Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ex-Muslims

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Then you must sincerely & seriously ask yourself why islam legislates faith and the beliefs of muslims from muhamad's time -the very start of islam over 1400 years ago.

    Christ Jesus and His apostles did not enjoin the kinds of capital punishments (read "death") found in surah 4:88-89 and in Hadith Bukhari to prevent Muslims from rejecting and abandoning islam! Don't tell us about so-called 'Christian canon law' because the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles never mentioned, let alone command them to be applied.

    But all the injunctions to kill and punish rejection and leaving islam by muslims were already commanded by the koran, hadith and sunna of your prophet muhamad from the very beginning of islamic expansionism.

    What you yourself personally believe is unimportant to islam, the sharia laws and muhamad's sunna (tradition). Because it doesn't change the criminal and penal punishments enshrined in islam one bit. You are subject to it whether u like it or not, and MUST Submit to the laws of islam.

    That is why the true meaning of the word "Islam" does NOT MEAN "peace", but it rather more precisely means "SUBMISSION" so you got no choice to submit blindly to islam. How terribly sad and tragic.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
      Note also, that these ex-muslims did not quit & disavow islam out "of convenience", like you insinuate. Not AT ALL! They did so for the sake of their consciences. Also at the risk of being arrested by the sharia police, imprisoned, rehabilitated, beaten, poisoned disowned by their families and ummah / muslim societies, and/or ultimately beheaded. They risk all the above because they cannot with a clear conscience follow islam as a reasonable or compassionate religion any longer! There's nothing amusing at all about taking any and all of the above risks threatening them from the quran, sunnah, sharia and the whole islamic socio-religious apparatus that has existed for 1400 years, down to this day.
      These claims (underlined above) are inaccurate.
      The Quran has a Surah 109 called al-Kafirun which says "to you is your way and to me is mine". The Quran also has verses that discourage conversion by compulsion.
      The Sunna refers to the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammed(pbuh). The constitution of Medina---drawn up during the lifetime of the Prophet, gives religious and legal freedom to the Jews. The Prophet extended his hand in friendship to the Coptic Church and other Christians...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad
      https://www.islamicity.org/13868/isl...s-of-his-time/
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World I
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World II
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Assyrian Christians
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Armenian Christians
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Jews of Maqna
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Yemenite Jews
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Zoroastrians
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Coptic Christians of Egypt
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Syriac Orthodox Christians
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Samaritans
      The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Zoroastrians

      Also---at the time when Mecca surrendered to the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)---he gave amnesty to all regardless of religion.

      Sharia---Is not a legal system based/using English as its language. When legal terms are translated from one legal/cultural setting onto another---inaccuracies may occur. Both the Quran and Sharia speak of treason---which is an act of betrayal against the "state". --- not a religion. Laws can be abused when mishandled. Another term that should be referenced here is sedition---which is a speech/conduct of rebellion against a state, monarch, or authority.
      https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonat...tasy-in-islam/

      "Though weÂ’ll refer to ridda as apostasy for the sake of convenience, as in so many cases, the heart of the matter lies in the simple act of translation. In the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the early Muslim community, the Arabic noun ridda and the verb for engaging in it were understood not as meaning a personal choice of changing oneÂ’s religion but as the public act of political secession from the Muslim community.

      Interestingly, this dimension of apostasy as betraying and opposing one’s community, missing in the normal usage of the English word ‘apostasy,’ is actually recovered in sociological studies of apostasy. Many studies looking at those who leave religious groups as well as communities defined by secular ideologies show that what distinguishes apostates from those who simply leave is that apostates become active opponents of their previous identity, more renegades than mere dissenters. Along the same lines, the problem with ridda in Islam was not that a person was exercising their freedom of conscience and choosing to no longer follow the religion. The problem was when such a decision became a public act with political implications."

      This does not mean that legitimate dissent and rebellion were not possible---The Quran specifies that rebelling against oppression and injustice is a valid cause. In English---the term "revolution" is used for those struggles by a community against systemic oppression and injustice---for example---American revolution, French revolution....etc.

      Comment


      • #33
        Siam, in the previous post you claimed:

        "Even the most shallow excuse is still a valid excuse to leave or join. All kinds of people leave or join religions---"

        The above can only be a situation in a non-islamic state, never an islamic or a muslim-majority society.

        I challenge you to say openly, the above quote to a qadhi/qazi/islamic sharia court judge in a sharia court. Say it to him.. as this qadhi/judge will give you a proper reply according to islam!

        Ask him if "all kinds of muslims leave religions" - including leaving islam.

        The sharia islamic decision and reply to you is there will be no apostasy allowed because it is treason to islam and to sharia laws. Leaving islam is a punishable capital crime by the laws of sharia.

        Do you deny that?

        So, your glib comment about people joining and leaving islam "freely and easily" is false, especially in muslim societies.

        Like I already demonstrated, there is no TRUE freedom of religion in islam.

        So, when ex-muslims like Dr.Lamin Sanneh, Dr.Nabeel Qureshi and Sam Solomon openly declare they have left islam for good, it had to be outside of an Islamic jurisdiction. And they are much more bolder than say a Buddhist who declared his conversion to islam.

        Lamin Sanneh, Qureshi and Solomon and others who abandoned islam for Christianity, paid a much, much higher price for their religious freedom than the others who converted to islam from other faiths.

        That makes their conversions (out of islam) to Christianity so much more meaningful and are never "a dime a dozen".. like those who "converted to islam".

        This is a fact that u Siam cannot deny nor hide.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
          Then you must sincerely & seriously ask yourself why islam legislates faith and the beliefs of muslims from muhamad's time -the very start of islam over 1400 years ago.

          Christ Jesus and His apostles did not enjoin the kinds of capital punishments (read "death") found in surah 4:88-89 and in Hadith Bukhari to prevent Muslims from rejecting and abandoning islam! Don't tell us about so-called 'Christian canon law' because the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles never mentioned, let alone command them to be applied.

          But all the injunctions to kill and punish rejection and leaving islam by muslims were already commanded by the koran, hadith and sunna of your prophet muhamad from the very beginning of islamic expansionism.

          What you yourself personally believe is unimportant to islam, the sharia laws and muhamad's sunna (tradition). Because it doesn't change the criminal and penal punishments enshrined in islam one bit. You are subject to it whether u like it or not, and MUST Submit to the laws of islam.

          That is why the true meaning of the word "Islam" does NOT MEAN "peace", but it rather more precisely means "SUBMISSION" so you got no choice to submit blindly to islam. How terribly sad and tragic.
          I mentioned Legal Pluralism before---Sharia is not singular but pluralistic. Classical Sharia has 5 major schools and possibly other minor ones---post colonial laws are often hybrids of Islamic and colonial traditions.

          Comment


          • #35
            Indeed islam is not just a religious ideology BUT IT IS A STATE as well. Islam wants to rule and govern over all peoples. That's why it has a legal system called "sharia", that governs over both muslims and non muslims. It was set up by yr "prophet" muhamed and his followers from the beginning of the Islamic era about 1400 years ago and still applies today.

            And sharia punishes those who quit and abandon islam because it views apostates as "traitors" who commit treason against the Islamic system. By conflating the religion with state governance, islamic states are theocracies, not democracies.

            And I would say that absolute theoracies like muslim states - are incompatible with the modern times and era.

            Comment


            • #36
              You claim again the following :- "Interestingly, this dimension of apostasy as betraying and opposing oneÂ’s community, missing in the normal usage of the English word ‘apostasy'"

              English and western societies are today not theocracies or religious states, like muslim states are and which was set up by Muhd since 1400 years ago. "Apostasy" in western vocabulary separated the sacred from the secular and is not about "treason" against the state or the King / caliph etc. But it absolutely is in islam & so this "crime" has to be punished according to islamic demands ie.decapitation or death.

              Fortunately, the Lord Jesus Christ never taught such things like an absolutist theocracy and a religious state. Rather He declared - "

              "Then He (Jesus) said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” "
              Matthew 22:21 (ESV)

              In doing so, Jesus Christ separated the sacred from the secular for all time, especially as a political-religious system of governance.

              By doing so, the Lord Jesus Christ disavowed any religious state governance ideology like that followed by muhamad and his muslim successors.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                Indeed islam is not just a religious ideology BUT IT IS A STATE as well. Islam wants to rule and govern over all peoples. That's why it has a legal system called "sharia", that governs over both muslims and non muslims. It was set up by yr "prophet" muhamed and his followers from the beginning of the Islamic era about 1400 years ago and still applies today.

                And sharia punishes those who quit and abandon islam because it views apostates as "traitors" who commit treason against the Islamic system. By conflating the religion with state governance, islamic states are theocracies, not democracies.

                And I would say that absolute theoracies like muslim states - are incompatible with the modern times and era.
                The underlined above---The modern world has a conceptual division between state and religion that did not exist in pre-modern history---either Christian or Muslim. However, in Islamic Jurisprudence---there was a division between State and Law. The scholars of law (Sharia) were often independent of the "State". This means that the legal system had inbuilt checks and balances (balance of power)---which may be lacking in modern nation-states as it is the states that make the laws....and this applies to modern "Islamic" states as well. As explained before, in pre-modern Sharia---non-Muslims followed their own (religious) laws with the exception of those laws under the jurisdiction of the state ---under categories such as state taxation, crimes against the state...etc.
                Also slander was an offence and a person was innocent until proven guilty. These and other Jurisprudence principles ensured that justice was pursued seriously.

                Comment


                • #38
                  All the so-called "covenants" made by muhd and the non-muslims you quoted earlier are actually one-sided 'contracts' in favor of Muhd., the muslims and the theocratic state.

                  In a muslim state, ALL the non-muslims are regarded as second-class citizens of lower rank, compared with the muslims who would enjoy the full rights of citizenship.

                  Sura 9/29 spells the basis for dealing with Christians & Jews etc, as people living under islamic rule - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book,
                  - until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

                  "The History of Jihad" by Robert Spencer, lists out many of the 'covenants' you listed that were broken by muhd and his muslim leaders against the non-muslim.

                  So, many of them are trivial and useless contracts, excessively one sided and oppressive towards the non muslims in actual fact.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Not really! These so-called "checks & balances" only work in the islamic state system. NEVER in a Democracy. Because the sharia legal system exists only to support the islamic state-which IS THEOCRATIC and never a Democracy. Orthodox islam considers all non islamic systems of governance and politics as HERETICAL - or Bidaah ("innovation").

                    That is why orthodox islam only recognises sharia as the legitimate law for muslims and ALL OTHER legal-political systems as wrong.. it rejects democracy, communism, capitalism and other non-islamic 'isms' as illegal and reject them totally.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                      You claim again the following :- "Interestingly, this dimension of apostasy as betraying and opposing one’s community, missing in the normal usage of the English word ‘apostasy'"

                      English and western societies are today not theocracies or religious states, like muslim states are and which was set up by Muhd since 1400 years ago. "Apostasy" in western vocabulary separated the sacred from the secular and is not about "treason" against the state or the King / caliph etc. But it absolutely is in islam & so this "crime" has to be punished according to islamic demands ie.decapitation or death.

                      Fortunately, the Lord Jesus Christ never taught such things like an absolutist theocracy and a religious state. Rather He declared - "

                      "Then He (Jesus) said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” "
                      Matthew 22:21 (ESV)

                      In doing so, Jesus Christ separated the sacred from the secular for all time, especially as a political-religious system of governance.

                      By doing so, the Lord Jesus Christ disavowed any religious state governance ideology like that followed by muhamad and his muslim successors.
                      The history of the West has its own trajectory and this should not be applied to those of the Non-Western geographical regions who themselves have their own historical trajectories.

                      Since the time of Constantine--Church and State have been fused and "States" did indeed punish those who disagreed with their policies/politics with regards to religion---the Church of England is an example I gave previously which used treason---then there are others after Constantine such as Theodusus 1 and Justinian and St Augustine was of the opinion that and "dissension" against the church was a dissension against the state and therefore punishable by the state.

                      "St Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts, notably Luke 14:16-23, to justify the use of compulsion. Had not Christ himself blinded St Paul in order to make him see the true light. According to Augustine, coercion using "great violence" was justified. He made a distinction between unbelievers who persecuted because of cruelty as against Christians who persecuted because of love. A war to preserve or restore the unity of the Church was a just war, a bellum Deo auctore, a war waged by God himself. He also found a way to avoid churchmen getting blood on their hands: dissension against the Church amounted to dissension against the state, so anyone condemned by the Church should be punished by the state. Centuries in the future such ideas would culminate in the activities of the Inquisition, which also required the secular authority to execute its judgements of blood. Augustine is often recognised explicitly as the father of the Inquisition, since he was responsible for adopting Roman methods of torture for the purposes of the Church in order to ensure uniformity."
                      http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html

                      Today the West feels that because of their history, it is wise to divide state and church---and if Christians happen to find justification for this in their scriptures---it is good. To each is his own way. Those with a different historical trajectory may come up with different solutions to their socio-political problems---and thats ok too.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It was the LORD Jesus Christ Who separated the sacred from the secular in any system of governance - even 600 to 700 years BEFORE yr muhamed ever came on the scene! So, your claim that a "conceptual division between state and religion that did not exist in pre-modern history---either Christian or Muslim" is patently false and inaccurate too. This division, regardless conceptual, political or governmental was declared and enjoined by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew chapter 22 on all His people already, centuries before yr Muhd was even born...:

                        The Lord Jesus Christ never taught such things like an absolutist theocracy and a religiously controlled state. Rather He declared - "

                        "Then He (Jesus) said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” "
                        Matthew 22:21 (ESV)

                        In doing so, Jesus Christ separated the sacred from the secular for all time, especially as a political-religious system of governance.

                        By doing so, the Lord Jesus Christ disavowed any religious state governance ideology like that followed by muhamad and his muslim successors.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Sorry to say..but that is quite a rubbish statement and claim..:

                          "The West feels that because of their history, it is wise to divide state and church---and if Christians happen to find justification for this in their scriptures---it is good."

                          It is NOT BECAUSE THE WEST Feels its something nice or good about!!

                          Then your disingenuous claim that we Christians "happen to find justification for this in their Scriptures "!!

                          How condescending are you?!

                          We just "did not happen to find" this injunction made by the Lord Jesus Christ. He gave this injunction multiple centuries before yr so-called nabi was even born.

                          Pls do not conflate nor confuse what the institutionalized church set up in addition to the original, authentic injunctions of Jesus Christ.

                          If only you can get your basic Biblical facts correct, you won't exhibit so much ignorance about the true and real teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ..not found in yr koran, of course!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            And Yes, the sharia system is a legal system. It does not matter whether one uses English, arabic, parsee or urdu to administer it. Thats why in sunni islam - not Shia islam, there are 4 official schools of jurisprudence: shafii, maliki, hanafi and hanbali. It IS called JURISPRUDENCE, not administration or accountancy or anything else. Their judges are called "qazi/qadhi" whose pronouncements have penal consequences. They are also called uqubat or hukums which are all legally binding, their courts are called "mahkamah" and these are ALL legal terms in islam.

                            So sharia IS INDEED a system of juridical laws, producing judgements that are legally binding. It is based on the Quran, the hadith ("traditions") and a couple other factors internal to islam like ijmak and qiyas..But yes, it is a totalitarian legal system, binding upon all people in an islsmic state, muslims or non-muslims.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Non-muslim "dhimmis" are also subjected to islamic sharia laws and the verses below are used to justify treatment of non muslims as second class citizens. As well as to pay the poll tax with humiliation and subjugation-

                              Here are the verses, for context-: *Qur’an 9:29*—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, UNTIL THEY PAY THE JIZYAH WITH WILLING SUBMISSION, and feel themselves SUBDUED.

                              *Qur’an 9:30*—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s CURSE be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Here is 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.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X