Swearing-in Ceremony with Hand on the Bible?

Re: # 589 by Sattar2

“Implicit or explicit threats” is a complicated issue … don’t know if there is a short, straight answer for the way you have phrased the question``



It sure is a complicated one. I guess we should just remain at the basics yet :D
I don`t have enough brains today --got an exam!

Re: # 591 by urstruly.

“Quadianis raise the issue of apostasy, despite the fact that there is no such law in Pakistan because of two reasons...”
+
“First of all Pakistan does not have any law on Apostasy, so in the context of Pakistan there is no question of eradication”

> Post 558 by me:
> [Not just that but they also, of course, invite people to their religion: Which is a threat to Islam --not to their ``Islam``. This kicked them out of Pakistan. And yes, they were killed too. Both Verses Practiced.]

> [Both Verses Practiced] is what I interpreted when Qadianies were fought against in Pakistan. If it wasn’t the law then it must be the Islamic “legal obligations” and hadith the guys followed.


“As far as the Capital punishment for apostasy is concerned, it is reserved for those who actively tread ino the realm of sedition against the Islamic state and try to proselytize Muslims to their new faith (also forbidden in Islamic law). The offence of this level amounts to teason and justifies a capital punishment.”

> So you do agree with the different ‘levels’ of punishments assigned to different levels of apostasies = [apostates] “who actively tread into the realm of sedition against the Islamic state and try to proselytize Muslims to their new faith > [will get a capital punishment].”

“But on the other hand the punishment for apostates ranges from merely social boycott to imprisonment, and exile”

> “merely social boycott” for those who pose no threat = Yay

“So in my opinion even the capital punishment, considering the procedure to get to that, is quite humane and justified.”

> I agree


RimshaB

Re: # 499
Tahmed,

Today, an ACP was sentenced to death in Delhi for custodial killings of 2 ppl. I agree that the pace is NOT what we would all like it to be ... but it is coming...

That was the point VRV (or ranjit ?) were trying to make.

Subhash Joshi,
Dude - you are good ;)
You really took the voldermorts to the cleaners !!

Re: # 584 Razia

``In my opinion, only in context of Pakistan, killing non-threatening apostates should be eradicated``

First of all Pakistan does not have any law on Apostasy, so in the context of Pakistan there is no question of eradication. As I indicated in one of my earlier post, the Quadianis raise the issue of apostasy, despite the fact that there is no such law in Pakistan because of two reasons:

1. To desensitize Muslims about one of their core values; encourage them to reject Islam and ultimately convert them to Quadianis.

2. To prevent the enactment of any such law in future in Pakistan.

The fact of the matter is that as we will establish the Islamic Law completely in Pakistan after revolution the law on apostasy and a law prohibiting prolysetyzation of any other religion to a Muslim subject of the state will be established.

There is a very good reason the law on apostasy is required in a Muslim state for both threatening and non-threatening apostates. The reason is that by the principle established by Holy prophet (pbuh) the Islamic laws do not apply to non-Muslim citizens of the state. The non-Muslim citizens pay a token tax called Jiziya and they are given an internal autonomy on self legislation and self governance. They are not required to be enlisted for Jihad, which is compulsory on Muslim citizens, and they are given autonomy to conduct their businesses even if the said business contrdicts the basic tennent of Islam. For example, in an Islamic state, neither any state apparatus nor a private entity is allowed to conduct a business which is interest based. But a non-Muslim individual or a group can establish such business as long as he is paying Jaziah.

Now suppose a hypothetical situation where a Muslim starts an interest based business; now since he is bound by Islamic law, he can be persecuted. But what if when he is brought to the court and he decalre an oath that he converted to some other religion before starting his business therefore, he is exempt from Islamic law.

So the point is, that while an Islamic state gives a wide extent of freedom, to its non-Muslim citizens, which is not even possible with even the most modern secular state, it has to keep a system of checks and balances.

As far as the Capital punishment for apostasy is concerned, it is reserved for those who actively tread ino the realm of sedition against the Islamic state and try to proselytize Muslims to their new faith (also forbidden in Islamic law). The offence of this level amounts to teason and justifies a capital punishment.

But on the other hand the punishment for apostates ranges from merely social boycott to imprisonment, and exile. There are many chances given to an apostate to recant from his position without imposing any punishment if he does so. The Hanafi school of thought offers unlimited occasions to an apostate to recant, whereas Shaafi school limits these chances to three. So in my opinion even the capital punishment, considering the procedure to get to that, is quite humane and justified.

Re: # 588 by Sattar2

Hm! All those posts have been repeating and summarizing all the way and I somewhat do agree on the sunaas and ahadith but problem is that the context, time, and events are all important to the laws` creation and enforcement.

Anyway, I have presented something as well and want to see what the result is. If same thing occurs with no conclusion then we`ll just leave it at that.

raziab9 (#585, #586, #587),

It is incorrect to say that ahadith (or sunnah) are irrelevant to me. I fully support walking in the footsteps of the dear Prophet (pbuh), since this is encouraged by Quran itself.

It is important to separate true ahadith from those that were fabricated, or incomplete, or erroneous. If a hadith contradicts Quran, it automatically falls in the latter category for me.

+++

Regarding …”eliminating the killing of only non-threatening apostates” … my view is that those who threaten well-being or security of a society should be severely punished … whether these are apostates, widows, tall skinny men, or accountants. This position is consistent with teachings of Qruan in my view …

+++

“Implicit or explicit threats” is a complicated issue … don’t know if there is a short, straight answer for the way you have phrased the question.

raziab9 (#571).

That’s the point I have been making all along. According to Urstruly and his ullema (and ”billions of Muslims over past 1500 years”), an apostate should be killed, no ifs and buts.

+++

Here are a few comments on #558:

- In 5:33 Quran refers to people who have waged war against Allah and His Messenger, not necessarily to apostates, not necessarily to widows, not necessarily to tall skinny men.

- I earlier explained Quranic 4:89. Refer to post #518 for some details.

- Your third reference (9:72-75) applies to hereafter, not to this world, and is not relevent here.

Again, compare what Quran tells us with views of Urstruly. Refer to #540 for some Quranic references I have listed.

+++

Moving on,

In #578 Urstruly is referring to an article he wrote earlier. Do read it when you get a chance. I argued, on basis of Quran, ahadith, Bible, and history of religion, against his position. My responses #17 and #242 on ”that”, board summed up my position. Read and compare …

Re: # 586 to Sattar2

And killing of the implicitly+explicitly threatening apostates?

Re: # 583 by sattar2

and Sattar2, what do you think about eliminating the killing of only non-threatening apostates?

Re: # 583 by Sattar

Your posts have a warm ``welcome`` to them :)

It seems that you believe ahadith and sunas are totally irrelevant to religious rules. Just read urstrulys 578 again and you`ll look at this from a different lense.

I understand that you and I agree on some perspectives but let out the ``sticking to Quran`` please.

Thank you,
RB

Re: # 578 by urstruly

[It is interesting to note that Jesus (pbuh), himself, was crucified because of his ``crime`` of blasphemy under Jewish law.]

If Jesus was crucified for blasphemy then Muslims could be killed for apostasy because this way they become apostates of Jews & Christians. How? They were once both but when the new religion (finished religion: Islam) entered, they joined the group. Oh --that was way off!

Back to the Ahadith: You also assured that [``apostasy`` is a wrong attribute that must be avoided and discouraged]. It is obvious as we should follow Shara-e-Qable-na`` meaning, the law of the previous people (prophets), which was to severely punish the threatening & non-threatening (both) apostates. However, if this law was built just like Common Law (Which is jugdge-made law and depends on previous cases) then it could be altered to what the new times require or what people vote towards.

Common law & votes aside, if this act is one of the very few prophets`-made-laws which are being followed in countries like Pakistan then what about the laws that we leave behind? One law, which we all know has been led by Prophet M (pbuh), of cutting off hands of one who steals.

This reminds me of the 5-time prayers. In all prayers there are ``Sunatein``: basically what Prophet M pbuh used to pray. ``Farz`` are a must but one, if for some major reason, is not able to finish the Sunas and Anfal then they are not punished for them. We could apply the same knowledge elsewhere. I know this could be an irrelevant comparison but just imagine eliminating the killing of only non-threatening apostates. This way, we are not breaking any rules and reputation remains!

In my opinion, only in context of Pakistan, killing non-threatening apostates should be eradicated

ntsyed (#576),

You claim that apostates should be killed ”only if they threaten Muslim society”. Urstruly thinks apostates should be killed, period, no ifs and buts.

These are two very different positions that contradict each other.

Perhaps you both should first agree on what Islam teaches. Add Naqshbandi and zeemax to the equation to make things more interesting. Then you can fight over who wins support from raziab9. I`ll deal with whoever comes out ahead. OK?

Re: # 574 majumdar

Aw, common in --if you read the 300 recent posts, you`ll have a pretty good idea of what was going on. However, if it starts to sound boring, you may leave.

;)
RB
PS. this is not an invitation to Islam!

ntsyed (#575):

You earlier suggested that since Quran does not explicitly say “don’t kill apostates”, it is ok to kill apostates. My point is that Quran does not explicitly say “don’t kill widows” either. Your comments about Hindu traditions etc. are irrelevant in this context.

+++++

In Quran Allah Almighty addresses all believers, not only Ibne-Kathir.

In #518 I showed that Quranic verses 4:80-89 are referring not to apostates, but to people who are actively scheming against Muslims and are engaged in anti-social activities and fear mongering.

Merely arguing on basis of what Ibne-Kathir wrote is irrelevant. Again, Quran addresses all believers, not only Ibne-Kathir. What Ibne-Kathir believes is his business, not mine.

+++++

On authenticity of ahadith: I have based my views on Quran. Your view is based on ahadith that negate Quran. Pick your choice. Similarly, on topic of “no compulsion in matters of faith”, I see no need to quote any Ahamdi-Muslim ullema. I’d much rather stick to Quran.

If you don’t accept word of Allah Almighty, what good is such Islam?

Urstruly (#570),

So far you have discussed views of ullema, various schools of jurisprudence, fatwa-e-alamgiri, recorded ahadith, history of India, Mirza Sahib, Ahmadi-Muslim views, bible, etc. etc.

But all along you have stayed away from Quran. When I keep pressing you on Quran, you call it “Quadiyani fitna”!

[This is an implicit admission that Ahamdi-Muslims are following Quran, and that your scholars, schools of jurisprudence etc. are no longer following Quran. This is the face of ummah in this day and age.]

+++++

I referred to you as an idiot … since instead of sticking to topic at hand (apostasy etc.), you keep making irrelevant statements about Mirza Sahib, Ahamdi-Muslims, history of India, etc. That miaN is idiocy of a high order.

Instead of looking for filth against Ahamdi-Muslims and making stuff up against Mirza Sahib, stay focused on the topic. And I would stop calling you an idiot. Deal?

Re: # 578 Futher ...........


The refernce % mentioned in the excerpt in my last post enlists the follwing edicts that stipulate the punishment for apostasy thus extending the argument of Blasphemy``

[Ref: 5] Quoting from the King James Version of the Bible:

http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/index.htm

Jehovah required the state to execute a person:

For following another religion: Exodus 22:20 states: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. See also and Numbers 25:1-15.

For proselytizing (conversion): Deuteronomy 13:1-10 states that a person who tries to convince an Israelite to convert to another religion must be killed.