Death penalty for leaving Islam?

hairyheretic

I came across the following news story, and would like to hear from the folks here if this sort of thing is at all common, a recognised fact of islam, or something unique. I'm hoping its the latter.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=99fd7ae9-5182-4f15-864f-c6d1ad8a58b6&k=73045

Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, March 22, 2006

* * * * KABUL, Afghanistan -- An Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity may be mentally unfit to stand trial, a state prosecutor said Wednesday.

Abdul Rahman has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.

But prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari said questions have been raised about his mental fitness.

"We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," he said in an interview.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.

"Doctors must examine him," he said. "If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped."

It was not immediately clear when Rahman would be examined or when the trial would resume. Authorities have barred attempts by the Associated Press to see Rahman and he is not believed to have a lawyer.

A Western diplomat in Kabul and a human rights advocate -- both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter -- said the government was desperately searching for a way to drop the case because of the reaction it has caused.

The United States, Britain and other countries that have troops in Afghanistan have voiced concern about Rahman's fate.

German Roman Catholic Cardinal Karl Lehmann said the trial sent an "alarming signal" about freedom of worship in Afghanistan.

The case is believed to be the first of its kind in Afghanistan and highlights a struggle between religious conservatives and reformists over what shape Islam should take there four years after the ouster of the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban regime.

meditraitor

Savages

Wibbs

It's a part of Islam that Muslims who reject the faith(apostates) are to be put to death(after being given the chance to repent). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/083.sbt.html#009.083.017

Equally there are other passages that just say they're going to hell etc.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostates_of_Islam

Muslims who take only the Quran as a guide and not hadeeth would be far more 'liberal' in the interpretation of punishments for apostasy, as it kinda flys in the face of the whole claim of non compulsion in religion.

meditraitor

From my understanding of islam there is many different flavours, but this one leaves a bitter taste,

hairyheretic

Wibbs wrote:

It's a part of Islam that Muslims who reject the faith(apostates) are to be put to death(after being given the chance to repent). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/083.sbt.html#009.083.017

How prevalent is that viewpoint, would you say? I know that amongst other beliefs they may not think very well of someone who chooses to leave, but hanging a death threat over them is something else entirely.

Wibbs wrote:

Muslims who take only the Quran as a guide and not hadeeth would be far more 'liberal' in the interpretation of punishments for apostasy, as it kinda flys in the face of the whole claim of non compulsion in religion.

Hadeeth being?

Wibbs

hairyheretic wrote:

How prevalent is that viewpoint, would you say? I know that amongst other beliefs they may not think very well of someone who chooses to leave, but hanging a death threat over them is something else entirely.

Well if your read the links I posted it is prescribed in the religious texts, but most wouldn't go that far, I'd say. Not by a long shot, especially educated Muslims. In the more backward nations, I'm not so sure. Like all religious types I would say that the usual ostracisation(sp) might occur in the community, but the whole death thing would most likely be the fundis remit. That said, I would be surprised if many apostates would speak out in public for fear of the nutters. Much the same way that if you left the right wing Christian faith in somewhere like alabama, or renouncing the church in 50's Ireland(I doubt death would have followed in the last example, but keeping quiet would have been sensible).

Hadeeth being?

The life, times and sayings of the Prophet, laid down by various commentators who witnessed the whole deal first hand. There seems to be different opinions on some of the writers, by different Muslim sects(for want of a better word). Some have more weight than others.

ShayHT

Isn't it Sharia Islamic Law, rather than Islamic Law?

hairyheretic

Wibbs wrote:

Well if your read the links I posted it is prescribed in the religious texts, but most wouldn't go that far, I'd say.

There is plenty written in various religious texts that is happily ignored by its adherents

Wibbs wrote:

Not by a long shot, especially educated Muslims. In the more backward nations, I'm not so sure. Like all religious types I would say that the usual ostracisation(sp) might occur in the community, but the whole death thing would most likely be the fundis remit.

About what I figured.

Wibbs wrote:

That said, I would be surprised if many apostates would speak out in public for fear of the nutters. Much the same way that if you left the right wing Christian faith in somewhere like alabama, or renouncing the church in 50's Ireland(I doubt death would have followed in the last example, but keeping quiet would have been sensible).

Yeah, I can understand that. There's still plenty around today with the mindset of "If its not my religion then its the work of Eeeeeeeeeeeevil"

Wibbs wrote:

The life, times and sayings of the Prophet, laid down by various commentators who witnessed the whole deal first hand. There seems to be different opinions on some of the writers, by different Muslim sects(for want of a better word). Some have more weight than others.

Something similar to the gospels in the bible then?

ferdi

thats so crazy i can hardly believe it, wtf?

UU

Yes I've heard about that - it's not right and totally unjust. I heard they have killed him.

Last year, in Iran a similiar incident occured. Two tennage boys were hanged to death after being tortured for being homosexual. What made it more sickening is how young they were. What's the world coming to I ask?! I shall pray for this man's soul and the souls of all who have perished because of beliefs or sexuality. Here's the grimming link: Link

I can certainly say that Allah must be so sad that these chilling killings occur.

wes

Its sad to see some people take things this far. Live and let live I say. With luck these people will eventually see that this is wrong.

larryone

Having considered the possability of embracing Islam, there are some verses in the Quran that I cannot and will not adhere to.
Al-i-Imran:85:
"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost."

This kind of attitude is also obvious in Christianity ("No-one can come to the Father except through me", "We believe in one church", "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins")

And that's ok. Arrogance I can deal with, but murder in the name of God is wrong and evil.
I can accept alot of what is written in the Quran. But stuff like parts of the Quran/Hadeeth that not only allows murder but actually orders it to be done really raises my heckles.
Stuff like that exists in the Bible too.
Deuteronomy:13:
6 "If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God"
Clearly ordering death upon anyone who tries to preach any other religion.
Some verses in the Quran:
An-Nisa:89:
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them"
At-Taubah:5:
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem"

the_new_mr

Hi Larryone! I'm pleased that you show an interest in Islam. I'd like to add something to that if I may? Historical and textual context is extremely important.

The verse you mentioned in Surat Nisa is with reference to the hypocrites as it happens. Anyway, the very next verse states:
Al-Nisa:90
"Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
So you can't find against people who want peace.

And with reference to the verse you mentioned in Surat Al-Tauba, the verse before it and the complete text for the verse you mentioned read as follows:
Al-Tauba:4
"Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)."

Al-Tauba:5
"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

I believe these two verses show actually how it's only possible to fight against those who against you. With resepect to those who a peace agreement has been made, then it's not okay to fight.

Also, in Surat Al-Mumtahana, we find:
Al-Mumtahana:8-9
"Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness (Arabic: birr) and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust."

The Arabic word Birr, which is translated here as kindness, means a certain type of kindness. Birr al-walidain (kindness to parents) is something that every Muslim must do. So, I think this shows quite well the extent of relationship between Muslims and others that the verse above talks about.

I hope this clears up any mis-understanding.

UU

Yes it's all quite interesting. It seems though that it is the extremists who take it all very, very literally. Now please don't scream at me for saying this as I mean absolutely no offence to anyone but certain areas in the Qur'an appear to contradict themselves just like the Bible.

For example, Allah says in the Qur'an that all Muslims, Jews and Christians will be rewarded because they all believe in the same god:

Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. S. 2:62 Al-Hilali & Khan

However, the Qur'an also calls the Jews and Christians unbelievers and idolaters. The word for unbeliever comes from the term kafir, which refers to one who makes kufr. According to the Quran, the Jews and Christians (specifically the latter) fall under these categories of mushrik and kafir:

O ye who believe! surely, the idolaters are unclean (al-mushrikoona najasun). So they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, ALLAH will enrich you out of HIS bounty, if HE pleases. Surely, ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise. Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in ALLAH, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what ALLAH and HIS Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection. And the Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of ALLAH,’ and the Christians say, ‘the Messiah is the son of ALLAH;’ that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved (kafaroo) before them. ALLAH's curse be on them! How they are turned away. They have taken their priest and their monks for lords besides ALLAH. And so have they taken the Messiah, son of Mary. And they were not commanded but to worship the One God. There is no God but HE. Holy is HE far above what they associate (yushrikoona) with Him! They seek to extinguish the light of ALLAH with their mouths; but ALLAH refuses but to perfect HIS light, though the disbelievers (al-kafiroona) may resent it. HE it is Who has sent HIS Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that HE may make it prevail over every other religion, even though the idolaters (al-mushrikoona) may resent it. S. 9:28-33 Sher Ali

The above passage claims that not only are Christians idolaters (or of those who associate partners with God) and blasphemers (or disbelievers), but the Jews are as well. It even classifies the Jews and Christians as unclean!

Again, I mean no offense to whoever believes the Qur'an is 100% genuine. I too believe that most of it does speak of goodness and virtue but certain elements I cannot accept nor comprehend at times.

the_new_mr

Hi UU! I appreciate that you don't mean any offence to anyone but you have a valid enough question and we should try to answer it as best we can. I hope I'm able to give a satisfactory answer but please remember that I'm not a religious scholar.

Anyway, to try and answer your question about contradictions in the Quran. Of course, as a Muslim, I believe that the Quran is the only flawless book on earth, sent down by and protected by God till the day of judgement. This is based on a combination of faith and logic and so I can approach it in this way.

Actually, if we look at the Quran carefully, we'll find that there are no contradictions. It is a known fact of the Quran that some verses that were revealed at an early stage of the period of revelation (23 years) were abrogated (or overridden) by verses revealed after them. The meaning of after here of course means chronologically as it's important to remember that the Quran is not sorted in the order it was revealed.

One example of this is what the Quran says about alcohol.

An-Nisa:43
"O you who believe! Approach not the prayers when you are in a drunken state until you know (the meaning) of what you utter..."

This verse meant that, at the time, it was okay to drink as long as you weren't drunk when praying. Later, the above verse was abrogated by following verses.

Al-Baqara:219
"They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder"

Al-Ma'idah:90-91
"O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's (devil's) work; shun it therefore that you may be successful.; The Shaitan (devil) only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you then desist?"

Clearly, these verses say that alcohol is forbidden. So, someone might ask "Why would God leave the abrogated verse in?" As human beings, we can only speculate on God's wisdom but one logical conclusion would be that it was to show how things should not be done in an abrupt manner. So, when forbidding alcohol, God did it in stages. This view is supported by the hadith (saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him)) "Indeed religion is a poweful thing so the one who is hasty will fall off the back of the horse and will not cover any land" (approximate text/meaning) The text may seem strange but it was an analogy of travelling in the desert on a horse comparing going either as fast as you can or going at a steady rate. The steady rate is better in the long run. This is not so different to the story of the tortoise and the hare

So, we can see here that the above example is not a contradiction and the same applies for other verses which may appear to contradict each other. Indeed, God challenges mankind to find one single error in the Quran.

An-Nisa:82
"Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy."

Nobody has been able to do so till this day.

I hope this answers your question.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Of course, as a Muslim, I believe that the Quran is the only flawless book on earth, sent down by and protected by God till the day of judgement. This is based on a combination of faith and logic and so I can approach it in this way.

If you didn't believe that, you'd likely be in the wrong forum.:D

It is a known fact of the Quran that some verses that were revealed at an early stage of the period of revelation (23 years) were abrogated (or overridden) by verses revealed after them. The meaning of after here of course means chronologically as it's important to remember that the Quran is not sorted in the order it was revealed.

This is a point that always escaped me tbh. Why not just make clear points and instruction, in chronological order, so no abrogation is needed. Now I take your fair point about the ban on alcohol, 12 step plan and all that, but there are other passages referencing eg christians and jews that seem to contradict each other all over the place and don't have the logic of the alcohol example.

Nobody has been able to do so till this day.

Like all creeds that's where the faith you mentioned comes into it. I remember Suff in another another thread(possibly another forum) speaking of the scientific revelations in the Quran and many contradictions were pointed out which disagree with current scientific knowledge. For me, that wasn't a great example as I would contend science and religion are largely mutually exclusive. Neither are geared to comment on each other and when they do it tends towards clumsyness. Maybe another topic for another day though.

Back on topic(makes a nice change )The teaching on apostates seems pretty clear though. As a matter of interest, how do moderate(for want of a better word) muslims deal with passages like that, which appear pretty clear? How does this tie in with the idea that "there is no compulsion in religion". If so, why can someone not chose to leave Islam, or become a Buddhist or Jew etc? Is the threat of death not compulsion? Is it a translation of the word "compulsion" or "apostate" that's at issue?

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

It is a known fact of the Quran that some verses that were revealed at an early stage of the period of revelation (23 years) were abrogated (or overridden) by verses revealed after them. The meaning of after here of course means chronologically as it's important to remember that the Quran is not sorted in the order it was revealed.

This is a point that always escaped me tbh. Why not just make clear points and instruction, in chronological order, so no abrogation is needed. Now I take your fair point about the ban on alcohol, 12 step plan and all that, but there are other passages referencing eg christians and jews that seem to contradict each other all over the place and don't have the logic of the alcohol example.

Well, I won't try and explain something that God did in His wisdom. There is more to the Quran than just the verses if you know what I mean? Knowing the reason for revelation as well as the time of revelation amogst other factors is important for understanding. The Quran itself is very complicated to read (even for native Arabic speakers) and is why it's possible for people to get a degree specialised in Tafsir (interpretation) of the Quran alone.

With reference to the scientific miracles, I believe that the only thing that modern science and the Quran differ on is Darwin's theory of evolution. There are no other differences of this opinion as far as I know. More here:
http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/miraclesofthequran/index.html

There is a new idea going about in the Muslim world these days presented by an Arabic language expert. He proposes that humans did evolve from apes and that Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) were transported spirtually (as opposed to physically) into these evolved beings. This argument is weak on a few points though so I (and a majority of the Muslim world) are still of the opinion that Darwin was wrong. When you think about it, it is called Darwin's theory of evolution and not fact of evolution. Also, Darwin's theory has recently become very weak in the eyes of relgious and non-religious scientists alike.

Whether it's wrong or not, I don't see it as something to get hung up on. It may be proven wrong in the future after I'm dead but it doesn't matter really. It's important to keep in mind that other scientific opinions were proven wrong after centuries of being believed as fact. One example is the theory of how a baby was born before microscopes were invented etc. The theory (proposed by such philosophers such as Aristotle) was that a mini-fetus was stored in either the head of the sperm or the ovum and this then got bigger when fertilisation occurred. The Quran had already said otherwise well over a millenium beforehand and this is the opinion is now shared as fact all round the world in embryology books.

So, to get back on topic myself , I have to say that I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area to answer your question. I believe that the "No compulsion in religion" verse is with reference to people who are not originally Muslim in the first place.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

The Quran itself is very complicated to read (even for native Arabic speakers) and is why it's possible for people to get a degree specialised in Tafsir (interpretation) of the Quran alone.

I've read it myself and I agree it is complicated(english version anyway).

There are no other differences of this opinion as far as I know. More here:
http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/miraclesofthequran/index.html

Well as I said there was a thread expanding on this before, so no point hijacking this thread; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=315720&highlight=islam

When you think about it, it is called Darwin's theory of evolution and not fact of evolution. Also, Darwin's theory has recently become very weak in the eyes of relgious and non-religious scientists alike.

Oh oh, don't say this too loud as there's a similar thread re creationism v darwinism on the christianity forum that's nearly as long as the Quran itself. (nearly as complicated too)

Whether it's wrong or not, I don't see it as something to get hung up on.

Agree with you there.

The Quran had already said otherwise well over a millenium beforehand and this is the opinion is now shared as fact all round the world in embryology books.

TBH it's very dependant on interpretation.

So, to get back on topic myself , I have to say that I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area to answer your question. I believe that the "No compulsion in religion" verse is with reference to people who are not originally Muslim in the first place.

I got you. If they haven't been exposed to Islam, then they haven't rejected it. That brings other issues though. If someone has been exposed to and read Islam, but doesn't feel it's for them, what then? EG, If someone was a devout Hindu and read the Quran, it's entirely possible that they wouldn't find anything useful spiritually contained in it. Would that be their fault? That's a question I would have with all religions, not just Islam.

the_new_mr

Wow! I just realised how many grammatical mistakes I made from reading my quotes in your post

Aaaaaaaaanyway....

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

The Quran had already said otherwise well over a millenium beforehand and this is the opinion is now shared as fact all round the world in embryology books.

TBH it's very dependant on interpretation.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But then, so are 100s of scientists around the world including Keith Moore, the author of "The Developing Human"

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

So, to get back on topic myself , I have to say that I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area to answer your question. I believe that the "No compulsion in religion" verse is with reference to people who are not originally Muslim in the first place.

I got you. If they haven't been exposed to Islam, then they haven't rejected it.

Just want to clarify that I said I believe as I'm not sure.

Wibbs wrote:

If someone has been exposed to and read Islam, but doesn't feel it's for them, what then? EG, If someone was a devout Hindu and read the Quran, it's entirely possible that they wouldn't find anything useful spiritually contained in it. Would that be their fault? That's a question I would have with all religions, not just Islam.

Well, the continuation of the verse that contains the text "No compulsion in religion" is:

Al-Baqara:256
"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan (satan) and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing."

Essentially, it's all about free-will. Every person is responsible for their own destiny. Of course, no human can have a will that overrides the will of God but God gives every being a fair opportunity at heaven.

Al-Insan:29
"Surely this (verse of the Quran) is a reminder so whoever pleases takes to his Lord a way."

Al-Tawkir:27-29
"Verily, this (the Quran) is no less than a Reminder to (all) the worlds; To whomsoever among you who wills to walk straight; And you cannot will unless (it be) that Allah wills - the Lord of the worlds"

It's not for me or any human being in the world whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jew or otherwise to say "This person is going to heaven, this person is going to hell" etc. It's just not our right. Only God judges these things so, if someone was born, say, in the Himalayas and died without knowing Islam, surely God would not judge against them on that account.

Concerning the scenario you mentioned, again it's up to God to judge. I would say though that, despite the Quran being God's literal word, it's probably too complicated to use it as the only method to find out about Islam. I read an inverview once with Hamza Yusuf Hanson and he addressed the difficulty of comprehending the Quran which I think suits the topic here. It's on the website for the documentary "Muahmmad: Legacy of a Prophet"
Documentary website: http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/
Direct link to Hamza Yusuf interview: http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/transcripts/hanson.html

As for finding out if it's "for you", I believe that it's everyone's own responsibility for their own good to find out for themselves.

Schuhart

Wibbs wrote:

Well if your read the links I posted it is prescribed in the religious texts, but most wouldn't go that far, I'd say. Not by a long shot, especially educated Muslims. In the more backward nations, I'm not so sure. Like all religious types I would say that the usual ostracisation(sp) might occur in the community, but the whole death thing would most likely be the fundis remit. That said, I would be surprised if many apostates would speak out in public for fear of the nutters. Much the same way that if you left the right wing Christian faith in somewhere like alabama, or renouncing the church in 50's Ireland(I doubt death would have followed in the last example, but keeping quiet would have been sensible).

This thread is interesting, but there’s still one aspect I’m left unclear on. In addressing it, I’m conscious that religious beliefs are personal and deserving of respect – and apologies if this is the wrong forum to pursue this line.

As we know, in times past people in Europe were persecuted on grounds of religious faith. As we equally know, religious tolerance has not exactly been a mainstay of Irish society either. That said, it is unthinkable today that any Western state would have a law that said a person who ceased to practice the faith they were brought up in should be put to death – whether they simply became agnostic or took up another religion or whatever.

In the post above it seems to be the case, unless I’m getting it wrong, that Islam allows for accommodation with people of other faiths who are unaware of the Koran (although I’m not clear on how unaware you have to be). However, it seems to teach some level of official penalty, and possibly death, should apply to someone who leaves the faith. That is hardly consistent with the Western notion that religion exists in a private space and whether someone drops their childhood religion or changes it or retains it is entirely a matter for them.

This issue is illustrated by the article at the start of this thread. It seems to be a fact that the Afghan state has laws that apply the dead penalty for people who leave the Islamic faith. If a Western country had a similar law requiring death for apostates – whether it applied to Christians or Muslims or all faiths – it would surely be regarded as a pariah.

I suppose this leads me to four questions.
Is the Afghan state a maverick in the Islamic world?
Would, say, Saudi Arabia have similar laws?
Is there a strong movement or belief in the Islamic world against the law adopted by the Afghan state?
Does mainstream Islamic teaching accept that if someone loses their faith, that’s a choice to be respected (even if eternal damnation is their likely fate)?

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Wow! I just realised how many grammatical mistakes I made from reading my quotes in your post

Well my Arabic(or for that matter my english isn't exactly brilliant to be fair...:D

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But then, so are 100s of scientists around the world including Keith Moore, the author of "The Developing Human"

I meant that the modern biology view is pretty concrete. I was referring to the interpretation of the Quran as a similar explanation would be at open to debate.

Essentially, it's all about free-will. Every person is responsible for their own destiny.

How does free will mix with the ruling that apostates should die?

It's not for me or any human being in the world whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jew or otherwise to say "This person is going to heaven, this person is going to hell" etc. It's just not our right.

Agreed, but the Quran in many places says just that with regard to unbelievers.

http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/transcripts/hanson.html

Intersting article

As for finding out if it's "for you", I believe that it's everyone's own responsibility for their own good to find out for themselves.

Agreed again and I would add that the personal choices they chose to make should not bring retribution in law of any kind. That rule of apostasy in Islam would go against that if acted upon.

Schuhart wrote:

Is the Afghan state a maverick in the Islamic world?

Well AFAIR the Taliban version was frowned upon by many in the Islamic world. The newer version, I'm not so sure.

Would, say, Saudi Arabia have similar laws?

Saudi is run along Sharia law principles, but I'm not aware of any executions for this particular "crime". Google time methinks.

Is there a strong movement or belief in the Islamic world against the law adopted by the Afghan state?

A hard one again, as it is in the religious texts as a punishment for apostacy and many believers may feel uncomfortable with saying they disagree because of that. A Muslim view here would be nice as nobody of that faith has yet said if they think it wrong or right that such punishment for an ex Muslim is valid.

Does mainstream Islamic teaching accept that if someone loses their faith, that’s a choice to be respected (even if eternal damnation is their likely fate)?

I'd say again that most Muslims are too busy living their lives to overly concern themselves with stuff like this. Religious leaders in a community might take a different view. Hard to say.

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

I meant that the modern biology view is pretty concrete. I was referring to the interpretation of the Quran as a similar explanation would be at open to debate.

Yeah, I know you meant that. What I meant was that it's the opinion of 100s of scientists including Keith Moore that the verses with scientific references are 100% accurate. It seems quite obvious to me but it's a matter of choice and opinion as I said.

I think you misunderstood me on a few things. One was that my uses of references for free will and such were with reference to the scenario you mentioned with the devout Hindu.

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

It's not for me or any human being in the world whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jew or otherwise to say "This person is going to heaven, this person is going to hell" etc. It's just not our right.

Agreed, but the Quran in many places says just that with regard to unbelievers.

But the thing is that the Quran is God talking. Just for the record by the way, things like this are also present in the Bible and Torah. I'm not trying to spark an inter-religion debate, just making a point. Also, it's a requirement for all Muslims to accept the Bible and Torah as divine revelations and to respect them. We just believe that they have been changed (both intentionally and unintentionally) over time. This is even confirmed by these religions' scholars.

As I said earlier in this thread, I'm not educated enough in this particular area to comment on it but I just wanted to point out what I can.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Yeah, I know you meant that. What I meant was that it's the opinion of 100s of scientists including Keith Moore that the verses with scientific references are 100% accurate. It seems quite obvious to me but it's a matter of choice and opinion as I said.

There are also the references that are not accurate, but as you said that's were faith comes in. Science and faith make uneasy bedfellows.

I think you misunderstood me on a few things. One was that my uses of references for free will and such were with reference to the scenario you mentioned with the devout Hindu.

Got you. That still leaves open the question of free will with regard to Islamic apostates though.

But the thing is that the Quran is God talking. Just for the record by the way, things like this are also present in the Bible and Torah. I'm not trying to spark an inter-religion debate, just making a point.

No disagreement there. Larryone pointed out a few examples.

Also, it's a requirement for all Muslims to accept the Bible and Torah as divine revelations and to respect them. We just believe that they have been changed (both intentionally and unintentionally) over time. This is even confirmed by these religions' scholars.

OT I know, but are there not scholars who consider that some Islamic texts have been lost, or existing ones have not the weight of others?

The wikipedia one isn't much better as it's filled to the rim of attempted subliminal messages to give someone a negative impression of Islam.

I agree with some of that. Wikipedia has some glaring mistakes in many of it's sources. I wouldn't be as sure about subliminal messages though. In any case people can at least lodge complaints and updates to wikipedia articles, which is one of it's strengths. There's a job for you.:)

Can I ask everyone to be very wary of their sources on Islam in general please?

Personally I would generally only reference the Islamic texts themselves, or comments by Islamic scholars. You have to be careful even there though as there seems much disagreement.

As I said earlier in this thread, I'm not educated enough in this particular area to comment on it but I just wanted to point out what I can.

Fair enough. Now the instruction seems clear enough, but as it is a touchy subject, I can understand any Muslims reticence to tackle it without scholarly arguments for or against.

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

There are also the references that are not accurate, but as you said that's were faith comes in. Science and faith make uneasy bedfellows.

Not sure what you mean. Science and religion should go hand-in-hand. The Quran puts a lot of emphasis on obtaining knowledge and God often says that "these are signs for those with understanding". The first verses revealed in the Quran were the following:

Surat Al-Alaq:1-5
"Read in the name of your Lord Who created; He created man from a clot; Read and your Lord is Most Generous; Who taught (to write) with the pen; Taught man what he knew not"

Also, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was known to say "Go after knowledge even if it is [as far as] China".

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

Also, it's a requirement for all Muslims to accept the Bible and Torah as divine revelations and to respect them. We just believe that they have been changed (both intentionally and unintentionally) over time. This is even confirmed by these religions' scholars.

OT I know, but are there not scholars who consider that some Islamic texts have been lost, or existing ones have not the weight of others

Well, it is a bit off topic alright but that's the nature of threads on forums I guess

No Islamic scholars disagree on the text of the Quran. There is only one Quran for all Muslims in the world whether they be Sunni/Shia' etc. The differences on Islamic texts are on some of the Hadith. For example, it is usually widely accepted amongst sunni Muslims that Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Al-Muslim contain the largest number of authentic hadith. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that all hadith in these books are authentic and there is sometimes differences of opinon on which hadith are authentic or not. This is rarely reason for large differences in standpoints though. This differes somewhat to the different versions of the Bible that exist according to what church someone would belong to etc and which is what I was referring to (again, without wanting to spark inter-religious debate).

Wibbs wrote:

I agree with some of that. Wikipedia has some glaring mistakes in many of it's sources. I wouldn't be as sure about subliminal messages though. In any case people can at least lodge complaints and updates to wikipedia articles, which is one of it's strengths. There's a job for you

I barely have enough time as it is Might give it a go though but I'm not sure if I have enough knowledge.

Wibbs wrote:

Personally I would generally only reference the Islamic texts themselves, or comments by Islamic scholars.

Good to know.

DinoBot

Schuhart wrote:

As we know, in times past people in Europe were persecuted on grounds of religious faith. As we equally know, religious tolerance has not exactly been a mainstay of Irish society either. That said, it is unthinkable today that any Western state would have a law that said a person who ceased to practice the faith they were brought up in should be put to death – whether they simply became agnostic or took up another religion or whatever.

I think this shows that in the west the people are not ready to stand behind their convictions. The christians "preach" tolerance. But should they ? The bible is very clear about what happens to people who turn away from their faith.

Luke 12:10
Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven

Mark 3:29
but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit NEVER has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

So what do they mean by NEVER/NOT forgiven ? Where will these unforgiven go ?


I think the muslims just stand up to what their religon says. The quran says rejection of Islam will not be tolerated, I dont see a difference except Islam will punish in this life and the next but the modern day christians will only have punishment in the next.

I think if the church did that as well it would force people to actually read the bible and see what it really says

Wibbs

DinoBot wrote:

I think this shows that in the west the people are not ready to stand behind their convictions.

Huh?

The christians "preach" tolerance. But should they ?

I would have thought everyone should.

So what do they mean by NEVER/NOT forgiven ? Where will these unforgiven go ?

I thought that all ones sins would be forgiven if one truly repents? That would be a common thread between Islam and Christianity. It's one of their strengths. Apparently not on the Christian side. Time to jump to that forum for clarity.

.....I dont see a difference except Islam will punish in this life and the next but the modern day christians will only have punishment in the next.

Bit of a difference, don't you think?

I think if the church did that as well it would force people to actually read the bible and see what it really says

I'm glad you put a smiley there. So much for tolerance when you have to "force" people to believe in any spritual message.

DinoBot

Wibbs wrote:

Huh? I would have thought everyone should.
I thought that all ones sins would be forgiven if one truly repents?

Yes, the important word above is REPENTS. What if the person does not repent ? According to the christian faith he will be sent to hell for all time to suffer. Is that not so ?

Well, this is the same with Islam, if you reject the faith, you can repent and come back to Islam. All will be forgiven. If you dont, well then its quite clear.

Lets face it religion is saying that your immortal soul is at risk. If this is true well then would you not do everything in your power to save it ? A book has been given from GOD, with clear instructions as to how to live, this is why they act as they do. They belive God speaks to them and is showing them the way to live. Herein lies the problem. How can you possible tell someone like that not to kill someone who turns away from their faith ? They believe they are doing Gods work.

Christians used to burn witches, but now they have moved on and see that is wrong BUT their God will still send the unbelieves to hell to burn. So they still get burned..... the outcome is still the same. If some christians were allowed they would still burn witches. The time when all people believed in God and the church ruled is not called the Dark Ages for nothing

My point is

With or without religion, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics