Swearing-in Ceremony with Hand on the Bible?

Re: # 620 by suhashijoshi

I was being sarcastic by saying that a surpise is coming. Rather, this was something out of common sense after so many interacts had taken place:

This is what nysyed replied with that I didn`t want to spend time typing and explaining for you:

``What is important to understand is that denunciation of faith is not being punished here. It`s the seditious activity that is punishable by death. If one is a non-believer to begin with, then he must respect the predominant religion, lest clashes between communities are incited. For the same reason, neither can the people of majority religion force the members of minorities to convert. As far as I understand, this is perhaps the primary wisdom behind Allah`s command that no one should be forced to accept Islam. Same is true for Muslims in the non-Muslim nations, that they respect the predominant religion and practice their own religion to the extent which doesn`t clash with the majority.``

That`s all!


Life is full of surprises! Even chowk is!
RB

Subhashjoshi asked: ``For example, if other religions have the same policy towards apostates, then how are you going to get converts to Islam? ``.

Islam was not a seperate entity from Christians/Jews. Things were to move on and a religion declared (Islam). People stuck in time with specific beliefs who refused to move on to accept the last book and prophet M pbuh were named/called Christian/Jews. And we are all aware that Christian/Jew scriptures have had changes made to them. Now, the policy of apostasy was to punish the practising-apostate. It was to punish the one who refuses to believe in God, his prophet(s), books, statements and instead preaches the opposit or wrong. Christian/Jew meaning of apostasy obviously altered to say `that the pratising-convert to islam/christian/jew is to be punished` while apostasy is really punishing one who does not accept God`s declaration of Prophet M pbuh as last, singularity of God and the last book Quran.

Thus, there only is 1 apostasy policy, really. The next step and the problem is recognition and treatment of this fact.

This problem HAD to be there in God` game!

RB


``Tum ik gorakh dhanda ho``

Re: # 617 by majumdar

My opinions wouldn`t differ while living in both the countries.

In my opinion killing non-threatening apostates should be eradicated. My post 548 has more details.

PS. So you have finally enrolled in the thread : ) welcome

Re: # 619 nysyed :D

Freely conceiding, i am 20. I`m sure anyone could ask the question you asked and even I have questioned myself against this belief (no no, not upon your reply)

However, I do not feel ready for such obligations because despite the opnions I carry, I need a stronger R&D and knowledge of religion: which i do not carry yet --that does not mean I do not wish to or atleast try to :)

Islam has some basic requirements which I strive to fullfil; This does not make me knowledgeable enough to invite others towards it [And I`m not implying that only scholars shal invite]. I`m not sure if everyone is capable of doing so. But, i certainly can be a part of such group who does. I was not raised as by a religiously practising one nor I live in a Muslim country. This passing on thing is not as simple as ``know and tell``, and I hope you agree!

ntsyed (#604):

You are suggesting that an apostate should be killed if he manifests his apostasy, since such behavior amounts to sedition. This is an unjust, hypocritical view.

Freedom of religion

A person should have the right to openly declare his religion, and to preach his religion to others without fear of persecution. For example, if a Muslim leaves Islam and becomes a Christian, he should not have to hide his faith from others, he should not fear attending Sunday church services, and he should not fear preaching Christianity to others.

Allowing him such freedom is completely consistent with message of Quran and Islam as well as collective human sense of fairness. Quran tells us that there is no compulsion in matters of faith, without giving a person any right to punish others for apostasy.

Here’s a litmus test …

Let’s turn the tables around: If a Christian leaves Christianity and becomes a Muslim, would it be fair to demand that he hide his religion from others and not preach Islam to anyone? Would it be fair to kill him if he openly declares his conversion.

Let your response here be a litmus test of your convictions.

Religion vs. patriotism

Equating religious activities of an apostate with rebellion and sedition is unfair. This person may still be a law-abiding citizen who loves his country and is willing to make great sacrifices for it. Consigning him to death chambers for openly practising his religion is injustice of very high order.

Sedition and rebellion

If a person engages in sedition, anti-state activities … he should be severely punished … regardless of his faith. He may be an apostate, an accountant, or a devout Muslim for that matter. A man’s faith and his devotion to his country are two different things … and one should not be confused with the other.

+++

Compare this with the view of Urstruly that I disagree with. In #591 he seems to be distancing himself from what he wrote earlier (see link below). His position remains somewhat unclear …

Click [Reply #59]

Role of Ahadith

As a Muslim I fully support deriving guidance from sunnah and ahadith of Holy Prophet (pbuh). But let’s first separate ``ahadith`` from ``recorded ahadith``.

Pristine form of what the Holy Prophet (pbuh) did, or spoke, or implied, or discouraged are lost and gone forever from the annals of time. What we have with us are narrations and records of what he (pbuh) did, said, implied, etc. These narrations were passed over generations over decades and centuries, before being recorded.

Such a process of recording history by no means is an error-free process. Despite best intentions, it is difficult (almost impossible?) for a human to exactly, completely capture details of what transpired and convey these details to others over generations without errors. It should thus not surprise anyone if some ahadith do not accurately represent truth of the matter.

As a Muslim my view is that if a hadith contradicts teachings of Quran, such a hadith cannot be trusted. A Muslim should use Quran as a source of guidance and not recorded ahadith which are prone to human error. If a hadith is consistent with message of Quran and human reasoning, and is further corroborated by historical records, it may be declared an authentic hadith, and a Muslim should certainly seek guidance from such hadith.

Extraneous issues

Your comments about Mirza Sahib are speculative, incorrect, and irrelevant … so I’ll ignore them. We can discuss them at a later, appropriate time.

Re: # 620

Correction : Refer 619 by ntsyed. Looks like you got a bigger surprise...etc.

G`night.

Re: # 616 raziab9

Yes it IS a surprise...I didn`t anticipate such a long post (#616). But was that what you had in mind?

---

Re: # 618 ntsyed

Syed saheb, I`ll read this post tomorrow, fursat mein. Abhi waqt nahin hai. But glancing cursorily, I think you haven`t replied to how you will convert people etc.

---

Re: # 616 raziab9

Refer 618 by ntsyed. Looks like you got a bigger surprise. But, surprise again, I agree with ntsyed here, if only partially. What`s that hackneyed line, time and tide.....?

---

Good night, all.

Re: # 615 by raziab9

``Having said that, one could apply that religion without practise is no religion: However, I do not feel ready for any religious obligations right now --at least at this age :)``

With all due respect, razia, what do you think is a good age for fulfilling one`s religious obligations?

And how can one be certain that s/he is going to reach that `age`?

What you`ve stated is similar to one saying s/he will do all the work at the office on the last day of the month, and justify the paycheck for the entire month.

What if s/he doesn`t reach that magical age, and has not fulfilled his/her obligations? Will s/he be able to justify the paycheck at the end of the month...meaning, will s/he be ready for the accountibility on the Day of Judgement?

Death is inevitable, but no one knows the time, place, or the method it claims each of us. So, make the best of the time you have right now, to earn what you desire in this world as well as the hereafter.

No need to answer if you don`t want to. This is for you to think about very seriously.

:-)~~

Re: # 613 by subhashjoshi

Re: # 613 by subhashjoshi

If you look closely, almost all the countries have their laws based in the predominant religion of the population....even in the so-called ``secular`` countries. These laws are made with the minorities taken into account as to the extent of their practice without compromising the peace in the community at large. I`m sure you can think of many examples.

What is important to understand is that denunciation of faith is not being punished here. It`s the seditious activity that is punishable by death. If one is a non-believer to begin with, then he must respect the predominant religion, lest clashes between communities are incited. For the same reason, neither can the people of majority religion force the members of minorities to convert. As far as I understand, this is perhaps the primary wisdom behind Allah`s command that no one should be forced to accept Islam. Same is true for Muslims in the non-Muslim nations, that they respect the predominant religion and practice their own religion to the extent which doesn`t clash with the majority.

However, when a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim, because of his deeper association with Muslims, as compared to a non-Muslim, he is going to cause significant friction in the community. Therefore, it`s better to execute the source (if he threatens the community) than to let several perish in the ensuing clashes.

Another aspect may explain the concept even better. I`m sure you`re aware that it`s not difficult for spies to obtain all kinds of identification documents to live amongst the enemies and carry out their clandestine activities quietly. Then upon completion of their tasks, they go back to their countries. Therefore, one could easily assume the new religion, do his thing to create chaos in this community, then revert to his previous religion with impuity.

Similarly, one of your own could become an agent for the enemy. Why do you think the ``defectors`` seek ``asylum`` in mostly enemy countries, and claim fear of being killed in their home countries?

One could also become a double agent to inflict damage to both sides and walk away with his pockets filled.

In short, the law not only prevents such subversive activities by the enemy, it also restricts one`s own from changing loyalties, as well as the minimizes the threat of double agents and the third parties to incite wars. That`s probably why, specifically in Islam it is required of one to announce his acceptance of Islam aloud in front of the people. At the same, it helps a person genuinely reverting to Islam to be known to the Muslim community and receive moral and other sorts of support.

The dilemma for the non-Islamic (not just non-Muslim) states is due to their own foolishness of adopting the flawed philosophy of `separation of church and state`, whereby the majorities are disintegrating and are being replaced by other forms/groups. As a result, communal violence in these countries has only grown in one form or another. And that is perhaps why the non-Muslims are lobbying hard for this law to be eradicated from the few Islamic countries where it is a law and communal violence there is comparatively lower if not nonexistent. Please just look around for examples.

The bottom line is, as Allah says in the Quran, indeed killing is bad, but mischief is even worse...and mischief here does not mean kid`s play. Hence, it`s better to kill a mischievous individual than to allow deaths of several innocent people and longterm strife whilst we think about ``what to do with those who advocate killing of apostates for whatever reason.``

All scriptures, at least the Abrahamic ones, allow changes as the time progresses. However, the basic overriding principles and limits cannot be changed, lest the interdependant elements of the society, namely social values, judiciary, economy, education, foreign policy, and even military capabilities, are compromised. Changes in one almost always affects one or more of the rest, and set off a domino effect if these changes are made without due consideration of the others.

Secondly, if you study the religions, specifically Islam, the Quran primarily addresses behaviors. Now, human behavior hasn`t changed since his creation. We still eat, sleep, procreate, love, hate, greed, fight, lust, and so forth as man thousands of years ago. People today are just as tempted and enticed by wealth, material, sexuality, and power as they did back then. And there`s no sign of any of these changing in future, ever. Then, why should there be a need to change the scripture, especially the one which addresses our behaviors so succinctly?

The only thing that needs to change is for us to recognize our strengths, weaknesses, and limitations and abandon complacency about our self-proclaimed `wisdom`. It is imperative in order to establish peace. We`ve been fooled many a times by men of power and influence, except for the prophets (peace be upon them) who were empowered and made influential by Allah.

That`s why reverting to Quran is imperative, not only for Muslims but also for the non-Muslims.

:-)~~

Razia ji,

Re: #615

I am not sure I have understood you correctly. Are you suggesting that as a you live in a Muslim minority country you would not try to convert non-Muslims or kill those who perform apostasy or refuse to accept Islam.

What if you were living in a Muslim majority country. Would you want that country to impose death penalty for apostasy/blasphemy etc.

Regards

Re: # 613 by subhashjoshi

I see quiet an answer comin from NtSyed! Plus i know what it is but I`m not going to ruin the surprise!

Happy surprpise : D
RB

Re: # 610 by mjumdar

Thank you for the creative question :)

I do realize that we live in a world where multiple perspectives are required to look through to solve problems

You said: [Is it right to kill or otherwise punish a human being who refuses to believe in God or believes in a God diff from yours or a multiplicity of Gods or who having once been a believer ( In Islam or any other religion) choses subsequently to refuse to believe?]

I am a Muslim and have Ahmadi+Christian [I do not know many Jews] friends who have eventually become our family friends; which obviously means that eventhough there might be religious, obligatory and ``logical`` reasons to invite them to Islam, i simply do not, for it will be the cauze of my aleination. Not many people openly listen or want to understand any other religions at this point --thus, trying my best would only revert back for worse results. Religious fights n` movements have become political and I have no keen interest in either one.

Having said that, one could apply that religion without practise is no religion: However, I do not feel ready for any religious obligations right now --at least at this age :)


To clarify the ``Not many people`` i wrote above: the category excludes Scholars

Re: # 609 by subhashjoshi

Oh dear! I only wrote the word ``argument`` didn`t just mean arguments. It included suggestions, comments, questions, concerns and arguments :)

Anyhow, you`re welcome once again.

Re: # 611 ntsyed

Syed saheb, if one is take guidance from scriptures only, then what the law of a country is for? Also, different people may have different scriptures with clashing interests, so where is the guarantee of peace? For example, if other religions have the same policy towards apostates, then how are you going to get converts to Islam? And thirdly, how do the scriptures account for changes in the world during these many hundreds of years?


BTW, it is my firm belief that there shall not be any sanction for killing any person for holding or propagating a view different from that of others, scriptures or no scriptures. For me the issue of argument is not what to do with apostates, but what to do with those who advocate killing of apostates for whatever reason.


Regarding that silly pissing match we had on this board earlier, well, let`s put that behind us now. Some measure of mutual respect will do us all a lot of good.

Re: # 606 by kaalchakra

Thank you, kaal ... it means a lot !!!

References to Mirza Ahmed is just as critical here as the reference to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), because of former`s misrepresentation of the latter as the last and final Prophet of Allah. This misrepsentation is one of the forms of ``apostasy``, which is the subject at hand.

:-)~~

Re: # 603 by subhashjoshi

``Isn`t it possible to decide what is good or bad for us in this day and time, without quoting copiously from scriptures?``

I wish that was possible. But man has failed himself repeatedly throughout his history by disrespecting his limits as a `human being`.

The reason you and I got off on the wrong foot on this board or elsewhere was due to our shortcomings, primarily the inability to know exactly what is in each other`s hearts and minds.

You have your experiences and I have mine. Neither of us can ever think alike irrespective of the amount of compromises we make. Therefore there has to be a standard set between us for us to maintain peace in spite of our differences. Furthermore, it is imperative for this standard to be from a neutral third party. It is even more important for the entire tribes and nations.

Divine scriptures play this role as the yard stick. If you read any of the scriptures, these include historical events, the contemporary issues, as well as some predictions for the future. Such composition serves mnay purposes, but the one pertinent to our discussion is that it helps us learn from the past to prevent the problems in future.

Without these we can only witness the clowning around in the parliaments, assemblies, senates, etc., because everyone is sticking to his/her guns, causing legislations to drag on for ever if due process is followed. I can silence you in a debate with my arguments, but I can never cause your inclination towards my point of view if you`re not willing to do so....and vice versa.

In short, we only speak based on our limited experiences and observations, that`s why sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. Divine scriptures, on the other hand, offer a much bigger perspective.

I hope it makes sense.

:-)~~