Ex-Muslims

[Dan Zebiri]

THAT, above is the Islamic trajectory referred by your post earlier, siam. The trajectory of equating apostasy with treason, and so it must be punished by a capital punishment which means death.

Obviously the apostates who were interviewed by abdullah Sameer fully reject this trajectory mentioned in the above paragraph. Likewise the ex-muslims-turned Christians like Dr.Sanneh, Sam Solomon and Dr.Nabeel Qureshi, and others, also reject the apostasy charge laid on them by islam & sharia. To them, the western trajectory is the much more appropriate and just compared to their "own islamic one"! So, they quit islam and left, a decision made from intelligence and sound knowledge by seriously thinking muslims.

[Dan Zebiri]

The testimony of Dr.Nabeel Qureshi who comes from a muslim missionary family on how and why he rejected islam after preaching and propagandizing it (by doing dawah) for many years.

https://youtu.be/NGJzkm8lZjU

He stood firm even though he received death threats and curses from his fellow-muslims for choosing Christianity over islam. Never flinching from the other muslims' verbal and emotional abuse because Nabeel knew he had found the REAL truth in Jesus Christ ans not in islam or the Koran.

[siam]

You have been busy---that is a lot of posts and some of your points are interesting.

Christianity and State---If u insist that Jesus Christ (pbuh) taught a particular form of governance or advocated a particular political principle, I have no issue with that. Abuse of power can occur despite the best intentions of the Prophets and their teachings. Christianity has a longer history than Islam and therefore more opportunities (time) for abuse of power to occur. Therefore, any argument along the lines of Christianity is better than Islam in terms of comparative history will not give good results for Christianity.
....But if you insist on comparative history---I can give you plenty more instances of abuse of power leading to bloodshed in Christian history.

Dhimmi/Jizya---In Modern Nation-States there are many types of status of people living within their territories---for example, different types of visa give people different rights within the territory...there are other types of status also such as green card (U.S.) or permanent residency---then there are other instances where a territory may be under the control of one Nation-State but may have autonomy and/or other rights may be restricted....for example the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam...etc
The concept of "nation-state" is a recent one---before that there were kingdoms and empires with fairly fluctuating borders and peoples.
Likewise, historically, for example, Roman citizenship was a privilege of freemen of the Roman state---those considered outside of this status had a more limited form of citizenship (client-state).

As I mentioned before, the Constitution of Medina gave the Jews certain rights---the right to their religious worship, to their legal systems, etc...etc ...but they also had an exemption---they were not required to fight in wars. This principle was extended to all non-Muslims and this meant that they had the freedom/right to not take up arms when Muslim armies were fighting non-Muslims. In return for this privilege they were levied a tax---called the jizya. However, Muslims also paid taxes---only their taxes were not called the jizya. Dhimmi means "protected peoples". Women, children, elderly males, monks/clergy...etc were exempt from the jizya but were still considered protected.

Law---As explained many times already---Sharia applies only to Muslims---however non-Muslims can use Sharia courts of their own free-will. Ottoman court records show that Sharia courts were used by non-Muslims especially non-Muslim women as these courts were perceived to be more just. However State laws did apply to all peoples within the territory. The pre-Modern (Islamic) "State" had limited areas of jurisprudence. (This is no longer the case with Modern states that use the Western model of "Nation-State".)
This means that in pre-Modern Islamic territories, Christians also had their own courts and practiced their own laws.

[Dan Zebiri]

Al-Qaradawi - influential orthodox muslim scholar is at least more honest than many muslims- including you Siam, to admit the necessity of islamic anti-apostasy law is a crucial deterrent to prevent muslims' attrition and abandoning of islam. This denial of the basic human right to change religion is further proof of islamic tyranny on its apostates freedom.

Here's the evidence from one of your most popular & famous sheikhs, the Egyptian cleric/ulama Qaradawi himself. He openly admitted in 2011 that the apostasy law of islam 'ensured the survival and preservation of islam in the world from the beginning, until today’!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huMu8ihDlVA

Your religion only survived because it legislates faith and belief of its followers. By CRIMINALIZING & PENALIZING apostasy, islam is nothing more than tyrannical bondage upon the human race!

Muslims reject the Islamic view that "apostasy = treason". No wonder, in this 21st century you see more and more muslims who are turning away from islam, despite all the punishments islam and sharia metes out and threatens upon them.

[Dan Zebiri]

Remember this siam, there isn't ANY legislation enjoined by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Gospel or in the NT, similar to the prohibitions commanded in the koran, muhamed and the sunna of islam, institutionalized in islamic law/sharia with capital punishments of death. That's why people stay muslim out of fear, and by force. What a cowardly and tyrannical religion islam is, from day one till today!

[Dan Zebiri]

I am uninterested to discuss what the "followers of Christianity" have done, with u. Just like u will say "don't judge islam, muhd or the koran by the behavior/acts etc of some muslims". So the "comparative history approach" u broached is a red herring and can well be just a smoke screen to hide the fundamental problems and issues in orthodox islam and all its sources. Including the source documents of islam - the koran, hadith, sirah of yr prophet Muhd, tafsir etc.

Let us stick to discuss the problems of violence & tyranny in the koran and sunnah of muhd.-all the source documents of islam, that is more realistic and revealing than anything else.

[Dan Zebiri]

Are there clear verses about execution down here on earth for apostasy alone? The next three passages are sufficient to justify this, in earliest Islam, the original community that Muhammad was founding.

(1) Sura 4 was revealed in Medina over a period of three years (AD 625-627). At this point some Muslims have not immigrated to Medina when the invitation had been given. A group of them, called the hypocrites, had embraced Islam with reservations. Sometimes they supported Muhammad from a geographical and religious distance, for example in saying prayers the Muslim way. At other times, they seemed to help the enemies of Islam (see Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 1, pp. 361-62, notes 116-117).

In Sura 4:88-89 Allah tells the prophet how to deal with these particular hypocrites.

4:88-89 Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance) 89 They wish that you reject (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So, take not Auliya (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill [q-t-l] them wherever you find them . . . . (Al-Hilali and Khan, parenthetical insertions are theirs; mine in brackets)

We should note two facts from these verses. First, Allah himself made the hypocrites go astray, yet he orders them killed. Second, the Arabic verb qatala is used (root is q-t-l), and this word means exclusively to fight, kill, war, battle, or slaughter.

Next, verse 90 says that if these nominal Muslims seek peace, not war, then Allah has not opened a way for Muhammad to fight them. He must allow them to live in their state of hypocrisy. However, as verse 89 says, if they turn back both from emigrating and Islam, then they shall be battled. So there is no ambiguity about Muhammad’s policy on full apostates—death.

For the final two passages, we allow Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi (d. 1979), a traditional and respected commentator of the Quran, to walk us through Islamic policy on apostasy, as revealed in the Quran (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 2 of 6).

(2) Sura 9 is the last one to be revealed in its entirety. By now, Muhammad has a strong military, so he is about to "deal" with opponents once and for all. Three verses in this sura command striving (jihad) and then fighting (qital) against hypocrites and unbelievers (73-74 and 123). In these two verses, the hypocrites and unbelievers are not full apostates, according to Maududi.

The Quran says:

9:73-74 O Prophet, strive [j-h-d] hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be adamant and stern with them . . . they did utter the words of unbelief. Thus, they were guilty of unbelief after they professed Islam . . . If even now they repent of their misbehavior, it will be good for their own selves, but if they do not repent, Allah will chastise them with a painful chastisement in this world and the Hereafter . . . . (Maududi, vol. 2, p. 213)

These two verses say three things about these near-apostates.

First, hypocrites stood aloof from Islam, yet they mouthed words of support—sometimes. At other times they opposed Muhammad, especially in his long and difficult Tabuk Crusade against the Byzantine Christians in late AD 630. They refused to go. Muhammad could not tolerate this wishy-washy behavior. Most important, he could not tolerate opposition, at this late stage.

Second, the more ambiguous word jihad is used. This implies that the ultimate command to kill the hypocrites and unbelievers has not yet been given clearly. But they have been promised "painful chastisement in this world." How? The Muslim community has other methods of "striving" with them instead of killing them, such as ostracism, denial of their oaths in a court of law, closed doors of offices and positions, and contempt in social meetings (Maududi, vol. 2, p. 219, note 82).

Third, the hypocrites are still given the opportunity to repent. "If they now repent of their misbehavior, it will be good for them" . . . . This means, according to Maududi, that they are not full apostates, even though they uttered words of unbelief. But this chance for repentance is short lived, as the next verse reveals.

(3) In Sura 9:123 the hypocrites have been merged with the unbelievers, so they are now apostates.

The Quran says:

9:123 O Believers, fight [q-t-l] with these disbelievers who are near you, and they should find you firm and stern. (Maududi, vol. 2, p. 249)

Maududi notes two differences between verses 73 and 123. First, jihad (j-h-d) and qital (q-t-l) are used in each, respectively; and, second, only one key word describes the enemies of Islam in verse 123, whereas two words describe them in verse 73.

The only difference between the two Commands is that in v. 73 the Muslims were asked to do Jihad with them, while in this verse [123] stronger words, "fight with them," have been used, which were meant to impress on them that they should crush the hypocrites thoroughly and completely. Another difference in the wording is that in v. 73, two different words "disbelievers and hypocrites," have been used, while in this verse [123] only one word, "disbelievers," has been used so that the hypocrites should forfeit all their claims as Muslims, for there was room for this concession in the word "hypocrite." (vol. 2, p. 253, note 121, insertions mine)

Maududi says that the word "hypocrites" means a reprieve, but this word has been removed, and "disbelievers" has been supplied, which eliminates the reprieve. Recall that Sura 9:73-74 says that the hypocrites made some confession of unbelief after they professed Islam, so the implication is clear from verse 123, added to verses 73-74, as follows: Even though neither Maududi nor verse 123 uses "apostasy" as such, these hypocrites-declared-unbelievers should be fought and crushed thoroughly and completely.

[Dan Zebiri]

in many cases, these ex-muslims would be punished by the death sentence for renouncing` and quitting islam. This originates from orthodox Islamic sources of authority: “ Allah’s messenger (Muhd) said “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” Hadith, Bukhari, vol.9 # 58. And “the blood of the muslim..cannot be shed except…(in the case of) the one who reverts from islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims; Hadith, Bukhari, vol.9, Bk.83, #17. These are among the fundamental, orthodox sunni sources that undergird the capital punishment by DEATH for any muslim quitting islam.

Indeed comparatively, neither The Lord Jesus Christ, nor the Gospels or the NT has any such equivalent capital punishment (death) for the sin, or 'crime of apostasy’ - a capital for leaving the faith as islam does found clearly commanded in the koran & hadith. I challenge u siam to find them. DON'T go citing from church history or later state based legislstions etc. Just stick STRICTLY only to the NT, Gospel ans the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God.

[Dan Zebiri]

The Hadith Bukhati - an orthodox Islamic sourc of authority commands: “Allah’s messenger (Muhd) said "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then KILL HIM.” Hadith, Bukhari, vol.9 # 58.

And “the BLOOD of the muslim..cannot be shed except…(in the case of) the one who REVERTS FROM islam (apostate) and LEAVES the Muslims; Hadith, Bukhari, vol.9, Bk.83, #17.

These fundamental sources of islamic sharia above demand that those who leave islam & the muslims to BE KILLED, nothing less. Doesn't matter if theres a process involved, these full apostates & murtadins MUST FINALLY BE EXECUTED by islamic sharia laws as taught by muhamed's Allah in the Koran, sunnah etc. This is regardless of what surah 2/256 or surah 109 says!

Do u deny these (above) are fake hadith siam?

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Dan, You've been a member for a while, even before the crash, so you know the rules against posting back to back to back posts. Please refrain from posting again in-thread until answers have been provided.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Dan Zebiri]

Sure thing Bill. I never posted again after that crash, for over five long years, until the last few posts. That was a long time.

I always wondered what on earth caused that crash, but that's just passe now.

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Dan, You've been a member for a while, even before the crash, so you know the rules against posting back to back to back posts. Please refrain from posting again in-thread until answers have been provided.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Bill the Cat]

Sure thing Bill. I never posted again after that crash, for over five long years, until the last few posts. That was a long time.

I always wondered what on earth caused that crash, but that's just passe now.

Thanks Dan. We had a catastrophic database failure and the restore by our datacenter housing the server didn't work. So we rebuilt from scratch and started over.

[Dan Zebiri]

Yes, we had some great conversations 8-9 years ago then, pity the database could not be restored, but starting over is great, too. Good job.

[siam]

My position remains that any person has the right to enter or leave a religion/religio-philosophy regardless of the merits of their justification.

Comparative history---Ok, we can give it a rest.
Perhaps it may clarify our discussion if claims have verifiable facts?
Claims have been made that a) some countries use death sentences. b) That some persons have been legally executed for leaving Islam. c) That these laws have been practiced since 1400 years ago.

a) Death penalty and executions---https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5079552018ENGLISH.PDF
This is a report by amnesty. It shows the minimum Global figures.
According to Amnesty---China has the highest number of executions and death penalties but it has been excluded from the report because the figures are not verifiable.
"More than half (51%) of all recorded executions were carried out in Iran, which together with Saudi
Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan carried out 84% of the global total. " ---according to the report.

here is a list of executions carried out---
EXECUTIONS RECORDED GLOBALLY IN 2017
Afghanistan (5), Bahrain (3), Bangladesh (6), Belarus (2+), China (+), Egypt (35+), Iran (507+),
Iraq (125+), Japan (4), Jordan (15), Kuwait (7), Malaysia (4+), North Korea (+), Pakistan (60+),
Palestine (State of) (6: Hamas authorities, Gaza), Saudi Arabia (146), Singapore (8), Somalia (24:
Puntland 12, Federal Government of Somalia 12), South Sudan (4), UAE (1), USA (23), Viet Nam (+),
Yemen (2+)

b) Iran has the highest number of executions---reports on these show that the majority were drug related offences or murder charges.
The Iranian penal code of 2012 does NOT have provisions criminalizing apostasy.
According to the U.S. state department---one person was convicted of apostasy in 1990 and executed---however, the charges did not specify apostasy therefore such a claim may or may not be verifiable.....
(we have not explored extra-judicial harassment/killings---some reports say that many Iranian Muslims are converting to the Bahai faith and this is resulting in harassment against the Bahai.)

c) Countries that have apostacy as part of their penal code are:-
MauritaniaÂ’s 1983 Criminal Code, the United Arab EmiratesÂ’ Penal Code of 1987, SudanÂ’s Penal Code of 1991, YemenÂ’s Penal Code of 1994, QatarÂ’s 2004 Penal Law.
---it may be obvious --- these are all recent laws.

OT/NT---Is not the OT scripture for Christians? Do you not believe that G-d of the OT is the Christian God and that the OT was sent by God/it is God's word? or perhaps you believe, like us Muslims, that the OT has been corrupted?

Quran---4:88
Why should you be divided into 2 parties about the hypocrites? God has cast them off for their deeds. Would you guide those whom God has thrown out of the way? For those whom God has thrown out of the way, never shall you find the way.
4:89
They but wish that you should reject faith as they do and thus be on the same footing, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks
4:90
except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their own people....
(Yusuf Ali translation)

As you also explained---There was betrayal by a faction of Muslim soldiers during the battle of Uhud. Some people wanted to execute them others wanted to forgive them. The Quran offers a "middle way"---a third option. The issue here is not apostasy but desertion by a soldier in wartime. Even today, in the West, desertion by a soldier carries penalties including the death penalty. The option the Quran offers is to give the deserters a chance to reconsider. If they move away from "what is forbidden" they can rejoin the community or they choose not to rejoin the community--the options offered are----a) they can move to a neutral territory with which there is a peace treaty, b) they can rejoin the community in peace but refrain from fighting for or against---that is, join as non-combatants. or c) they then become part of the enemy camp.
As a wartime strategy---this sounds reasonable and just to me....?....anything less would have been foolish.

[siam]

Abuse of power can occur when institutions and systems are used to oppress or harass a group of people. When discrimination and harassment is social/by the society---it is prejudice.
In my opinion---abuse of power by a state is an indication of the breakdown of the political system. There is an imbalance of power that allows/enables the abuse. Prejudice is also an indication of a breakdown of both values and justice.
These (political, social) problems can occur regardless of religion---Burma is an example of a place where being a Muslim is life-threatening.....yet, in Burma, one of the tools that could be used to correct such a breakdown would be Buddhism. An appeal to the values of equality that Buddhism promotes. Likewise, religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism...etc can all be used to promote good values and ethics/morality. Those that try to claim that religion is evil---lose a valuable tool of persuasion towards the followers of that religion.

In majority-Muslim nations, Islam can be a useful tool to persuade people towards better justice, equality, tolerance and compassion. Doing so would be a benefit for both Non-Muslims and Muslims.