Muslim sibuk buktiin Tidak ada paksaan dalam beragama

Muslim sibuk buktiin Tidak ada paksaan dalam beragama

Postby ali5196 » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:51 pm

Sorry bang ali harus tulis dalam bahasa Inggris utk mematahkan si Muslim debater (Danios) disini.
FFINdonesia refute Danios Taqqiyos aka Danios Loonie of LoonieWatch.com

Fathima Bary Needs to Read Her Bible; Final Word on Islam and Apostasy
Posted on 28 September 2009 by Danios

An emotional Fathima Rifqa Bary–whose personal writings reaveal that she wants to be a modern day prophet–said of her parents:

“My parents are Muslim…I don’t know if you know about honor killing…They have to kill me…Because if they love Allah more than me, they have to do it. It’s in the Quran. And you can, like, give them knowledge about it [gestures to someone off camera, who says something unintelligible].”

It seems that Fathima’s understanding of the Quran comes from whomever she pointed to, whom I can only assume is her pastor (or pastor’s underling more likely). A few more dry runs could have perfected the performance. She just had to memorize a few verses to prove her claim:

13:6 If–your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend, which is as your own soul–entice you secretly, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” which you have not known–not you, nor your fathers;

13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, near to you, or far off from you, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8 You shall not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall your eye pity him, neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him:

13:9 But you must surely kill him; your hand must be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And you must stone him with stones, that he die; because he has sought to thrust you away from the LORD your God.

Well, that’s pretty damning evidence right there. That sounds a lot like “honor” killing: “If your brother…or your son or your daughter….entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’…You must kill him…you must stone him with stones, that he die.” Well, if that’s in the Quran, then we better ban all Muslim immigration to America!

But before we call Homeland Security, I hope you don’t mind if I check the Quran to verify if those verses exist.

[Flipping through pages of Quran]

Hmmm, can’t seem to find it.

Oh wait, *smacks forehead*, I remember now where those verses are from. Ahh yes, they are from the Bible (Deuteronomy, 13:6-10). There are of course many other Biblical verses in the same vein, such as 2 Chronicles 15:13 which reads: “All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”

Oopsie doopsie!

Maybe it’s not such a good idea to randomly quote someone else’s scripture or medieval texts without any context as a proof to demonize a people or to fear monger.

Danios clearly delights in making fun of Rifqa Barry, the girl who was fighting to be independent of her parents who according to her, 'forced her to return to Islam.' Whether she is wrong or right about her parents, or whether she quoted the right verses, is not the point here. What is clear is that Danios tried to smear the girl by using the Bible to proof Islam's credibility. It is a cheap method but it delights some or most Muslims. But it's not working.


Islamophobes insist that Islam says that apostates must be killed. These ardent critics of the faith are of the view that Islam is for this reason simply incompatible with the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. Their view–which they try to propagate–is that Islam is somehow so inherently different from all other religions that it should be singled out as the one faith that we just absolutely cannot tolerate.

The issue of course is that “Islam” doesn’t “say” anything, since it is not a person. Islam is in fact polyvalent: it has within it different understandings and interpretations of the religion. On this particular issue, Islam itself doesn’t “say” anything. Valerie Hoffman, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Illinois, commented on the issue of apostasy in Islam: “You can’t say Islam says this or Islam says that.” The question of course is “whose Islam” and “which Islam?”

Yes, the majority “classical” and “traditional” opinion codified hundreds of years ago was indeed that apostates from Islam should be killed. However, such views are abundantly present in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well, yet Jews and Christians have over the course of time reanalyzed their canonical texts and come to different understandings today.

See? Islam says kill apostates, but ... but wait ... Jews and Christians said that too! So, conclusion: Islam is not any different from Jews & Christians' religion and therefore Islam shld be left off the hook, really! Is that not so Messr/Mme Danios?

Before the Great War, the Ottoman Empire united Muslim lands under one symbolic leadership. (Perhaps an oversimplification but it suffices for our discussion here.) It is interesting to note that the Ottoman government eventually stopped enforcing the punishment for apostasy and finally abolished it altogether in 1844, more than one hundred and sixty years ago:

Punishment for apostasy (in any case, extremely rare) was not in practice enforced in later times and was completely abolished by the [Ottoman] Turks by a decree of the Ottoman government in 1260/1844. (The New Encyclopedia of Islam, by Cyril Glasse, p.54)

And we read:
The Ottoman Caliphate, the supreme representative of Sunni Islam, formally abolished this penalty…The Shaykh al-Islam, the supreme head of the religious courts and colleges, ratified this major shift in traditional legal doctrine. It was pointed out that there is no verse in the Qur’an that lays down a punishment for apostasy (although chapter 5 verse 54 and chapter 2 verse 217 predict a punishment in the next world). It was also pointed out that the ambiguities in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) suggest that apostasy is only an offense when combined with the crime of treason...
The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.

(T.J. Winters writing for Newsweek)

It should be kept in mind that the Ottomans had embraced change, pushing what came to be known as the Tanzimat reforms, a drive to modernize the Islamic state to be compatible with the contemporary age. They abolished the jizya and dhimmi system; the Hatt-i Humayun of 1856 promised full legal equality for citizens of all religions, and the Nationality Law of 1869 created a common Ottoman citizenship irrespective of religious or ethnic divisions.

The point is that the Islamic state had embraced change and reform of their religious understanding. The debate had begun, but after World War I, the Allies occupied Turkey and Arab lands. They broke up the Ottoman Empire, and carved out mandate states, installing despots into power, something which of course retarded further Muslim intellectual growth.…

How very refreshing to read that Muslims, like the Ottomans, CAN reform, despite its own tenets as enshrined in the sharia (more about that later) and track record of killing apostates. But wait ... oh NOOO it's the fault of the white man again for occupying Turkey and Arab lands which 'retarded further Muslim intellectual growth.' IF anything Mr Danios, the white never had any interest in retarding Muslim's intellectual growth. The white man occupied other lands like the land of the Hindus, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Inuits, the American Indians for instance and yet they have not suffered the same 'retarded intellectual growth' like the Muslims. Oh, wait .. then this time it must be the fault of the Jews then or the weather ... or whatever.

The modern Muslim world is living with the consequences of these events. Unfortunately, feelings of anti-Westernism have emerged as a backlash to colonialism and subsequent events. Extremists and religious fundamentalists began to define themselves in opposition to the West; the more the West condemned their extreme understandings of Islam, the more “street cred” these fundamentalists garnered. Hey, if the West hates you, and the West is the colonialist, then you must be right! Such was the thought process.

So harsher understandings replaced more tolerant ones, and the punishment for apostates–which had been long abandoned by the Ottoman Empire–was re-instituted in a few Muslim majority countries. As Dr. Tariq Ramadan put it:

The opposition and condemnations by the West supplies, paradoxically, the popular feeling of fidelity to the Islamic teachings; a reasoning that is antithetical, simple and simplistic. The intense opposition of the West is sufficient proof [for them] of the [supposed] authentic Islamic character of the literal application of hudûd (Islamic penal code). In the context of relationships between countries, we often tend to remember only the conflicts and the wars. We focus on the battles and wars between the Muslim world and the Judeo-Christian West, but on a deeper level, there is another more significant aspect, which is an ideological cultural exchange. Muslims now live in the West; when Western Muslims approach the Islamic texts, they come with a certain background and upbringing which necessarily affects their understanding.

What we have witnessed in the last couple decades is a growing trend of a return back to early reformist understanding of freedom of religion. These reform-minded Muslims have realized that not only is the modern concept of freedom of religion permissible in their religion–and not only is it wholly compatible with the Quran–but rather it is mandated and obligatory in Islam.

A “soft reformation” is taking place in Islam, as mentioned by Dr. Tariq Ramadan and others. The reformists are challenging traditional interpretations and understandings of the religion, and pushing for a repeal of apostasy laws in specific where they exist. The struggle is on, and change cannot and will not happen overnight; the post-colonial mess that the Muslim world finds itself in only retards intellectual growth but the process has begun

So, where is this ''soft reformation'' then, Mr Danios? Tariq Ramadan even went so far to say that the Muslim Brotherhood (Tariq's grandfather's organisation) will bring about this reformation in Egypt. Well, last time I checked, the MB wanted sharia as the main law in Egypt, forfeiting other secular laws.

And in the meantime, the West and elsewhere are getting more and more concerned about Islam due to its present-day behavior and policies of the percentage of Muslims who seem to be following the harsh elements of their core texts (Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira). Polling indicates that large percentages of Muslims, for example, want apostates--those who leave Islam--to be punished, even put to death.
See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... dents.html

These results are from a poll of Muslim students of young Muslims in particular (aged 16-24) :
– 33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.
– 40 percent support the introduction of sharia for British Muslims.
– 33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... dical.html & http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... alues.html

These results are from Muslims polled (16 – 24) for Policy Exchange:
-36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.
-37 percent of young British Muslims want Sharia law in Britain.
-13 percent of young British Muslims said they “admired” Al Qaeda.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dispatch ... er-mosque/: '... this extensive investigation Dispatches reveals how a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK ... Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached.'


A Muslim group in the United Kingdom has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls "Londonistan" – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence. http://www.hudson-ny.org/2278/britain-i ... es-project

Wherever you go in Europe, there are wide clusters of voluntary segregated areas of Muslims refusing to integrate. No wonder than that three EU leaders claim that Multiculturalism has failed. Or are they just Islamophobes? OR is it the fault of Rifqa Barry, white people, wars caused by white people and Muslims being oppressed for all eternity that caused Muslims to declare sharia law on British streets? What did I hear you say, Danios? They're just a fringe, not representing the majority? Well let me tell you, so were the nazis, the communists, the fascists, they were all once just a fringe, not representing the majority who just want to live in peace. But never mind that. Now, let's get into the nitty gritty of Islamic law on apostasy. Here we go!

Enter the Islamophobes

Instead of seeking to help the reform-minded Muslims, the Islamophobes have demonized virtually all Muslims, except of course a few self-hating Muslims who simply repeat whatever the Islamophobes want to hear (for which they are rewarded handsomely).

The main argument used by Islamophobes is that Islam as a religion itself advocates the death penalty for apostates, and therefore it is the religion itself–not the interpretation of it–that is the problem, an unusually obtuse and altogether unhelpful assertion. Furthermore, some of them argue, Muslims must abandon their belief in the inerrant nature of the Quran. In other words, the Islamophobes posit that the only possible way for Muslims to become “civilized” is to view the Quran as any other text, deleting what they dislike from it and adding whatever they wish to it–or as Daniel Pipes puts it: to make it “defunct.”

While, certainly, that may seem like a plausible solution to an outsider, the problem is that for the vast majority of Muslims it is quite simply not a possibility; it is anathema to question the Quran’s veracity. Regardless of the arguments back and forth on the issue, the practical reality is that the Muslim masses cannot countenance such a thing; the Islamophobes know this, and that’s why they set up this formula. In other words, they know that the Muslims cannot do this and therefore it has become for the Islamophobes the “only possible solution” to the problem.

Yet, it is hardly the case that the Muslims can only take one possible route to modernization. Reform-minded Muslims believe that a change in the texts is not required, but only a change in the understanding and interpretation of said texts.

Maybe Danios and his ilk shld start understanding and re-interpret the sharia too. How do you intend to re-interpret this? See below from http://umdatalsalik.wordpress.com/apostasy-2/

(RIDDA (O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…)

08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

o8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).

o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).

o8.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: o8.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).

o8.6 (A: If a spouse in a consummated marriage apostatizes from Islam, the couple are separated for a waiting period consisting of three intervals between menstruations. If the spouse returns to Islam before the waiting period ends, the marriage is not annulled but is considered to have continued the whole time (dis: m7.4).)


o8.7 (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

(1) to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

(2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

(3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most

High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:))), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

(4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

(5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

(6) to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

(8) to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;

(9) to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allah”; “Your saying `There’s no power or strength, etc,’ won’t save you from hunger”;

(10) for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, “I act without the decree of Allah”;

(11) to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafir”);

(12) when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha illAllahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah” (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah)), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

(13) to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def:

b7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

(15) to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent; (n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

(16) to revile the religion of Islam;

(17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

(18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

(19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

(20) or TO DENY THAT ALLAH INTENDED THE PROPHET’S MESSAGE TO BE THE RELIGION OF THE ENTIRE WORLD (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24).) There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it. :supz:

SO, Mr Danios, please tell me that this sharia is :
1) not the sharia
2) wrong interpretation
3) not applied widely in Islamic world bladibladibla yapyapyap ...

The Quran

Ms. Fathima Rifqa Bary was incorrect: unlike the Bible, the Quran does not at all say to kill apostates if they choose to leave Islam. Rather, it says the exact opposite. The Quran declares emphatically:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth is distinct from error!” (Quran, 2:256)

Almost every Muslim knows this verse by heart. It categorically closes the door to religious compulsion, and is used by reform-minded Muslims to promote freedom of religion and the idea that the people have a right to follow whatever religion they so choose. Because “truth is distinct from error,” people should be able to discern it for themselves without having to be forced.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn, a classical Islamic text, says of this verse: “This was revealed concerning the Ansar who tried to compel their sons to enter into Islam.” Some of their children were Jewish, and the parents wished to force them to become Muslims. In Al-Suyuti‘s classical text Asbab al-Nuzul (Reasons for Revelation), it also says that there was a Muslim father by the name of Husayn bin Salim bin Awf who had two daughters both of whom were Christians. After failing to convince them to convert to Islam of their own free will, he went to the Islamic prophet Muhammad and requested permission to compel them into Islam. It was for this that the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion” was revealed, to forbid parents from forcibly converting their children to Islam.

True. But we also know that this verse was abrogated by the verse that came before it (strange though it is, but that is how the verses have been put into order in the Quran, from the longest to the shortest), ie the famous 2:193:

The interpretation/tafsir of Ibn Kathir re aya Q 2:193:

The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah. Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:
[حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ] (...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk.
This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah's statement:
[وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ للَّهِ] (...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone)) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.' It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: "The Prophet was asked, `O Allah's Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah' The Prophet said:
«مَنْ قَاتَلَ لِتَكُونَ كَلِمَةُ اللهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيا فَهُوَ فِي سَبِيلِ الله»
(He who fights so that Allah's Word is superior, then he fights in Allah's cause.)
In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:
«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لَا إِلهَ إلَّا اللهُ، فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُم وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إلَّا بِحَقِّهَا وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى الله»
(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)

Under Allah's statement:
[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ] (And fight them until there is no more Fitnah)
Al-Bukhari recorded that Nafi` said that two men came to Ibn `Umar during the conflict of Ibn Az-Zubayr and said to him, "The people have fallen into shortcomings and you are the son of `Umar and the Prophet's Companion. Hence, what prevents you from going out'' He said, "What prevents me is that Allah has forbidden shedding the blood of my (Muslim) brother.'' They said, "Did not Allah say:
[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ]
(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah))''
He said, "We did fight until there was no more Fitnah and the religion became for Allah Alone. You want to fight until there is Fitnah and the religion becomes for other than Allah!''
\:D/ \:D/

The relevance to the Fathima Rifqa Bary case cannot be understated: contrary to Fathima’s claim, the Quran forbids religious compulsion in general. The verse in question was specifically revealed for parents in regard to their children of different faiths. Amazingly, the Quranic verse was revealed to forbid a Muslim father from forcing his Christian daughters into Islam. Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like Mr. Bary and his daughter! So how accurate was Fathima’s claim that the Quran commands parents to force their children into Islam or kill them if they refuse?

See my above answer, Danios Taqqiyos! Quranic teaching, as enshrined in the sharia, obliges Muslim parents TO KILL their children who leave Islam.

Alas, I digress. Back to the Quran, which says:

“And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?” (Quran, 10:99)

Reform-minded Muslims use the above verse to argue that forcing people into Islam is wrong because God Himself did not do that. They believe that the power to guide and misguide people rests only with God, and nobody can share in that. The next verse is used by reformists to show that Muslims should just worry about what they themselves do, instead of trying to force people into guidance:

“And had God willed, He could have made you all one [religious] community, but He sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you (yourself) used to do [i.e. not what others used to do].” (Quran, 16:93)

The phrase–“God guides Whom He wills” and that He “misguides Whom He wills”–appears in dozens of Quranic verses. All of these references are commanding believers that they cannot force or will people into the religion, but that only God can do that.

The Quran commands:
“The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve.” (Quran, 18:29)

And the Quran says:
“Exhort them to believe; your task is only to exhort. You cannot compel them to believe.” (Quran, 88:21-22)

Another verse in the Quran indicates that during the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, there were people who believed and disbelieved–and then believed only to disbelieve once again; in other words, people entered into and out of the religion freely. The Quran says that such people are weak in faith and God will never guide them in this worldly life. The verse reads:

“Those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the Way.” (Quran, 4:137)

Reform-minded Muslims use this verse as a proof that there can be no punishment for apostasy. If that had been the case, then those who believe and then disbelieved (i.e. apostates) would have been put to death and therefore no chance would have been given to them to once again believe and disbelieve. Furthermore, the verse says that God will never guide them back to Islam, indicating that the Muslims are to ignore such a person: if God did not guide them to the Way, then why should Muslims?

So there are clear and explicit verses of the Quran that reform-minded Muslims naturally understand to mean that freedom of religion must be extended to all, and that compulsion into Islam is not to be tolerated.

See my answer above re the sharia. IF 'reform minded' Muslims rely on abrogated verses, then we are all in deep trouble. ](*,)

The Hadiths
Enter the Hadiths. For those who don’t know, the Hadiths are a body of collection of the prophet Muhammad’s sayings or traditions. In other words, the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the word of God, and the Hadiths are the words of their prophet. Unlike the Quran however, Muslims do not believe that all of the Hadiths are authentic. Rather, many of them are apocryphal and therefore rejected. In other words, if some Islamophobe claims that such-and-such Hadith exists, be aware of the fact that many of them are rejected by Muslims. The Hadiths do not occupy the same rank as the Quran, but are rather a secondary source open to criticism.

In this huge body of collection, we find the Hadith that Islamophobes rely on as their trump card in this debate, which reads as follows: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” At first glance, that seems pretty clear and unambiguous but has the Islamophobe proven his case? Well, let’s take into consideration that the Bible has many seemingly clear and unambiguous verses which call to kill apostates, yet we never assume that Christians today believe this, nor do we insist that Christianity itself demands it.

A Christian–when confronted with those verses in the Bible–would respond by saying something like the following:
“Well, that’s the Old Testament, and Jesus abrogated that part of the law. Back then during Biblical times, the believers were few and there was a real fear that they would be eliminated so punishing apostates was a deterrent. Furthermore, at that time apostasy was akin to high treason.”

Again, who gives a toss as to what Christians or their Holy Book said. It is not Christianity here on trial and most 'Islamophobes' are not Christians. They are ex-muslims, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Baha'ists, Hare Krishnas, Ahmadis etc etc who all, I repeat, ALL of them come from countries who have felt the 'peace' of the sword of Islam. Islam declared war on ALL unbelievers. So, you just dont get it, Mr Danios, that it is not only Christians who have fallen victim to Islam but ALL of humanity. That is why the West (still considered majority Christians) is a safe haven for those victims of islam, even Muslims themselves. Dont you get it, Danios Taqqiyos??

And this answer would completely placate the Islamophobes. In other words, verses that seemed unambiguous and clear from a religious book seemed to indicate one thing at face value, but the people who follow that book have a different way of understanding it: they give an explanation that contextualizes the verses.

Let’s be clear here: we’re not trying to bash Christianity at all. What we are saying however is that if we extend the common courtesy to Christians that they can contextualize such verses in the Bible, then why do we not extend the same courtesy to the Muslims when it comes to the Hadiths? Keep in mind also that Muslims believe that their Bible–so to speak–is the Quran and not the Hadiths. In other words, if Christianity’s primary source seems to say that apostates are to be killed, then why do we not accept any explanation from Muslims about their secondary source? (Hint: Islamophobia is the answer!) It is this terrible double standard that bothers Muslims and those who believe in religious tolerance.

Let's be clear: You ARE trying to bash Christianity in order to save Islam's face. Not working, man! See my answer above.

So how do reform-minded Muslims contextualize the Hadith in question (i.e. “whoever changes his religion, kill him.”)? First of all, they point out that these are not the words of the Islamic prophet Muhammad to begin with; rather, these are the the words of a man named Ibn Abbas who was paraphrasing the words of the Islamic prophet. The full text of that particular Hadith is as follows:

Some Zanadiqa were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying: Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire). I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle: Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, Number 57)

Ibn Abbas said it was the rasul's statement and that is what has been and is still being accepted by the Muslim world, from Egypt to Aceh/Indonesia, from Saudi to Xinjiang.

If this was a paraphrase, what were the actual words of the Islamic prophet Muhammad? We find one such Hadith which says:
“The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that there is no God but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) In penalty for murder, (2) a married person who commits adultery and (3) the one who reverts from Islam (apostates) and leaves the community.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 12, Book ad-Diyat, Number 6878, p.209)

Based on this, reformists say that a person cannot be given capital punishment except for three offenses: (1) murder, (2) adultery, and (3) apostasy combined with “leav[ing] the community.” Such Muslims say that apostasy is not punished except for when it is combined with “leav[ing] the community,” which they say refers to high treason against the Islamic state. What is meant specifically by “leaving the community” is of leaving the community to join the enemy forces. To bolster this claim, reformists point to another similarly narrated Hadith, which reads:

“The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) a married person who commits adultery; he is to be stoned and (2) a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger; he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land and (3) a man who murders another person; he is to be killed on account of it.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 4, Number 4353, p. 126)

So how does 'reform-minded' Muslims envisage Muslims leave islam AND still stay within the community? Isnt it usually the case that the apostates are either killed or hounded out or have to leave his community for his own safety?

Is leaving Islam itself not considered high treason against the Islamic state? Of course. Why? Because Islam IS the state. There is no separation between mosque and state in Islam. Islam is a system that encompasses politics, religion, economics, blablabla ... surely you know this all, Danios Taqqiyos?

What if Muslims join enemy forces without leaving Islam? Yep, they are still considered enemies. So, leaving Islam and leaving the community are two separate cases. One does not depend on the other.

SEE AGAIN THE SHARIA PROVISIONS IN THE RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER about RIDDA/Apostacy I posted above! Nowhere in it is stated that only those who leave Islam AND leave the community should be put to death. Leaving Islam alone, without 'leaving the community in order to join with enemy forces' is sufficient to warrant a death sentence. Danios is clearly making up as he goes along.


In other words, we have the exact same three instances in which a person may be put to death: (1) murder, (2) adultery, and (3) “a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger.” Reform-minded Muslims reason that since the Islamic prophet restricted capital punishment to three classes of people, the third instance must be referring to the same group. In other words “leav[ing] the community” refers to “a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger.” Reform-minded Muslims tie these Hadiths to the following Quranic verse:

“The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: this is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” (Quran, 5:33)

Notice how similar the above verse is to the Hadith mentioned in Sunan Abu Dawud (above). The Hadith mentions the one “who went out fighting against God and His Messenger” whilst the Quran says “those who wage war against God and His Apostle,” and the punishment for such is also the same in both: “killed or crucified or exiled from the land.” Reformists point out that the opinion of the ultraconservative Muslims–that peaceful apostates are to be killed–does not jive with the above, since that would mean that a person is to be killed for other than the three reasons, even though the Islamic prophet limited it to only three reasons, not four.

And even if we say that the Hadiths do not limit capital punishment to only three reasons, argue reformists, the issue is that the two Hadiths (as found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sunan Abu Dawood) both mention three sins–murder, adultery, and apostasy/waging war. It is abundantly clear then that the third sin (other than murder and adultery) is in reference to the same thing in both narrations, due to the congruency of the two Hadiths–which firmly establishes the linkage so the linking of apostasy to treason is firmly established by the congruency of the two Hadiths. This argument stands alone in itself and is not dependent on limiting capital punishment to three sins.

Waffle waffle waffle ... Never mind killing or not killing apostates. Problem is, if you consider these hadiths remotely true, just HAVE A GOOD LOOK at the barbaric punishments meted for crimes against Islam, according to Muhammad's own words. Stoning, crucifiction, the lot! And they are still practised today. If that does not send shivers down anyone's spine, I dont know what will.

The rest of the waffle of Danios Taqqiyos Ngoceh Doang Akbaros can be tackled by my more knowledgeable colleagues.

Reasons for Revelation

At the time that this Hadith was said (i.e. to kill apostates that left the community), the Muslims of the city of Medina were under attack by the Quraish “idolaters” of Mecca (which at that time was predominantly non-Muslim). Many of the Muslims in Medina were emigrants from Mecca, who had converted to Islam. Do you see now why religion and national identity was fused at the hip back then? If you were a Meccan who converted from paganism to Islam, you’d be persecuted or even killed by your former co-religionists. So those who converted to Islam would “leave the community” of Mecca to join Medina....'

blablabla waffle waffle ..
NUFF SAID! :-({|=
Posts: 17309
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Return to Resource Centre KEBOHONGAN2/MITOS2 ciptaan Islam/Muslim

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users