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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

@Haydar HusaynHusayn

Another person here in SC mentioned a similar idea. Saying something along the lines of "well, it's only in cases of announcement in a public sphere" or "well they would have 3 days to recant".

But even these are really just excuses for the more broad issue.

If a non Muslim country were to arrest a Muslim for pronouncing his faith in public, it would be wrong to arrest or punish this individual, whether they were open about their faith or not, and they shouldn't have to hide their faith either. Giving someone the option to hide their religion really doesn't make the situation justified.

It depends on the principles the state claims to uphold. If a secular country claims there is freedom of religion, then they should stick to that. If another country wants to operate under a different set of principles, then they are also free to do so. If someone doesn't agree with the philosophy a country espouses, then they are of course free to move somewhere they are more comfortable. I don't see what the big issue is.

And by the way, it's not like the secular West doesn't have issue when it comes to people preaching 'blasphemous' beliefs in public. That is exactly what some of the hate speech laws are, secular blasphemy laws.

Quote

Charges have been dropped against a Christian preacher who told a police officer homosexuality was "a sin".

Dale Mcalpine, 42, was accused of a public order offence after speaking to a community support officer (PCSO) in Workington, Cumbria, in April.

Mr Mcalpine, who denies being homophobic, claimed police told him his views were against the law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8687395.stm

Quote

A Christian street preacher was wrongly arrested and held in a police cell for almost 19 hours after quoting verses from the Bible.

John Craven, 57, recited from Revelation after two gay teenagers asked about his views on homosexuality.

But after he read from chapter 21, verse eight – which says sinners will burn in a lake of fire and sulphur – police arrested him on suspicion of committing a public order offence.

He was taken to a police cell where he claims he was denied food, water and access to medication for his rheumatoid arthritis.

He was fingerprinted, had to give a sample of his DNA and told he was being investigated for allegedly using insulting words with the intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress – which could have led to a six-month jail sentence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593217/Christian-preacher-wins-13-000-wrongful-arrest-telling-gay-couple-Bible-says-homosexuality-sin.html

Quote

A Christian street preacher who had his Bible confiscated as he was handcuffed by police has been awarded £2,500 for wrongful arrest.

A video of Oluwole Ilesanmi pleading with a police officer to “not take my Bible away” has been viewed millions of times since his arrest in February.

Ilesanmi was detained outside Southgate tube station in Enfield, north London, by Metropolitan police officers after he was accused of Islamophobia by a passerby.

The Christian admitted describing Islam as an “aberration” but said he was simply expressing his opinion rather than preaching hate against Muslims.

Footage of the arrest showed Ilesanmi, 64, being told by an officer that he was “causing problems, disturbing people’s days” and that “no one wants to hear that. They want you to go away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/28/christian-preacher-racism-wrongful-arrest-payout-bible

 

Yes, these arrests were all found to be wrongful, but it's clear what the direction of travel is.

 

15 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I'm sure there were Jews who hid their religion from Nazis, and I'm sure there were Nazis who weren't bloodthirsty who let Jews go when they lied about their religion. But none of this makes the overall situation justified. The idea that one ought to face punishment for simply being open about their faith.

The persecution of Jews had nothing to do with religion or beliefs. It was about ethnicity. I didn't matter to the Nazis if you were a Christian or Atheist. If you had Jewish blood, you were sent to the concentration camps.

 

15 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

And just to note this again, not every form of announcement of ones faith must be tied to insults toward another.

An atheist preacher could go up on stage and could proselytize, without slandering any Prophets. Just as a Muslim could go up on stage, could give a speech about Islam, without slandering other faiths.

No society allows people to proselytise against the foundations of that society uninhibited. So for example, in the secular West, if a group advocates for any other system than the status quo, it is virtually guaranteed that they will be infiltrated and subverted, even if it's clear they have no extremist intentions.

Again, in a secular country religion is more or less irrelevant to the social contract, so as long as it doesn't clash with what it perceived to be the smooth functioning of society (and increasingly we see that it does), then there is theoretically no problem in allowing complete freedom to share religious views. However, someone advocating for the overthrow of the state might find themselves in more trouble. E.g:

Quote

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

 

Why shouldn't people have freedom of speech in this area? Are people not free to come up with alternative ways of running society, and given that government has a monopoly on violence, it's like that some would need to be used to make any real changes. So why should people not even be able to talk about this?

A Muslim state would be founded on a different type of social contract, and hence it's sensitivities will not be the same as that of a secular state. A secular state has no concern for the hereafter, while an Islamic one does. So it doesn't make sense to impose secular priorities onto a religious one. They are different in their foundations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

It depends on the principles the state claims to uphold. If a secular country claims there is freedom of religion, then they should stick to that. If another country wants to operate under a different set of principles, then they are also free to do so. If someone doesn't agree with the philosophy a country espouses, then they are of course free to move somewhere they are more comfortable. I don't see what the big issue is.

And by the way, it's not like the secular West doesn't have issue when it comes to people preaching 'blasphemous' beliefs in public. That is exactly what some of the hate speech laws are, secular blasphemy laws.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8687395.stm

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593217/Christian-preacher-wins-13-000-wrongful-arrest-telling-gay-couple-Bible-says-homosexuality-sin.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/28/christian-preacher-racism-wrongful-arrest-payout-bible

 

Yes, these arrests were all found to be wrongful, but it's clear what the direction of travel is.

 

The persecution of Jews had nothing to do with religion or beliefs. It was about ethnicity. I didn't matter to the Nazis if you were a Christian or Atheist. If you had Jewish blood, you were sent to the concentration camps.

 

No society allows people to proselytise against the foundations of that society uninhibited. So for example, in the secular West, if a group advocates for any other system than the status quo, it is virtually guaranteed that they will be infiltrated and subverted, even if it's clear they have no extremist intentions.

Again, in a secular country religion is more or less irrelevant to the social contract, so as long as it doesn't clash with what it perceived to be the smooth functioning of society (and increasingly we see that it does), then there is theoretically no problem in allowing complete freedom to share religious views. However, someone advocating for the overthrow of the state might find themselves in more trouble. E.g:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

 

Why shouldn't people have freedom of speech in this area? Are people not free to come up with alternative ways of running society, and given that government has a monopoly on violence, it's like that some would need to be used to make any real changes. So why should people not even be able to talk about this?

A Muslim state would be founded on a different type of social contract, and hence it's sensitivities will not be the same as that of a secular state. A secular state has no concern for the hereafter, while an Islamic one does. So it doesn't make sense to impose secular priorities onto a religious one. They are different in their foundations.

"If another country wants to operate under a different set of principles, then they are also free to do so."

 

Yes, a country is free to punish people based on their religious faith, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Yes, America could and maybe has, arrested Muslims for practicing their faith (hypothetically) but that wouldn't make it ok, just because a country has the power and free will to make it so.

Then you have examples of preachers getting payouts for wrongful arrests, these do not really help your position. Yes, some people have biases and want to silence Muslims or Christians, but our laws arent suggesting that anyone ought to be killed over these things. 

Nobody is giving these Christians 3 days to recant nor even arresting outright for preaching. Rather it sounds like gays were being told that they'd burn in a lake of fire, which is borderline hate speech depending on the context. But then you have a release and 13,000 dollar payout in the end anyway.

And all of this still is just a smoke screen. I say this all the time but, the world shouldn't view the west as a moral beacon. Even if we saw something in the west, it wouldn't make it ok for anyone else in the world to do it, let alone Islamic countries. Even if the Christian speaker was not realed and given 13,000 dollars for his troubles and was ultimately given the death penalty instead, that wouldn't make it a proper act by a government.

You asked why people shouldn't have freedom of speech with respect to:

"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government...by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government"

this is a strange question to me, because the act invites potential assassination of political leaders. 

Announcing ones faith in a public sphere is not on a similar level of crime/violence or destruction as assassinating a president or overthrowing a government by force or violence. I'm not even sure why you would think these acts are comparable.

but still, even if the United States gave the death penalty for people who spoke against president Trump, it still wouldn't make it right for Islamic societies to do the same.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A secular state has no concern for the hereafter, while an Islamic one does. So it doesn't make sense to impose secular priorities onto a religious one. They are different in their foundations."

And I agree that the foundations are different. 

Now we are drifting into another discussion about whether or not an Islamic government can adopt some secular values, without losing its own foundations. I think that an Islamic government could. 

But here is what I would say in response for why I personally prefer the idea of some secular laws over some of these seemingly aggressive religious laws.

From a religious position, we can go to an extreme to make the point, some Wahabis, according to their foundation, would kill Shia preachers, such as in cases of religious views of hardcore extremists. Some people bomb Shia as they're marching during karbala in Pakistan for example. In an extreme case, a government arrests a Muslim for preaching their faith, or a Muslim government issues a death penalty for an apostate that doesn't hide their faith.

So the problems are as follows:

Religious positions are based on subjective beliefs. At least when the religion isn't properly understood. 

These wahabi aren't basing their beliefs off of whether or not something is observably destructive. They're basing their beliefs off of what they "think" may be (although only God knows for sure) destructive in a hereafter that people in large part, don't understand to begin with.

Let's be honest, we have little to no understanding of the hereafter, none of us has been there, assuming it exists, nobody has met anyone who has been there. We don't have pictures, we can't pick up a phone and call anyone there etc. So we aren't in a position to kill others over it. If you're going to kill someone, you really need to know for sure why you're killing them and you need an incredibly morally justified reason, otherwise you could be commiting a grave sin.

Their foundation (these extremists), is a hazy cloud, where people can't seem to agree on what is right or wrong (to kill the apostate or not to kill the apostate, and why).

And this line of thought continues on into government. Where now the government's law, reflects this same problematic fundamentalist subjective position. Now the government is deciding, death to apostates? Did they recant within 3 days? Did they preach in a public sphere? Will they lead others to a lake of fire in the hereafter? This problem has become institutionalized.

But a government shouldn't have such control, to the extent that it might crush alternative faiths. The government is supposed to protect people's freedoms, it's not supposed to crush a Muslim preacher that decides not to hide their faith. Nor should a government crush a Christian preacher (and the payouts suggest a battle was waged in court and the government decided not to oppress, in this instance, based on laws protecting religious freedoms).

A government (in a perfect world), should say, it's not our position to say if the hereafter is real or not, some believe it is, some believe it isn't, some believe gays will go to heaven, some believe gays will go to hell. Some people think Muslims should be arrested, some thing Christians should be arrested. But regardless of all of this, it's not the government's position to make the call. Again, the government is here to protect the people and to serve the people (ideally). It isn't here to dictate who is right or wrong over faith based matters. There should never be institutionalized wahabism because it will result in the oppression of the innocent. Quite the opposite, in ideal world, the government should protect the shias right and the atheists right, or openly be free in their faith, and they shouldn't have to fear death.

At the end of the day, a government law, should not punish or give the death penalty for things that are religiously and subjectively disputed. 

It's just not a governments place to have that kind of control or dominion over the people it serves. 

And I wonder now if a religious government could hold such values, or if this is truly inherently contradictory or impossible for a religious government to do.

 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

People aren't bloodthirsty maniacs, looking to get people executed for apostasy at the drop of a hat. That's not how the religion works. It's a religion of making excuses for one another, of covering each others sins, of keeping things private, of minding one's business, of giving advice in private

This is nice brother, but I am not addressing matters on a personal level. I am addressing an issue that through theory can be implemented and justified.

 

17 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Again, they can bring forth as many questions as they want. You don't need to tell anyone you are an apostate to bring forward questions. You can just say that these things are causing you doubts, or that you don't understand how to resolve these issues.

So simply adding to your premises, therefore I have chosen on basis of these arguments to dispatch myself from the belief of Allah and his messenger until rational/empirical evidence can show to me otherwise, would then cause one to surrender their life?

I have personally seen cases where very faithful Muslim brother would sincerely inquire about Islam and due to their obtuse questions would face staunch criticism and would even be accused of approaching apostasy, so in the scenario of an apostate who has actually apostated it would actually be best to reveal that they have left the religion to free the second party from disillusion.

For example the second party would just answer the apostates question through a fundamentally Islamic basis, whereas the apostate has already divorced such axioms. If we are being pragmatic it is only a matter of time until the inquirer would be realized to have been an apostate. In that case he would not only be subject to the death penalty, but he can also fall subject to and tried by very convincing treasonous accusations. 

The second party can eloquently state that the apostate was simply operating under the guise of a skeptical and troubled Muslim while posing serious questions (acting as a Muslim) to weaken the faith of the Muslims, therefore he not only apostated from the religion, but also mischievously sought to plant the seed of confusion within the hearts of the other believers while he himself was posing as a believer.

In that case wouldn't it be better for him to simply make it public that he has become an apostate? therefore, the grounds are already set for discussion and there is no need for an intellectual and theological game of charades.

17 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Why haven't they executed the guy yet if things are so simple?

Because people were protesting all over the world, and it would be very unfavorable to execute him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Reza said:

You are conflating criticism with conspiracy.

No, I am merely addressing criticism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

then they are of course free to move somewhere they are more comfortable. I don't see what the big issue is.

I have spoken to individuals with similar cases and inquired, as to why they do not decide to simply leave.

Their response was that it was the country they were born in, the place of their native tongue, the only place in which their family resided. In their perspective why escape when you can stand up peacefully for what you believe? 

My question is why do you need to surrender everything for differing theologically, we are not discussing North Korea, we are discussing Islam the epitome of justice and the means in which the hearts can find peace. However, what peace is found in a heart which simply exiles a person away from their loved ones and home while enjoying the comforts of their own home.  

The issue is quite tantamount and I am surprised brother that you are choosing not to perceive it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, what peace is found in a heart which simply exiles a person away from their loved ones and home while enjoying the comforts of their own home.  

Person finding some act as peace in his heart does not justify the act itself. He can find peace in his heart to express his apostasy to public in Islamic state but many other people heart will be cast in doubt or destroyed their faith, thus they will lose their hereafter.

Look, even in the Qur'an we have these kind of situation;

A speaker among them will say, "Indeed, I had a companion [on earth]
Who would say, 'Are you indeed of those who believe
That when we have died and become dust and bones, we will indeed be recompensed?'"
He will say, "Would you [care to] look?"
And he will look and see him in the midst of the Hellfire.
He will say, "By Allah, you almost ruined me.


So publicly this would be even worse matter. Many people can freely and constantly express all kind of Apostate thoughts and belief that can cause people to lose their faith. Morally and justly it is better to not allow this scenario to happen. In Secular state this is possible because the Secular state do not care any ones religion or their hereafter, what they focus is how we can apply justice for all people without caring the aspect of hereafter.

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

but many other people heart will be cast in doubt or destroyed their faith, thus they will lose their hereafter.

Someone just saying I left the religion, just that statement. Will cause the faith of those within the Islamic community to crumble? Brother don’t undermine Muslims like that.

 

1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

A speaker among them will say, "Indeed, I had a companion [on earth]
Who would say, 'Are you indeed of those who believe
That when we have died and become dust and bones, we will indeed be recompensed?'"
He will say, "Would you [care to] look?"
And he will look and see him in the midst of the Hellfire.
He will say, "By Allah, you almost ruined me.

SubhanAllah! This beautiful verse from the Holy Quran actually furthermore substantiates what I am saying, let’s examine the verses.

Vr 52. He wondered about the believer in the truth

Vr 53. He doubted the resurrection after death 

Vr. 54. He was shown the fate of the disbelievers in Hell

Vr 55. He was able to see the horrors of the hellfire

Vr 56. He exclaimed out of astonishment and surprise, such deviated ideas could have led him to perish (in an ignorance that would evidently lead to his demise)

Vr 57. He was told (by the Muslim) I too would have perished if it not for the guidance of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) 

Source: The commentary by S.V. Miras Ahmed Ali and Ayatollah Agha H.M.M. Pooya Yazdi

Conclusion: We Can then deduce from this Quranic interaction that you have shared, it is best for a clear rejector of truth to converse with a believer, and share with them their disbelief so as to be guided. 

1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

In Secular state this is possible

Any faithful Muslim living in a secular state is a refutation to your initial claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Someone just saying I left the religion, just that statement. Will cause the faith of those within the Islamic community to crumble? Brother don’t undermine Muslims like that.

It opens a door where every potential apostasy can express their apostasy. Just saying that I left my religion is ridiculous to announce it to public and unlike, where those who want to say it in public mostly are those who hate Islam and want to express how much they hate it and wants many people out of it. 

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Any faithful Muslim living in a secular state is a refutation to your initial claim

What I mean that in secular state it is possible to apostasy say in public whatever he wants about his former beliefs, because secular does not care people hereafter. 

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Conclusion: We Can then deduce from this Quranic interaction that you have shared, it is best for a clear rejector of truth to converse with a believer, and share with them their disbelief so as to be guided. 

I disagree with your conclusion. Because what i show you is just an case of two people and how people disbelief effects believers in such that it could easily to put him in fire. But imagine in public where disbelief spread in many corners and people who have little understanding could start doubt and instead of seeking knowledge they will start reject it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

No, I am merely addressing criticism. 

Then the premise of the whole discussion is null and void, because the punishments and repercussions (to emphasize last resort measures) do not pertain to “criticism” at all. That’s something you presumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

At the end of the day, a government law, should not punish or give the death penalty for things that are religiously and subjectively disputed. 

It's just not a governments place to have that kind of control or dominion over the people it serves. 

And I wonder now if a religious government could hold such values, or if this is truly inherently contradictory or impossible for a religious government to do.

You (and the theoretical government you’re giving as an example) are not taking into account the totality of the religion. As said before, this is the same religion where you must make 70 excuses for others, and show extreme compassion, mercy, and forgiveness, which are God’s values on Earth.

With this counterbalance in place, numerous safeguards and high chances of doubt and plausible deniability at many angles, it virtually ensures these extreme last resort measures can never occur unless hundreds of stars align perfectly, every hoop is jumped, and God is genuinely feared (ie a fear of committing wrongful injustice). But for the sake of a complete religion (which is not 100% pacifist) these measures do exist, and may serve as a deterring force: To not present this complete context is sensationalizing and a disservice, which dishonest Islamophobes love to use in their rhetoric on cutting off hands or whatever else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
Quote

freedom of speech?

Literal reading will benefit, but Conceptual reading will enlighten your thought process and overall understanding. 

Quote

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., "shout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reza said:

Then the premise of the whole discussion is null and void, because the punishments and repercussions (to emphasize last resort measures) do not pertain to “criticism” at all. That’s something you presumed.

I am criticizing the outlook we have on these Hudood laws, I think that they are undoubtedly a part of Islamic society, we just need a better way in providing a philosophically dense presentation of how they are justified with consideration of the simple points I had made. Don't get me wrong brother I am nobody and with all honesty I am sincerely seeking to be educated on this manner and not push my own personal narrative, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

Literal reading will benefit, but Conceptual reading will enlighten your thought process and overall understanding. 

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

Brother this is a tu quoque fallacy, I do not believe in liberalism nor do I rationalize Islamic concepts through the lens of modernity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Reza said:

You (and the theoretical government you’re giving as an example) are not taking into account the totality of the religion. As said before, this is the same religion where you must make 70 excuses for others, and show extreme compassion, mercy, and forgiveness, which are God’s values on Earth.

With this counterbalance in place, numerous safeguards and high chances of doubt and plausible deniability at many angles, it virtually ensures these extreme last resort measures can never occur unless hundreds of stars align perfectly, every hoop is jumped, and God is genuinely feared (ie a fear of committing wrongful injustice). But for the sake of a complete religion (which is not 100% pacifist) these measures do exist, and may serve as a deterring force: To not present this complete context is sensationalizing and a disservice, which dishonest Islamophobes love to use in their rhetoric on cutting off hands or whatever else.

Perhaps one day, people will be able to meet the hypothetical standards that you and Haydar are proposing in an ideal Islamic nation.

Until then, I cannot bring myself to agree with this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Perhaps one day, people will be able to meet the hypothetical standards that you and Haydar are proposing in an ideal Islamic nation.

Until then, I cannot bring myself to agree with this idea.

It’s not “hypothetical”, it’s the actual practical religion already revealed and practiced on the micro and macro levels for thousands of years, and of which accountability is present. Principles of mercy and justice are not in a primitive theoretical stage, they are supposed to be put in play right now. How many other religious teachings are within “hypothetical standards”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Perhaps one day, people will be able to meet the hypothetical standards that you and Haydar are proposing in an ideal Islamic nation.

Until then, I cannot bring myself to agree with this idea.

I think I have found peace in the Islamic governance of Imam Ali, and also the way he dealt with acts such as theft, adultery, apostasy, etc.

For example when a thief was brought to him, he asked the thief if he was aware that stealing was an offensable crime, was he hungry when he stole, was he aware of the effect thieving had on the community. 

I believe what was being highlighted to us through the example of Imam Ali, was that Islam is seeking to establish a true utopian society which we will see when Imam Mahdi returns, where nobody will be hungry, nobody will have a need to steal, and all will be aware of their divinely given human rights. So if anyone would still choose to steal, such theft would stem from the deepest pit of tyranny within themselves, and even at that point only the Imam himself can choose whether the individual is deserving of that maximum penalty or not.

When it comes to apostasy I believe we should first understand that the Marj3 irrespective of who he may be, such as Ayatollah Sistani gives you what he believes the rule of Allah is, not the rule of Allah, therefore there is room to discuss and inquire over his stance in regards to apostasy and seek further clarity. In the end I think these extreme punishments signify that during the time in which an absolute Islamic State is established with the Imam there will be extreme developments.

Developments which perhaps prove to you the existence of Allah without room for denial to an extent where if someone would apostate they would be declaring themselves as literal enemies of the state and combatants against Allah.

Developments where a person lives in a complete and utter state of prosperity and harmony, to an extent where thievery would be a sign of someone who seeks to sow evil by stealing and knowing that he is not in need of what he is stealing and that through his thievery he will knowingly cause pain, disruption, and destruction within the utopian society.

For, if he was in need of anything the state would have provided him either through the alms or through a means of livelihood in which he may gain sustenance, if such matters were not given to him during his robbery then of course he would be deserving not of the capital punishment, but of recompense, due to the states negligence of him.

It is crucial to note that the apostasy laws are similar to those laws pertaining to combatants (at the extreme) and therefore, it would be sound to deduce that those who apostate or become Kuffar have done so after the truth being revealed to them without doubt, and they instead chose to reject it, as a means of rebellion not only against the state, but Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

@Haydar Husayn - What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 12:48 AM, Mohammad313Ali said:

 

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say”

1) What is the Islamic definition of freedom of speech?

2) When does the freedom of speech of an individual become subject to Islamic punishment?

3) Insulting The Prophet would merely bring down any credibility the insultor may have, why strengthen them by silencing them? 

4) Criticism towards an Islamic government or Islam should not be faced with executions or severe punishments, claiming such criticisms to be treasonous is downright preposterous. Why silence criticism when you can substantiate your absolute truth by addressing the criticism coherently, or by allowing said criticism to act as a motivator to furthermore fortify one's own individualistic or collectivistic system of governance to be greater fortified.

 I sincerely seek to understand the concept of freedom of speech and censorship within Islam, hoping for emphasis on the aforementioned points. 

@Haydar Husayn @Muhammed Ali @hasanhh @Mahdavist @Ayuoobi

@Mohammad313Ali read this book for a full answer: https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-political-theory-legislation-volume-1-muhammad-taqi-misbah-yazdi 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...