Mariwan Halabjayee flees fatwa

[cestusdei]

emad, basically you don’t want to answer it because the answer is “yes”. You don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with killing apostates or Mariwan. Sure, you want a Caliph so it will all be legal. But isn’t that the point? That it would be LEGAL. So your only objection to killing guys like Mariwan or Abdul is that there is no Caliph who can legitimately order it. But if there was one…then well…

THIS is exactly why when Muslims say they oppose violence and it is a religion of peace we don’t believe them. When you couple that with the fact that in London there was a protest of Muslims against such violence that drew only 200 people, most not Muslim, then the truth becomes blazingly apparent. You really do NOT oppose killing Christian converts or guys like Mariwan. You really do NOT believe in freedom of religion, speech, and conscience. You are just waiting for the day when you CAN do it.

 

[pro_universal]

cestusdei:

emad, basically you don’t want to answer it because the answer is “yes”. You don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with killing apostates or Mariwan. Sure, you want a Caliph so it will all be legal. But isn’t that the point? That it would be LEGAL. So your only objection to killing guys like Mariwan or Abdul is that there is no Caliph who can legitimately order it. But if there was one…then well…

THIS is exactly why when Muslims say they oppose violence and it is a religion of peace we don’t believe them. When you couple that with the fact that in London there was a protest of Muslims against such violence that drew only 200 people, most not Muslim, then the truth becomes blazingly apparent. You really do NOT oppose killing Christian converts or guys like Mariwan. You really do NOT believe in freedom of religion, speech, and conscience. You are just waiting for the day when you CAN do it.

You need to read his post.

Let’s recap:

It is to be decided by a judge, a person leaving soley because he doesn’t believe Islam is the truth isn’t killed, meaning an intellectual apostasy, rather the one who is killed is the one who apostates and rebels against the Islamic state.

i.e., the death sentence is a punishment for taking up arms against the Government. That’s a principle written into the United States constitution.

I really wish you would remove Priest from your occupation listing. When you treat people with this must dishonesty and present so many rabid points of view, you really do a disservice to your Order. You’re a messenger of hatred who advocates the use of nuclear weapons on holy cities, and in my mind that deprives you of the right to associate yourself with any Catholic authority whatsoever. The misrepresentation or inability to read Emad’s post above is reason to boot.

 

[Ella]

It is to be decided by a judge, a person leaving soley because he doesn’t believe Islam is the truth isn’t killed, meaning an intellectual apostasy, rather the one who is killed is the one who apostates and rebels against the Islamic state.

pro_universal:

You need to read his post.
i.e., the death sentence is a punishment for taking up arms against the Government. That’s a principle written into the United States constitution.

Well, not exactly. The death sentence is a punishment for renouncing Islam and rebelling against “the Islamic state”. Knowing that the Islamic state is a theocracy, this means that it is a punishment rooted in Islam, not just a punisment for actions against the government.
Nor are ‘arms’ mentioned in Emad’s quote.
It would be helpful to have a definition of “rebelling against the Islamic state.”
If 20 people converted from Islam to Christianity, and performed a sit-in at a public place to protest discrimination, would that be an act of rebellion against the Islamic state and merit a sentence of death for them?

 

[Emad]

Ella:

Well, not exactly. The death sentence is a punishment for renouncing Islam and rebelling against “the Islamic state”. Knowing that the Islamic state is a theocracy, this means that it is a punishment rooted in Islam, not just a punisment for actions against the government.
Nor are ‘arms’ mentioned in Emad’s quote.
It would be helpful to have a definition of “rebelling against the Islamic state.”
If 20 people converted from Islam to Christianity, and performed a sit-in at a public place to protest discrimination, would that be an act of rebellion against the Islamic state and merit a sentence of death for them?

Islam is both government and politics, it’s an entire system. Rebelling against the Islamic state is like leaving Islam, then going to join those who are fighting the Islamic state from outside. Such is clear treason in any country. As for your example with 20 people, I don’t know why they would have a sit in to protest discrimination, as they aren’t supposed to be discriminated against in the first place. If they were discriminated against the government should punish those who did discriminate against them.

 

[Emad]

cestusdei:

emad, basically you don’t want to answer it because the answer is “yes”.

Well if you refuse to take my explanations and you already know the answer why ask?

You are asking me a question like this:

*Is your brother out of jail yet? Please only answer yes or no. *

I can’t explain to you that my brother was never in jail since you only want yes or no, so I can’t answer yes or no, yet you want to hear a yes or a no, so you insist that I am avoiding the question.

 

[discipleofJesus]

Emad:

Islam doesn’t call for killing all apostates, only some. It is to be decided by a judge, a person leaving soley because he doesn’t believe Islam is the truth isn’t killed, meaning an intellectual apostasy, rather the one who is killed is the one who apostates and rebels against the Islamic state. Or one who is discovered to have accepted Islam with the intention to leave it to cause doubt in the hearts of Muslims

Really? Then how do you explain these Sahih Hadiths

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
“Narrated Abu Burda:
Abu Musa said… Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Muisa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers…”

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
“Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64:
“Narrated 'Ali:
Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game.** So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection**.”

 

[Ella]

Emad:

Islam is both government and politics, it’s an entire system. Rebelling against the Islamic state is like leaving Islam, then going to join those who are fighting the Islamic state from outside. Such is clear treason in any country. As for your example with 20 people, I don’t know why they would have a sit in to protest discrimination, as they aren’t supposed to be discriminated against in the first place. If they were discriminated against the government should punish those who did discriminate against them.

But Emad, your definition or rebellion is just that - your definition. It is subjective. That’s the problem. The Taliban would claim that they are the ‘real’ Islam and you are not following the real Islam. The Saudis would claim that they are in fact the correct Islam. The people calling for Ahmed Rahmen’s death would claim that they are the ‘real’ Islam and it is their definitions that are valid.
This is a problem arising from linking the government and religion into one thing. Whoever is in control makes their definitions the correct ones.

 

[Emad]

Ella:

But Emad, your definition or rebellion is just that - your definition. It is subjective. That’s the problem. The Taliban would claim that they are the ‘real’ Islam and you are not following the real Islam. The Saudis would claim that they are in fact the correct Islam. The people calling for Ahmed Rahmen’s death would claim that they are the ‘real’ Islam and it is their definitions that are valid.
This is a problem arising from linking the government and religion into one thing. Whoever is in control makes their definitions the correct ones.

Actually in Islam we have set laws, no one can break them. Also an Islamic government is to be run by the most knowledgable and God fearing people. Not by some power hungry people. Neither by ignorant laymen. Islamic law is a deep subject, it isn’t something for laymen to really discuss as our knowledge about it is quite limited. It is best to leave it to the jurists. Also now there is no Islamic state, so why is everyone attacking Islam for laws that aren’t even being applied?

 

[cestusdei]

I didn’t misread him at all. Islam says that just leaving Islam IS treason against the State and religion. It alone merits death. Emad knows this is the case. You don’t have to bear arms against the Islamic theocratic State, just choose to convert to another religion. Please note that nowhere has emad denied that he would find such a fatwa, of a Caliph, in any way distasteful. Notice also that this same Islam that says you need no clergy seems to require trained clergy to tell the populace with is right and wrong. Inconsistant? You bet. 500 of these clergy met in Kabul and agreed that Abdul should die. How comforting. Likewise emad knows that as dhimmi we would be treated as second class citizens. Emad carefully negotiates the conversation so that he does not have to say it is wrong to kill converts. He only will say it is wrong UNTIL there is a Caliph. Afterwards, he sees nothing wrong with it.

And of course pro, good dhimmi, sees nothing wrong with it either. Some people like being slaves I suppose.

 

[Emad]

Islam says that just leaving Islam IS treason against the State and religion. It alone merits death.

Where does it say this? Bring your proof if you are truthful. Quran and Hadith please, don’t bring me anything else.

Please note that nowhere has emad denied that he would find such a fatwa, of a Caliph, in any way distasteful.

Fatwa is like a prescription. A prescription can be bad in one case and good in another. It is impossible for me to say I would agree with this fatwa if a Khalifa gave it, because this fatwa was wrong to begin with.

Emad carefully negotiates the conversation so that he does not have to say it is wrong to kill converts. He only will say it is wrong UNTIL there is a Caliph. Afterwards, he sees nothing wrong with it.

I already explained to you the rules of killing an apostate. Islam’s definition of being an apostate is not just religous. If someone does apostate during the time of the Khalifa according to the correct interpretation of apostasy in Islam, I am not against that person being punished. However show me your proof that Islam says kill people for the sole reason of them changing their religion. During the treaty of Hudaibiya the Prophet peace be upon him agreed that any Muslim who leaves Islam and wants to go to the disbelievers in Mecca will be allowed to do so.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Emad:

Islam doesn’t call for killing all apostates, only some. It is to be decided by a judge, a person leaving soley because he doesn’t believe Islam is the truth isn’t killed, meaning an intellectual apostasy, rather the one who is killed is the one who apostates and rebels against the Islamic state. Or one who is discovered to have accepted Islam with the intention to leave it to cause doubt in the hearts of Muslims:

003.072
A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back;

If such a person is caught doing this, with evidence of course, such a person will be punished. . During the treaty of Hudabiya, the Prophet peace be upon him agreed with the non-Muslims of Mecca that any Muslim who apostates will be allowed to go to Mecca and live with them without any harm from the Muslims. He also agreed that any non-Muslim in Mecca who wants to become Muslim isn’t allowed to come to Medina. This shows that not all apostates are punished, it also shows that it doesn’t matter where a true believer is, he would never apostate.

Also I don’t know what you mean about denouncing Islam and Muhammad, if you mean disbelieving after belief, the same applies as I said above. However if you mean criticizing, then no. Muslims are open to criticism about their religion, however Muslims don’t allow anyone to mock their religion or anyone elses religion for that matter.

006.108
Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.

If I understand you correctly Emad, apostacy is only punishible by death when it is used to disrupt the “Islamic government” in place but not for any reasons of faith?

No one wants their religion mocked. Is that punisible by death in “Islamland”?

Another question if I may. Would I, a Catholic, be allowed to practice my religion freely in “Islamland”. Not freely like Egypt where I can’t ring my bells or repair my church but freely like here in the US?

 

[Emad]

iamrefreshed:

If I understand you correctly Emad, apostacy is only punishible by death when it is used to disrupt the “Islamic government” in place but not for any reasons of faith?

No one wants their religion mocked. Is that punisible by death in “Islamland”?

Another question if I may. Would I, a Catholic, be allowed to practice my religion freely in “Islamland”. Not freely like Egypt where I can’t ring my bells or repair my church but freely like here in the US?

Iamrefreshed I am not a scholar, I can’t answer all of your questions and say I am 100% correct. However, dhimmis have contracts with the Islamic state and each group has different rules according to their contract. I was told by a scholar that depending on their agreement they can be allowed to teach their religion to others, or not be able to teach it at all. Of course you can ring your bell and fix your church.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Emad:

Iamrefreshed I am not a scholar, I can’t answer all of your questions and say I am 100% correct. However, dhimmis have contracts with the Islamic state and each group has different rules according to their contract. I was told by a scholar that depending on their agreement they can be allowed to teach their religion to others, or not be able to teach it at all. Of course you can ring your bell and fix your church.

I hate that word…dhimmi.

Reverse the situation. How would you feel?

Personally I don’t believe any religion, mine or yours, should be the government.

Secular is the way to go. Let each individual decide on their own. Free to make any choice.

 

[Emad]

iamrefreshed:

I hate that word…dhimmi.

Reverse the situation. How would you feel?

Personally I don’t believe any religion, mine or yours, should be the government.

Secular is the way to go. Let each individual decide on their own. Free to make any choice.

Dhimmi is an honorable word in Arabic. It’s basically telling the person that your protection is on my neck, meaning so important to me. If you don’t believe religion should be the government, that’s fine, I believe otherwise. We can agree to believe different, nothing wrong with that.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Emad:

Dhimmi is an honorable word in Arabic. It’s basically telling the person that your protection is on my neck, meaning so important to me. If you don’t believe religion should be the government, that’s fine, I believe otherwise. We can agree to believe different, nothing wrong with that.

I understand the concept of dhimmintude but I disagree with it. I would have great issue for example, if, living under it, I could not join the military and defend my land.

I also believe athesists have every right to live under a government that does not use religion as its basis. General human rights are sufficient to run any country.

But yes, here, in a secular country, we can disagree.

In “Islamland”, were I Muslim, then changed my belief after reading a history book, I could be put to death. No?

 

[Emad]

iamrefreshed:

I understand the concept of dhimmintude but I disagree with it. I would have great issue for example, if, living under it, I could not join the military and defend my land.

I also believe athesists have every right to live under a government that does not use religion as its basis. General human rights are sufficient to run any country.

But yes, here, in a secular country, we can disagree.

In “Islamland”, were I Muslim, then changed my belief after reading a history book, I could be put to death. No?

In an Islamic state, you can join the army, but it isn’t compulsory on you, whereas on Muslims if they are asked to they must. I already answered the question about being killed for changing your faith. You won’t be killed just for changing your faith.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Emad:

In an Islamic state, you can join the army, but it isn’t compulsory on you, whereas on Muslims if they are asked to they must. I already answered the question about being killed for changing your faith. You won’t be killed just for changing your faith.

Sorry Emad, it really wasn’t a question so much as tongue in cheek. If I understood your answer correctly, I could be killed for apostacy IF I converted, and then tried to overcome the Islamic government.

My point was that if I were a Muslim, then say, read the US Constitution and said that is how all should live, then attempted to change the government, I could be killed.

 

[Emad]

iamrefreshed:

Sorry Emad, it really wasn’t a question so much as tongue in cheek. If I understood your answer correctly, I could be killed for apostacy IF I converted, and then tried to overcome the Islamic government.

My point was that if I were a Muslim, then say, read the US Constitution and said that is how all should live, then attempted to change the government, I could be killed.

Yes, just like most people living in a democracy would probably want to kill anyone who refuses democracy and wants to replace it with something else. Is all you guys care about is an Islamic state? Isn’t there anything else about Islam that interests you?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Emad:

Yes, just like most people living in a democracy would probably want to kill anyone who refuses democracy and wants to replace it with something else. Is all you guys care about is an Islamic state? Isn’t there anything else about Islam that interests you?

I doubt most living under democracy would resort to killing those not believing in democracy. We vote instead.

Islamic state was the topic so that’s what I addressed. No offense meant.

What interests me about Islam? To be honset, very little. I find the way it impacts world events facinating.

I know you say it is not Islam doing so but millions upon millions disagree with you. You say SA is not an Islamic state but 26 million Saudi’s say it is. And I do recall MARWAN correcting you once for stating that SA was not Islamic. You are being disingenuious when stating that.

Fact is I do not believe anything about it. Just like I don’t believe Hinduism, Wiccism or any other ism. I’m just trying to understand what other people do believe.

Believe me Emad, your fellow Muslims are as hardheaded as me and my fellow Catholics. We have to tell you we don’t worship Mary as much as you have tell us terrorist aren’t good Muslims.

Lighten up. Life really is good. Especially for a young man like you!

 

[cestusdei]

Dhimmitude is a horrible thing and a terrible insult. If we treated Muslims like that they would really have cause for complaint. Emad you wanted hadith here you go:

Bukhari volume 9 #17, 37, 57, 58, 64, 271

There you go. Several hadith. But look at the praxis in Islamic countries:

www.apostatesofislam.com

It also gives links to what REALLY happens to Christians who used to be Muslim. But do we need to prove anything? We KNOW what Muslims do and just saw it this week with Abdul. We now know that when Muslims say they don’t approve that means only till they establish and Islamic theocratic dictatorship where Christians will be treated as slaves. I refuse to be a dhimmi. You will have to kill me and in fact Muslims are trying to kill me. I remember that everytime I am in an airport.