Challenging Islam...

kelly1

Hello all,

just want to ask if it's acceptable in this forum to challenge the teachings of Islam in a polite respectful manner?

God bless,
Noel.

ironingbored

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all,

just want to ask if it's acceptable in this forum to challenge the teachings of Islam in a polite respectful manner?

God bless,
Noel.

Punishment for non-belief in Islam and/or apostasy is death!

You're better off not straying over here.

BuffyBot

The forum charter gives pretty clear guidelines on what is and is not allowed

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=290205

kelly1

Thanks Buffy. Since I'm not interested in attacking Islam I'll take it then that skeptical questions are allowed.

Regards,
Noel.

ChocolateSauce

There's a difference between asking challenging questions and challenging Islam. To challenge it is to declare it is false, to go on the offense. To ask questions is to have them answered. If it comes down to "how do you believe that", you are likely going to be challenging religion, not just this religion.

Hobbes

kelly1 wrote: »

just want to ask if it's acceptable in this forum to challenge the teachings of Islam in a polite respectful manner?

If it is challange in "I'm right, your wrong" then no this isn't the forum. If there are certain aspects of Islam that seem unclear to you or you need to understand why they believe certain aspects then yes it is a good question to ask.

However understand at the end of the question it may still be completely opposite to what you believe but it is not at that point you say they are wrong. Just agree to disagree.

Yusuf Mirza

Assalam alaikum brother very well I take your chalenge.

Yusuf - Galway

Yusuf Mirza

rubish. It actually says in the Qur'an that "there is no compulsion in religion"

Yusuf

philologos

Yes, but in the Hadith isn't it said that "If you change your religion - surely you shall be put to death". This was quoted in a letter that Al Queda sent to Hamas after a Hamas member Masab Youcef converted to Christianity and got asylum in the USA.

Also apostasy laws in Iran, and Saudi Arabia amongst others suggest that if you change your religion, or if you proselytize another faith it is punishable by death. In the UK a large percentage of young Muslims think that apostasy laws are valid.

It's not quite as simple as that in practice in the Islamic world. Many Islamic teachings are admirable, but I don't think that what the Prophet Muhammad said concerning there being no compulsion in religion can be taken truly.

Yusuf Mirza

..for all I know that Al Qieda guy could have read that quote off the back of a ceriel box brother.:p

Yusuf Mirza

Jackass as you call yourself. I wouldnt go that far lol. I admire the face that you are asking these questions. If you did not care about religion you would not ask these questions so it shows at least you are intelegent and interested in expanding your knowledge. Look brother if you really want to have a truthfull and comprehensive discussion on all of this then i sugest you email me on yusufpender@yahoo.co.uk coz then i can send you stuff. Well im of to lunch and ill be back at 2:00. Im an convert to Islam by the way.

Yusuf - Galway

philologos

Yusif: Here is an article on the contradiction between how to regard apostasy between the Qur'an and the Hadith
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article743382.ece

Yusuf Mirza

Sura 40 says that those who reject the scriptures will have iron collars and chains placed around their necks, be dragged into scalding water and burnt in the fire.

Which verse? Surah means chapter!

Elsewhere the Koran seems to indicate a degree of tolerance. Verse 2.256 states: “There is no compulsion in religion.” Two further suras, 10 and 18, include passages indicating that people who do not wish to believe should not be forced to.

Ah yet but here they are given. Why not the first reference?

But the Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet, condemns unequivocally those who renounce their religion. One passage advises the death penalty for murder, adultery and apostasy. Another cites Muhammad as saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Which Hadit? and from which book? Is it Authentic?

Yusuf Mirza

REFUTATION OF PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTACY

One of the foremost advocates of death as the penalty for apostacy in Islam, in his desperate search for at least one verse in the Holy Quran which might lend support to his misguided point of view, has had recourse to violating the context and meaning of one verse of the Holy Quran and to deduce from it his horrible doctrine. He has not a word to offer in explanation of the numerous verses of the Holy Quran that form the basis of the above exposition, which is proof enough that he has deliberately misinterpreted the particular verse from which he seeks to draw support. He also appears to be unconscious of the emphatic affirmation made in the Holy Quran, that there is no contradiction in it. Had there been any contradiction in the Quran, it would not be the Word of God, as is said: Will they not meditate upon the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much contradiction. (4.83).

Let us now examine the verse upon which this particular divine bases his whole thesis. It is verse 12 of Chapter 9. The context of the verse is that after the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, had migrated from Mecca to Medina, Quraish of Mecca had embarked upon hostilities against him and the Muslims for the purpose of wiping out Islam by force. Then after a period of repeated aggression on their part, God of His mercy and grace, established the supremacy of Islam in Arabia, but those who were still disaffected, and entertained hostile designs against the Muslims, and had not laid down their arms, were granted a period of four months within which to make their peace with the Muslims, failing which, the hostilities which they themselves had started, would be resumed against them. In this context it was pointed out that such of them as sincerely accepted Islam would form part of the Islamic brotherhood and there would be no question of any action being taken against them. That had been the situation all through. Those who, continuing disbelievers, concluded a treaty of peace with the Muslims, must carry out the obligations of the treaty strictly. If they failed to do so hostilities would be resumed against them. Verse II of Chapter 9 is to the following effect: If they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then they are your brethren-in-faith. We expound Our commandments for a people who possess knowledge. This is followed by verse 12 which lays down: If those who break their pledge after making a covenant and ridicule your religion, in such case fight these leaders of disbelief that they may desist, for they have no regard for their pledged word. This divine construes this verse as meaning that if those who are referred to in the previous verse as having become Muslims, should repudiate Islam, they should be fought against and subdued.

Assuming that those who repudiated Islam after having expressed their belief in it, reverted to hostilities, they would, of course, be fought against, not because of their apostacy but because of their reversion to enemy status. The issue that this divine has to face is that Islam prescribes no penalty for a simple change of faith, which involves no treason or rebellion or hostility against the Islamic State. The verse under consideration relates to the breaking of a pledge to live at peace with the Islamic State. Those who are guilty of such breach are to be fought against, as rebels or enemy aliens, and not to be caught and executed for apostacy.

This is made abundantly clear by the immediately following verses which say: Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths, who plotted to turn out the Messenger from his home and who were the first to start hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is Allah Who is Most Worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them; Allah will punish them at your hands and will humiliate them, and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers of fear and distress and will remove their feeling of resentment (9.13-14 ).

It is thus clear that these verses have reference to the disbelievers who have no regard for their pledged word, and who should be guilty of breach of treaties and should be bent upon armed hostilities.

philologos

Yusif, if it has been refuted, why do two of the strongest Islamic states in the world one Sunni (Wahabi) and one Shia still impose the death penalty for changing ones religion? I'm just curious to how this works.

As for what source, I googled and I think it's from Al Bukhari's Hadith.

Yusuf Mirza

Actually the 3 bigest Islamic countries are Indonesia, Bangladesh and then India. Then Pakistan etc and actually on one fifth of the worlds Muslims live in the Middle East.

Brother apostacy in their eyes is a sign of rebelion. Soudi and Iran rule trough religous rigid dogma. this is how they controll society and keep power. If someone changes religion then they see that they will loose their sway over the people who see their clerica as infalable. If a new religion spreads then they loos their tight grip. The same was the way in Medevil europe when people were burnes at the stake and suffered all kinds of torture for ther beliefs be they political, social or religous. Remember the spanih inquisision where jews were merylessly killed unless they renounced their faith.

So we have to seperate the religion from dogma :-)

Schuhart

While clearly you folk will want to explore this topic for yourselves, you might be interested in a previous thread on the topic. In particular, I found this collection of articles on islamonline.net useful in just clarifying the relevant texts and how they have traditionally been interpreted.

Yusuf Mirza

awsome! Are you muslim brother?

hivizman

Schuhart wrote: »

While clearly you folk will want to explore this topic for yourselves, you might be interested in a previous thread on the topic. In particular, I found this collection of articles on islamonline.net useful in just clarifying the relevant texts and how they have traditionally been interpreted.

Thanks for the links, and particularly the islamonline.net reference. This contains, among others, an article by Dr Jamal Badawi that basically rejects the view that apostates should face the death penalty, and an article by Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, which supports, with some reservations, the general view of Sharia. Badawi points out that, although apostasy is condemned in several verses of the Qur'an, no penalty is specifically assigned (unlike other offences). He also casts doubt on the strength of the various hadiths relating to apostasy, particularly their authority to justify the death penalty where the Qur'an is silent. Al-Qaradawi considers the hadiths to be authority for the death penalty, although he emphasises that an apostate must be given the opportunity to repent, and also suggests that a "silent" apostate, who does not actually fight against Islam by word or deed, would not merit the death penalty. He also discusses in passing who has the authority to declare someone an apostate. This is particularly relevant because of the tendency of some more radical Islamist groups to declare large numbers of Muslims as "unbelievers" or "not Muslims" - the process referred to as takfir - because they do not accept some article of faith or practice advocated by particular groups.

I have come across references to the argument that the Qur'an (particularly the so-called "verse of the sword" Surah at-tawbah 9:5 "And so, when the sacred months are over, slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way; for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace" [Asad The Message of the Qur'an]) has abrogated the well over 100 qur'anic verses that proclaim tolerance in religion. I'm still trying to get my head around naskh or abrogation - there's quite a full article on Wikipedia, but I note that most of the references are to Western scholars known to have heterodox views of Islam and the Qur'an.

Schuhart

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

awsome! Are you muslim brother?

I'm afraid not - I'm just visiting from the atheism forum.

hivizman wrote: »

Al-Qaradawi considers the hadiths to be authority for the death penalty, although he emphasises that an apostate must be given the opportunity to repent, and also suggests that a "silent" apostate, who does not actually fight against Islam by word or deed, would not merit the death penalty.

Indeed, its not dissimilar from Plato's idea that in the perfect republic unrepentant atheists would be put to death. It reflects that concern about the impact on social order of people publically expressing disbelief in the official religion. I think its interesting in the sense that sincere believers (like some who contributed on the earlier thread) would feel (in line with Dr Badawi) that the religion is made weaker by compelling unbelievers to be hypocrites. But faced with that same choice, Sheik Al-Qaradawi view would seem to be that promoting hypocracy is necessary to ensure social stability.

hivizman wrote: »

I'm still trying to get my head around naskh or abrogation - there's quite a full article on Wikipedia, but I note that most of the references are to Western scholars known to have heterodox views of Islam and the Qur'an.

Indeed, and while I'm no real appetite at present to read any more about Islam, I did feel that it would be interesting if there was a version of the Quran sorted into chronological order. I remember coming across commentaries that related verses to specific events. But the ordering of the Quran seemed quite complex - for example, its seemed that it wasn't just that individual chapters were delivered at different times. Each chapter might be made up of independent parts that were not originally one continuous message. A version that (as far as possible) said 'this is the first statment, delivered in these circumstances, and this is the second etc' would presumably make the abrogation clear as we would see which verse preceded which.

hivizman

I'd forgotten about Plato's views on atheists. But the general philosophy that people who did not conform to the recognised religion of the state were dangers to the state has been a long-standing one.

On editions of the Qur'an in chronological order of revelation - these would not be acceptable to Muslims because the actual ordering of the Qur'an is considered to be how God has arranged it. There are several chronological arrangements referred to on the internet, but they are almost always sites highly critical of Islam (which the forum charter tells us not to link to ).

You might say that attitudes to Sura at-tawbah (Sura 9), one of the last of the suras to be revealed, are a touchstone to how Muslims regard interfaith relations. Those who believe that the sura has general application and has abrogated all the more tolerant verses of other suras tend to be more militant, while those who believe that the sura relates to a narrow and specific situation and does not have general application tend to be more ecumenical.

hivizman

hivizman wrote: »

You might say that attitudes to Sura at-tawbah (Sura 9), one of the last of the suras to be revealed, are a touchstone to how Muslims regard interfaith relations. Those who believe that the sura has general application and has abrogated all the more tolerant verses of other suras tend to be more militant, while those who believe that the sura relates to a narrow and specific situation and does not have general application tend to be more ecumenical.

Actually, thinking about it a bit more, the influence is probably the other way around: those Muslims who are more inclined to "live and let live" tend to stress the more tolerant verses of the Qur'an and then need to rationalise the militancy of sura at-tawbah as applying only to a specific situation around the time the sura was revealed. On the other hand, Muslims who believe that there is an ongoing enmity between Islam and the Ahl al-kitab (People of the Book, especially Jews and Christians) consider that sura at-tawbah has abrogated the verses of the Qur'an that appear to support toleration and co-existence, and that it's message applies on an ongoing basis.