Mariwan Halabjayee flees fatwa

[Emad]

iamrefreshed:

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

I doubt it too, however I don’t doubt that the government would if there was a serious threat to their power. It’s something normal, every government wants to protect it’s ways and beliefs, the Islamic state included.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Emad:

I doubt it too, however I don’t doubt that the government would if there was a serious threat to their power. It’s something normal, every government wants to protect it’s ways and beliefs, the Islamic state included.

No doubt a government would react when its core freedoms are threatened. Take WWII as an example. Never was there a more just war.

But the fact remains that under a democracy people are granted religious freedom, under Islamic rule people are granted religious tolerance.

You cannot tell me that you would like it if you were the dhimmi in a “Catholic State”.

There is a very wide chasm between freedom and tolerance.

 

[discipleofJesus]

Emad,

Aren’t you going to explain the Sahih Hadiths that cestusdei referrenced?

You claimed that “Islam doesn’t call for killing all apostates, only some”. So explain to us these Hadiths then. After reading these Hadiths, it seems pretty clear that Islam does call for the killing of all apostates of Islam.

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.”

 

[Emad]

Emad,

Aren’t you going to explain the Sahih Hadiths that cestusdei referrenced?

I will only if you smile

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…”

I have researched this hadith and if you get the book of the explanation of Sahih Bukhari, Ibn Hajr may Allah have mercy on him makes it clear that this man was judged by Muadh and was given a period of 20 days, were he his case was being looked into as to why he left Islam, then Muadh decided to kill him. Also let’s assume that they did kill him unjustly (which I don’t think they did), they are companions and are not immune to mistakes.

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.’”

Zandiqa aren’t atheists, a zindiq is someone who calls themselves Muslim and enter Islam to misguide people. There were many of them in Islamic history, many gave themselves the title of being a scholar, then they would teach people wrong things about Islam. Few of them were killed, but such people were labeled as zindiq. Thus they entered Islam with the intention of misguiding and misinforming others. Also if I remember correctly such people whom Ali burnt were calling him a God. They claimed that they were Muslims, but they worshiped Ali himself. And he told them if they don’t stop he will burn them, so they said to him “The Prophet said only Allah can punish with fire, and you said you will punish us with fire, so you must be God” Thus he burnt them. It doesn’t mean it was right.

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.”

Most of the scholars of Islam agree that the Prophet peace be upon him was talking about the Khawiraj. They claimed to be Muslims but they used to kill the Prophets companions. They also considered anyone who commits a major sin to be a non-Muslim.

These people also never claimed to not be Muslim, here is another hadith about them:

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 65:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Yasar:

That they visited Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and asked him about Al-Harauriyya, a special unorthodox religious sect, “Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about them?” Abu Sa’id said, "I do not know what Al-Harauriyya is, but I heard the Prophet saying, “There will appear in this nation---- he did not say: From this nation ---- a group of people so pious apparently that you will consider your prayers inferior to their prayers, but they will recite the Quran, the teachings of which will not go beyond their throats and will go out of their religion as an arrow darts through the game, whereupon the archer may look at his arrow, its Nasl at its Risaf and its Fuqa to see whether it is blood-stained or not (i.e. they will have not even a trace of Islam in them).”

These people’s were just destroying Islam and claiming to be Muslims. Thus I don’t know why you listed this hadith, as they never claimed to not be Muslims, but I am happy you listed it, as it shows that anyone who makes mischeif in an Islamic state will be killed, even if they claim to be Muslims.

 

[Godfrey]

iamrefreshed:

No doubt a government would react when its core freedoms are threatened. Take WWII as an example. Never was there a more just war.

But the fact remains that under a democracy people are granted religious freedom, under Islamic rule people are granted religious tolerance.

You cannot tell me that you would like it if you were the dhimmi in a “Catholic State”.

There is a very wide chasm between freedom and tolerance.

This is one of the things that caused me to not accept Islam

To not be able to publicly voice dissent against even this principle of not being a full citizen alone and of being a second class one that is marginally tolerated, taxed specifically because they are not a Muslim, having to “contract” to even hope to practice your faith as you always had, to have all of your actions and ideals scrutinized under the lense of Islam, etc - where the state and the religion are one and the same - is not about equality of persons, but equality of Muslims. In Islam one is singled out for not choosing Islam and held to a different standard

Islam is submission, not freedom

I grant there are many good things to submit to, but whereas Christianity states that all have freewill to believe or disbelieve and will be accountable to their Maker in the end, freedom in Ye’shua is a voluntary submission
There is no coersion to the believer, nor are unbelievers to be treated differently in society

 

[randel]

Godfrey:

Islam is submission, not freedom.

I disagree with the above statement, with all due respect.

Because first, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Man is not even given total free will by his Creator. We are given only limited freedom. Only God has absolute free Will.

Second, to enjoy our limited freedom, you have to submit to either God’s laws through your faith or your country’s secular laws through your commitment and loyalty to your country/society.

If you don’t submit yourself to any of these you cannot enjoy the limited freedom unless you want to live in a totally issolated place disconnecting yourself from collective human society. But even then you have to work hard to survive and provide yourself and cannot achieve anything you wish. Again you are not totally free and you have to submit to the issolated circumstances you are in.

Thus the bottom line is, you ought to submit one way or the other in order to enjoy your limited freedom.

There was a time when most Christians were under the Church’s law. Then for various reasons people rescued themselves from Church and since then they are “free” from Church. But this freedom now requires another form of submission, and that submission is they must work constantly to restore, maintain and prolong secularism in order to enjoy the freedom from Church they gained after a long struggle.

Whenever people feel there is a dangeour to this secularism, they do react and their governments even wage war such as in Afghanistan when Communists invaded it, or in Vietnam ect… And no secular Christian government can sleep comfortably until countries like Russia is tore down into pieces and pose no real threat. To achieve this goal they even break their own priniciples by supporting their staunch enemy such as mujahideen of Afghanistan or Shias or Saddam.

As you can see, freedom does require submission. In other words no submission, no freedom.

 

[randel]

“If there is no God then you have to invent Him”.

 

[Godfrey]

It is voluntary submission - I already said that
We submit not because we are told to, but because we are being transformed

We are given free will and our lives will be fruitful in so much as we voluntarily conform our will to Christ’s

The Law was rules and regulations - do this, don’t do that all spelled out

We are in a process of transformation that will be complete at the Resurrection.

God is capable of making me do anything if he wanted to - but He has given me the CHOICE to believe and when I make that choice, I will submit and gain a greater freedom than I had before

I am talking more along spiritual lines, not submitting to governments, which we are told to do in so much as conscience dictates

I may have limited freedom to effect actions in the world, but I have total freedom in my heart - my heart will produce good or evil of its own accord - it also enjoys liberty in Christ

I never used the term absolute freedom nor invoked that concept
I really don’t feel you are understanding what I was getting at - but no matter

Thanks for your comments

Peace

 

[cestusdei]

Mischief…Muslims like to use that word to mean exercising freedom. Believe it or not if someone leaves Islam and then preaches and works against that is still no reason to kill him. It is a human right to choose ones religion or even to combat ones former religion. You don’t agree with that emad. Under your caliph I would certainly be beheaded. You would not mind that one bit. I still haven’t seen you renounce the idea of killing apostates. But I am grateful that this thread has shown the duplicity of Islam. As more come to realize this the chances we will end up dhimmi diminish.

 

[randel]

Godfrey:

We are given free will and our lives will be fruitful in so much as we voluntarily conform our will to Christ’s

---

I may have limited freedom to effect actions in the world, but I have total freedom in my heart - my heart will produce good or evil of its own accord - it also enjoys liberty in Christ

Your total freedom at your heart is not really recognised by Christ.

Please read Matthew 23. Yeshua did not say “Alright Scribes/Pharisees! you are free to do whatever you like. Keep doing what you are doing”. No, he condemn them, though they knew very well what the Law and the Prophets say as such had taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

I doubt you know more than those Scribes/Pharisees because even Jesus had attested their expertise in the religious knowledge by saying: “Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.”

Then he moved on to condemn them in the strongest terms that no one can take his words as a CHOICE given as “voluntary submission”.

Thus Christ admonished the people to follow the good doctrine, not the bad example of the scribes and Pharisees. He warned his disciples not to imitate their ambition and denounces divers woes against them for their hypocrisy and their blindness/ignorance.

In fact *submission is the only Way for Eternal life * and true kiship with Christ. (Matthew 19:17 and Matthew 12:50)

And don’t forget: “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mathew 5:17-20)

 

[Godfrey]

Jn 8 :32 “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

This is the freedom I am talking about

You seem to be wanting to debate me about something, but you are arguing with youself

What did Jesus mean by this?
Answer that question and you will understand what I am talking about.

Romans 6 :18 “Being then made free from sin, you became the slaves of righteousness.”

and this is the submission I am talking about

I do have total freedom in my heart - IN CHRIST
no more, no less

If you want to debate understand what I am saying, please before attempting to do so

 

[randel]

Godfrey:

I do have total freedom in my heart - IN CHRIST
no more, no less

Before believing in Christ, you do have total freedom in your heart. But once you believe in Christ, you don’t.

Because believing in anything (not just Christ) requires some conviction and commitments. And it takes away some or lot of your “total freedom”, depending upon how much is your conviction and how serious you are in your commitment.

And obviously any commitment or conviction, just in theory means nothing. It must manifest in practice and in the actions of the one who is committed.

Merely saying I am committed like a parrot is not enough. Thus Christ abundently made it clear in clarifying this simple truth by saying “that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mathew 5:17)

This is the truth that Jesus again and again talking about in different ways (throughout the Gospels). He did not say “alright, just know what is the Law and the Prophets (that I came not to abolish) and be totally free at your heart whether to follow it or not. Just believe in me and you are saved”. No, he did not say this. He said you will never enter into the Kingdom of heaven, unless your righeousness/deeds are better than the scribes and Pharisees.

And I am sure you know who were the scribes and Pharisees? If not, here is their introduction, as per DR Bible:

The scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses.
The Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people.

If these doctors of the law of Moses and great esteemed people are condemnable then what do you think Christ would have said about any person who doesn’t even recognise or feel the neccessity to follow the Law and the Prophets? You don’t need a doctor of Divinity to understand this simple truth.

Did Christ say that 'I came to destroy the law and the Prophets, so from now on you all are totally free at your heart and outside your hearts as well"?

Had he said this or given a slightest indication to this effect, do you think his enemy Jews still would have been after his life?
Had he said this or atleast kept his message to himself, no one would ever have bothered himeslef to take Christ seriously and the most people would have regard him as an another scribe or a pharisee or a priest.

You qouted a verse from Romans. But remember, Christ is Christ and Paul is Paul.

While Jesus was warning scribes and the Pharisees with his strongest words and condemning them, woeing them; what Paul was doing at that time/period?

 

[Godfrey]

I am not talking about Scribes and Pharisees
You are
I am talking about me and what the Sacred Scriptures say about MY condition.

Galatians 5:1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

So, actually, before we were saved, we were NOT free and now we are.

Just what is it you are objecting to in a nutshell, your point seems to keep changing its form?

 

[randel]

Godfrey:

I am not talking about Scribes and Pharisees
You are
I am talking about me and what the Sacred Scriptures say about MY condition.

Galatians 5:1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

And I am talking about what master (Christ) said and meant when he condemned the most esteemed people (scribes and the Pharisees) of his time.

And you are talking what Paul said by qouting from Romans and Galatians.

What is Christianity without Christ, anyway?

What is Paul, if Christ and his words did not exist?

Paul is Paul. Christ is Christ.

No Christ, no Christianity.

No Paul, nothing happens to Christ’s message and Christ still remains Christ.

While Paul was persecuting Christ’s beloved followers, Christ still managed to make people his followers and their ‘Christianity’ was obviously without the books/letters written by Paul that you are now qouting to justify your ideas/understanding.

Are you thinking that the Christianity of Jesus’ beloved followers some how not true Christinity because books/letters of Paul such as Romans, Galations did not exist at that time because Paul was busy at that time killing/persecuting Christ’s beloved followers?

 

[Godfrey]

what are you babbling about?

Don’t put words and ideas in my mouth

I am free in Christ (freedom)
I am a slave by choice (submission)
amen
anything else?

I said nothing about Paul, I quoted a Pauline scripture
I am not pitting Jesus vs Paul or any such nonsense

Just EXACTLY what is it that is rubbing you the wrong way here?
You really don’t seem to be understanding what I have been saying

 

[Godfrey]

You seem to think I am advocating some sort of “do anything you please” freedom
I am not
I never said or implied any such thing

What’s the issue here?

 

[cestusdei]

Godfrey,
Muslims have an aversion to St. Paul. Actually it is an extension of there aversion to Christ. I think that is what is behind this.

 

[Godfrey]

Well, if that is the case, the “argument” is moot, because Muslims do not believe that the NT Gospels are the real Injeel/gospel that Ye’shua preached anyway.

so - sheeesh!

It also shows an obvious lack of understanding as to what Christianity truly holds true

They haven’t experienced it!

Thanks for cluing me in - I thought I was talking to a Christian believer

No wonder my head was spinning!

 

[discipleofJesus]

Emad,

Thank you for your explanation of these Hadiths . Here is my response

Emad:

I have researched this hadith and if you get the book of the explanation of Sahih Bukhari, Ibn Hajr may Allah have mercy on him makes it clear that this man was judged by Muadh and was given a period of 20 days, were he his case was being looked into as to why he left Islam, then Muadh decided to kill him. Also let’s assume that they did kill him unjustly (which I don’t think they did), they are companions and are not immune to mistakes.

With all due respect, the Hadith says nothing about a 20 day period of looking into the case and even if it did it doesn’t make it much better. Also, you have missed the main point of my quote which is not the story but that the “judgment of Allah and His Apostle” is that if a “Jew” “became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism” he is to be “killed”.

Emad:

Zandiqa aren’t atheists, a zindiq is someone who calls themselves Muslim and enter Islam to misguide people. There were many of them in Islamic history, many gave themselves the title of being a scholar, then they would teach people wrong things about Islam. Few of them were killed, but such people were labeled as zindiq. Thus they entered Islam with the intention of misguiding and misinforming others. Also if I remember correctly such people whom Ali burnt were calling him a God. They claimed that they were Muslims, but they worshiped Ali himself. And he told them if they don’t stop he will burn them, so they said to him “The Prophet said only Allah can punish with fire, and you said you will punish us with fire, so you must be God” Thus he burnt them. It doesn’t mean it was right.

Again, you missed the main point of my quote of this Hadith. The main point wasn’t the story, but was “the statement of Allah’s Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him”.

 

[randel]

Godfrey:

what are you babbling about?

Don’t put words and ideas in my mouth

I am free in Christ (freedom)
I am a slave by choice (submission)
amen
anything else?

I said nothing about Paul, I quoted a Pauline scripture
I am not pitting Jesus vs Paul or any such nonsense

But when I qouted what Christ said in very clear terms, you qouted Paul. And then I said to you, Christ is Christ and Paul is Paul. No Christ, no Christianity.

Thus anything that goes against the clear words of Christ is not Christian thus what Paul said is not an extension to Christ’s teachings but totally against what Christ said in abundently clear words and with his strongest condemnation that Matthew devoted a whole chapter (# 23).

Now, let me recap few things:

In theory may be you are free, in your mind. But practically and rationally you are not and not supposed to be free the moment either you realise that you are a follower or Christ or want to follow Christ.

What raelly makes a difference between a Christ-follower (Christan) and a non-Christian?

Obviously, the title of ‘Christian’ deserve only for those who follow what Christ asked them/demanded from them.

All others who do not recognise Christ are free in their mind. There is no obligation on them from their perspective to follow Christ.

Let’s say an Aborigine of Australia, who never heard a word about Christ, is he not totally free, from his perspective?

And there are millions of people who don’t even know what the very word ‘Bible’ means and what was Jesus’ mission and who was Saul. Are they not free, from their angle? Ofcourse they too are “totally free”, as far as following any faith other than their is concerned.

But all these, whatever faith/commitment they have are not totally free, either. They too, the moment they think/realise they are Buddhists or Jews etc., they are bound by certain convictions and commitments in order to be called a Buddhist or a Jew.

So the notion that you are free in Christ is a deception. You cannot be a totally free man with or without Christ.

You are made to believe that your are “free” from the so-called “understanding” imposed by people other than Christ, in his name.

If you ignore the neccessity of following the Law and the Prophets and obligation of being a righteous you will never enter the Kingdom of God. The more you agree and follow this principle and article of faith imposed by Christ, the higher your level/grade in the Eternal life.

Christ did not come to free you from the bondage of Divine law and the Prophets nor to destroy them but to put you within the bounderies of the Divine law of God. Anyone who disagree with this fact uttered by Christ, is anything but Christ-follower.

Now fancy words like slave of Law, saved by choice or freed in Christ, mean nothing!.

Christ was not a philosopher. He did not come to teach you philosophy or fancy words or entertain you with his miracles or wonders to amuse his people. He had a firm mission and great responsibility to hold his people in the boundage of Divine Law of God. The purpose of Law is it’s application in daily life and being righeous.

You don’t need any extra help of people like Paul to understand basic and simple words uttered by Christ. Followers of Chirst who lived and died before Paul’s “vision” on the Damascus road, were Chriatians too and saved. They did not hear or seek “wisdom” of Saul from his books/letters (such as Romans or Phillipians or Galatians).

People are not merely judged by their theortical views but also what they do and practice. Do you agree with Pope Boniface VIII who was reported to have said:

The Christian religion is a human invention like the faith of the Jews and the Arabs;
The dead will rise just as little as my horse which died yesterday;
Mary, when she bore Christ, was just as little a virgin as my own mother when she gave birth to me;
Sex and the satisfaction of natural drives is as little a sin as hand washing;
Paradise and hell only exist on earth; the healthy, rich and happy people live in the earthly paradise, the poor and the sick are in the earthly hell;
The world will exist forever, only we do not;
Any religion and especially Christianity does not only contain some truth, but also many errors. The long list of Christian untruth includes trinity, the virgin birth, the godly nature of Jesus, the eucharistic transformation of bread and wine into the body of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII

If you disagree with the above, why?