'No compulsion in religiion' is not true in islam

[R_not]

It has been the goal of Islam from the get-go.

Define ‘aid’ in islam.

 

[Sister_Amy]

At least we agree on that. But it still wouldn’t help the dead apostate who was killed by some extremist who “claims” he is only fulfilling Islamic dictates.

No? The Prophet Muhammad (saws) said that he would be the defender of any non-Muslim abused by a Muslim. Muslims believe in absolute justice, that God is absolutely Just. If a person is wrongly killed, they will be recompensed.

For who? Under sharia law no one, Muslim or non-Muslim can criticize Muhammad, the Quran or sharia law.

Really? Who made up that rule? R_not? That’s silly, that’s not Shari’ah. The whole purpose of Shari’ah is to establish justice. By definition, there is no oppresion, for anyone.

Yawn. I don’t have freedom of speech here. What a joke. Freedom of speech.

And what’s to keep the Islamic government from imposing their rules on non-Muslims. They’re already trying it in Indonesia.

The very fact that it’s an Islamic government. I.e., ISLAM.

Sorry, but I find sharia law extremely oppressive and want nothing to do with it. I pray that God will protect our country from it and protect those currently made to suffer under it elsewhere in the world.

Well I like Shari’ah (the real one, not the make-believe one you believe in), and if I ever see it established somewhere, God willing, I will try to move there.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Here’s another example of “no compulsion in religion”. I apologize if someone has already posted this man’s story.

This man’s “attack on Islam” was apparently possessing a Bible. THIS type of garbage is why I dislike Islam and sharia law. I have no problem with Muslims praying or how they do it etc., but it’s the abuse of human rights and the plan to implement this garbage everywhere that really irritates me.

Maybe some of the Muslims here who love sharia law can visit this gentleman in prison and quote him the Quran where there is no compulsion in religion and explain to him how sharia law is not oppressive.

Edit: OK, I just read that this man was released (probably because of the publicity of his case) and went to Italy. So our Muslim friends here will have to go to Italy to discuss the wonderful non-oppressive aspects of sharia law with him there.

There needs to be a premise at the foundation of your argument, and your premise is fault. Your very base assumption, that Afghanistan is following Shari’ah, is false.

 

[ralphinal]

Did you not know that Muslims are being killed in the Sudan also? Did you know that Muslims are being killed in Gaza? And starved? And blown up? Didn’t you know that Muslims are being oppressed in Indonesia also?

I for one am pretty pissed to see that money meant to buy medicine for sick people in Gaza, or for food, actually went to go buy more stupid rockets. What can I do about it? What can you do about it? Sending more money isn’t solving the problem is it? People have been throwing money at Darfur for years–it’s not solving the problem, is it?

Throwing money at Israel isn’t solving the problem either, by the way.

So I’ll tell you what I am doing–it is the only thing I can do, and something I feel responsible for, and that is spreading the message of Islam, to anyone who will listen.

Going backwards, I respect you for doing that. i admire you for doing something.

Now, about the other. I guess there is nothing we can do. If mainstream Muslims are going to let radicals and dicators decide how life is in these nations, so be it.

Do you have any suggestions? The only reason that it matters is that it involves humanity. If it did not, I could care less.

 

[Jay53]

Really? Who made up that rule? R_not? That’s silly, that’s not Shari’ah. The whole purpose of Shari’ah is to establish justice. By definition, there is no oppresion, for anyone.

Did you not read the whole quote? The bottom half was quoted from The Reliance of the Traveller which I thought was a book about the Sacred Laws in Islam. Perhaps I am mistaken?

Here are the classical legal rulings.

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’

Yawn. I don’t have freedom of speech here. What a joke. Freedom of speech.

There’s an effective argument.

The very fact that it’s an Islamic government. I.e., ISLAM.

Hello? That’s my point. Under the Islamic government they are trying to enforce their rules on NON-MUSLIMS!!!

Well I like Shari’ah (the real one, not the make-believe one you believe in), and if I ever see it established somewhere, God willing, I will try to move there.

Good Luck! I honestly wish you well with that. If there are no countries today implementing what you think is the “real” sharia law, then I doubt it will come about. I would venture to say that the Taliban and other such groups believe they are accurately implementing it.

I’m honestly praying that it doesn’t get established here and that God will protect everyone in the world from it.

 

[Jay53]

There needs to be a premise at the foundation of your argument, and your premise is fault. Your very base assumption, that Afghanistan is following Shari’ah, is false.

Are you saying this man was not punished under Sharia law - that he was prosecuted/going to be prosecuted under un-Islamic laws? If so, would he have even been arrested under sharia law for possessing a Bible or converting?

My understanding was the Afghan government follows Hanafi jurisprudence which is one of the five schools of sharia law. Are you saying that these laws this man was accused of breaking fall outside this law?

 

[Jay53]

Well I like Shari’ah (the real one, not the make-believe one you believe in), and if I ever see it established somewhere, God willing, I will try to move there.

You’re in luck. Iran and Saudi Arabia say they fully implement sharia law.

Do traditional sharia laws continue to apply in modern countries?
Yes. Most Middle Eastern countries continue to incorporate some traditional sharia into their legal codes, especially in the area of personal-status law, which governs marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In other areas of the law, such as the criminal code, most Islamic nations have attempted to limit the application of traditional sharia, replacing it either with secular legislation or with laws characterized as modern interpretations of sharia. **Iran and Saudi Arabia are exceptions–they claim to fully implement sharia in all areas of the law. **In general, each nation’s legal code is unique and reflects a variety of historical and cultural influences, experts say. Many Middle Eastern legal codes, for example, have their roots in the Napoleonic law system and the Ottoman Empire, Brown says. cfr.org/publication/8034/#5

 

[Jay53]

Do you have any suggestions? The only reason that it matters is that it involves humanity. If it did not, I could care less.

I have to say I agree with this. If people weren’t suffering under these governments or there wasn’t this active goal to spread sharia everywhere I would say “live and let live.”

 

[Sister_Amy]

Did you not read the whole quote? The bottom half was quoted from The Reliance of the Traveller which I thought was a book about the Sacred Laws in Islam. Perhaps I am mistaken?

Eh, that’s an over-simplified way of describing it, I think. But if you look at the quote, it’s talking about Muslims only… not anyone else, right? It’s basically describing what violates a person’s Islam. I don’t see a problem with it.

Hello? That’s my point. Under the Islamic government they are trying to enforce their rules on NON-MUSLIMS!!!

I thought it was common knowledge, though I guess it’s not, that Islamic governments are for Muslims. Obviously. Or isn’t that obvious??

Good Luck! I honestly wish you well with that. If there are no countries today implementing what you think is the “real” sharia law, then I doubt it will come about. I would venture to say that the Taliban and other such groups believe they are accurately implementing it.

I’m honestly praying that it doesn’t get established here and that God will protect everyone in the world from it.

Of course there are no countries today implementing real Shari’ah. That’s the problem, all the Muslim countries are horribly corrupt. No scholar of Islam would suggest that the Taliban or any group like them is properly implementing Shari’ah.

Just about every Muslim in the world is praying that Shari’ah can be established for the Muslims somewhere. So you can pray for corruption, and evil, and wickedness to reign, but I will be praying for justice and truth.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Are you saying this man was not punished under Sharia law - that he was prosecuted/going to be prosecuted under un-Islamic laws? If so, would he have even been arrested under sharia law for possessing a Bible or converting?

My understanding was the Afghan government follows Hanafi jurisprudence which is one of the five schools of sharia law. Are you saying that these laws this man was accused of breaking fall outside this law?

I am saying that Shari’ah is not properly applied in Afghanistan! Not Hanafi fiqh or any other kind of fiqh. The law is corrupted, the whole system is corrupted. There is no Shari’ah applied anywhere. So he can’t have been prosecuted by it. He was prosecuted by a corrupt and twisted legal system that was not Islam.

 

[dzheremi]

You’re linking two unrelated ideas. First of all, let me say that there is at present no Islamic state, no khalifah. Your terrorists/fighters/extremists don’t intend to establish worldwide islamic government to rule all of you.

How do you figure, with all the talk from radical organizations about doing just that? The infidel lands coming under the rule of Allah or what have you? Please don’t make me have to actually read the sort of websites that R_not is usually posting to find exact citations. I’ll do it, but I feel like you must know that this sort of idea is out there, and has some currency with a certain kind of Muslim.

They do, however, probably want to establish a khalifah, which is NOT the same thing. All Muslims want a khalifah. I do. And to be honest with you, I am working in my way toward that end. But not to rule the world, subjugate non-Muslim or any of that other non-sense that you might have heard. Rather, the purpose of a khalifah is to rule the Muslims. To protect the Muslims.

This I do not agree with. I have read plenty of first-hand accounts from Christians in Lebanon, Syria, etc. who lived under the Ottomans, and not one of them remarked as to the rulers’ “protective” nature. Quite the opposite, in fact. While it may be the primary aim of the khalifa to protect Muslims, that “protection” generally has a negative effect on non-Muslims, as they are taken by their very existence to be a threat to the Islamic state. Were it not the case, Christians would not have been martyred in Andalucia for daring to upset the social order by not following the code of conduct that was incumbent upon them as dhimmis in Islamic Spain, for instance. Islamic government DOES to a certain extent rest upon supressing the human rights of non-Muslims who have the misfortune to live in the lands that Muslims have come to rule (generally by force). That you can pretend it doesn’t is really kind of astounding.

I don’t think any Muslim can see what has happened in Gaza, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, or in Iraq, and not wish that there was someone to protect all these people! A khilafah is the answer to that. Not to rule non-Muslims, but only to rule the Muslims.

Again, then why is it that when governments attempt to rule Islamically it always effects the minorities negatively? Do you really believe that this is just a coincidence, and perhaps the Christians of the Middle East are just immigrating because they’d suddenly rather live in Sweden, USA, etc.?

Now, an Islamic state would be one with a khalifah. An Islamic state, not Islamic planet, mind you. Ruling the lands where the Muslims are living… i.e., Islamic state. There is no Islamic state today. However, the matter of Islamic state is not the issue.

Can we agree that whether or not the government can qualify as an “Islamic” one in classical terminology (and you’re right, I should not have brought the term “khalifa” into this; I’m sorry), there are at least many places in the world where the government claims to rule Islamically, and that in those places the religious minorities are generally the least protected and the most persecuted? I mean, I don’t know what else you would call the treatment of the Christians in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia…

When Muhammad (saws) was alive, anyone who became a Muslim pledged allegiance to his state, to his leadership, or to the leadership of successive khulafah after him. That does not happen anymore. People become Muslim without pledging allegiance to any government. That’s why then, an apostasy meant treason. Today it doesn’t.

I see. Thank you.

Self-slaughter, by which I’ll assume you mean suicide, is forbidden in Islam.

I did not mention martyrdom, not one bit. I said oppression is worse than slaughter. Meaning that injustice, the oppression of people against their will and the usurping of their rights, is even worse than killing.

Wonderful. Can I ask you then if you would support a sovereign and not Islamically or Arab aligned Assyrian state within the borders of the traditional Assyrian homeland (northern Iraq, Urmia plateau of Iran, Syria, and southeastern Anatolia), or the same for the Christians of southern Sudan?

 

[Sister_Amy]

I have to say I agree with this. If people weren’t suffering under these governments or there wasn’t this active goal to spread sharia everywhere I would say “live and let live.”

The reason we want to implement Shari’ah (for Muslims, in Muslim lands, I’ll reiterate) is because we want to END the suffering, the cruelty, the injustice, and the oppression.

 

[neploho]

I am saying that Shari’ah is not properly applied in Afghanistan! Not Hanafi fiqh or any other kind of fiqh. The law is corrupted, the whole system is corrupted. There is no Shari’ah applied anywhere. So he can’t have been prosecuted by it. He was prosecuted by a corrupt and twisted legal system that was not Islam.

I think most serious individuals who are well read in the area (Bernard Lewis comes to mind) would say that, for the most part, religious tolerance in the Islamic world was quite superior to anywhere before the advent of secularism in Europe. However despite the progressive stance of traditional Islam on religious minorities its progressiveness seems relative to the draconian practices in Christendom, true religious freedom, as seen in most modern secular republics, did not exist. Would you say the traditional fiqh has put religious minorities in a position of structural inequality to Muslims citizens? I don’t so much mean Jizyah as the court systems, prohibition on proselytizing (although Muslims proselytizing religious minorities is permitted), not being able to build a taller house than a Muslim neighbor et cetera?

I think it takes a lot of hutzpa for Christians to lecture Muslim on religious tolerance but I do think nonetheless there can be serious reservations about the position religious minorities would occupy under Islamic rule.

How would you respond to this?

 

[R_not]

No? The Prophet Muhammad (saws) said that he would be the defender of any non-Muslim abused by a Muslim. Muslims believe in absolute justice, that God is absolutely Just. If a person is wrongly killed, they will be recompensed.

Really? Who made up that rule? R_not? That’s silly, that’s not Shari’ah. The whole purpose of Shari’ah is to establish justice. By definition, there is no oppresion, for anyone.

Yawn. I don’t have freedom of speech here. What a joke. Freedom of speech.

 

[R_not]

The reason we want to implement Shari’ah (for Muslims, in Muslim lands, I’ll reiterate) is because we want to END the suffering, the cruelty, the injustice, and the oppression.

This is just inane. The worst human rights abuses happen in muslim countries.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Many Islamists claim that the UDHR is an attempt to force western standards and ideals on to others who do not share them. But abuse of human rights cannot be excused by cultural relativism. If we believe that everyone has the right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness then we must oppose any system that seeks to deny those rights to others. To accept religion, culture or tradition as a justification for human rights abuses is to discriminate against the abused and to send the message that the victims are undeserving of humane consideration.

Perhaps the most unsavory aspect of Islamic law from a human rights perspective is the severity of the punishments it prescribes. Like the most prurient voyeur, the Sharia pries into every aspect of private life and condemns with the utmost violence any conduct that fails to conform to its narrow standards of acceptable “family” behavior. Adultery, or indeed any behavior that fails to conform, is punishable by flogging, amputation or stoning to death. Homosexuality, too, is forbidden and punishable by flogging, sometimes to death. To add to the inhumane nature of the executions, they are frequently carried out in public – to act as a warning to others.

woman’s rights and sharia

…women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance. Her position is less advantageous than a man’s with regard to marriage and divorce. A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Sharia.

Why is it that you continue to accept stuff that goes against the facts of the matter?

 

[Jay53]

Eh, that’s an over-simplified way of describing it, I think. But if you look at the quote, it’s talking about Muslims only… not anyone else, right? It’s basically describing what violates a person’s Islam. I don’t see a problem with it.

You don’t see a problem with murdering someone because they criticize Muhammad? Seriously?

And it doesn’t just apply to Muslims. Here’s the rest of that part of the article:
Sorry I forgot to post the link before.

The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience. americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

I thought it was common knowledge, though I guess it’s not, that Islamic governments are for Muslims. Obviously. Or isn’t that obvious??

I’m beginning to think you don’t actually read the posts here. The story I quoted was an Islamic government in Indonesia forcing Islamic rules on NON-MUSLIMS. If Islamic governments are supposed to be for Muslims only, why are they forcing their rules on non-muslims. Or, are you actually saying that these people should be Muslim or move?

Of course there are no countries today implementing real Shari’ah. That’s the problem, all the Muslim countries are horribly corrupt. No scholar of Islam would suggest that the Taliban or any group like them is properly implementing Shari’ah.

Just about every Muslim in the world is praying that Shari’ah can be established for the Muslims somewhere. So you can pray for corruption, and evil, and wickedness to reign, but I will be praying for justice and truth.

Where in the world did you get that I am praying for corruption, evil and wickedness? I’m actually praying for the spreading of Christ’s kingdom here on earth. I pray for the conversion of all sinners - that everyone, including myself and all Christians (because we can all strive to be better people) will come to know God’s love and peace through Jesus, our Savior.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sura 3:54 "and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers "

Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”

Qur’an 66:2 " Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows."

Qur’an 5:41 “Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. **Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them.” **

Qur’an 40:32 "O my People! I fear a Day when there will be mutual wailing. No one shall defend you against Allah. Any whom Allah causes to err, there is no guide. That is how Allah leads the skeptic astray."

These verses contradict the very nature of God that we know of. Whoever and whatever Allah is as being mentioned there, it is surely NOT God. The entity that deceives, dissolves obligations, breaks vows, hides the truth because he wants to disgrace and torture and purposely wants to lead unbelievers astray, is certainly not God. It could be anything else but certainly NOT God. The verses have put wrong representation on who and what God is.

 

[Sister_Amy]

You’re in luck. Iran and Saudi Arabia say they fully implement sharia law.

I guess you haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve been saying after all. There is no country on earth that implements Shari’ah fully. None. Not even Iran (which is Shi’a anyway and includes practices not a part of Islam in the first place), or Saudi Arabia (which is more tribal than islam!)

Not even the scholars of Saudi Arabia will say that Saudi Arabia fully implements Islam, i.e., Shari’ah. They do more than most places, but they are corrupt in many ways too.

 

[Jay53]

I guess you haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve been saying after all. There is no country on earth that implements Shari’ah fully. None. Not even Iran (which is Shi’a anyway and includes practices not a part of Islam in the first place), or Saudi Arabia (which is more tribal than islam!)

Not even the scholars of Saudi Arabia will say that Saudi Arabia fully implements Islam, i.e., Shari’ah. They do more than most places, but they are corrupt in many ways too.

I posted that before your explanation about the corruption in all Muslim countries.

 

[sdtouchton]

Isaiah 29:13, Colossians 2:8, James 1:27, Titus 3:9.Please read this