Swearing-in Ceremony with Hand on the Bible?

Re: # 571 razia

There are many verses in Qura`n, which address the issue of apostasy and stipulate grave consequences in the afterlife for one who rejects his faith. For example, consider the following:

As to those who reject Faith,- if they had everything on earth, and twice repeated, to give as ransom for the penalty of the Day of Judgment, it would never be accepted of them, theirs would be a grievous penalty. Their wish will be to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out therefrom: their penalty will be one that endures.

........Al-Maida (The table Spread) 5:36-37

But it is also true that Qura`n does not stipulate explicitly any punishment by state upon the Apostats. The capital punishment for apostasy comes from a Hadith.

Before I go further one should undersatnd what a law is. By definition a law is a codified societal value with an added component of the punishment. The Quranic injunctions on apostasy cover the ``value`` part of the law. That is in other words ``apostasy`` is a wrong attribute that must be avoided and discouraged. Once we have established that a certain attribute is a ``value`` then we come across the problem whether this value should be codified into a law or should it remain as a moral value only. The Holy Prophet`s (pbuh) edict has made it clear that this value must be codified into a law.

Now the next problem is whether the codification will be justified by Qura`n or not since Qura`n is the basis of any moral code and one of the core criterion established by the collectors of the ahadith was that any hadith that contradicts Qura`n would be deemed unauthentic even if aparently came from most authentic chain of narrators. So when this value was codified by Four Righteous Caliphs and then by early Muslim jurists, what was the rationale that they used to ascertain that the codification was consistent with Qura`n.

The rationale that they used was as follows, The following is an excerpt from an article that I wrote for Chowk sometimes ago, which addresses the issue of Blasphemy but as you will see the rationale on both Blasphemy and Apostasy is the same (so while reading the following feel free to replace the word ``Blasphemy`` with ``Apostasy``:


Blasphemy Law: An Academic Investigation

``It is a universally accepted principle of jurisprudence that a law enacted by a person or entity of authority can only be repealed or changed by a person or entity that has equivalent or higher powers than that of the person who enacted the law in the first place. This principle is applicable everywhere in our daily lives. For example a disciplinary instruction given by a professor in his class to his students can only be over-ruled by a vice chancellor of the university or an entity that has authority equal to or greater than that of the professor. But a student or a lecturer cannot change it. Similarly, in the matters of governance the legislature or the President have the authority to change an executive order issued by President. This principle of jurisprudence applies equally to the canonical laws as well and has far reaching effects. Hence an order given by God can only be changed by God Himself and not by any other entity. Similarly a Prophet may enact a law on his own prerogative, based on his own Ijtehad (logical reasoning), in the absence of a revelation, and as long as God does not change his law, no one else has an authority to change it unless there is another Prophet who may come and change that law. [Ref: 2]

One must understand that the Islamic law did not descend upon us in just one day; rather it was revealed to us gradually and it took 23 years to complete the message. So a question arises, naturally, as to what was the Islamic law during that interim period. Based on the evidence from Qura`n and history of the Prophet`s time we can say with certainty that whatever was the tradition, or custom or law of the Meccan or Medinite societies became the Islamic law, initially. For example, the prohibition of liquor came years after Prophet`s migration and some of his companions are known to have imbibed before prohibition. [Ref: 2]

Keeping the above discussion in mind, please refer to the Qura`nic verses Al-Anaam (Cattle) 6:83-90, in which after mentioning the names of approximately 20 prophets and messengers Allah states that ``……..these are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance. Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it; it is nothing but a reminder to the nations.`` [Ref: 6; tr:Yousafali]

This is an extremely important verse and early jurists in their books on jurisprudence refer to it extensively as ``Shara-e-Qable-na`` meaning, the law of the previous people (prophets) [Ref; 2]. Through this verse we get an important guiding principle i.e. if the authenticity of previous books (Psalm, Torah and Bible) is confirmed, and neither God nor his Prophet (pbuh) has instructed us otherwise the law stated in those books is our law. We have an obligation to follow it, because of verse 6:90.

Now let`s see what was the law of the previous people, i.e. Jews and Christians regarding blasphemy. We find out that both Old Testament and the New Testament explicitly stipulated capital punishment for blasphemy. It is evident through several books and several verses, which cross-refer with each other [Ref: 4]. For example:

Leviticus 24:16 states: ``And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.`` The verse cross refers with New Testament: Matt 26:66, John 19:7 .

Acts 6:8 & 7:60 Stephen, a Christian, was found guilty of blasphemy and stoned to death.

It is interesting to note that Jesus (pbuh), himself, was crucified because of his ``crime`` of blasphemy under Jewish law. See King James Bible; Matt 26:65-67 ``Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands``

Also keep in mind that in earlier books the punishment for apostasy is prescribed as death, as well. [Ref: 5]

The discussion so far, establishes that there is “precedence” for the penal aspect of blasphemy. Please bear in mind that ``precedence`` is a universally accepted rule/practice of jurisprudence, where jurists look for previous laws and regulations to form new ones. [see Ref: 3 for basic principles of Islamic Jurisprudence]``



The whole article can be found at the following hyperlink:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001344&channel=university%20ave

If you need clarification on a point, please feel free to ask.

Re: # 575 by ntsyed

clarification:

``To maintain fairness, I`ll accept that what I`ve read may only be `propaganda`, and stick to the topic of apostates and their punishment here on earth.

should be read as:

To maintain fairness, I`ll accept that what I`ve read about Ahmedis may only be `propaganda`, and stick to the topic of apostates and their punishment here on earth.

:-)~~

Re: # 555 sattar2

``Even nutcases like zeemax and ntsyed do not agree with you on executing apostates.``

Speak for yourself. I DO, with capital D and O, support killing the person

- who disregards the Prophet Muhammad`s (PBUH) teachings
- who disrespects the Prophets Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) by accusing them of distorting the Quran and Sunnah
- who rejects the reality that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the most authentic interpreter of Quran and interprets the Book

to his end, like Mirza Ahmed, and engages explicitly in treason - i.e. spreading his distortion of the Quran in the community. Treason is always punishable by death. It is not for his change of faith he should receive capital punishment, but his subversive activities deserve him such a fate.

What you referred to as hateful propaganda against Ahmedis could not be it, because your arguments and belligerence continue to manifest the subversive nature of the Ahmedi cult right here and right now. First your attempt to pit razia against urstruly and I, and now attributing a falsehood to me speaks so much about your desperation.

Get a spine.

:-|~~

Re: # 518 by sattar2

``...the discussion on apostasy is a discussion on apostasy. Ahmadi-Muslims or their views are irrelevant here.``
Alright, let`s have it your way.

``Quran does not say “Don’t kill apostates”. Neither does Quran say “Don’t kill widows”. If you believe in killing apostates (or widows for that matter), you need to validate your belief from Quran first.``

First, I cannot understand your insertion of killing ``widows`` in this argument, except an attempt to create a digression. In case you`re confused, it`s an ``abandoned`` Hindu tradition - nothing to do with Muslims, let alone Quran and Sunnah, except that they unanimously disapprove such practices.

Secondly, that`s what I did - validated the killing of apostates from the Quran. I referred to Tafseer Ibn Katheer for the background and explanation of the verse I quoted here. I did so because Ibn Katheer (ra) is the most revered and bona fide exegete of the Quran, whereas my opinion means nothing before his because I neither have a command over Arabic nor Quran.

Anyway, I read his commentary from verse 80 to way past 89. Suffice it to say, the snippets of your intrepretation do not match his. Not only his commentary makes sense logically, it does not contradict any other verse of the Quran either. He has described those people in quite detail as to where they came from and what their intentions were, etc. The Mirzai behavior has been a carbon copy of those people 1400 years ago, which you refute as ``propaganda``. To maintain fairness, I`ll accept that what I`ve read may only be `propaganda`, and stick to the topic of apostates and their punishment here on earth.

``that Muslims should fight such enemies, but Muslim are responsible only for themselves (4:84) …`` of your interpretation, the word `but` to be specific, causes confusion right off the bat by falling out of context. By your own interpretation, the subject (context) here are the people trying to cause harm to Muslims; and how should they be treated. If you wish, I can quote all the verses here in Arabic and the word-by-word English translation.

Therefore considering Ibn Katheer`s contributions and accomplishments, and my own sense of judgement, I prefer to accept his interpretation over yours.

``My view is that your belief is based upon erroneous ahadith, which are clearly negated by Quran.``

By virtue of YOUR statement above, it is EQUALLY possible that YOUR beliefs are based upon erroneous ahadith.

Is it not?

Therefore, in order to settle the disagreement, would you like me to quote all the ahadith on the subject by all the bona fide compilers of the ahadith?

Let me know and I`ll visit the library at my earliest to present those to you.

``You claim that “no compulsion in matters of faith” … means “no compulsion in matters of faith before one accepts Islam, after which he will be killed for apostasy.” You are blatantly adding to teachings of Quran. Sorry, not acceptable to me … Once again, nice try … but no, thanks.``

Again, I`m ready to substantiate my belief with ahadith compiled by most respected of Islamic scholars, whose works have withstood the test of times many times over. You have yet to offer such substantiation beyond quoting your controversial `Ahmedi ulema`.

Just as you claim that mainstream Muslim Ulema have misinterpreted Islam to their ends, and the 99% of Muslims in the world are suckers to have a blind faith in these scholars, the `Ahmedi Ulema` are just as liable to misinterpret the Quran, if not more, and have the 100% of Quadianis believe them blindly as suckers.

All I can do is pray to Allah to Guide us all, and help you examine your own arguments with a sense of fairness.

:-)~~

Raziab,

Sadly I know too little about my own faith (Hinduism) let alone the doctrinal difference among the various Islamic sects (???).

Do ocassionally butt into the MAJ (pbuh)- MKG debates of YLH-HYD, usually on YLH`s side, cos I do know a little about both MKG and MAJ.

Regards

Re: # 572
majumdar, wanna join?!

Re: Sattar/Urstruly,

I see the beginning of another YLH-HYD jugalbandi here.

Regards

Re: # 570 by Urstruly

Hello Urstruly, I do not want to interupt in the relation that has taken place between you and sattar; however, what did you have to say about what I found in post 558?

#558 by raziab9 on December 14, 2006 3:17pm PT

About killing apostates. Following is what is saif for them:

Sora-e-Maida (5) 30-33
The ones who fight against God and his Prophet Mohammaed (pbuh) are to be killed on earth and they have a severe afterlife to face as well.
Note the word “fight”: do not kill ‘em until they invite people to their nominal religion; which, is a threat to Islam

Sora-e-Annisa (4) 87-89)
Don’t befriend the kafir who invites you until they leave you

Sora-e-Attaobah (9) 72-75
Be strict to the apostates and there’s quiet a punishment for them in hell


See, killing is legal only when the person poses a threat. However, God certainly will punish anyway on his own...

Sattar

First of all stop calling people idiots who happen to disagree with you. Your last few posts addressed to razaib are indictive of the habbits of a typical Quadiani, as I pointed out in my earlier post.

``Mian Urstruly`` - being condescending in a debate is also a strong proof of being weak on moral and academic standing.

``Rubbing salt`` - It would have been better had you taken the debate in the spirit of debate. Had you done that you would have learned something.

Frankly, I find you quite an intelligent person but your frustrations get the better of you. My original question comes in effect here i.e. why can`t you justify your religion on its own merit?? Is this what frustrating you? you can probably rub salt on a teenager on an internet discussion forum but I am immune to these things. It is childish - pahleez.

Finally, I do not see any worldly benefit to me by engaging in this discussion and taking a stance which is not very popular or ``modern`` anyway. Many educated Muslims with low self esteem would careen this subject and would rather take a ``modern`` stance. The only reason I engage in this debate is because the tuth must be told. The obedience to our Holy Prophet (pbuh) and adherence to the law of God is more important than realpolitiking. If this is the alternative then I do not fear being called, rigid, fundamenatlist, or any other adjective.

So I request you to please write a post only when you are calm and composed.

Re: # 567 by Sattar2

I ready 567 of yours again and in the end you say: ``What you preach is not Islam``

I know this is directed towards urstruly. But i`d like to say that the statement is put wrong. Because this kind of teaching is not a deviation from any major statements of Islam (Do not argue that every single thing is major) it can not be said that he is not teaching Islam

Re: # 566

Naming me an idiot was not as big a problem but I was only awed that you were hyped about me typing that post Attention to Sattar2 when infact that`s attention to all : D

And i wonder how your piss`n`spit could really sound and feel neutral to any person with decent lingo no matter what their arguments

Thirdly, I responded to any and all posts v. quick

About the paranoia: sir, it`s an outstanding argument and how can it not be a huge one --afterall it`s a question of Islamiat

peace,
RB

Urstruly,

You rambled on and on about 5 schools of jurisprudence, fatwa-e-alamgiri, etc. Once again you’ve stayed away from Quran. So let me rub some more salt in your wounds.

Read #540 for Quranic injunctions. Now contrast them with your mullah’s verdict of “kill”, “kill”, and “kill”. This says a lot about corruption in their ranks.

Same was the case with Jewish, as well as Christian ullema when they had become corrupt. They banded against Jesus, and insisted that the earth is flat. These fanatics too were brutal to those who disagreed with them, and so you your mullahs.

What they preached was not Judaism, nor Christianity. What you preach is not Islam.

… but … but when I called you an idiot, you were quick to respond without sounding upset! So what is the matter now??

And why are you soooo upset with Ahmadi-Muslims? It seems the entire ummah suffers from on-going spells of paranoia and delusion...

...which reminds me … where’s Urstruly?

I did NOT address that post of mine to you. Who ever likes it addressed can reply including YOU!

Infact you initiated right after by saying: ``raziab, I can handle only one idiot at a time ... wait for your turn ...``

Thus, any comments suggestions idiot statements bombardments, keep spittin`pissin them :)

RB

... like I said, you should address your posts to Urstruly ... and not me.
Let`s see if he can respond intelligently to #561.

Thanks for your concerns ... will respond to your silly comments later. Promise ... no, make it inshallah ...!

people like you really can resolve issues while pissin`spitin --while they aren`t really good multitaskers. That reminds of some mullas` way of dealing with issues.

I realize you`ve been sitin` here all nite waiting for urstrulys response...

Take good care,
RB