Echo, if you are correct how long Islam remains a peaceful religion?
The fact is that Islam is mostely silent over this issue. But what Fraudia says is far from reality, because in practical if a Muslim rejects Islam, it is considered a direct insult to Islam and we know what it means.
This topic is discussed on this forum many times and i want to copy and paste another member's explanation to the ahadees about Apostacy.
Not being in the Koran is one thing, rejected by the Koran is another thing. In this case, the Koran has rejected the punishment for Apostacy. And for something that Koran has outrightly rejected and disallowed, presenting Ahadith in its favor is a brave act. I'd fear Allah too much before committing such an act, but for those who do, I will hereby present on account on the punishment of Apostacy according to the Hadith, and the foul play by the Molvis in this regard:
-== A Rule from the Rules of Fiqh ==-
There is an accepted rule of Fiqh: ﺪﻴﻘﻤﻟﺍ ﻲﻠﻋ ﻖﻠﻄﻤﻟﺍ ﻞﻤﺤﻳ ﺎﻟ ﺎﻧ ﺪﻨﻋﻭ i.e. Mutlik is not Mahmool on Muqeed.
This is difficult language for a commoner, but it can be explained with the following example:
If a few people have seen X shot Y dead, then if, 10 of them say 'X has killed Y' and only 1 says 'X has killed Y because Y had first attacked him with a sword', then we will accept the statment of the 11th person, because it includes the statement of the other 10. The above rule means, that if 10 people have narrated the above incident without accepting or denying the fine details presented by the 11th, then we can not say that the 11th person is wrong, and Y had not attacked X with a sword first.
This rule is logically correct. We will need to keep this rule in mind in order to know the correct meaning of the Ahadith about Apostacy.
-== Hadith 1: ﺖﻋﺎﻤﺠﻠﻟ ﮎﺭﺎﺘﻟﺍ ﻪﻨﻳﺪﻟ ﻕﺭﺎﻔﻤﻟﺍ ==-
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
In this Hadith, the Holy prophet has considered it legal to kill someone who leaves Islam and becomes an apostate. However, the Movlis hide from you all that this is NOT the only version of this Hadith. There are many versions of this Hadees, narrated by dependable narrators in the Sahee books. The other versions of the same Hadees, however, add some words to the condition of rhe punishment of Apostacy. These versions of the Hadith are intentionally hidden by the molvis, so that they can associate their barbarianism to Islam and make a mockery of Islam in the world.
Here are some other versions of the Hadith:
1- Narrated by Aisha in Sunan of Abu Daud: "The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned;** one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land**; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.
By changing the word "Apostate" with the words "one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle", which means this fighting against Allah and his prophet is a punishable act, and not apostacy in itself. Interestingly, other than death, this Hadith also gives an option of Exile. After reading this Hadith it becomes clear as to what type of apostates were killed, and for what reason.
2- Aisha narrates in Nissai the same hadith with the following words instead of an apostate: ﻪﻟﻮﺳﺭﻭ ﻪﻠﻟﺍ ﺏﺭﺎﺤﻴﻓ ﻡﺎﻠﺳﺎﻟﺍ ﻦﻣ ﺝﺮﺨﻳ ﻞﺟﺭ and also gives the option of exile as stated in the previous Hadith too.
3- Interestingly, in the very same Volume and very same Book of Bokhari, there is another version of the Hadith under discussion. It is sad that the Molvis show us one version and hide the other one.
In a long Hadith narrated Abu Qilaba: "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostleand deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Note that this version of the Hadith makes it very very clear that in order to deserve a punishment, the apostate must have waged a war against Allah and his prophet! Islam allows a defensive war and thus such a killing is not against the Koran.
4- Narrated by Abu Qilaba again in Bokhari: "I do not know that killing a person is lawful in Islam except in three cases: a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, one who has murdered somebody unlawfully, or** one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle**."
In this version, the words of Apostacy and changing of religion are completely gone, and replaced with the words "one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle".
Now, according to the rule mentioned at the start of this post, do you think we should take the hadith which says apostates should be killed, and throw away all the versions of the same hadith which describe as to what type of apostates are to be killed??? This is not a game, this issue involves human lives. Can a god fearing person play with the issue like our molvis do, by deliberately hiding some ahadith?
Why is it that the Molvis hide the descriptive versions of the Hadith, and only let people know of the one that could help them confuse the common people? It is a disgrace to Islam from these molvis to associate their filthy vulgar and barbaric way of thinking to Islam, by hiding the ahadith which go against their opinion, and popularizing the ones that are against the rules of conscience and against the teachings of Koran!
irrespective of wot your various holy scriptures say about this matter, large number of ppl are leaving islam in europe and iran…
infact in iran, they are reverting back to their original faith-zorastrianism much against the will of mullahs.
Most iranian settlers in europe, dont even consider themselves moslems.
*The “Iranian” people have no connection to a glorious past, and thus no foundation for a flourishing future. Persia, like Mesopotamia, is a name that has magic. Its people need to recapture that magic. They need to recover their history not only before Khomeini and Reza Shah, but also before Islam.
Zoroastrianism is reviving in Iran now, with Nowruz (the Zoroastrian New Year coinciding with Spring Equinox) being celebrated by hundreds of thousands. The overthrow of the hated mullahs by student/popular revolt next year will see an explosion of interest by the Persian people in their ancestral legacy and religion.
Renaming their country back to the original – Persia – would solidify and formalize this revival.
*
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/2/124004.shtml
well its interesting to see that even in a country like Iran peopel can convert if they so wanted. I really had thought that the ruling groups there were too strict to let that happen.
As i said again, let people change their religion. There would not be this many muslims in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh if many hendoos had not converted out of their faith. Same goes for the christians in the area. And even the people in Europe converted to christianity ages ago, beause it did not start in austria or paris but in bethlehem.
people join religions, change religions..if they did not none of the current faiths would be around really.
soul, 'celebration' of "nowruz" does not necessarily translate into giving up Islam and adopting Zoroastrianism. Just like "Christmas" is so much popular and now "adopted" into Christianity as you have been crying all along, may be Iranis will adopt "Nowruz" as part of their culture/heritage, they may/may not it consider part of their religion.
stop dreaming.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
soul, 'celebration' of "nowruz" does not necessarily translate into giving up Islam and adopting Zoroastrianism. Just like "Christmas" is so much popular and now "adopted" into Christianity as you have been crying all along, may be Iranis will adopt "Nowruz" as part of their culture/heritage, they may/may not it consider part of their religion.
stop dreaming.
[/QUOTE]
Fraud, what is a 'hendoo'?
Even in Pakistan, certain customs are practised by people on certain occasions which have hindu roots even though they are muslim. Its funny because most are not even willing to admit many rituals have hindu origins, if questioned, they will say 'rasam hai'. This would be more apparant with muslims in india. The more orthodox don't do that wherever they are. I think its accepted as part of the regional culture and not religious. Besides, just because one is externally a muslim, doesn't mean internally they are and vice versa. Religion comes from within.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by STRONGMAN: *
Fraud, what is a 'hendoo'? **
[/Quote]
sorry i meant hendu, since we were speaking of Persia and all.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Code_Red: *
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
In this Hadith, the Holy prophet has considered it legal to kill someone who leaves Islam and becomes an apostate. However, the Movlis hide from you all that this is NOT the only version of this Hadith. There are many versions of this Hadees, narrated by dependable narrators in the Sahee books. The other versions of the same Hadees, however, add some words to the condition of rhe punishment of Apostacy. These versions of the Hadith are intentionally hidden by the molvis, so that they can associate their barbarianism to Islam and make a mockery of Islam in the world.
Here are some other versions of the Hadith:
1- Narrated by Aisha in Sunan of Abu Daud: "The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned;** one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land**; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.
By changing the word "Apostate" with the words "one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle", which means this fighting against Allah and his prophet is a punishable act, and not apostacy in itself. Interestingly, other than death, this Hadith also gives an option of Exile. After reading this Hadith it becomes clear as to what type of apostates were killed, and for what reason.
2- Aisha narrates in Nissai the same hadith with the following words instead of an apostate: ﻪﻟﻮﺳﺭﻭ ﻪﻠﻟﺍ ﺏﺭﺎﺤﻴﻓ ﻡﺎﻠﺳﺎﻟﺍ ﻦﻣ ﺝﺮﺨﻳ ﻞﺟﺭ and also gives the option of exile as stated in the previous Hadith too.
3- Interestingly, in the very same Volume and very same Book of Bokhari, there is another version of the Hadith under discussion. It is sad that the Molvis show us one version and hide the other one.
In a long Hadith narrated Abu Qilaba: "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostleand deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Note that this version of the Hadith makes it very very clear that in order to deserve a punishment, the apostate must have waged a war against Allah and his prophet! Islam allows a defensive war and thus such a killing is not against the Koran.
4- Narrated by Abu Qilaba again in Bokhari: "I do not know that killing a person is lawful in Islam except in three cases: a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, one who has murdered somebody unlawfully, or** one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle**."
In this version, the words of Apostacy and changing of religion are completely gone, and replaced with the words "one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle".
[QUOTE]
well than does this mean we should kill people who give and take interest? now i'm not making a statement, i'm really asking. because i don't have the verses to show, but i know for a fact that giving or taking interest is like waging war with Allah. However, i know that there is a diff between "like waging a war" and "actually waging war". And i'm not sure exactly which the verse says, so if someone has it plz post it. thanx
well than does this mean we should kill people who give and take interest? now i'm not making a statement, i'm really asking. because i don't have the verses to show, but i know for a fact that giving or taking interest is like waging war with Allah. However, i know that there is a diff between "like waging a war" and "actually waging war". And i'm not sure exactly which the verse says, so if someone has it plz post it. thanx
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by I'M THE BEST: *
well than does this mean we should kill people who give and take interest? now i'm not making a statement, i'm really asking. because i don't have the verses to show, but i know for a fact that giving or taking interest is like waging war with Allah. However, i know that there is a diff between "like waging a war" and "actually waging war". And i'm not sure exactly which the verse says, so if someone has it plz post it. thanx
[/QUOTE]
The hadees is about "actually waging a war with Allah and his messenger" Like a battle or war between muslims and non-muslims. Taking or giving interest is Gunnah-kabeera. And it is between Allah and the person. No one else can punish anyone on this issue.
Here i will qoute a Knowledgeable member to explain these terms :)
There is a difference between a Hadd, Tazeer, and Gunah:
Hadd = Obstruction - The Punishment for comitting an act that Allah has suggested a punishment for (Theft & Adultry). These are the acts by which we interfere in the independence spheres of other individuals.
Tazeer = Prohibition - A discretionary punishment by the State, for committing an act of crime, i.e. interfering into the independence spheres of one or more individuals, or breaking the state law, for those crimes which Allah has not suggested any punishment for, but has also not disallowed any punishment for.
Gunah = Sin - to yourself, or to individuals without interefering in their independence spheres, or failing to fulfill Haqooqullah (the Rights of God) for which only God can punish an individual.
The same topic must have been discussed in the age of Prophet as well, wouldn't it? I mean after Holy Prophet(Peace Be Upon Him) died then the caliphs must have formed some law about this? what was the law at that time? and is there any example that a person changed his religion from Islam during Holy Prophet (PBUH)'s life or in the period of Caliphs and what did they do as a reaction? If this law is there then there must also be some examples of how it was implemented?
About the ppl going away from Islam in Iran, i think this is because of the stupid maulvis. Thay have Islam so much difficult to practice in modern life. No music, no painting, no TV, no NOTHING!
[QUOTE]
soul, 'celebration' of "nowruz" does not necessarily translate into giving up Islam and adopting Zoroastrianism. Just like "Christmas" is so much popular and now "adopted" into Christianity as you have been crying all along, may be Iranis will adopt "Nowruz" as part of their culture/heritage, they may/may not it consider part of their religion.
[/QUOTE]
changez, wakey wakey!!
I was born in iran...i know wot i am saying!!
Navroz is celebrated as an iranian new year, not Eid,
inspite of mullahs displeasure.
Talk to any irani, and he will tell you, how proud he is of his 5,000 year old heritage and culture that produced kings like cyrus and darius.....
unlike pakis and bangladeshis who suffer from key board nausea, while admitting to their hindu past]
[QUOTE]
well its interesting to see that even in a country like Iran peopel can convert if they so wanted. I really had thought that the ruling groups there were too strict to let that happen.
[/QUOTE]
no fraudz, its not atall allowed, and not opennly done....but its happening...
i know, its not going to be overwhelming change...but the fact that more and more moslems in iran are giving up islam in search for their original roots, right under the nose of mullahs...itself is a revolution.
[QUOTE]
people join religions, change religions..if they did not none of the current faiths would be around really.
[/QUOTE]
You follow Islam, because you are born into it.
This is true for 99% of all humans on earth. They only follow their religion, because they are born into it. But I don't think it should be this way. Different from the language which is a tool (for communication), religion is more than this. It is your very reason of life, it is part of your personality.
And it should be the personal answer of your quest for truth. But there can only be one truth, and this truth is independent from your cultural heritage or background. Therefore it is no good advice just to accept unquestioned the answers that your parents or their parents or grandparents once found.
If we do not question and re-think what we are taught, there would be no development in human history.
*Originally posted by soul: *
changez, wakey wakey!!
I was born in iran…i know wot i am saying!!
Navroz is celebrated as an iranian new year, not Eid,
inspite of mullahs displeasure.
Talk to any irani, and he will tell you, how proud he is of his 5,000 year old heritage and culture that produced kings like cyrus and darius…
Again, does celebrating a cultural event mean that they are giving up their religion? I don’t know how many times I have to repeat.
Nowruz celebrating is not an indication of giving up Islam. Pakistanis celebrate “Basant”, perhaps it coincides with same Nowruz, but that does not mean that those guys are leaving Islam. Do you know there is a difference there?
** unlike pakis and bangladeshis who suffer from key board nausea, while admitting to their hindu past]**
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by soul: *
**You follow Islam, because you are born into it. *
Not quite, unlike others I had searched out for answers in other faiths too, and was particularly impressed by the Bahais, but in the end saw inconsitencies and issues in every faith and decided to stick with what I thought was teh right path and to follow the essence of it more closely than the rituals and the arguments about minutia.
But somewhere along the lines someone in my family had converted..they were not muslim because they were born into it, they saw this new religion meet their needs better than whatever it was they were following, zoroastrainsim, hinduism, chirsitianty..whatever. Personally I am glad that they seeked out and found the faith that was right for them.
As you said we should not blindly follow everything our ancestors followed, true, had it not been for that someone in my ancestors would not have converted..and after questioning, searching, arguing and living the life of an agnostic for sometime, I accepted that for me being a muslim was a matter of personal choice, not due to circumstances dictated due to which family i was born into.
The Dravidians are going to teach us poor Pakistanis our own history now, which we allegedly disown. And of course all of us were Hindus before we were forcefully converted to Islam against our own volition by the most brutal and barbaic Islamic invaders. who over and over again invaded the land of peace and harmony aka Bharat Matha, it is what the world-renown Encyclopaedia Hindutvanica depicts.
dear Madhanee,
read this, it will give you the idea of what i am saying-
“Please … Call Me an Iranian, Not a Moslem!”
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/callmeiranian.html
Repeating it billion times wont change anything,darling…
Celebrating other religion’s new year, as their ‘own’!!!..does that mean they are faithful to islam?I dunno, i leave it to you.
Fraudz,
In my opinion as people get educated, and I don’t mean just schooling, but getting exposed to different cultures, having friends from different backgrounds, etc., religion start playing less role in our lives.
For example if I changed my religion to islam, it would be no big loss for christianity, or a good catch for moslems.
Nowruz is also celebrated by some Pakistanians but people don’t think of it as a religious holiday or anything in Pakistan, although it does have its origins in Zoroastrianism, I suppose they carried on some of their customs even after conversion, ignorance of Islamic teachings…
As far as Iran is concerned well, I’m not surprised people need a religion which is spiritually satisfying and which makes sense to keep them on the straight path and hate all that is evil, but in the case of Iran it’s a mixture of deviant philosophies and ideologies being spoon fed to the Iranian’s under the guise of Islam they are bound to ‘revolt’ against the Mullahs’… First thing is to have correct belief of Islamic monotheism so that a believers heart becomes content and strong and starts to hate evil and like that which is good and they feel comfortable in an Islamic environment but if they are spiritually starved and their spirituality is being harmed by deviant beliefs then subjugating them to Islamic rules like modesty etc. is only going to make them feel frustrated.
Have you ever been to Karachi on New Year (the Gregorian new year?)? I am 100% sure that you have’nt. People celebrate that event as much as Yanks do, all that firing in air with joy, some do dancing and what not. Do you think they are converting to Christianity? or simply leaving Islam? 
Keep trying munnay.
http://members.lycos.nl/whatsthisthen/muslimsleavingislam.html
Khatami rallies first time voters
http://www.iranmania.com/news/currentaffairs/june01/020601f.asp
Conservatives have stepped up their attacks on Khatami’s social reforms in the run-up to the election, with clerics warning that the nation’s youth – who account for two-thirds of the population – are turning away from Islam.
Marianne
http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/marianne.htm
Dear Marianne, You are not the only one who has been turned away from Islam after learning about it. If you read the testimonial of all those who have left Islam you will see that they left it after their knowledge of Islam improved.
Ignoring Cries of Help
Michael A. Ledeen
The most dramatic crack in the mullah’s regime came in Isfahan, where the Ayatollah Taheri, the imam of the city and the official representative of Supreme Leader Khamenei, resigned his post and released a five-page letter explaining his motives.
“I am embarrassed and ashamed,” he wrote. “You cannot blame (the United States and the Shah) for the failures and corruption of our country. This has all resulted in our people turning away from Islam, rising unemployment, inflation, high cost of living, a ‘satanic gap’ between the rich and the poor, an ailing economy, government corruption and addiction.” He describes the regime as a vast mafia responsible for “a failing foreign policy, corruption, bribery, brain drain, and the harassment and jailing of journalists and writers.” Worst of all, it funds and supports vigilante forces who “continuously sharpen their dinosaur fangs of violence, with the hope of marrying their ugly, oppressive, fear-evoking bride of violence to religion.”