Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Maryaam

Woman Sentenced For Apostasy And Adultery

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Why is it that you refer to bayynat on "Shirk"-issues but refer to tashayyu-site on hard issues(picking what you like and leaving what you dislike).

I help you a little, here is what bayynat says on apostasy:

 

Apostasy

Apostasy is the negative position a Muslim takes towards Islam. He no longer maintains his belief without any proof, and he denies Islam's basic doctrinal principles of believing in the only God, the Messenger (p.), The Message and the Day of Judgment. Facing the apostate would involve asking him to explain the basis that made him denounce his belief, and engaging in an objective and free discussion about them with a group of religious scholars, with the aim of convincing him that he had made a mistake. If he refuses to take part in the dialogue, or if he does not agree to re-embrace Islam despite all the arguments and proofs he is faced with, it would suggest that his position is one of a complicated stubbornness, and not of someone with an open minded intellectual mentality. This attitude could have an effect on the general order of the society that Islam represents the existentialist basis of its safety and stability. Thus, such a position will be similar to grand treason to the motherland. One important remark in this respect: If they cannot convince him with the arguments they make or the proofs they offer, then they have no proof that he should be treated as an apostate.

 

Similarly, if he does not proclaim his apostasy, and continues to abide by the general order, socially and legally, then he would not be punished for changing the religion.

As for Allah's saying: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (02:256) and “Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?” (10:99) they are referring to the fact that belief or faith is a cultural and rational issue that nobody can force others to accept especially if all the arguments have been made clear. Therefore, it is a subjective internal issue while. Thus, Allah's saying: “The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah, For not yet has Faith entered your hearts” (49:14) suggests to us that embracing Islam is not only a matter of the heart and faith, but it is a commitment to belonging to the society and to the practice of Islamic law in the Muslim country the Muslim lives in. It is just like if somebody is living in a country and  he does not adopt its cultural concepts. This person has to abide by the laws that apply on both the citizens and foreign residents. An apostate thus violates this general order which is not acceptable in Islamic legislation.

http://english.bayynat.org/Issues/Religious_Jihad.htm

Good article, sums up nicely all the nuances many have forgotten regarding these laws.

 

The Religion of Peace has to prove it's religion of peace, or stop calling itself as such. But with followers like these...:

 

Hmm you don't do a very good job convincing people you're a muslim, 'Islam is what I want to make it to be', 'religion of peace', sneering sarcasm worthy of a bnp yellow-teethed maggot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm you don't do a very good job convincing people you're a muslim, 'Islam is what I want to make it to be', 'religion of peace', sneering sarcasm worthy of a bnp yellow-teethed maggot.

 

Shall we focus on the substance rather than my barbs which are directed at those so called Muslims who have made a mess of this religion?

Oh and I have nothing to convince anyone, brother.

 

Edit: Islam is not a monolith. Some of its forms are benign and peaceful; some of its interpretations are plain bloodthirsty and exactly opposite of the religion of peace; Islamofasicsm isn't such a wayward remark even though Muslims didn't like it when Bush said that. Some interpretations of Islam, especially those famous in our age, fit this term to a tee.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall we focus on the substance rather than my barbs which are directed at those so called Muslims who have made a mess of this religion?

You have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread other than blaspheming indirectly at the Islamic religion. When you say only the Imam could implement all this you could've concluded "this is a valid doctrine" as a wholesome summary (and i'd agree) but instead you've made it into a case of "making religion how you like", changing it according to personal inclination. And then as icing on the cake you adopt the same type of sneering attitude anti-muslim chimps do when speaking of Islam (i.e "ha this religion of peace mate"). You don't do yourself any favors with this type of attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread other than blaspheming indirectly at the Islamic religion. When you say only the Imam could implement all this you could've concluded "this is a valid doctrine" as a wholesome summary (and i'd agree) but instead you've made it into a case of "making religion how you like", changing it according to personal inclination. And then as icing on the cake you adopt the same type of sneering attitude anti-muslim chimps do when speaking of Islam (i.e "ha this religion of peace mate"). You don't do yourself any favors with this type of attitude.

 

Blasphemy? :lol: Give us a break, man. If you are so intent on passing blasphemy judgements then come down here. You seem naturally disposed to dispose off blasphemers and apostates lol. Here in Pakistan you'll be in good company, with lots of like minded people eh.

 

Anyway bad jokes aside, I think you should read my writing carefully and don't be quick to go on the defensive. At no time did I make a case of 'making religion how you like". This is what these corrupt people like the that Sudanese judge and crackpot mullahs do, twisting religion till their worthless sensibilities are sated. I'm attacking that mentality!

 

No offence but perhaps my sarcasm is too difficult for you? I don't want to say or prove this to anyone but since you insist, I'm a believer and a sufficiently practicing one in that I do my wajibat. But I can't stand the type of 'religious' people that surround me, always vying for blood, spewing venom, hate and bigotry whenever they open their lousy mouths. When an Ahmadi was killed for being an Ahmadi and I unequivocally condemned the murder, an aunt of mine who was present said, "so what, at least a kafir has been killed". She is a very religious observing type. But she sinned gravely by making light of the murder of an innocent human and she thought nothing of it (And this mentality will eat Islam from the inside, no foreign conspiracies needed). This hatred against the innocent murdered man was justified in her "Islamic" worldview.

 

So how about if I say that these so-called pious Muslims today don't even care about humanity. All they care about is their self-image!

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only person that should be punished is her father...

Where was he? You think the propht (pbuh) will issue her to be dead or imprisoned without looking at her background...

Why didnt the father stay to help her understand islam... Why should you part of a relgion that you dont understand and no one your with understands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apostasy in the days of the Islamic civilization was akin to treason today. One's outward identification with Islam was their citizenship, and their rights and taxes were dependent on their religion (Muslim or dhimmi). The concept of a nation-state did not exist in those days - that was a product of Westphalia. The U.S still executes those who commit treason via lethal injection. In Islamic civilization, one was only deemed an apostate if they outwardly rejected Islam and its pillars. They are asked to repent, and if they refuse, they are punished. The hypocrite who keeps his unbelief to himself is not punished. The woman who apostatizes is not executed.

 

In this case, in Sudan, there are a couple problems with their ruling. Firstly, in Shi`i fiqh, a woman is never killed due to apostasy. Secondly, if this woman was raised by her Christian mother, and her Muslim father was not around, then she did not commit apostasy. She was always a Christian, through the influence of her parent. All people are born Muslim, that doesn't mean that all people are apostates in fiqh. An apostate is one who was publicly a Muslim and then publicly opposed Islam, and she does not fit that description. Thirdly, since she is a Christian, and since she is lawfully married to her husband, she cannot be punished for adultery... her contract is lawful, because Islam recognizes the marriages of other religions (including polytheists!). Fourthly, Sudan is not an Islamic nation-state, and its government is not involved in this ruling. The shari`a court is illegitimate because it has become an enforcer of illegal vigilante justice.

 

Notice how in Islam, prison is usually associated with enemy combatants. Most domestic crimes receive a direct punishment, while the prison house is mostly a holding for captives and rebels. A Muslim who publicly denounces Islam, and insists on it after being formally asked to repent, is considered an enemy combatant in the shari`a. In that situation, she opposes the social fabric that the entire civilization is built upon.

 

But here are some variables to consider:

  • What happens if she repents whilst in the prison?
  • What if Islam is not the foundation of the society?
  • And for those who have a problem with faith-related laws, I am sure most of you believe in hellfire, and so what is capital punishment next to an eternity in hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apostasy in the days of the Islamic civilization was akin to treason today. One's outward identification with Islam was their citizenship, and their rights and taxes were dependent on their religion (Muslim or dhimmi). The concept of a nation-state did not exist in those days - that was a product of Westphalia. The U.S still executes those who commit treason via lethal injection. In Islamic civilization, one was only deemed an apostate if they outwardly rejected Islam and its pillars. They are asked to repent, and if they refuse, they are punished. The hypocrite who keeps his unbelief to himself is not punished. The woman who apostatizes is not executed.

 

The US treason laws (most state treason laws) are a joke, they are a natural product of another religion, called the state religion, no sane individual supports them, and countless individuals (typically very courageous dissidents) have unjustly suffered because of them.  I don't see the point of such reference, as far as muslim's are concerned, it only weakens the argument.

Edited by King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

Will he or one of his out-of-control followers gun her down for insulting the Imam? The likes of you probably would. But the Imam of all the Prophets, the last of the Prophets, forgave one such woman when she threw a heap of stinking garbage on his head one day.

(salam)

There is a difference between personal forgiveness (forgiving someone who has wronged you) and carrying out hudud which Allah has commanded to be carried out. A big difference. And no, 'the likes of me' wouldn't kill a woman for doing that because the Imam (ajtf) would never command me to do so.

I think you're conveniently forgetting the fact that Imam Ali (as) burned men alive for calling him God. There was no 'forgiveness' for that because it was not a personal crime, it was a crime against Allah and therefore was punished according to Allah's laws.

(Wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

There is a difference between personal forgiveness (forgiving someone who has wronged you) and carrying out hudud which Allah has commanded to be carried out. A big difference. And no, 'the likes of me' wouldn't kill a woman for doing that because the Imam (ajtf) would never command me to do so.

I think you're conveniently forgetting the fact that Imam Ali (as) burned men alive for calling him God. There was no 'forgiveness' for that because it was not a personal crime, it was a crime against Allah and therefore was punished according to Allah's laws.

(wasalam)

 

Ws

 

Yes, I knew one hundred per cent that you'd bring up the incidents of pseudo-Nusayris being burned alive by Imam Ali. Even if for a moment I accept the veracity of those narrations, no Imam out of state power went around killing apostates and blasphemers or instructed their followers to do so. Since we don't have an Imam who can judge these situations, the punishments for apostasy etc cannot be carried out in this day and age. It is a prerogative of the Imam in power to deal with rebels who are out there to cause strife and rebellion. So defending contemporary punishments for apostasy and blasphemy, a riddle no one has the ability to solve, is out of question.

 

Apostasy in the days of the Islamic civilization was akin to treason today. One's outward identification with Islam was their citizenship, and their rights and taxes were dependent on their religion (Muslim or dhimmi). The concept of a nation-state did not exist in those days - that was a product of Westphalia.

 

Since citizenship is no longer defined by professed religion and nation-states have took over, and since matters of faith have predominantly been relegated to the private sphere, wouldn't it be logical to say that the old framework for punishing people for having committed treason through their renunciation of Islam no longer apply? And if it doesn't apply because of complete sociopolitical changes in the world society, what still drives the mullahs in courts of law to go on around passing death sentences due to religious matters?

 

When some people say Muslims need a reform in thinking, they are attacked by a pack of dogs vying for their blood, accused of being "Westoxified" and of having a "slave mentality". My question is: Why the world of Islam insists on being treated as in the old days despite the fact that our modern world has made redundant many ideas and philosophies considered normative in the old times. Are we stuck in the past? Oh we are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Ws

 

Yes, I knew one hundred per cent that you'd bring up the incidents of pseudo-Nusayris being burned alive by Imam Ali. Even if for a moment I accept the veracity of those narrations

 

(salam)

 

10376181_10203697749665063_9173509058199

 

And anyway, since when are you in a position to validify or reject the veracity of a hadith?

 

no Imam out of state power went around killing apostates and blasphemers or instructed their followers to do so.

 

I never advocated such a thing (without state power). I was talking about the law qua the law, which many of the 'peace loving' people would reject whether it be implemented by an Imam or otherwise, because the nature of the punishment, in and of itself, in relation to the act of apostasy, doesn't agree with their view.

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Hazyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

burned men alive for calling him God.

(Wasalam)

We don't believe in this. It's a Sunni fabrication on the Imam(as).

http://www.askthesheikh.com/did-imam-ali-a-s-really-put-two-men-on-fire-because-they-claimed-he-was-god/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

(salam)

 

Thank you for correcting my ignorance. It seems this is commonly accepted among the Shia... I've heard it from speakers as well so I unwittingly accepted it to be true. Something that probably should be addressed.

 

My argument still stands, however, Marbles, because hudud will be implemented by the Imam (ajtf) and there have been times when 'violent' punishments have been carried out, which some people will be against.

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Hazyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let me add:

 

1. Story of Uwais - from sunni books not Shia

 

Our speakers really do need to be authenticating things before speaking them, some of the things i hear are so ludicrous.

 

I.E people narrating Imam Mahdi a.'s mum was a roman princess who met Fatima a.s in her dream and they all met and spoke, and then the Imam a.s was born as a baby and taken by an angel and flown around heaven.

 

What do we find? The Imam a.s mother was actually a slave, and not a roman princess.

 

It's quite sad some people speak things which had they spent 10 minutes doing a simple google search would stop them spreading unauthentic things to the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Thank you for correcting my ignorance. It seems this is commonly accepted among the Shia... I've heard it from speakers as well so I unwittingly accepted it to be true. Something that probably should be addressed.

 

My argument still stands, however, Marbles, because hudud will be implemented by the Imam (ajtf) and there have been times when 'violent' punishments have been carried out, which some people will be against.

 

Brother Al-Najashi spoiled the game. I was going to ask you a question before proceeding further but which I will now refrain from asking. But in any case, I speak for myself and not for anyone else. And I make myself clear: I don't have a problem with violent punishments when they are needed and in days when Islam was being established and the truth and falsehood were in the process of delineation, harsh reprisals against enemy infidels, apostates, hypocrites and traitors were necessitated by the goal of laying the boundaries of faith and infidelity, and securing the faith's doctrinal and physical frontiers.

 

With that in mind, many actions of the Imams and the Prophet set the standards for the generations of laity, yet it doesn't mean we can start literally acting upon each and everything the infallibles did, simply because those things are a prerogative of the infallibles and not laymen like me and you.

 

The fiction of Imam Ali burning apostates alive is quite widespread amongst Shias. So, even if I accept for the sake of argument that Imam Ali burned alive people only and only for the reason that they believed in his divinity, today lay Shias cannot go around doing what the Imam did, cannot go around chopping the heads off of hundreds of thousands of Nusayris who still exist in Syria and elsewhere.

 

I stand by my initial argument that in our age punishing or sentencing people to gallows for apostatising and blaspheming is one, big ruse - a racket run by the organised mullahism of Sunni-Wahhabi Islam, and, sadly, some Shias are also a part of this charade.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

Brother Al-Najashi spoiled the game. I was going to ask you a question before proceeding further but which I will now refrain from asking. But in any case, I speak for myself and not for anyone else. And I make myself clear: I don't have a problem with violent punishments when they are needed and in days when Islam was being established and the truth and falsehood were in the process of delineation, harsh reprisals against enemy infidels, apostates, hypocrites and traitors were necessitated by the goal of laying the boundaries of faith and infidelity, and securing the faith's doctrinals and physical frontiers.

With that in mind, many actions of the Imams and the Prophet set the standards for the generations of laity, yet it doesn't mean we can start literally acting upon each and everything they infallibles did, simply because those things are a prerogative of the infallibles and not the laymen like me and you.

The fiction of Imam Ali burning apostates alive is quite widespread amongst Shias. So, even if I accept for the sake of argument that Imam Ali burned alive people only and only for the reason that they believed in his divinity, today laymen Shias cannot go around doing what the Imam did, cannot go around chopping the heads off of hundreds of thousands of Nusayris who still exist in Syria and elsewhere.

I stand by my initial argument that in our age punishing or sentencing people to gallows for apostatising and blaspheming is one, big ruse - a racket run by the organised mullahism of Sunni-Wahhabi Islam, and, sadly, some Shias are also a part of this charade.

I'm sorry that he spoiled your game bhai. You seem to love playing these games where you ask me a question and then try and 'trap' me lol.

I agree with everything you've said in this post.

Edited by Hazyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

I'm sorry that he spoiled your game bhai. You seem to love playing these games where you ask me a question and then try and 'trap' me lol.

I agree with everything you've said in this post.

 

Naw, not with the intention to 'trap' you but with the intention of dealing one thing at a time. Since this subject by its very nature is confounding, it's always best to progress in small steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf, why are some people so RETARDED.

So what if she left islam and became christian???

Will hangin her solve the problem?

Lmfao, some people are so f retarded.

God wants us to turn back! But not with force!

God is the forgiver and most merciful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf, why are some people so RETARDED.

So what if she left islam and became christian???

Will hangin her solve the problem?

Lmfao, some people are so f retarded.

God wants us to turn back! But not with force!

God is the forgiver and most merciful.

Relax Akhi. Easy on the language. This isn't reddit, it's an Islamic website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf, why are some people so RETARDED.

So what if she left islam and became christian???

Will hangin her solve the problem?

Lmfao, some people are so f retarded.

God wants us to turn back! But not with force!

God is the forgiver and most merciful.

Yeah with that logic then what is the point of hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah with that logic then what is the point of hell.

Hell is for those who die in the state of disbeilive.

She can be christian, she can be the worst person on earth for 100 years. But on last day she decides to convert to islam and ask for forgivness, since Allah is most merciful do u think she goes to hell?

There is no compulsion in religion. Those who decide to believe, believes, those who decide to disbelieve, will disbelieve and burn in hell and be humiliated. God knows best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell is for those who die in the state of disbeilive.

She can be christian, she can be the worst person on earth for 100 years. But on last day she decides to convert to islam and ask for forgivness, since Allah is most merciful do u think she goes to hell?

There is no compulsion in religion. Those who decide to believe, believes, those who decide to disbelieve, will disbelieve and burn in hell and be humiliated. God knows best!

 

As-salaam 'alaykum,

 

While I'm definitely not in any kind of position of authority to judge the eternal fates of souls or anything like that, I have this crazy idea that it probably takes more than a simple declaration of faith, simply asking for forgiveness, or simply belonging to the "right" group of believers to get into heaven...

 

You condemn all non-Muslims to hell in one breath, and then in the next state that, "God knows best!"

 

Such simple-minded, self-righteous condemnation of others to eternal damnation on the basis of creed is one of the big reasons (among many others) why I left Christianity...

 

How can we be so quick to pass judgement on the fates of souls? Isn't that job above our pay grade?

 

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^... You've misunderstood the verse. That is not what it is referring too. 

 

There is no compulsion to initially believe but when one publicly apostates they are considered to be a threat to the social order and balance of society. They are then given time to repent and mend their ways but if they persist then they may be silenced. 

Edited by Ali Musaaa :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-salaam 'alaykum,

While I'm definitely not in any kind of position of authority to judge the eternal fates of souls or anything like that, I have this crazy idea that it probably takes more than a simple declaration of faith, simply asking for forgiveness, or simply belonging to the "right" group of believers to get into heaven...

You condemn all non-Muslims to hell in one breath, and then in the next state that, "God knows best!"

Such simple-minded, self-righteous condemnation of others to eternal damnation on the basis of creed is one of the big reasons (among many others) why I left Christianity...

How can we be so quick to pass judgement on the fates of souls? Isn't that job above our pay grade?

WS

i was not judging the fate of souls, thats why i said God knows best.

I was just trying to give a short but good statememt so he would understand what i mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was not judging the fate of souls, thats why i said God knows best.

I was just trying to give a short but good statememt so he would understand what i mean.

As-salaam 'alaykum,

 

After re-reading our posts, I see now how harsh I was towards you...Please forgive me!

 

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A Sudanese woman awaiting the death penalty for abandoning her religious faith has given birth in jail near the capital, Khartoum, her lawyer has said.

 

Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Ishag married a Christian man and was sentenced to hang for apostasy earlier this month after refusing to renounce Christianity.

 

She is allowed to nurse her baby girl for two years before the sentence is carried out.

 

Born to a Muslim father, she was convicted by a Sharia court.

 

Sudan has a majority Muslim population, which is governed by Islamic law.

 

Now after two years will these cave barbarians hang her? May God's curse be upon them forever if they do. May Allah destroy their hypocritical faces and give a collective attack to their black hearts. Amen.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27586067

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But do you agree with the apostasy penalty in general? There are my reasons for why it doesn't make much sense:

- death penalty for expressing one's apostasy turns them into martyrs for human freedom of opinion, which is a God-given bounty

- people can become confused as to why Islam needs to silence dissent so desperately as to kill them - which does not reflect well on the religion

- sometimes, expressing one's doubts and arguing against Islam can lead to a better understanding of Islam and break away the superstitions

- killing an apostate creates unnecessary publicity for a person who spouts falsehood

- dissenters, in fear of their lives, would go underground, even so far as to conspire against the Islamic state which enforces this tyranny over opinion

- nifaq or hypocrisy in opinion and religion can affect other aspects of society too, giving rise to a distrustful, inauthentic and fraudster community.

- in the absence of the Imam, it becomes a tool for arbitrary punishment of any dissent against the ruling interpretation (even if they are scholars)

- it automatically positions the dissenter as somehow confused and needing rational cure, giving the rest of the population - including the rulers - a false sense of superiority.

- it stagnates understanding of religion, preferring the status quo even if it is full of superstition, and it helps prevent any reform

- people who would otherwise express their ideas and stimulate thought would, out of fear, keep silent. This discouragement of novel insight or criticism dulls the public intelligence and leaves them susceptible to private doubts and ignorance and superstition

- by cutting off voices, resentment can become widespread leading to revolts which would then endanger the Islamic state as well as Islam's reputation

- it dictates for the future generations what they must believe regardless of what they think or risk the death penalty, when they also would like to listen to the Qur'an, read the arguments, reflect free from any compulsion and choose as they see fit

- it is a massive vote of no confidence in rational discourse in solving problems, opting for force as the ultimate arbiter of truth

 

Salam,

 

I dont agree with someones life being taken simply for changing their religion no. I also agree with you that its healthy for people to be able to openly dialogue about religious issues, as Muslims and non-Muslims, without fear of attack on their character or person and that to supress that suggests a weakness in the idealogy, rather than a strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Salam,

 

I dont agree with someones life being taken simply for changing their religion no.

 

(wasalam)

 

(note, this post is aimed at an Islamic society during the Imam ÚÌøá Çááøå ÝÑÌå ÇáÔÑíÝ's rule because in today's day and age the apostasy punishment is invalid anyway due to the lack of a ma'soom)

 

Firstly, it's not a 'simple' thing. It represents the discarding of every moral principle that Islam has taught and means that the person is a potential threat to the stability of society.

 

If someone changes their religion in private, then it's no issue. Announcing it in public is a big issue and the Aimmah (as) have and the Imam ÚÌøá Çááøå ÝÑÌå ÇáÔÑíÝ will put to death those who commit the act. But of course, your Islam is different from Islam itself so you'd have a different view than the Imam (as).

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Hazyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(wasalam)

 

(note, this post is aimed at an Islamic society during the Imam ÚÌøá Çááøå ÝÑÌå ÇáÔÑíÝ's rule because in today's day and age the apostasy punishment is invalid anyway due to the lack of a ma'soom)

 

Firstly, it's not a 'simple' thing. It represents the discarding of every moral principle that Islam has taught and means that the person is a potential threat to the stability of society.

 

If someone changes their religion in private, then it's no issue. Announcing it in public is a big issue and the Aimmah (as) have and the Imam ÚÌøá Çááøå ÝÑÌå ÇáÔÑíÝ will put to death those who commit the act. But of course, your Islam is different from Islam itself so you'd have a different view than the Imam (as).

 

(wasalam)

 

I'd say the Islam Ruq follows doesn't allow for doling out death sentences for apostasy.

 

Apostasy for all practical purposes can't be punished without the Imam. And that's a very long period of time. (Imam will know what to do with such people). So to practically reject punishing apostasy in our age is not contrary to the teachings of Islam. Calling for blood, setting price on heads and hanging people for it is what's contrary to Islamic teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, it's not a 'simple' thing. It represents the discarding of every moral principle that Islam has taught and means that the person is a potential threat to the stability of society.

 

 

No it doesnt. You can be a non Muslim and live by Islamic principles. Why are they a potential threat?

 

 But of course, your Islam is different from Islam itself so you'd have a different view than the Imam (as).

 

(wasalam)

 

 Youre in no position to know without doubt what 'my' Islam is, or what the Islam will be that the Imam (aj) returns. Still, you must feel dizzy having that responsibility for holding all the answers; so dizzy you can be forgiven for not realising how monumentally arrogant you sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Youre in no position to know without doubt what 'my' Islam is, or what the Islam will be that the Imam (aj) returns. Still, you must feel dizzy having that responsibility for holding all the answers; so dizzy you can be forgiven for not realising how monumentally arrogant you sound.

 

I'm just using your own words dear sister. When I said, in the other thread, that to find out what Islam prescribes, one must refer to the scholars. You said 'it is their Islam'.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235022777-sayed-modarresi-slams-the-tattoo-wearing-dudes/page-2#entry2705191

 

If you feel these words that I have repeated from you are arrogant, then you may have some work to do on yourself.

The Islam when he (aj) returns will be according to Sharia (albeit with alterations). The Sharia states that the punishment for public apostasy in an Islamic state is death, but it can only be implemented by a ma'soom. I can imagine you'd be one of the people to criticize the Imam (aj) or even go against him because you disagree with this particular aspect of the Sharia.

Do you remember, dear sister, that you picked up a few ahadith in their English translated form a while back and try to argue, with your oh-so-many qualifications, that hijab isn't wajib and that all our scholars for the past millennium were nutters following their own whims and culture? Now you tell me if that wasn't arrogant of you. That, if it was truly your stance, my dear sister, would be your Islam derived from conjecture and ra`y (your own opinion) and not true Islam, as defined, in this period of occultation, by our scholars whom you seem to love to belittle (for no apparent reason other than you don't like what they have to say) without second thought.

 

No it doesnt. You can be a non Muslim and live by Islamic principles. Why are they a potential threat?

 

Because it removes the individual sense of accountability that resides within a person should they believe in God and a divinely appointed moral system. If this is done in public and it goes unpunished, it makes it 'okay' for everyone else to follow suit should they choose to do so and eventually leads to new generations of kuffar and the moral decay of society.

 

Of course this doesn't apply today because non-Muslims are often better off with their moral standards than a lot of 'Muslims' unfortunately. I'm talking about when true Islam is in place and a proper Islamic society exists and the 'truth' is readily available. I am completely against punishment for apostasy in today's day and age as well in so-called 'Muslim' countries.

(wasalam)

Edited by Hazyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only Imaam al-Mahdee (a.s) has a right to do this. However, these people do not. Anyone who doesn't agree with a Divine Law by Allaah (s.w.t) is going through a very bad pathway. All Shee'ah agree that Imaam al-Mahdee' (a.s) will establish Sharee'ah on this Earth, and death for public apostasy is a Divine Law.

Edited by DaBeast313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...