Pray for Abdul Rahmen

[Muslim]

chb03c:

Pro,

I think the original discussion of this thread was, by using Doctorine and Scripture of both Islam and Christianity, weather or not Islam has a just system of handling people who Convert. While it might be true that some Christians in the past have committed acts of violence. It is not true to say the religion of Christianity accepts theses acts. Since there is no doctorine or scripture passage that supports it. However according to the source posted by inJesus www.islamonline.net Islam(or a denomination of Islam) does indorse the killing of converts to another religion. I believe this was pointed out very clearly with sources. The witch hunt document that you posted was discredited due to the web site you were using. This was pointed out clearly as well in the above posts. In conclusion Christianity does not support the killing of converts to another religion, however according to islam.net Islam does accept this teaching.

–

*No verse in the Qur’an explicitly states that there is an earthly penalty for apostasy. The Qur’an states that apostasy happens and that Allah despises it. See verses 2:256, 3:72, 3:90, 4:48, 4:137 and 5:54 which deal with apostasy directly and which do not prescribe any earthly punishment or death.

The verses (as translated by Yusuf Ali) are:

* "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Sura 2:256)

* "Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way." (Sura 4:137)

* "O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things." (Sura 5:54)

The quotation from Surah An-Nisa’, 4:137, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy. The most straight-forward interpretation of the Qur’anic injunction that there is no compulsion in religion seems to be at odds with the death penalty as well, and leads Qur’an only Muslims to reject any legal or other human sanctions against apostates.*​

the more you know…
and yes some people were executed because of apostasy and the reason is that, it was a religious war and a religious empire. apostasy meant treasony… most countries still carry the death penalty for treason.

 

[Contarini]

pro_universal:

It is, but not one that should automatically lead us to the conclusion that Islam is somehow inherently more violent than Christianity towards apostacy.

I’m hesitant to say “inherently.” I will say only that currently they are having more problems renouncing that tradition.

I do think it makes a difference that Christians did not have access to the machinery of coercion for their first three centuries. It’s probably pointless to argue over whether this is a fortunate historical coincidence only or if there is something about Christianity that is inherently less wedded to the use of force than Islam. I think the latter, but I don’t think it’s easy to make a substantive argument on either side. The more tangible fact is that Christianity’s sacred texts were formed in circumstances that make it easier for Christians to renounce the use of force. And that in fact an idea of holy war did not receive the full support of the Western Church until the second millenium of Christian history (not to say that the Church had not sanctioned wars and persecutions before, but there had always been some ambivalence).

Christian violence is primarily (not exclusively) a second-millenium phenomenon. One could even argue, if one wanted, that the harsher tone of second-millenium Christianity derived at least in part from the experience of Muslim aggression, especially the devastating raids throughout the Mediterranean in the later centuries of the first millenium. That would be pushing the evidence a bit, but it’s not a completely implausible argument.

I would say that an honest look at history leads one to conclude that embracing religious freedom in the Christian world (at least in government) was the product of centuries of religious violence, followed by radical secularization. I think it’s quite possibly the case that we are where we are in terms of religious freedom because we out-killed ourselves with religious intolerance.

That is the conventional way to look at it. Another approach is to say that the state came up with religious tolerance as a way of monopolizing coercive force and thus gaining complete control over every citizen, with no divided loyalties getting in the way. The secular state has proved to be more violent than the Church ever was.

And the products of secularization in the Christian world managed to rack up the largest death toll in recorded history not too long ago.

This is an inconsistent argument. If you think religious freedom is the result of secularization and thus the Church gets no credit, then you can’t turn around and blame Christianity for the violence of the 20th century. I would argue that the horrendous atrocities of the mid-20th century belie the idea that secularization is responsible for tolerance and a lack of violence.

Not only would I much rather be killed for my religion than for my race or my economic status, but on the whole, for all the viciousness of Christian violence, Christians are more likely to have some sense of mercy and restraint than secular ideologues. The religious violence of the early modern period was horrendous. But the more I study the period the more I’m struck by how selective and erratic it was. In large measure this was because of the inefficiency of the premodern state. But I think it also derived from the pervasive sense among Christians, even when they were engaging in vicious violence, that at the very best violence was an alien instrument to be used when absolutely necessary.

One final note–the most devastating of the religious wars, the “Thirty Years’ War,” actually marked the boundary between religious warfare and secular, national wars. One of the major belligerents was France, which was fighting on the “Protestant” side–and similarly many Lutheran territories fought on the “Catholic” side. The war was fueled by apocalyptic religious belief, but by the time it ended it had become to a great extent a secular conflict. (Of course, you could argue that France was already behaving in a “modern” way because it had been racked by the wars of religion a generation or so earlier, and thus had learned the futility of religious conflict. But then you have to take into account Louis XIV’s revocation of the Edict of Nantes at the end of the 17th century–arguably the last act of large-scale religious persecution in Europe.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

chb03c:

It is not true to say the religion of Christianity accepts theses acts. Since there is no doctorine or scripture passage that supports it.

That is not true. The Old Testament clearly supports it. And within Catholic tradition, several councils explicitly endorse religious persecution (though this has been rescinded by Vatican II). There was a doctrine in Catholicism that condemned religious freedom. Fortunately, it turned out not to be dogma and Catholicism has renounced it (or nuanced it away). That is one of the reasons the ultra-trads reject Vatican II.

Edwin

 

[JSmitty2005]

Contarini:

There was a doctrine in Catholicism that condemned religious freedom. Fortunately, it turned out not to be dogma and Catholicism has renounced it (or nuanced it away). That is one of the reasons the ultra-trads reject Vatican II.

Edwin

Not true. You’ve misunderstood the documents. Because the Church can never reverse its teaching on an issue, you are interpreting it wrong. Doctrines can never change, only develop (whether it is dogmatic or not). There’s a thread on it here. The conclusion I came to is in post 27. Tell me what you think. Finally, please don’t over-exaggerate with calling traditionalists “ultra” or other extreme things. Give us a break. There’s nothing extreme about interpreting V2 in light of Tradition. B16 has reiterated time and time again that this is the way it is to be done.

 

[chb03c]

–

No verse in the Qur’an explicitly states that there is an earthly penalty for apostasy. The Qur’an states that apostasy happens and that Allah despises it. See verses 2:256, 3:72, 3:90, 4:48, 4:137 and 5:54 which deal with apostasy directly and which do not prescribe any earthly punishment or death.

The verses (as translated by Yusuf Ali) are:

** "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Sura 2:256)*

** “Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.” (Sura 4:137)*

** “O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.” (Sura 5:54)*

The quotation from Surah An-Nisa’, 4:137, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy. The most straight-forward interpretation of the Qur’anic injunction that there is no compulsion in religion seems to be at odds with the death penalty as well, and leads Qur’an only Muslims to reject any legal or other human sanctions against apostates.​

the more you know…
and yes some people were executed because of apostasy and the reason is that, it was a religious war and a religious empire. apostasy meant treasony… most countries still carry the death penalty for treason.

Then can you explain why on this Islamic web site maintained by Muslims why it supports the idea of killing Converts to Christianity? The link to the web site is on Post #28.

 

[Muslim]

chb03c:

Then can you explain why on this Islamic web site maintained by Muslims why it supports the idea of killing Converts to Christianity? The link to the web site is on Post #28.

lol you guys find the sites that will support your claim while i quote from a neutral site…

i quoted stuff from the Qu’ran… Qu’ran = final word… no matter what anyone says and islamonline is a wahabi site just like islamqa.com. these people are nuts and have the weirdest and harshest interpretation of the Qu’ran and they add their own stuff to it.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Muslim:

lol you guys find the sites that will support your claim while i quote from a neutral site…

i quoted stuff from the Qu’ran… Qu’ran = final word… no matter what anyone says and islamonline is a wahabi site just like islamqa.com. these people are nuts and have the weirdest and harshest interpretation of the Qu’ran and they add their own stuff to it.

so i guess sola scriptura has it’s down side for muslims too

 

[chb03c]

Muslim:

lol you guys find the sites that will support your claim while i quote from a neutral site…

i quoted stuff from the Qu’ran… Qu’ran = final word… no matter what anyone says and islamonline is a wahabi site just like islamqa.com. these people are nuts and have the weirdest and harshest interpretation of the Qu’ran and they add their own stuff to it.

I see thank you for explaining. So Basicly there are only a few groups/denominations of Islam that follow this concept from the Shariah Law correct?

 

[JSmitty2005]

chb03c:

I see thank you for explaining. So Basicly there are only a few groups/denominations of Islam that follow this concept from the Shariah Law correct?

Not only that, but how do you know who is following the entire Quran correctly if it’s subject to interpretation?

 

[Muslim]

chb03c:

I see thank you for explaining. So Basicly there are only a few groups/denominations of Islam that follow this concept from the Shariah Law correct?

you welcome. thanks for being open to understanding.
Shariah law = law of Islam. there is no SET law. Shariah is made up by people who interpret the Qu’ran according to their beliefs. so, Shariah depends in each country/region.
Wahabis = crazy extremist who does not follow Islam properly and they add their own stuff into it… they arenot considereda sect tho as they are fundamentally Sunni… but most Muslims do not consider Wahabis interpretation of the Qu’ran. It was founded by some guy named Wahab who had his own interpretation and it is very harsh. There are four schools of Islamic thought. The Hanafi, Shafi, Malik and Hanbali. The Hanafi is what majoriy of Muslims believe in. Hanafi says there arent any punishment against blasphemy or apostasy. I think only the hanbali says there is punishment for apostasy and wahabis are derived from hanbali.
There are only two sects of Islam. Sunni and Shiite. Sunnis are like 90% of Muslims and shiites are regional really. they are found mainly in Iran and parts of Iraq. Shiites believe there has to be areligious leader which is anti Islamic because it is just you and God…there is nobody inb etween. Shiites have their own Sharia law which is very craz and therefore you see that all the crazy things happening mostly in Iran.
i hope this clears up some confusion. if you have any questions please feel free to ask.

 

[Muslim]

JSmitty2005:

Not only that, but how do you know who is following the entire Quran correctly if it’s subject to interpretation?

we believe it is for God to decide.
by the way I had the same question before I reverted back to Islam (i was an agnost for long time even tho grew up as a “Muslim”). then in the Qu’ran this is what it said and I was very satisifed with this answer.

“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.”

i hope this clears up some confusion as well…

 

[pro_universal]

And that in fact an idea of holy war did not receive the full support of the Western Church until the second millenium of Christian history (not to say that the Church had not sanctioned wars and persecutions before, but there had always been some ambivalence).

I’m not so sure about this. I think the Byzantine persecution of Arianism and Monophysite Churches, coupled with the assault on the Persians (extinguishing the fire and recapturing the relics was a major part of this) were definitely proto-crusades that happened well before the second millenium, and they began within a century of Christianity having gained political power.

I think perhaps if you focus only on limited areas of Western Christendom, you might possibly make the case that Christianity was not as coercive…but Charlemagne murdered the saxons well before the second millenium also.

One could even argue, if one wanted, that the harsher tone of second-millenium Christianity derived at least in part from the experience of Muslim aggression

Again, it has some appeal, but this wouldn’t explain Theodosius, Justinian, Heraclius, Clovis, Charlemagne, et al.

The secular state has proved to be more violent than the Church ever was.

Absolutely true, but there’s also the rise of industrialization to consider. I’ve seen the case made plausibly that the Holocaust was simply an industrial version of the pogroms that had been plaguing Europe for a thousand years. Same basic motivation, but with much more advanced means.

This is an inconsistent argument. If you think religious freedom is the result of secularization and thus the Church gets no credit, then you can’t turn around and blame Christianity for the violence of the 20th century. I would argue that the horrendous atrocities of the mid-20th century belie the idea that secularization is responsible for tolerance and a lack of violence.

Religious tolerance and violence are not mutually exclusive. You can have religious violence lead to religious tolerance, and then have a new violence grow out of it (racist violence, in this case). I don’t see a conflict between the two lines of thought.

Christians are more likely to have some sense of mercy and restraint than secular ideologues. The religious violence of the early modern period was horrendous. But the more I study the period the more I’m struck by how selective and erratic it was.

Absolutely. People who have real faith in God are reflective people who try to do good, and you will find examples of such people the world over.

One final note–the most devastating of the religious wars, the “Thirty Years’ War,” actually marked the boundary between religious warfare and secular, national wars.

All things considered, it’s certainly true that secularism has gotten off easy in the eyes of history, in my opinion.

 

[inJESUS]

hey Pro, yes the Church had it’s own problems/sins because it consists of humans…will you keep talking about it till the day of judgment? we are here after doctrines from scriptures, not humans’ actions…and we are specifically dealing with the killing apostates doctrine…bringing Church history is meaningless cuz we all admit the church did do mistakes because humans err. Care to talk about killing apostates from quran?

 

[chb03c]

Muslim:

we believe it is for God to decide.
by the way I had the same question before I reverted back to Islam (i was an agnost for long time even tho grew up as a “Muslim”). then in the Qu’ran this is what it said and I was very satisifed with this answer.

“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.”

i hope this clears up some confusion as well…

So I am still confused as to which one to think is the “true” Islam. Maybe I will start a new thread discussing the history.

As far as this thread can everyone agree that both Christian and some sects of Islam believe that the killing of apostate is morally incorrect and God disaproves of this greatly no matter who the believer is?

PS: Pro stop going off topic I don’t care to read anything you have to say b/c it is meaningless.

 

[inJESUS]

–

***No verse in the Qur’an explicitly states that there is an **earthly *****

penalty for apostasy.

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fire. They swear by God that they said nothing. Yet they uttered the word of unbelief and renounced Islam after embracing it. They sought to do what they could not attain. Yet they had no reason to be spiteful except perhaps because God and His apostle had enriched them through His bounty. If they repent, it will indeed be better for them, but if they give no heed, God will sternly punish them, both in this world and in the world to come. They shall have none on this earth to protect or help them.”

Coming to your question on the basis of the punishment of apostasy, we would like to start with the following words of the prominent Moroccan scholar Sheikh Abdul Bari Az-Zamzamy:

“It should be noted that Islam never compels any person to accept it or embrace its teachings. It gives the freedom of thinking to people, with full respect to their mentalities and way of thinking. However, Islam is not a man-made religion that is subject to scrutiny or biased criticism that is based on mere suspicion, since it was originated by Allah, the Supreme Creator of all minds and mentalities. In addition, apostasy causes a total disruption and confusion in the Muslim community, and thus, a severe punishment was set for it to deter anyone from thinking of it. It was originally put into force following the Jewish conspiracy against Islam. The details of that conspiracy were simply mass conversion to Islam and then mass apostasy. The main ill aim was to cause confusion and to lead people astray. Thus, the punishment was set as a precautionary measure to stop all these offenses.”

Speaking of the authority of the punishment and its being genuine and based on the authentic sources of Islam, Sheikh `Attiyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

“**It is not right to deny the punishment of apostasy claiming that it has not been reported in the Qur’an, because it has been recorded in the mutawatir (Hadith which has been reported by at least four of the Companions in different times and places in a way that make a person sure that such Hadith is not fabricated) and the non-mutawatir Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). Hudud (Islamic punishment specified for certain crimes) may, of course, be based on the non-mutawatir Sunnah.” **

Detailing the issue and showing some of the evidence for the punishment of apostasy, the prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:

"All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to death.

Many authentic Hadiths have been reported in this regard. Ibn Abbas reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever changes his religion, you kill him." (Reported by all the group except Muslim, and at-Tabarani also reported it with a sound chain of narrators. Also recorded in Majma Az-Zawa’id by Al-Haythamiy.)

There is also the Hadith of Ibn Mas`ud that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The blood of a Muslim individual who bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not to be shed except in three cases: in retaliation (in murder crimes), married adulterers (and adulteresses), and the one who abandons his religion and forsakes the Muslim community.” (Reported by the Group)

The actual example of one of the greatest Companions, `Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) gives credit to this also. He himself carried out the punishment on some people who had deified him. He gave them three days respite to repent and go back to their senses. When they proved adamant, he put them to fire.”

After all, allah sent quran in “plain arabic” specifically so that people “can understand”…but his technique failed.

What are the countries that apply this law and the ones that don’t? maybe the ones that dont should stop this absurdity.

 

[cestusdei]

Wow, lot’s of controversy about poor Abdul. He is not alone. Many many converts suffer or die. Muslims are quiet about it. Then they have the temerity to demand numbers of converts to Christianity. Well those figures are hard to get since they have to hide or you are hunting them down in order to kill them.

Let me put it this way. If in England a guy converted to Islam. Was arrested for it. Tried and then executed because he refused to return to Anglicanism. What would pro’s response be? Compare that to his nonchalance about Abdul. Here we see Muslim doublestandards in action.

The easy answer to this is for Muslims to STOP killing those who convert and guarantee freedom of conscience and religion to everyone. Gee, what a thought.

 

[inJESUS]

SA, Qatar, Mauritania, Iran, and other countries condone killing apostates…it seems it is highly unlikely that a fatwa is issued to stop it …if it were clearly wrong, then other countries should interfere to stop it…

praying, what else?

 

[Eden]

pro_universal:

I’m not so sure about this. I think the Byzantine persecution of Arianism and Monophysite Churches, coupled with the assault on the Persians (extinguishing the fire and recapturing the relics was a major part of this) were definitely proto-crusades that happened well before the second millenium, and they began within a century of Christianity having gained political power…etc.

Even on a thread about a man sentenced to death for converting to Christianity, you post more West-bashing.

So, I take it that you believe Abdul Rahman deserves to die.

Wow.

 

[pro_universal]

Eden:

Even on a thread about a man sentenced to death for converting to Christianity, you post more West-bashing.

So, I take it that you believe Abdul Rahman deserves to die.

Wow.

How on earth is pointing out that Byzantium was ruled by corrupted monarchs “west bashing”?

 

[pro_universal]

chb03c:

So I am still confused as to which one to think is the “true” Islam. Maybe I will start a new thread discussing the history.

As far as this thread can everyone agree that both Christian and some sects of Islam believe that the killing of apostate is morally incorrect and God disaproves of this greatly no matter who the believer is?

PS: Pro stop going off topic I don’t care to read anything you have to say b/c it is meaningless.

Hahaha, if you don’t read anything I say, how do you know that I’m off topic?

History matters. If we ignore it, we’ll easily become hypocrites, and the proof is in writing on this thread.