Preventing More Lal Masjids

PM:758
"My mention of the 21st century was not to hold it out as necessarily more advanced than the 7th (though I absolutely believe it is in almost every respect)"

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

Belonging to exactly this glorious Islamic tradition I also think that one should try not to get specious like a godforsaken logician or the Israelites-of-the-bible who clinton like insisted on the definition of "is" to avoid discomfort or always "win" an argument.

So it would do a great good to you to read upon the constituitions of The Islamic republic of Iran ( the one closest to an Islamic society today...in my BELIEF..so don't ask me why..I won't answer...that is the islamic way to end an argument)

re. Echoboom #760 "Even muslims & Islam are under the gun, is not the time & place to seek such esoteric & fanciful opinion of the one crouching in dust, bleeding, and begging.... The most he can do, if he has some strength left in him, is to spit in our face. "

Surely you don't honestly beleive it is always, or even most often, a case of the crouching, bleeding ones, who tend to be the spitters? I certainly don't.

Philosopher:

Could you please elaborate on this:

"And i was convinced by echo/zee and even you that letting the apostate go is terrible to the kind of all-inclusive system islam carries..."

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

Could you also please elaborate on : "for example...how would you treat people who would openly start preaching their new faith...do they deserve any thing less than death????...if this is not ''fasaad fil aaraz'' mischief in the land(spreading apostasy)than whatelse is????"

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?

Looking forward to your repsonse.

Wow!

Few questions:

1. What happened to the right hand side?
2. Is there a way to arrange the interacts in an increasing or decreasing order?
3. Is echo really out of the can this time?

Few observations:

1. It is difficult to respond to earliers posts. Need to scroll a lot.
2. It will take some time to get used to it.

Philo bhai # 748

And I fully agree with you. For the life of me, I cannot understand Hindus and Hindus with Muslim names who insist on seeing Islam as a man-made religion, just like Hinduism.

Intellectually, may be I do understand them because not long ago, I too believed that Islam was a form of Hinduism, just Arabic bhakti and devotion being the core of it. You see, sufis did mess up Hindu minds pretty thoroughly, which frankly, from Islam's point of view, was not and is not a bad thing (if Sufism knew and respected its limits). :)
----------------------------


Masadi sahib, PM

In your interpretation, what should Muslims do with apostates who work directly and diligently to "destroy" Islam by:

(1) Denouncing the Quran and its message, claiming it cannot be the Word of God. Worse, call it a source of great evil in the world.
(2) Speaking out strongly, and by their own criteria, logically, against Prophet Muhammad (and his family) as a role model for mankind, highlighting his 'flaws.' Worse, brining them in clear disrepute.
(3) Luring young Muslim women to marry men who are not of the book.
(4) Organizing to stop/slow the spread of Islam in non-Muslim countries.
(5) Encouraging poor/ignorant Muslims to abandon Islam, and then financially/politically supporting such apostates.


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?
---------------------------------------


If that satisfies you, given a large enough group, not every Muslim has to call for murders, nor carry them out. So Muslims who wish to be liberals need not be alarmed.

All that's needed are (1) numbers - those are THE all-important factor, and (2) some Muslims (a very very small percentage, indeed) realizing their duty to stop the spread of vice. (3) 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, by their own interpretations - and who should they turn to for guidance but themselves and the Quran?, driven to perform what they see as their duty to God and Islam.

------------

So what should Muslims do with such apostates, according to your view?

PM:757
It is the question of "agency"...as our resident Profeesor emeritus of literature would say.

Defining the other's hurt or happiness has become an industry in your 21st century..and like the mice we are all following this pied piper Bro P.M.

The world problems & issues are not Islamic Islamic. Every time, since colonialism got its grip on the world...the first stone cast is always from the other side. So much so that it has made many muslims & non-muslims confederate-in-arms.

Even muslims & Islam are under the gun, is not the time & place to seek such esoteric & fanciful opinion of the one crouching in dust, bleeding, and begging.

The most he can do, if he has some strength left in him, is to spit in our face.

echo, #756:
My mention of the 21st century was not to hold it out as necessarily more advanced than the 7th (though I absolutely believe it is in almost every respect). No, point was that the conditions that existed in the 7th which made apostasy "harmful to the community" don't in the 21st. The Ummah has come some ways since then.

re. the rest of your post, please use fewer metaphors and idioms. Not all of us are as literarily gifted as yourself.

re. echoboom: "One "writer" used words...the one who expressed opinion that such a person be killed also used words. Did something happen?"

Not quite sure what you mean by that question. Something could likely happen. In any case, there's a clear difference between words what directly call for (and can very likely thus lead to) killing of someone, and words that, at the most, can annoy/upset/enrage. Yes, some sanction is probably needn't against the latter, but not seeing it's essential difference between it and the former is, IMHO, an exercise in self-deception.

PM:752
Nothing glamorous or ugly about the 21st century...perhaps this self-congratulatory pat on the back is the root of most evil. :)

This exactly is the reason that the granddad & grandson consider each other beneath themselves..the tragic part is that the granddad & fewer miles left to make his point.

The opted-in business in life is the one "that goes with the territory"..remember , no one sought our opinion about paying a visit here in the first place..and you want to quibble about details...like height, weight, color & worst of all lineage?

Of course scince is trying to act uppity & shifting forever the paradigms...but no matter what happens or whatever they do they will never be able to step in the same river twice!

re. masadi #various:

Man, you know what I think about your philosophising. (!!)

I guess it's only fair you know what I think about "your" Islam: It rocks!!

And no, there's not a hint of sacarsm or irony there! More power to you, man!

And whilst you're at it, keep exposing the shallowness (where found) of the "Islam" promoted by the likes of Zeemax and Urstruly. (I think Zee's probably hit an age where he's in need of some vicarious action, and gets it from his modern-day cowboys and Injuns re-tellings. Other than that, he's pretty cool, actually.)

#753 Posted by philosopher on

please read((((i convinced...though i think state can ''categorise' in the forms of apostasy according to the nature and its consequences on the society)))


AS;
i was convinced...though i think state can ''categorise' the forms of apostasy according to its nature and consequences on the society.

#748 Posted by KaalChakra on July 16, 2007 12:36:13 pm

kaal ji

you know i have repeated it infinite number of times now that all these differences are the product of the fallacy of the ethical interpretation of the religion.

Religion does have moral philosophy but reducing and analysing religion(especially islam) only in the light of moralities is nothing but a complete lack of understanding of the epitemological dimension of the religion.

I know there is no categorical verse in the Quran regarding the death penality of apostate. but there is a which says that people who create mischief in the land can be excuted though it is the maximum punishement prescribed for ''oon' but it is there.And i was convinced by echo/zee and even you that letting the apostate go is terribl to the kind of all-inclusive system islam carries.

i convinced...though i think state can ''categorise' in the forms of apostasy according to the nature and its consequences on the society.

You might not kill every apostate but certain kind of apostates must be given what they truly deserve,though it must be in the framework of law.

for example...how would you treat people who would openly start preaching their new faith...do they deserve any thing less than death????

if this is not ''fasaad fil aaraz'' mischief in the land(spreading apostasy)than whatelse is????

re. echoboom:
"Would not a "muslim" who decides NOT to remain a believer ( not just in heart..of which no one would know) but in WORDS & DEEDS and works against the muslim community deserve some sanction?"

Boy that's a mouthful! What about "Muslims" -- and I know a few-- who decide NOT to remain a Muslim "in words" but not in deeds. In other words, they are quite sure that they do not believe in the God/Prophet deal but agree that most of what is sanctioned in the Quran is pretty good. And they do NOT work against the Muslim, or any other, community. ??

I think I know your answer. You've already said that "the whole issue is about those who try to bring harm to the muslim COMMUNITY",

but you muddy the waters with statements such as "...As long as a MUSLIM or a non-muslim does not, by words or deeds, try to be seditious or an apostate, and thus bring harm to muslims..." which suggests that aspostasy, even in the 21st century when we're no longer fighting with small tribal allegiances, "brings harm to Muslims." Well, excuse me, but the only harm that I can see is to the rather smug mentality that holds that no one could ever have valid reason for wanting out, even, like I said, when they might not have opted 'in' to begin with.

Most people call this 'Insecurity'. I'm so glad Masadi, for one, doesn't exhibit it. Could it be that because his faith is actually stronger than most others'?

masadi:746
So?
One "writer" used words...the one who expressed opinion that such a person be killed also used words. Did something happen?

Why are we so fond of talking in a vacuum?

The "writer" was an apostate for a long long time before he was even known as a "writer"..He was granted visas to the so-called Islamic countries all over the world. No one ratted on his "thoughts"..even the secret-service found him clean

But your beard is highly suspect at the point-of-landing. Next time use arguments to convince them otherwise.

Turning the other cheek is a very cheeky argument. It is pleasing to the ears, but rings hollow.

It is like reading the national average incomes, which includes those of Bill gates types, and suddenly feeling elated that I'm poor no more.

In addition to #746 note that the Quran does not ever encourage provincialism, it talks to humankind, who have the same creator as you do; note that those people who are rejecting the truth and have not in any way spoken to harm you,among them are many apostates (those who were previously Muslims) Allah enjoins justice and kindness towards them (60:8). You harm them and you go against the commandments of Allah (4:90). He allows you retaliation ONLY against those who attack you first and want to destroy you because you submit to God.

Swarrier

Et tu, swarrier? LOL

I am sorry about not noticing that reply earlier! Yes, this format sucks! :(
----------------------------------------

We have no way of knowing who disagrees with what unless that disagreement is well articulated. There is too much noise in the system. Hence, the only opinions that publicly matter are the ones that are voiced on time, clearly, forcefully, and if needed, repeatedly.

If Hindu fundamentalists are the only ones who make a racket about an important theory/idea/interpretation of history, then I guess, you agreeing with it does make you, in the eyes of others at least, a Hindu fundamentalist (welcome to the fold :)).

See, this, IMHO, is important. What you REALLY are, and what you REALLY believe is of no conern to others, unless it becomes a factor in shaping the nature of public discourse itself.





By that criteria,