Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Livius

  1. Apostasy In Islam

    I recently came across this website: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamicperspectives(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Apostasy1.htm"]Islamic Perspectives[/url] It discusses apostasy in Islam and the punishment. THE ABSENCE FROM THE QUR`AN OF ANY PENALTY FOR APOSTASY It is a significant fact that the Book of God does not prescribe any punishment for apostasy. Many Muslims would immediately say, The Qur`an does not tell us everything. We need to go to the Hadith to find guidance on matters not touched by the Qur`an. But while this is true of matters of detail, this is not true of fundamental issues. God knew that while the Qur`an would be preserved faithfully, the authenticity of ahadith will remain subject to doubts in most cases. Therefore, he would make sure that all the basic teachings would be included in the Qur`an while leaving some details to ahadith so that the size of the Qur`anic text remains manageable for memorization. Looked in this way the absence in the Qur`an of any punishment for apostasy becomes very significant. The punishment for apostasy is not a detail that we can expect God to leave for ahadith, especially if that punishment is death, since taking the life of a person, if done without a just cause, is regarded by the Qur`an as tantamount to killing all human beings (5:32). Even lesser penalties for theft (cutting of hands, 5:38), illicit sexual intercourse (100 lashes, 24:2), and unsubstantiated accusation of adultery (80 lashes, 24.4) were not considered by God as matters of details to be left to the ahadith. Therefore there is no reason why God would consider the more serious penalty of death for a more serious sin of apostasy as a matter of detail to be left to ahadith. It is also significant that the Qur`an refers to apostasy several times (2:217, 3:86-90, 4:137, 9:66, 9:74, 16:106-109, 4:88-91, 47:25-27) and yet does not prescribe any punishment for it. Had the Qur`an not mentioned apostasy at all, we could have perhaps argued that there was no occasion for the Qur`anic revelation to deal with this subject and it was therefore left for the Holy Prophet to deal with. It may also be noted that almost all the verses that refer to apostasy are found in surahs said to be belonging to the Madinan period when the Islamic state had been established and penalties for crimes could be prescribed and applied. Only 16:106-109 appears in a surah identified as Makkan. It is thus a natural conclusion to draw that the absence of any legal penalty for apostasy in the Qur`an means that God never intended any such penalty to become part of Islamic Shari‘ah. Qur`an 4:88-91 The four verses, 4:88-91, when carefully examined, also show that the Qur`anic perspective conflicts with the death penalty for apostasy. The first two verses state: Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites? God has cast them backward (arkasa) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom God has made to go astray? And he whom God has made to go astray, you will not find for him any way. They wish that you reject faith as they have done, so that you all become the same. So take not protectors/friends from them till they emigrate in the way of God. But if they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither protectors/friends from them nor helpers. (4:88-89) This passage begins by talking about hypocrites, that is, people who had declared themselves Muslims but in their hearts had decided not to believe in the teachings of Islam. The demand that they should do hijrah fi sabil Allah (emigrate for the sake of God) shows that they are not the hypocrites of Madinah but are living among non-Muslims in Makkah and possibly elsewhere. Verse 98 of the same surah shows that these people were not doing hijrah despite the fact that they were able to. The reason for their not doing hijrah was their hypocrisy. Makkan non-believers who had persecuted Muslims for years, would not have tolerated in their midst any true Muslims. They would have accepted among them only those “Muslims†who had stopped taking their “Islam†seriously and felt more comfortable among non-believers, hostile to Islam, than among Muslims. These hypocrites pretended to be Muslims because they wanted to be secure from both sides (see 4:91). And Makkan non-believers did not force them to publicly renounce their “Islam†because they found them useful for gathering information about Muslims or for some other subversive actions against the ummah. In order to defeat these hypocrites in their game and force them to clearly choose between Islam and kufr, God commanded them to do hijrah. Their obedience to this command meant that they had chosen Islam and their disobedience meant that they had chosen kufr. Those who chose kufr in this way became apostates, since previously they called themselves Muslims. Thus the verses are a source of guidance for us regarding the way the apostates are to be treated. At first sight the words “seize them and kill them wherever you find them†would suggest that they are to be killed. But this is quickly seen to be wrong if we read the next two verses: Except those who join a group between you and whom there is a (peace-) treaty or those who approach you with their hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their own people. Had God willed he would have given them power over you and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you but give you (guarantees of) peace, then God has opened no way for you against them. You will find others that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation they give in to it. If they do not withdraw from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace, nor restrain their hands, seize them and kill them, wherever you find them. In their case We have provided you with a clear warrant against them. (4:90-91). These verses clarify the command “seize them and kill themâ€. The apostates who rejected Islam by failing to emigrate as commanded by God are divided into three categories: 1) Those who ally themselves with a group with whom Muslims have a peace treaty; 2) Those who want to keep neutrality, committing themselves to peace with both the Muslims and their own people who had not accepted Islam; 3) Those who provide no real guarantee of peace to Muslims and by all indications ally themselves with non-believers engaged in hostilities towards Islam. The first two types of apostates are to be left in peace while the third one is to be treated like any non-believers in a state of war: they are to be seized and killed wherever they are found. Notice that the Qur`an uses the words “God has opened no way for you against them†in connection with the apostates of the first two types. This means that the Qur`an actually prohibits killing those apostates who want to live in peaceful terms with the Muslims. Thus according to the Qur`an the apostates are to be treated like other kuffar: If they want to live in peace with the Muslims, they are to be left in peace and if they assume a hostile attitude, then they are to be treated accordingly. I found the article very interesting and this scholar disagrees with many that apostasy is supposed to be punished.
  2. Democracy

    Yes, it was a state policy. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Almohads"]Link from non-Jewish source[/url] The Almohads, who had taken control of the Almoravids' Maghribi and Andalusian territories by 1147,[1] far surpassed the Almoravides in fundamentalist outlook, and they treated the dhimmis harshly.[2] Faced with the choice of either death or conversion, most Jews and Christians emigrated.[3][4] Some, such as the family of Maimonides, fled east to more tolerant Muslim lands,[3] while others went northward to settle in the growing Christian kingdoms.[5][6] Is this behavior to be excused, or will you say it is a lie? Maybe we should use as our example the Caliphate? In that case we should follow their lead and take over our neighbors one by one. If the US was a Muslim state then Canada and Mexico would be a part of our nation already, and Central America would be wondering when it is their turn. That would be so much better, right? How stupid of the US to give all the nations it once owned the right to be independent. How stupid of the US to allow its territories the right to vote on what their own future would be. We all know that a Caliphate would never do that. Once a Caliphate takes you over you belong to it. How many people did the Caliphate kill in their "liberations" of their neighbors Yasnov? Or were you taught that hardly anyone died because the populations wanted to invaded by Muslims? According to you even the slavery was heaven. People wanted to be slaves if their masters were Muslim right? And Muslims only took slaves because they were forced to. They really didn't want to do it, and therefore their slaves lived a life of comfort not wanting freedom. There is hardly an evil that the US has commited that wasn't commited before by a Muslim nation.
  3. Democracy

    You have finally convinced me ######. What a fool I have been. Life under Muslim rule is heaven on Earth for everyone, even the poor kuffar who are doomed to eternal life in Hell pray that they get to be ruled by Muslims and to get away from their horrible existence under democracy. Muslims have never mistreated anyone. Jews and Christians were living a practical Utopia, children under the watchful eye of their loving Muslim guardians, who even threw them crumbs of political power to appease them (sometimes). Muslim governments never killed anyone that didn't deserve it, and then it was only because those bad neighbors of theirs forced them into it. Muslim nations were never greedy and the world would once again be in a Golden Age if only people were smart enough to let Muslims tell them what they can and cannot do. I am a changed man. I now know that anything the US touches is fruit of a rotten tree. People in the US are so selfish and materialistic and evil that it is a wonder they don't eat babies and walk around naked. They probably get together with their Zionist friends/masters and plan on who to kill next and how to steal their money, those despicable pigs. So tell me, where do I go to find out more of the truth ######? What sites can I read to get find out the real truth, and not what the Zionist media tells me? I know that David Duke can be trusted, but who else?
  4. Democracy

    Is using a Jewish source about history any worse than using an Islamic one? If you find anything they have written incorrect please let us know. As for what I want to show from this comparison, for the purposes of this thread it is to show that it is not the form of government that dictates whether a nation does good or ill, and that any form of government is capable of doing both. It is also to help show some balance in peoples views. Some people want to demonize the US and show that Muslim government is the epitome of justice and equality. To do so they have to both ignore the good things that the US has accomplished and at the same time completely ignore or deny the bad things that Muslim nations have done. That is intellectually dishonest.
  5. Democracy

    I don't. I expose the double standard you have when it comes to history. lSlander implies a lie. I have only told the truth. You want specifics on massacres of Jews and their "great" treatment? Read (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjewishvirtuallibrary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/jsource/myths/mf15.html"]this[/url]. Do you have excuses for these examples? 5,000 Jews massacred in Granada in 1066? If the USA did any of the things mentioned you would call it a travesty. What will be your reaction when it was Muslim countries that did it? Churches and holy sites turned into Masjids? (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques"]Read this.[/url] Then I guess forced conversions did not happen in Spain because there are Muslims and Jews that live there now? Once again your logic does not work. I have no doubt that you condone Muslim nations taking over their neighbors so that they can use them as shields, but I also know that if a non-Muslim nation did the same thing you would cry about the injustice of it, especially if their neighbor they used as a buffer was a Muslim nation. The vast majority of them have. You want a great indicator of how these people are treated? Take a look at this: ######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pewglobal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/reports/images/248-6.gif[/img] What is the attitude for Jews in Muslim countries ######? They hate them. How often have people on this forum railed against the treatment of Muslims in the West, yet look at how the West feels about Muslims compared to how Muslims feel about Jews and Christians, then tell me who is tolerant and who are the bigots. In Muslim nations Muslims seem to like Muslims and look disfavorably on everyone else. If this is your idea of Muslim tolerance then you can keep it.
  6. Democracy

    ######, I am well aware of how the Native Americans were treated. I am actually part Native American myself. Are you aware that under Muslim rule there have been forced conversions? Massacres of Jews? African slave trade? You excuse taking over a nation simply to use it as a buffer? I will admit that 1,000 years ago Muslim nations were more tolerant than Christian nations towards other religions. They were treated like children instead of like lepers. Yes, you still find Christians and Jews in Muslim nations today, but most have left in the last 50 years to places that are more tolerant and Jewish populations and Christian populations are miniscule and often face persecution. Muslim nations today are the prime examples of intolerance and what should not be done. Muslims turned many many churches into Masjids. They have even turned Jewish and Christian holy sites into Masjids. Are you not aware of this history, or do you need me to tell you more? Neither one of us should proud of the bad things done in the past, but neither should we ignore them, ######. Neither one of us took part in the massacres or the slavery so neither one of us should feel the need to apologize for what our ancestors did, or in my case what my ancestors did to my other ancestors.
  7. Democracy

    That is the difference between us. I do not glorify everything in the past and conveniently ignore the bad things. I am proud of the good my country has done and ashamed of the bad, whereas you are proud of the good things done under Muslim caliphates yet deny or excuse the bad. And yes, I am proud of the way that the US has treated defeated countries in the past. Look at the nations it defeated in WWII. If the US had been a Muslim caliphate then those countries would all be annexed by now, instead they are free, independent and powerful countries on their own. You and those that ignore any information that tarnishes your golden view of the past are the ones that are being manipulated, are even doing the manipulating. I don't believe in Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster or that there was a man on the grassy knoll either. I don't believe this world can fix its problems until we acknowledge them, and believing in some hidden boogeyman/Illuminati/Zionist/Freemason/Skull&Bones conspiracy shadow government isn't going to do it. Why do you believe it is bad? I think democracy is great for my country. While our system is not perfect it is certainly better than any other system out there. The problem with any government in which the people rule is that there will be bad decisions, and even in this system there are things done against the will of the majority and without their permission or knowledge. That is not the fault of the system, though. There does not exist a system of government in which this is not the case. I tend to have fairly high opinion of people in general, so therefore I believe in democracy. I don't see how someone can be against a democratic government in their country unless they either think their population is too stupid to vote properly, or they simply don't like the way that they know they will vote. Is there another option, and if not which category do you fall under? I much prefer having a voice in the laws of my country and who the leaders are.
  8. Utah

    I am no expert, but from what I know from my Mormon friends that live in Utah... Polygamy is looked down upon by the majority of Mormons. Those that practice it are members of sects, not the main church which is the LDS church. Many of the cases of polygamy that do exist in Utah have been linked to physical abuse, sexual abuse and shady financial dealings and are strongly condemned by the LDS church. I have never, to my knowledge, met any polygamists when I have gone to visit and all the Mormons I know (which are a lot, they have large families) are very happy with their one spouse. I am sure there are communities that practice polygamy, but they usually tend to keep to themselves and are not very open to outsiders. I found this link. I can't vouch for its accuracy but it seems to correlate with other sources that I have read about this topic. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsignaturebookslibrary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/essays/mormonpolygamy.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsignaturebookslibrary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/essay...monpolygamy.htm[/url]
  9. Utah

    Comparable to the rest of the US, although the drinking laws are a bit stricter. Polygyny is illegal in Utah and the LDS (Latter Day Saints or Mormon) church does not condone it in the USA where it is illegal. The people there are some of the nicest people I have ever met. It has always been my experience that Mormons are among the friendliest people you can find anywhere, and among the cleanest living also.
  10. Crazy Hate In Texas..!

    As a Texan I am glad that more people stood up for her than didn't. You'll notice also that the people that sided with the clerk, for the most part, weren't proud enough to stick around and talk to the reporter while the ones that stood up for her were. btw Russ, If I remember right it filmed near Waco, not El Paso. I saw a slightly different cut that had posted on these forums before.
  11. Danish Islamophobia Kills Muslim Teen

    Too bad it is in the Netherlands. If it happened in Texas they would face the death penalty. By the way, where in the article does it state they supported israel? I missed that part.
  12. Democracy

    The difference between me and many people who post here is that I do not deny the past. Yes, the US has done many abhorrent things. I must correct you, though, since this nation has been around less than 250 years, not the 400 you mentioned. If you want to talk about a nation that lasted much longer than 400 years and was involved in massacres, genocides, robbery, kidnapping and enslavement let us talk about the Kalifate which conquered neighbor after neighbor after neighbor and was involved in all the hideous things you mentioned including slavery and massacres and kidnapping. You say democracy in Islam is superior than anything I have experienced but that it is not in existence today. When has it ever been in existence? I don't remember reading anything about all the people voting for a Kalif. And how is having a monarch, which a kalif is, a democracy? I have no lust for zionism, as I have explained and been ignored about before. I simply don't believe in some conspiracy theory that the world is being run by a small group of devious Jews. If you want to get technical then yes, the USA is a republic and not a "pure" democracy, a pure democracy being one in which the people voted on every law. It is still a democracy, though, by definition, because the people choose those that make the laws. Most states allow the people to suggest and pass laws by themselves and bypass their state congresses, which is a form of pure democracy. But then we digress... I see that you are for a democracy in a Muslim nation, but would the non-Muslims be allowed to vote? Would it be a true democracy either? The quote is false ######. It was never said, at least not on any radio. It was made up by some reporter for the IAP. If you want to debate about it then start another thread, but if you are going to spout your conspiracy theories then at least use facts and not made up quotes. Again, that would a true democracy in which only Muslims voted, I assume? Or would Jews and Hindus and atheists be allowed to help select the kalif? I love it when you pretend to be obtuse. At least I assume you are pretending. Noone else seemed confused by the question.
  13. How Many Countries Can You Name In 5 Minutes:

    75 on my first try. Seems I don't know how to spell some countries.
  14. Democracy

    (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthemiddleeastnow(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ref/gallupisrael.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthemiddleeastnow(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ref/gallupisrael.html[/url] (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pewforum(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/?DocID=218"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pewforum(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/?DocID=218[/url] The majority of Americans support israel, so if a non-Zionist ended up in the White House it would actually be a failure of democracy since it would mean that someone who disagrees with the majority of the country is in charge of one of its branches of government. You still ignore the question I asked, Dot, which is do you think that democracy is a good or a bad thing for Muslim nations? Really, Dot? You think us Westerners aren't intelligent enough to understand, but that someone from Egypt, which has never had a true democracy, can understand it? Don't you think that maybe your comment was grossly condescending? ######, you are being a bit sycophantic.
  15. US Immigrant Veterans' New Battle

    He is right. There should be no more apologies, just fix the situation ASAP.
  16. Democracy

    So do you think democracy is good or bad for Muslim nations based on this?
  17. In Torture We Trust

    They were Muslims, not so-called Muslims, just as the waterboarding was done by Americans, not so-called Americans. Men were tortured in the name of Islam, and other men were tortured in the name of the USA. Let us not whitewash it or try to minimize anything done by either side. You are right, though, in that the article does not condone torture by anyone. Nor should it. Yuengling, you have to remember what our country stands for. It stands for many things, and one of them is human rights. Hell, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is in our Bill of Rights, yet what makes people hypocrites and determines that although Americans shouldn't torture each other it is perfectly fine to do it to people of another country? How the hell can our country ask other countries to act more humane when we allow our countrymen to do these things to other people? What would your reaction be if some American PoW's were videotaped being treated this way? Would you say it is just a part of war, or would you say that it is barbaric? I know I would think it was a barbaric thing, and only a hypocrite would say that it is horrible for others to do to my people, but condone my people to do it to others.
  18. Houston Rockets - We Believe

    I think they may have gotten even better without Yao, which is strange.
  19. Atheist's Psychology

    This sounds like any other religion and is in no way unique to Islam. Christians could easily use the same allegory, and no doubt someone somewhere has.
  20. Atheist's Psychology

    I don't know many atheists that get defensive, although I have met some that were. I most definitely don't have anything againt the religion of my upbringing so my beliefs were not in any way a negative reaction to it. I don't understand when you say that atheists are not scientific. If you mean that they look to science for answers then I would have to say that for the most part atheists are more scientific in general. The followers of religions tend to fall back on their religion for answers to many questions. That is, after all, one of the main functions of religions. To answer questions that people do not know the answer to. Also, most atheists I speak to, when they think of God they think of some all powerful being that is everywhere, both omnipotent and omniscient. I don't know any atheists that think God hangs out in clouds.
  21. New

    As a long time non-Muslim member I can tell you that the vast majority of the people on this forum are more than happy to answer your questions. Welcome aboard.
  22. Saudi Man And The Bank

    Funny joke but definitely not a true story. For one there are loan fees that the gentleman would have to pay which would be considerably more than $15. Secondly, banks do not take possession of items used for collateral. Thirdly, if the man is Saudi then he is Muslim and wouldn't take out a loan :sl: And lastly, I would think a multi-millionaire with a ferrari would have a garage and wouldn't need to do all that. I have heard this joke before, but never with a Saudi.
  23. Superbowl Xlii - 2008 Nfl Playoffs!

    Me too. I was at work and had to grab my boss and show him the play. I was actually much more impressed by Manning's escape than I was by the catch.
  24. I would think a simple test would be to question a scholar. If there is any issue in which you have question, and the scholar has a strong opinion about, ask them how they come to that conclusion. Ask them for the Hadith or the part of the Quran that led them to come to their conclusion. Then use their response to decide how scholarly you think they are. If someone simply says "here is a Hadith and this is what it means" then that should not be enough. A true scholar should be able to give background information on it and be able to explain their interpretation in detail and also be able to answer any doubts you may have as to their interpretation. I don't think any type of scholar should be held as being infallible or all knowing. As such, all scholars should welcome those who want to learn and those that want to question what they believe and how they came to believe it. After all, would there be Islam today if people in the past did not question their beliefs?
  25. How To Revive The Ummah

    Thank you Aamina, Freedslaves post was extremely insightful. As others said on that thread, though, easier said than done, but that is a great blueprint to achieve what you desire if it could be implemented. You suggest a truly Islamic government in which no scholars are needed to set the foundation? Who is to decide what is true Sharia and what is not if, as you seem to be suggesting, scholars are not needed?