Religious intolerance in Indonesia: Muslims as victims of brutal killing

ATW, the problem is that you place the blame for muslim extremist violence in the wrong place. islam is a religion, an abstract concept based on a book. are you saying the concept or the book is the guilty party? look, human beings are committing these atrocities, they commit these acts of their own free will.

 

Exactly. We shouldn't give a damn about religion. Someone commits a crime, hold them responsible. It's that simple.

The approach of factoring in religion gives the criminal motivation to repeat. "I was right, it's about Islam!"

Even if Islam is causing all the crime in the world, and everyone else in the world joined hands to eliminate Islam from the world, it wouldn't change a thing. They will re-write the books after you've burned them. They will continue to act upon it.

It's all just a malfunction of analysis and poor info. Information enters their head, they analyze, and their conclusion is: suicide bomb. If that same information entered my head, my conclusion would be different. So our goal becomes to improve the analysis being done with more education, and also providing more information.

Nothing else will solve this problem. You have to be a bigot if you insist on factoring in religion. You have to think that a group of people are inherently, on average, less capable of taking the same decisions you do, coming up with the same analysis. It's hidden bigotry. I'm sick of this hidden bigotry getting in the way of solving this terrorism problem. It's become an obstacle now really.

 

Really, you don't think terrorism/violence are connected to poor economic conditions?

Can you name me one of these poor places where people don't resort to murder?

 

I just want to make one thing absolutely clear: The word apostasy in hadith is very clear arabic. It means to return or go back. There is absolutely no misundersanding or confusion. There is a word for treason that is completely distinct.

What is "simple" apostasy? This link seems to be saying that only apostasy-c*m-treason is punishable by death.

Can you please indicate to me when was the first Sharia nation in existance? Not an Umma please. I'm talking about a nation, with borders, and a single constitution which treason can be committed against.

Also would be awesome if you answered this: If Islam is the constitution in a Sharia state, then isn't declaration of atheism + demand for secular government + rejecting legitimacy of the leader an act of treason?

Moreover, what is the difference in punishment between apostasy+treason and just plain ol' treason? Why then distinguish between these two?

Converseley, would you be happy for the USA to execute someone who was a atheist/secularist and converts into Islam, then commits treason under the following definition:

This would be fine with you?

 

Did you bother to read the link I posted a few pages back? The one provided by trustme just doesn't seem to get into the grit of things. It appears you are missing the point, probably due to lack of knowledge.

 

Frankly, I hadn't read the link. However, here's what I have to say to the guy after reading it:

1) Verse 2:120 doesn't refer to all Jews and Christians, as he said. But more importantly, it doesn't referto SOME Jews and Christians either. It refers specifically to the parties which Muhammad PBUH was having trouble with, which resulted in the release of this Aya. It just happens to be the case that the groups he was having trouble with was Christians and Jews. This is not at all meant to be projected onto a small portion of Christians and Jews for the rest of eternity, since the rationale can be applied to atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc as well.

FYI the problem being discussed in this verse is when the new direction of the Qiblah was revealed and the Jews of Medina + the Christians of Najjran wanted Muhammad PBUH to continue praying towards their Qiblah. When he told them he wouldn't, they were despaired and sad, and Muhammad's PBUH nature was to please everyone. Hence this verse.

I ask your "Doctor" Ahmad Shafaat to revise his understanding of the verse and stop taking verses out of context in the same but inverse manner that Islamophobes do.

2) He starts with:

That's irrelevant and in fact it's absurd that he even says it. It serves no purpose. Everyone's media projects Islam negatively, regardless of religion. It's not like communists in Russia are loving Islam.

3)

a. It doesn't matter if the death penalty is good or bad for apostasy, that's not a scholar's job. A scholar's job is to tell you what he/she believes God requested. Whether it's good or bad for Islam is unimportant in the scholarly game, because the Quran and Hadith determine what is good or bad, and anything God says to do is considered 'good' and anything God says not to do is considered 'bad'.

b. The bolded part is idiotic. The same exact paragraph can be used by interchanging any religion for another. Muslims were leaving Islam during Muhammad PBUH's time btw.

4)

#fail: Muslims are people of the book as well.

5)

4)

I didn't know God speaks to him.

So basically we are saying that the Quran only includes the most fundamental stuff, and is of a memorizable size. Meaning details are in hadith and non-memorizable, therefore actually creating the occupation of Islamic scholar. How wonderfully convenient.

5) There is absolutely no indication that Muhammad PBUH has the right to only legislate details but not fundamentals. There is indication on both other possibilities: that he has NO right to create rules, and that he has complete permission to create rules.

There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that fundamental issues are with the Quran and details are with Muhammad PBUH.

More importantly, if you believe in the hadith and sunna, it is sanctioned by the Quran, therefore anything in the hadith which does not CONFLICT with the Quran is completely valid.

Executing an apostate for causing mischief in the land is not against the Quran. Executing an apostate for switching religions and joining another government is not against the Quran > but it's not ok to execute that person if they remain a Muslim and start spying for the opposition government? Strange, right?

6) The chief issue here, as mentioned, is that apostasy is viewed as "mischief in the land". So essentially, if I anounce my apostasy by press conference, then I should be killed for it?

Also, what guarantee of peace can an apostate who is now a second class citizen of another ummah give you? It is impossible, unless that person happens to be a leader.

Should I go on?

Now, more importantly: If you are aware that hadith is rejectable upon conflict with the Quran, how can you trust hadith to be accurate at all? If Hadith is subject to the Quran, then it is subject to time, corruption, etc.. so why do you do ablution in line with hadith rather than Quran? Why do you pray according to hadith rather than Quran?