they don't pray, and commit all sins in private. Muslims of different schools are similarly not considered apostates. Even private apostates are not to be touched - only those who publicly renounce Islam and do not repent, because they advertise disobedience to God in His own society.

The Quran makes clear that faith is a personal choice, and so the apostasy laws are not about your personal faith, it is about bringing sin in the public sphere. It is similar with other crimes - people can fornicate and commit adultery, but once it becomes a public matter (i.e. 4 or more witnesses), it becomes a criminal offense against society as a whole. So an Islamic system does not allow public atheists, or claimants to prophethood, because they would be working against the Islamic project and waging ideological warfare.

That being said, I don't think Prophet Muhammad (s) actually punished apostates. Some have said that this law of apostasy can only be carried out by one of the 12 Imams, because they are infallible and would know what it is in the heart of a person. Most Muslim countries do not have apostasy laws, and many scholars would not implement apostasy laws in modern nation states, because it is a law designed for Islamic societies. If a society chooses to make Islam the law of the land, then hypothetically they could bring back this law, but only enact by the strict regulations mentioned above.

In short, it's a particularly sensitive topic, because the Quran mentions no apostasy laws, and the Prophet never killed anyone for falling out of faith. Furthermore, many rulers abused these laws to kill Shia and political dissidents. Also, there's a question mark on who is allowed to punish apostates, and whether it can be implemented in a modern state where Islam is no longer the underlying social fabric. The 12 Imams certainly detail the apostasy laws, but only two were in a position of power, and so we have very little precedent on this issue as Shias.

 

 

my second question makes sense under the context laid out. i already placed the atheist disclaimer on it. yes, i am an atheist, but that does not excuse the scripture itself from questioning by any means. it is still the advocation of infinite punishment over nothing more than disbelief. I have already stated that i don't believe in it, but i am arguing against the the quran's claim of there being no compulsion, whether or not i believe in said compulsion is irrelevant, because the threat of eternal torture, whether you or i buy into it or not, definitely falls under the category of compulsion.

 

telling somebody that they will burn forever is an attempt, however ineffective it may be, at persuasion, and that goes to every related religion, be it the current muslims who desire to leave the religion, christians, catholics, or any other religion with similar threats. it is clearly compulsion, yet it's treated as if there were nothing keeping people from leaving or forcing them to join. (speaking as a former christian) if somebody has doubts about a religion they grew up with, the threat of eternal torture, regardless of deeds is often enough to keep them scared for years to come. and that is what i'm currently taking issue with.

 

Your criteria is illogical. Perhaps you should find someone who's an expert in Islamic philosophy because to me the question doesn't add up.

[vla1ne]

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't your god thought to be omniscient? if that is not the case, then i'll retract this particular objection, but if your god is omniscient, or even semi omniscient, the argument made by the person you have quoted loses ground fast. because your god would have known who was and was not going to renounce the religion, and should have easily been able to convince them otherwise (this is under the assumption that you believe in said god, we're granting it's existence for the sake of this discussion) if your god is attribute with either of the omni traits, then the death penalty for leaving said religion becomes nothing more than vindication. with infinite power, there would be no reason to kill somebody for leaving because they could only do minimal, if any harm to your religion (not to mention with infinite power, what need do you have of followers that would require you do ever make a religion? what need does a man have for ant disciples?), with infinite knowledge, you would already know who was leaving the religion before even they did, and would in effect, be knowingly sentencing people to death before their birth. and that's before even stating that america, as a country, is flawed, any god claiming compassion would have no similar excuse for execution. we killed because we neither knew better, nor held the intelligence that we do today of better alternatives. a deity of more empathy and intelligence would never have made such a mistake in the first place.

 

 

how is it illogical? if you tell somebody they will burn eternally in hell, especially apostates, is that, or is that not attempted compulsion to remain?

 

if you tell somebody that if they reject said offer, they will burn eternally in hell, is that, or is that not attempted compulsion to join? 

[Dad]

 

if you tell somebody that if they reject said offer, they will burn eternally in hell, is that, or is that not attempted compulsion to join? 

 

It's not.  I'm a Christian, and I know plenty of brothers who I'm good friends with that couldn't care less about hell.  So no, the threat of damnation is not compulsion to join for everyone .  That's kind of 50/50.