Pregnant doctor to be hanged for being a Christian in Sudan

mezuzaj

I would like to know the Muslim point of view about the Sudan Ruling. We are asked to respect the freedom of religion allowing Muslims to worship or people to convert to Islam, yet oftentimes we don't receive the same respect from Islam.

Many countries have called for the sentence to be reversed. However there is not more much press from Muslim countries.

I don't want to poke a finger with this discussion. However I would like to get an informed view. What is the muslim stance about the situation. If muslims are going to turn a blind eye to the situation then why should we respect muslims who defend this stance.

When muslims ask for us to respect their rights, it should work both ways. The same way we would respect a Christian who freely becomes a muslim.

wes

mezuzaj wrote: »

I would like to know the Muslim point of view about the Sudan Ruling. We are asked to respect the freedom of religion allowing Muslims to worship or people to convert to Islam, yet oftentimes we don't receive the same respect from Islam.

You are using some strange logic there. So, by your reasoning the Sudanese government, just needs to find an instance of someone mis-treating Muslims to justify the sentence. That is hardly a position that make any sense, right?

Sure, the Russian's are treating the Tartars in Crimea badly right now, so by your logic then Sudan can justify what there doing? The logic make 0 sense. Someone else doing something bad is never an excuse, and imho people who take such a position are in no position to judge anyone.

mezuzaj wrote: »

Many countries have called for the sentence to be reversed. However there is not more much press from Muslim countries.

The story is being covered by Al Jazeera, and I honestly don't have the time to check all the many media outlets all over various Muslim countries, but the story is being reported by one of the bigger media outlets in the Middle East.

mezuzaj wrote: »

I don't want to poke a finger with this discussion. However I would like to get an informed view. What is the muslim stance about the situation. If muslims are going to turn a blind eye to the situation then why should we respect muslims who defend this stance.

Ok, so let me get this straight, all Muslims everywhere are some how responsible for the actions of a Sudanese court, a country that is ruled by a dictator, where not even the Sudanese people have any say in how there country is run. That makes about as much sense as blaming all Christians on the Iraq war for example.

The court decision is reprehensible, but I fail to see how all Muslims everywhere are somehow responsible.

mezuzaj wrote: »

When muslims ask for us to respect their rights, it should work both ways. The same way we would respect a Christian who freely becomes a muslim.

Now, now, you will find extremists in all Religions:

Jordanian Man Killed His Daughter For Converting to Islam

BTW, can't find that being reported in RTE News for example, but then the media doesn't always pick up foreign news stories for various reason. Just answering your point about the Sudanese Apostasy court ruling apparently not being reported by media outlets in Muslim countries. It really wouldn't be hard to find various foreign news not being reported in various countries.

old_aussie

Well there's certainly one right muslims don't have muslim countries, that's the right to renounce islam and change religions.

make muslims out to be bad loosers, someone wants to play forn the other team, kill them

confusedquark

mezuzaj wrote: »

I would like to know the Muslim point of view about the Sudan Ruling. We are asked to respect the freedom of religion allowing Muslims to worship or people to convert to Islam, yet oftentimes we don't receive the same respect from Islam.

Many countries have called for the sentence to be reversed. However there is not more much press from Muslim countries.

I don't want to poke a finger with this discussion. However I would like to get an informed view. What is the muslim stance about the situation. If muslims are going to turn a blind eye to the situation then why should we respect muslims who defend this stance.

When muslims ask for us to respect their rights, it should work both ways. The same way we would respect a Christian who freely becomes a muslim.

You raise a few issues there. I'll echo much of what wes has said.

Firstly, regarding the ruling itself. From what I have read (and it can be hard to get the full accurate facts in such cases), it appears the lady in question, although had a Muslim father, had been brought up a Christian by her mother and her father wasn't around much. She didn't consciously convert from Islam. In such a case, I don't see how she can be accused of apostasy, and find the ruling very disturbing.

Even if she had been a Muslim and consciously converted to Christianity and she actually was an apostate, it's a controversial topic, even among Muslim scholars, as regards what punishments do or don't apply. There have been a few threads on the topic on this forum already discussing the topic, you can have a read of them:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056923122&page=3

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83400098

The other issues you raise are:
Why should you respect Muslims here if that's how "they" treat people in their countries.

That's an argument I've heard before, but it is a very slippery and dangerous slope. Like any other race/religion/population, Muslims are not one homogenous group - there are a lot of very bad Muslims in the world, there are a lot of very good Muslims in the world, and there are a whole heap in the middle. If you're going to paint us all with the same brush and dispose of your tolerance/respect towards Muslims in your country on the basis of what a handful of Muslims in a completely different continent do, then that creates a lot of unnecessary friction between communities, which can lead to all sorts. If we stoop to the level of those we are criticising, does that make us any better?

Most Christians around the world are turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of Muslim civilians from parts of Central African Republic at the hands of "Christian militia" - and many are probably unaware of the situation altogether, because their media would rather focus on the fate of one woman, as opposed to that of countless thousands. Should this give Muslims in Muslim-predominant countries a reason to mistreat Christians in their countries? Certainly not. I can't say I've come across much condemnation from Muslim countries about the latter issue either (not that I follow a huge amount of global media), and if they're not vocal about that, I don't see how one ruling in Sudan would concern them too much. That's not a valid excuse, mind you, but says a lot about how little importance is given to human life by a lot us nowadays, in varying circumstances.

donaghs

wes wrote: »

Sure, the Russian's are treating the Tartars in Crimea badly right now, so by your logic then Sudan can justify what there doing? The logic make 0 sense. Someone else doing something bad is never an excuse, and imho people who take such a position are in no position to judge anyone..

I think already know that the Crimean Tartars are not being mistreated because they are alleged to have broken a rule of the Orthodox Church, or a government law based on religious grounds?

That's nub of the problem with Apostasy in Islam.

wes wrote: »

Now, now, you will find extremists in all Religions:

Jordanian Man Killed His Daughter For Converting

Yes, but that's one man. His views don't have popular appeal, nor are they sanctioned by a government or religious body.

confusedquark wrote: »

That's an argument I've heard before, but it is a very slippery and dangerous slope. Like any other race/religion/population, Muslims are not one homogenous group - there are a lot of very bad Muslims in the world, there are a lot of very good Muslims in the world, and there are a whole heap in the middle. If you're going to paint us all with the same brush and dispose of your tolerance/respect towards Muslims in your country on the basis of what a handful of Muslims in a completely different continent do, then that creates a lot of unnecessary friction between communities, which can lead to all sorts. If we stoop to the level of those we are criticising, does that make us any better?

Most Christians around the world are turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of Muslim civilians from parts of Central African Republic at the hands of "Christian militia" - and many are probably unaware of the situation altogether, because their media would rather focus on the fate of one woman, as opposed to that of countless thousands. Should this give Muslims in Muslim-predominant countries a reason to mistreat Christians in their countries? Certainly not. I can't say I've come across much condemnation from Muslim countries about the latter issue either (not that I follow a huge amount of global media), and if they're not vocal about that, I don't see how one ruling in Sudan would concern them too much. That's not a valid excuse, mind you, but says a lot about how little importance is given to human life by a lot us nowadays, in varying circumstances.

Again, the CAR conflict is an outbreak of sectarian violence. It's not killing as a result of a belief that has been in place for centuries, that the people in question have broken a religious ruling.

In 2008, this BBC article reported on a poll of young Muslims in the UK. One third of them believed that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for Apostacy. That's not another continent. Very sad really.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7355515.stm

wes

donaghs wrote: »

I think already know that the Crimean Tartars are not being mistreated because they are alleged to have broken a rule of the Orthodox Church, or a government law based on religious grounds?

That's nub of the problem with Apostasy in Islam.

There being mis-treated because of there Ethnic/Religious differences, so there is very little difference here. Whether there is a law written down is neither here nor there, the Russian government is mistreating them.

donaghs wrote: »

Yes, but that's one man. His views don't have popular appeal, nor are they sanctioned by a government or religious body.

Ok, you do realize that Sudan is a dictatorship right? The people of Sudan have 0 say in how there government is run, and Omar Al Bashi (one man btw) is running the show........

Bellatori

wes wrote: »

...Ok, you do realize that Sudan is a dictatorship right? The people of Sudan have 0 say in how there government is run, and Omar Al Bashi (one man btw) is running the show........

The Sultan of Brunei would have no problem with this sentence. He is only one man again but then what about the campaign against Leila Hatami. That is not one man.

These are simply two recent examples of a rather one way traffic. Islam expects to be accommodated but does not feel that it should accommodate others. Its purpose as stated in the Quran is to Islamise the world and prepare for life in heaven.

It is very easy to use the term 'extremist' or terrorist as a method of discarding things relating to a religion we support but are activities that we disapprove of BUT the Quran contains over 100 verses telling Muslims to kill non-Muslims, apostates and a whole list that clearly Mohamed did not like.

Jesus was not a great believer in killing and the bible OT has a set of laws which include 'Thou shalt not kill'. This latter I note is often translated as 'You must not murder' which is a delightful weasel way around what was a strict prohibition. Pope Urban II was the first person to write a justification for killing non-Christians.

My point is that religions are not generally tolerant of other religions (or atheists). Some mouth platitudes but in the end they are in competition. The ruthlessness of Islam is very apparent. The cases above are a small selection of what is going on on a daily basis but, if Christianity seems better, it is a matter of degree. The CAR has been mentioned but we could look at the Archbishop of Uganda as an example of Christian tolerance. His support for anti gay laws is just as appalling. How about the Lords resistance army or Westboro Baptist Church?

confusedquark

Bellatori wrote: »

BUT the Quran contains over 100 verses telling Muslims to kill non-Muslims, apostates and a whole list that clearly Mohamed did not like.

Grossly inaccurate and misleading statement.

The verses in the Quran that relate to fighting and killing are confined to times of war and in self-defence, and even then, there is a strong emphasis on seeking peace.

"If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.
Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them).
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." (8:58-61)

"And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression." (2:193)

"... If they leave you alone and do not fight against you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them." (4:90)

There is no reference to the punishment for apostasy in the Quran itself, and rulings for that come from a hadith - and a weak hadith at that, which is why many modern scholars object to capital punishment for it.

projectgtr

the day that the world distances itself from religion the better, im talking all religion. Its just an excuse for silly mammals to do horrible things to other people. Islam, Christianity ,Judaism, should be binned and put in the past, they all cause so much pain around the world.

Bellatori

confusedquark wrote: »

Grossly inaccurate and misleading statement....

Really?

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

I love the double think that goes on... the classic is the attempt to redefine 'jihad'

"Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell."

...and it goes on.

For anyone who reads

There is no reference to the punishment for apostasy in the Quran itself, and rulings for that come from a hadith - and a weak hadith at that, which is why many modern scholars object to capital punishment for it.

and thinks this is a reasonable summary I would recommend reading this commentary

It is clear from Muslim scholars that they think the Quran justifies the killing of apostates and the hadith is anything but weak.

Tom Dunne

Bellatori wrote: »

Really?

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

I love the double think that goes on... the classic is the attempt to redefine 'jihad'

"Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell."

...and it goes on.

For anyone who reads and thinks this is a reasonable summary I would recommend reading this commentary

It is clear from Muslim scholars that they think the Quran justifies the killing of apostates and the hadith is anything but weak.

We've been through this many, many times on this forum. You can find equally abhorrent passages in the bible.

So the post above is utterly pointless and irrelevant.

Bellatori

Tom Dunne wrote: »

...You can find equally abhorrent passages in the bible...

And your point is? Islam and Christianity are both objectionable? We are not talking about the Bible here so your point is certainly off topic as far as Islam is concerned.

confusedquark quoted Quran (2:191-193) claiming that this represented a peaceful approach. I, not unreasonably have used the full quotation to point out that this is simply apologetics.

Similarly with his rejection of the punishment for apostasy. This is not unclear to most Muslim scholars.

Tom Dunne

Bellatori wrote: »

And your point is? Islam and Christianity are both objectionable? We are not talking about the Bible here so your point is certainly off topic as far as Islam is concerned.

confusedquark quoted Quran (2:191-193) claiming that this represented a peaceful approach. I, not unreasonably have used the full quotation to point out that this is simply apologetics.

Similarly with his rejection of the punishment for apostasy. This is not unclear to most Muslim scholars.

My point is, you are conforming to the regular pattern we see here or the forum:

Poster has an issue with Islam
Poster picks out quotes from the Quran to back up his point that Islam is a religion of violence
Poster quotes Anti-Islam sites to further vindicate his viewpoint

to be honest, it getting quite tiresome at this stage. If your contribution to this forum is nothing more than tired cliches and blatant stereotyping, we are not interested - we have heard it all before.

confusedquark

Bellatori wrote: »

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

You actually quoted the variation of "z-l-m" in the verses yourself...

I've looked up 5 different translations of Az-Zalimun (or Az-Zalimeen as I'd read it), 3 of them translate it as "oppressors", one as "those who had been guilty of cruelty and brutality" and one as "wrong-doers", so it's not just any polytheist/non-Muslim that the verse refers to.

Let me add the extra preceding quotation to your full quotation, as well as the commentary (from Tahfeem ul Quran) for the verses.

(2:190)And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you, but do not commit aggression because Allah does not like aggressors.

"The believers are asked to fight those who hindered their efforts in the cause of God, and acted with hostility towards them merely because they sought to fashion human life according to the revealed guidance of God. Earlier, when they were weak and scattered, the Muslims were asked merely to preach and be patient with the wrongful repression meted out to them by their opponents. However, now that a small city state had been established in Madina they were commanded for the first time to unsheathe their swords against those who had resorted to armed hostility against their movement of reform. It was some time after this injunction that the Battle of Badr took place, to be followed by several other battles.
The believers are told that material interests should not be the motivation for their fighting, that they should not take up arms against those who were not in opposition to the true faith, that they should not resort to unscrupulous methods or to the indiscriminate killing and pillage which characterized the wars of the pre-Islamic era, the Age of Ignorance. The excesses alluded to in this verse are acts such as taking up arms against women and children, the old and the injured, mutilation of the dead bodies of the enemy, uncalled-for devastation through the destruction of fields and livestock, and other similar acts of injustice and brutality. In the Hadith all these acts have been prohibited. The real intent of the verse is to stress that force should be used only when its use is unavoidable, and only to the extent that is absolutely necessary."

(2:191) Fight against them wherever they confront you in combat and drive them out from where they drove you out. Though killing is bad, persecution is worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Masjid Haram unless they attack you there.

"Here the word fitnah is used in the sense of 'persecution'. It refers to a situation whereby either a person or a group is subjected to harassment and intimidation for having accepted, as true, a set of ideas contrary to those currently held, and for striving to effect reforms in the existing order of society by preaching what is good and condemning what is wrong. Such a situation must be changed, if need be, by the force of arms."

(2:192-193) "And if they attack you first (even in that sacred area), strike them (without any hesitation); this is the due punishment for such disbelievers. If, however, they desist from fighting (you should also do likewise), and know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Go on fighting with them till there is no more a state of tribulation and Allah's way is established instead. Then if they desist from it, there should be no more hostility except against those who had been guilty of cruelty and brutality."

"What is meant here by 'desisting' is not the abandonment of unbelief and polytheism on the part of the unbelievers but rather their desistance from active hostility to the religion enjoined by God. The unbeliever, the polytheist, the atheist, has each been, empowered to hold on to his beliefs and to worship who and whatever he wishes."

Regarding your point on Jihad, it doesn't just mean the one thing - in the same way it's English equivalent of "struggle" doesn't always mean the one thing. A Jihad/struggle can indeed be a military struggle depending on the circumstance/context, but it equally can mean (and on a practical level - the majority of the time does mean) an inner spiritual Jihad/struggle.

Regarding apostasy, the particular hadith cited for capital punishment is considered a weak one (despite it being Bukhari), because it was only (allegedly) relayed from The Prophet (peace be upon him) to just one individual, and wasn't confirmed by a second person. Considering hadiths were stories passed down from generation to generation for 200 YEARS before being written down, their validity, particularly for such serious matters as capital punishment, is very questionable. Here's a list of 100+ notable Islamic figures/scholars who affirm that people are free to choose their faith, without having to face capital punishment http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.ie

Bellatori

confusedquark wrote: »

...

Regarding apostasy, the particular hadith cited for capital punishment is considered a weak one (despite it being Bukhari), because it was only (allegedly) relayed from The Prophet (peace be upon him) to just one individual, and wasn't confirmed by a second person. Considering hadiths were stories passed down from generation to generation for 200 YEARS before being written down, their validity, particularly for such serious matters as capital punishment, is very questionable. Here's a list of 100+ notable Islamic figures/scholars who affirm that people are free to choose their faith, without having to face capital punishment http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.ie

MUSLIM: Bassam Zawadi has written more than two hundred articles on Islam and Christianity. He is currently studying in Dubai (United Arab Emirates), but he has also lived in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia. He runs the website http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/ and works for one of the world’s leading marketing research companies.

For every 100 we have never heard of we have those who think otherwise.

I note you ignored the point about jihad and those who were blind, lame or sick being exempted from jihad. Why are they not allowed spiritual struggle? Unless, of course, it does not mean spiritual but physical then the matter becomes clear.

I could pick apart your Quran quotes like and old cardigan but rather than that I would point you to the first two lines that Bassam Zawadi writes in his justification for murdering apostates.

"There seems to be a problem with many "modernist and liberal" Muslims out there who would like to "sugarcoat" the religion of Islam by distorting what it really teaches."

He is absolutely right. Those in western society have a real issue because the society in which they live is essentially tolerant and most Muslims want to live in harmony with their neighbours. Certainly mine do. But it leaves them conflicted in three areas
Women's Rights
Gay Rights
Human Rights.

The OP asks a valid question. The answers try and pass it off as a one off but the fact is that, in spite of protestations to the contrary, there is good evidence that mainstream Islamic thinking concurs with draconian punishments. In how many Islamic countries (there are about 57 I believe) would the thought crime of apostasy NOT be punished?

mezuzaj

Bellatori wrote: »

The OP asks a valid question. The answers try and pass it off as a one off but the fact is that, in spite of protestations to the contrary, there is good evidence that mainstream Islamic thinking concurs with draconian punishments. In how many Islamic countries (there are about 57 I believe) would the thought crime of apostasy NOT be punished? [/SIZE][/FONT]

Yeap.. Muslims demand us to respect their religion in the west, their freedom of Choice, Yet we don't get the same in some muslim countries. If a Christian becomes muslim we are told to respect their free choice, yet if a muslim becomes Christian in Saudi Arabia by law is apostasy can punishable by death. They are aprox 2 millions Christians working in Saudi Arabia many from filipines yet no Church.

The fundamental human right of Freedom of Religion should be respected. That freedom means a person should decide what faith the want to follow, Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hundu/Buddist. The state has no right to demand that a person be put to death because they convert or in this case because the Woman's father was Muslim.

All eyes on Sudan,, But Sudan is not the only country with these laws.

I say that the west should allow mosques to be built the same size as the churches in Saudi Arabia.

Tom Dunne

I've said it before and I'll say it again-Saudi Arabia is an anomaly and not representative of Islam.

I live in a Muslim country where religious freedom is guaranteed. I know of at least two Catholic churches in my locality.

In fact, the country's ambassador to America is a Jew.

Bellatori

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again-Saudi Arabia is an anomaly and not representative of Islam.

I live in a Muslim country where religious freedom is guaranteed. I know of at least two Catholic churches in my locality.

In fact, the country's ambassador to America is a Jew.

Really? Are you going to say all of the following are one offs where sharia law operates?

Mauritania
Sudan
Afghanistan
Brunei
Iran
Iraq
Maldives
Pakistan
Qatar
Yemen

oh and not forgetting parts of Indonesia
Aceh
Oh and not forgetting 12 of 36 states in Nigeria
UAE...

How many of these are one offs I wonder?

SA is not on its own here though its defining atheism as terrorists does make it stand out from the crowd though... but it is a crowd.


[EDIT] These are the ones with full blown Sharia but there are a number of others who implement some of Sharia law as the list I reference shows. TBH I would not holiday in any one of them given that most of them have scant regard for what I would see as human rights.

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

Really? Are you going to say all of the following are one offs where sharia law operates?

That's not what he said, he was referring to Churches in Muslim countries.

Frank Grimes

mezuzaj wrote: »

I say that the west should allow mosques to be built the same size as the churches in Saudi Arabia.

So Muslims in the West should be discriminated against in the same way that non-Muslims are in Saudi Arabia? What would that achieve exactly?

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

That's not what he said, he was referring to Churches in Muslim countries.

Sorry but it was EXACTLY what he said...

The relevant bit was

"I've said it before and I'll say it again-Saudi Arabia is an anomaly and not representative of Islam."

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

Sorry but it was EXACTLY what he said...

The relevant bit was

"I've said it before and I'll say it again-Saudi Arabia is an anomaly and not representative of Islam."

In the context of Churches in Muslim countries.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

In the context of Churches in Muslim countries.

If you say so...

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

If you say so...

Well if you can point to where in that post he says that Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim country where Sharia Law operates then work away.

Gordon

Isn't practicing Islam in the Vatican city banned?

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Well if you can point to where in that post he says that Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim country where Sharia Law operates then work away.

So, with the exception of some building regulations then SA IS a good representation of Islam?

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

So, with the exception of some building regulations then SA IS a good representation of Islam?

I take it that means you can't. I never said Islam as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia is a good representation of Islam either, so I don't know why you are trying to imply that I have.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I take it that means you can't. I never said Islam as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia is a good representation of Islam either, so I don't know why you are trying to imply that I have.

The main thrust of the OP and mezuzaj post is to do with lack of tolerance of Islam for others and not building regulations and yet this minor point is the one that you claim on behalf of Tom is the major one.

The first line of the response was not Oh regarding churches... but was

"I've said it before and I'll say it again-Saudi Arabia is an anomaly and not representative of Islam."

After which a comment about churches was made. It is a perfectly reasonable thought that the poster was addressing the OP and not trying to side track onto a minor comment however you seem to think I am wrong and that we actually were side tracking away from the original OP and the thrust of the post.

Either way SA is not a one off as regards intolerance and having expectations of the west that they do not think should apply to themselves... which was my point.

The OP addresses a very important issue. Cruel and inhuman punishment is forbidden to any country who is a member of the UN BUT it appears that many countries that espouse Islam - the religion of peace - feel that they are entitled to abrogate any responsibility to the UN charter if it suits them.

I have been told by Tom that there is a certain rhythm to posts that point out issues with Islam. The reality is that he has it backwards. Islam has a problem with the west and its philosophy. We are tolerant and expect others to be so also. This attitude is not reciprocated. Minorities (Zoroatrians, Christians etc) are repeatedly persecuted and their places of worship are desecrated.

It does strike me that there is one unifying argument that seems to arise when there is some criticism of Islam. It doesn't matter whether it is terrorism, this type of brutality, the abuse of girls in Bradford and Oxford, Malalah being shot - the response that comes back is always of the 'No True Scotsman' type.

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

The main thrust of the OP and mezuzaj post is to do with lack of tolerance of Islam for others and not building regulations and yet this minor point is the one that you claim on behalf of Tom is the major one.

I never claimed it was a "major one", can you stop stating I've said things that I haven't.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I never claimed it was a "major one", can you stop stating I've said things that I haven't.

Fine then let me put it this way instead. I can only say that you have made an enormous mountain out of that particular molehill... the posts speak for themselves.

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

Fine then let me put it this way instead. I can only say that you have made an enormous mountain out of that particular molehill... the posts speak for themselves.

I just pointed out the mistake you made, I hardly made a "mountain" out of it.

Arthur Beesley

Disappointing but not surprising.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I just pointed out the mistake you made, I hardly made a "mountain" out of it.

If you say so...

mezuzaj

Frank Grimes wrote: »

So Muslims in the West should be discriminated against in the same way that non-Muslims are in Saudi Arabia? What would that achieve exactly?

What has bowing down the Muslim requests got us? I am all for reciprocating respect, they want a mosque, we want a church, they want respect so do we.

But it seems there is no compromise with Islam. its their way or their way.

Frank Grimes

mezuzaj wrote: »

What has bowing down the Muslim requests got us?

Bowing down to what exactly? Not discriminating against Muslims, which you appear to be suggesting, hardly equates to bowing down them.

I am all for reciprocating respect, they want a mosque, we want a church, they want respect so do we.

There are churches in Muslim countries, I've been in a few.

But it seems there is no compromise with Islam. its their way or their way.

They're not all the same.

mezuzaj

Frank Grimes wrote: »

There are churches in Muslim countries, I've been in a few.

The largest Church in the middle was is in Israel. There are churches in Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Iran.. However in a Country that has 2 million Catholics like Saudi Arabia you won't find many or any. Infact its officially barred from being practiced.

While I don't support the stance of restricting freedoms against muslims.. that would be an emotion argument, its hard to see how there can be any real dialogue with Islam, its their way or no way.

Frank Grimes

mezuzaj wrote: »

The largest Church in the middle was is in Israel. There are churches in Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Iran.. However in a Country that has 2 million Catholics like Saudi Arabia you won't find many or any. Infact its officially barred from being practiced.

So why should all Muslims be punished for what the Saudi regime does?

While I don't support the stance of restricting freedoms against muslims.. that would be an emotion argument

Well you do seem to support it

its hard to see how there can be any real dialogue with Islam, its their way or no way.

How can there be dialogue with 'Islam' exactly?

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

How can there be dialogue with 'Islam' exactly?

That is exactly the problem that Mohamed's contemporaries had. I wonder what happened to them?

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

That is exactly the problem that Mohamed's contemporaries had. I wonder what happened to them?

I'm not talking about historical events and neither is that poster.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I'm not talking about historical events and neither is that poster.

Indeed not but how does the saying go...

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Edmund Burke

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

Indeed not but how does the saying go...

Quoting Edmund Burke doesn't address the question I asked the other poster, but I realise that isn't your intention.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Quoting Edmund Burke doesn't address the question I asked the other poster, but I realise that isn't your intention.

You are sadly mistaken. It was entirely my intention to provide an answer your question. I apologise for the answer being too subtle.

You asked how can one have a dialogue with Islam. History of the time of Mohamed shows that his neighbours had dialogs with him and occasionally survived the experience, well for a time.

So my first post was simply a pointer to how Mohamed and his neighbours got on.

My second was to point out that your dismissive post ignoring history was likely somewhat misplaced.

I hope that helps.

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

You are sadly mistaken. It was entirely my intention to provide an answer your question. I apologise for the answer being too subtle.

You can leave the condescending attitude aside, it doesn't really add to anything.

You asked how can one have a dialogue with Islam. History of the time of Mohamed shows that his neighbours had dialogs with him and occasionally survived the experience, well for a time.

So my first post was simply a pointer to how Mohamed and his neighbours got on.

My second was to point out that your dismissive post ignoring history was likely somewhat misplaced.

I asked how you can have a dialogue with 'Islam' - you still haven't answered that.

I hope that helps.

You didn't answer my question, so no.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

...You didn't answer my question...

Actually I did... you just have to sit and think about it for a bit. Reading about the life and times of Mohamed might be a good place to start. If you do then you should find that your question is answered.

Whilst you are doing that keep the Shahada in mind (short form)

There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

Actually I did... you just have to sit and think about it for a bit.

You haven't answered it.

Reading about the life and times of Mohamed might be a good place to start. If you do then you should find that your question is answered.

I have, and nowhere in there will it tell you how to have a dialogue with 'Islam'.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

You haven't answered it.

I have, and nowhere in there will it tell you how to have a dialogue with 'Islam'.

If you did then you clearly did not understand what you read. Ask yourself how Mohamed dealt with his neighbours. What treaties and undertakings he gave to them and those he conquered. What he subsequently did. How he behaved towards them. Then ask yourself what sort of dialogue his neighbours managed to have.

And remember always that

There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah

The answer has always been there in front of you if you care to look. I have neither the time nor the inclination to spoon feed you further as I suspect your apparent lack of understanding is simply a deliberate attempt to be provocative.

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

If you did then you clearly did not understand what you read. Ask yourself how Mohamed dealt with his neighbours. What treaties and undertakings he gave to them and those he conquered. What he subsequently did. How he behaved towards them. Then ask yourself what sort of dialogue his neighbours managed to have.

None of which answers the question how do you have a dialogue with 'Islam'.

Bellatori

Frank Grimes wrote: »

None of which answers the question how do you have a dialogue with 'Islam'.

I cannot believe you are that stupid so I have to accept that you are just being bloody minded for the sake of it at which point further discourse is pointless.

Frank Grimes

Bellatori wrote: »

I cannot believe you are that stupid so I have to accept that you are just being bloody minded for the sake of it at which point further discourse is pointless.

I'm not being bloody minded or stupid, you haven't answered my question.

confusedquark

Bellatori wrote: »

I note you ignored the point about jihad and those who were blind, lame or sick being exempted from jihad. Why are they not allowed spiritual struggle? Unless, of course, it does not mean spiritual but physical then the matter becomes clear.

I adequately addressed it, but I'll elaborate some more. Given that the verse in question relates to a period in the Prophet's (peace be upon him) life when fighting was imminent, the verse clarifies that the blind, lame and sick are exempt from fighting. The word "Jihad" itself does not appear in that passage at all, so I'm not sure why you are using that verse to define it. "Tuqatilunahum" appears in the verse before it (48:16), and that translates as "you will fight them". Even if "Jihad" did appear in that passage, it would still not preclude other meanings for the same word to be used in different contexts, because again, the context of this verse is specifically during a time of fighting. Being exempt from a fighting variety of Jihad does not mean people are exempt from the spiritual variety of Jihad. We don't reserve usage of the english equivalent "struggle" for only when it relates to fighting, and the same goes for Jihad.

Bellatori wrote: »

I could pick apart your Quran quotes like and old cardigan but rather than that I would point you to the first two lines that Bassam Zawadi writes in his justification for murdering apostates.

"There seems to be a problem with many "modernist and liberal" Muslims out there who would like to "sugarcoat" the religion of Islam by distorting what it really teaches."

The OP asks a valid question. The answers try and pass it off as a one off but the fact is that, in spite of protestations to the contrary, there is good evidence that mainstream Islamic thinking concurs with draconian punishments. In how many Islamic countries (there are about 57 I believe) would the thought crime of apostasy NOT be punished?

What Islam "really teaches" comes from the Quran. There is no verse in the Quran that specifically teaches that the punishment for apostasy is death. Mainstream Islamic thinking today could well be wrong in their interpretations of Islamic texts, and a substantial proportion of modern scholars certainly think so. The relevant Hadiths that are used to support capital punishment go back to the early days of Islam, when early Muslims were in battle with neighbouring tribes. Back in those times, apostasy was often associated with treason - people changing their allegiances and turning on their community, and capital punishment was applicable in those cases. The problem lies in differentiating simple apostasy from apostasy associated with treason.

The longstanding problem of the traditional position, as held by Classical jurists or scholars, can be explained as not being able to see apostasy, an issue of pure freedom of faith and conscience, separate from treason against the community or the state. This distinction was not made by early scholars, and once it became the status quo, there has been resistance to even consider an alternative - with some modern day scholars dismissing such suggestions as "The West telling us what to do", but that's no excuse to not even look at the issue. Hopefully the tide will turn in time.

Bellatori wrote: »

Those in western society have a real issue because the society in which they live is essentially tolerant and most Muslims want to live in harmony with their neighbours. Certainly mine do. But it leaves them conflicted in three areas
Women's Rights
Gay Rights
Human Rights.

I'm not in any conflict regarding women's or human rights, and living in harmony with your neighbour is a concept which is strongly encouraged in Islam. Gay rights also isn't an issue which leaves me in "any conflict". The Islamic stance (in keeping with the Christian and Jewish positions) is clear that homosexual relationships are forbidden. But that relationship is only one part of who a person is, and in the same way I don't have any problems getting along with people who do other things Islam forbids, e.g. people who eat bacon, or drink alcohol or have pre-marital relationships, I'm not in any conflict when I interact with people who are gay, and nor are many Irish Christians living in western society.

Bellatori wrote: »

It does strike me that there is one unifying argument that seems to arise when there is some criticism of Islam. It doesn't matter whether it is terrorism, this type of brutality, the abuse of girls in Bradford and Oxford, Malalah being shot - the response that comes back is always of the 'No True Scotsman' type

Talk about going to town on all the stereotypes. Terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians has no place in Islam - I've said it time and time again on this forum that Muslims who commit these atrocities do so as part of various ongoing political conflicts. I can't believe you're bringing up the abuse of girls in Bradford and Oxford as an example of what Islam teaches - There are 1 billion+ Muslims in the world, who, like any other religion/population/race on the planet (as I keep repeating) have a lot of very good people, a lot of very bad people and many many in between. There is no crime in the world that a Muslim person has not committed - but it doesn't for a second reflect on Islam if what they are doing goes against what Islam itself teaches. Same goes for Malala - she herself spends her time talking about what the Quran actually teaches, as opposed to what the likes of Boko Haram are doing.

Tom Dunne

Bellatori wrote: »

I cannot believe you are that stupid so I have to accept that you are just being bloody minded for the sake of it at which point further discourse is pointless.

Please keep it civil. Calling somebody stupid is not civil. You have been warned before, you won't be warned again.