Preventing More Lal Masjids

#777 Posted by arjun2 on July 16, 2007 2:49:40 pm

((((This is america. here people are free to renounce islam and there's nothing you can do about it..let me repeat...nothing you can do about it.. )))

who has asked you not to drink gao-muttar and her goaber-burger??? man...you are right...off course i know...i can do nothing about it....let me repeat....nothing i can do about it.

Re:#771 Posted by PM on July 16, 2007 2:35:06 pm
((((I'm not sure what you mean by 'flexible' here. Are you referring to the elasticity of the noose rope? Or to the pliability of the sword used to behead the apostate? Or perhaps to the choice of whether the IV-arsenics hould be administered into the arm ot hip?? Please do elaborate on this "flexibility" wrt to capital punishment, and also on the "nature of the act" of apostasy))))


my response..;

I have said that apostasy will be dealt within a general law for ''mischief in the land'' because there is no punishment has been mentioned for apostasy separatly in the Quran.

punishment for ''mischief in land'' is mentioned...;

5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

so you see....death penality is the maximum punishment in that case.....there may be lesser punishments as well.

i have categorically mentioned in my previous post that in the case of apostasy death penality is NOT the minimum punishment.

the ''nature'' of apostasy means that if a person doesn't fight against the state and doesnt preach his new religion he might be given a chance....or any other punishment less than death....untill he repents....blah..blah

Liberal Muslims who want to reform Islam on moral basis are missing a damn big pint and that is...that, had there not been this kind of social political Islam, it would have been impossible for the ''religio-spirtual'' islam to survive.

Maybe some liberal are aware of it, and also aware that, while the social political Islam served a very important function in the past, it's redundant now. (Not irrelevant, but redundant-- it's function has been copted by the secular state.) Look around you, mian... you see Islamic states, in the socio-political sense, all over Europe.

In fact, islam's social philosophy provides an institutional 'defence' mechanisms to its "religio-spirtual" philosophy against all other ideologies which would hinder its progress or assert their own epitemological perspective on it. "

Mian, other ideologies are not necessarily inimical to Islam. There are overlaps in the epitemological perspectives (whatever those are) of almost all ideologies. What makes Islam so different from the epitomological standpoint? What gives it the right to coerce through it's social "philosophy"?

"...so in that way islam's social theory is kind of a "socialization of knowledge" as well."

Which makes it potentially totalitarian? So?? To a greater or lesser degree, all ideologies "socialize knowledge". Where is the jsutification here for the protection of this knowledge at all costs? Where is the justification for facism?

#769 Posted by philosopher on July 16, 2007 2:13:00 pm


According to islam no non-muslim can be forced to convert to islam.but a muslim cannot change his religion and if he does the maximum punuishment is death.


That may be true in lands where the practioners of the religion of peace are in the majority.

This is america. here people are free to renounce islam and there's nothing you can do about it..let me repeat...nothing you can do about it..

LOL, GT sahib, we will need your creativity to find fun in this new and still confusing format. Cheers.

Re: # 774

This is what happens when I reply to an interact. How would I know of interacts (by others) to an old interact?

Whew!

I clicked on 'flag objectionable content' in #s 771 and 770 .. a red flag appeared on both posts. Now is this solely for my benifit or does everyone in chowk get to see them (If so then PM and kaal, I am sorry).

But this is fun :)

Okay, egg's on my face a little...

To be fair, Philoo, you did write "But a muslim cannot change his religion and if he does the maximum punuishment is death." [emphasis added, and vital.

Could you tell us the source of this allegedly Islamic law? Is the "maximum" part your addition or is it inferred from the source?

In case you can provide your source, showing the possibility of flexibility, I offer an apology for the name-calling in the previous post. If not, it stands.

Liberal Muslims who want to reform Islam on moral basis are missing a damn big pint and that is...that, had there not been this kind of social political Islam, it would have been impossible for the ''religio-spirtual'' islam to survive.

In fact, islam's social philosophy provides an institutional 'defence' mechanisms to its ''religio-spirtual'' philosophy against all other ideologies which would hinder its progress or assert their own epitemological perspective on it. so in that way islam's social theory is kind of a ''socialization of knowledge'' as well.

People like Masadi forget that had there not been Mullah's resistence against colonialism he(masadi) would not have been a muslim because there would have been no such thing as islam in the world. For ''moderate'' view and version you need at least two theories to reconcile islam and westren liberalism...if islam had behaved moderatly or 'liberally' during the colonial period ....there would not have been one theory and no prize for guessing,which one.

re. philosopher #769:
"So in that kind of system if you let go apostate and 'deviant' so easily it will be recepie for disaster,it will minimize its utility as a socio-political system."

So, just to be sure, you're suggesting that the more all-encompassing a system is, the more vulnerable it becomes to dissent of any kinds? hmmm.. Orwell's villains would agree, I think!

Incidentally, and slightly peripherally, no one but Zeemax has been brave enough to answer this question: Can a person be considered to have chosen a faith when s/he clearly had no choice, being born into a family of that faith? In other words, is there no difference between apostasy of the time of the Prophet (when a person was a Muslim indubitably by choice) and all Muslims-by-accident-of-birth?

You write: "According to islam no non-muslim can be forced to convert to islam. But a muslim cannot change his religion and if he does the maximum punuishment is death."

and also,

"Now you can be flexible in implementing this punishment for apostasy according to the nature and consequences of that act."

I'm not sure what you mean by 'flexible' here. Are you referring to the elasticity of the noose rope? Or to the pliability of the sword used to behead the apostate? Or perhaps to the choice of whether the IV-arsenics hould be administered into the arm ot hip?? Please do elaborate on this "flexibility" wrt to capital punishment, and also on the "nature of the act" of apostasy.

And, just so echo sahib never again get the impression I'm pusillaminous, please allow me to say that I think you're one sick ba$tard who needs to see a psychiatrist. But please, this is just my detached opinion based on your clearly schizoidic temperament. Nothing personal.

Yes, PM, agreed, to the apostate, liberal opinions would matter IF liberal opinions had practical and "institutionalized" value and force. People can believe or say anything. Beliefs and words matter ONLY if they can be enforced. By state for most non-Muslims, and by faith, for most Muslims.

To quote an hackneyed example, sure, anyone can scream fire in a crowded auditorium (no society can stop ALL its people, ALL the time, from following their own inner light). Yet, IF there exist such strong institutional mechanisms that such an act will undoubtedly draw universal (not just liberal) strong condemnation and will surely land a person in huge trouble within one's own valued group/nation, then those opinions become actually worth something.

Basically, PM, talk is cheap; and while it is good to humor it among kids, and let friends indulge in it if they so desire, even encourage it if cheap talk is pleasing to one's ears and builds one's self confidence and brings hope for a better future, but it is unwise to imagine that, unless backed by frankly brutal and open powerplay, it actually means or can mean something socially.

Re:#762 Posted by PM on July 16, 2007 1:31:33 pm

((((Could you start by explaining, briefly, what the term "all-inclusive system" means here, and how it is threatened by apostasy))))

well PM...its simple...Regardless of the diversity of islam's version no body can deny that islam has its own comprehensive socio-political system. All-inclusive here means that it encompasses all the dimension of human life. It has its, jurisprudence, political, social ,legal and ethical system along with ,off course, its spirtual and epistemological philosophy(which provides the basis to its social dimension).

So in that kind of system if you let go apostate and 'deviant' so easily it will be recepie for disaster,it will minimize its utility as a socio-political system.

The kind of Islam tahmed32 and Masadi preach is good and jutified(intellectualy) in many ways but by doing so they throw the baby out with the bath water.

Masadi misses a point here when he says 'God will deal with them' off course he will but what is jurisprudence there for?? off course the matter related to the socail conditions and human beings are dealt by human beings according to the teachings of their ideology.

Now you can be flexiable inn implementing this punishment for apostasy according the nature and consequences of that act.

PM said..;

(((Are you suggesting that all Bahai's, to take an example, should be put to death for preaching in Islamic lands? What about preaching faiths that predate Islam but are newer in terms of when they reach a land-- Christianity being preached in the Punjab, for instance)))

No...those sects which have already been decleared infedils can not be treated that way...we are taliking aboutb the future.in future(if it is implemented) no muslim can be allowed to convert to other faiths. According to islam no non-muslim can be forced to convert to islam.but a muslim cannot change his religion and if he does the maximum punuishment is death.

Now this is the kind of sure-footed thing ...Eemaani..believing...stuff I admire in any man.

echo sahib, there are some things worthy of emaani and some not. I would be a fool to have such aetmaad about rain tomorrow based simply on the fact that it's getting pretty cloudy and humid as hell.

OTOH, I am SURE that oftentimes, doubt is the most approriate way to relate to a situation... it keeps one hungry for the truth.

I am quitting chowk until this asinine manner of presenting the interacts is corrected. God knows I don't need to wait 2 minutes for a page to reload and show, 99% of which I've already read!!

Am sending a copy to to chowk editors. Maybe we could put some collective pressure on 'em??

has anyone figured out a way to limit the number of posts per page?? This is killing me here with my slow, and not so cheap connection!!

re. kaal #762:
" You don't want to kill them, but what would you suggest be done to them? Would you not want ANY Muslims to talk about killing such a person?"

No-- if you mean 'not want' in a legally consequential way. There is a great difference between a beggar on the street saying "X should die" and Altaf Hussain, for instance, saying the same. Most legal systems recognize this difference.

" Other Muslims can be as 'liberal' as they wish to or need to, so long as they DO NOT OR CANNOT (the two being EXACTLY the same, from outcome perspective) effectively stop the few Muslims who are [intent on kiling apostates]".

I don't agree with the two being exactly the same. Public opinion and sentiment does, in fact, affect actions/outcomes. And public opinion/sentiment is nothing but the collection of many individuals' opinions/sentiments. So it does matter that liberals, and anyone else for that matter, not be 'satisfied' with simply holding an opinion about treatment of others, but turn it into a practical force as well.