It has everything to do with education, where you have no education people will be led by the faintest of extremes. Without education even people without religion will act the same way.
Modi, IMO he is a right wing fanatic.
I understand your point about lack of education but that can apply to simple people who get mainuplated. I am talking about laws which are enforced by Islamic scholars in Muslim countries, are the law makers the judicary and Islamic scholars in these countries uneducated in Islam as well? I do not think they are, my question is are these laws Islamic or a manipulation o Islam? It clears that many posters here agree the laws are Islamic whilst others aren't so sure.
[QUOTE]
"She should be given the option to leave the country if she wants to converts others"
"If she continues to undermine the country and Islam by spreading either hatred falsehood about Islam and/or her new faith, then that would be treason ... And treason is usually met with a death penalty, by the courts alone."
[/QUOTE]
That is indeed very harsh, now for example if a person who has become disillusioned with Islam decided that Mohammed was not the last prophet but his new religion is superior does such a person truly deserve to be punished for his belief?"
^ It is indeed harsh. The literalist/Salafi point of view is often suffocating and dogmatic. It misses the entire point of Quranic injunctions, seeking to implement rules regardless of whether their application will enhance or undermine Quranic principles such as justice, equity, and mercy (e.g. God’s mercy is mentioned more times in the Quran than God’s wrath).
There are as many answers to your OP as there are Muslims. Most of us do not have a formal background in Islamic law or theology, so these discussions are often superficial. The few on GS who are deemed ‘knowledgeable’ about Islam and invariably dominate religious discussions are trained in puritan schools of thought, so you have to keep in mind the source of the response when you ask a question.
Depends on how you define educated. How well a ‘scholar’ approaches a body of jurisprudence that has been developed over many centuries depends on his ethical and moral predispositions and the depth of his inter-disciplinary training. Puritans will say this is Islam, and non-puritans will say it is a theft of Islam.
There is no Quranic basis for punishing apostates. None in the Prophet's history, either. Apostasy does not equate to political treason. Interpreting "there is no compulsion in religion" as 'you are free to enter, but you cannot leave' is opportunistically selective. Religion is not a mouse-trap, unless you want to turn Islam into Scientology. It should be obvious to any rational individual that submission is meaningless without free will. Choice/liberty is a divine gift, and this choice/liberty includes the ability to submit to God or to refuse to do so (consequences in the Hereafter notwithstanding).
A verse addressed to the Prophet :
"But if they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, know that] We have not sent thee to be their keeper: thou art not bound to do more than deliver the message [entrusted to thee]." (42:48)
So even the Prophet does not have the right or power to coerce people. i.e. If he is not a warden over us, nobody else is either - no individual or state. Being enslaved or subjugated by another human being is fundamentally inconsistent with the duty to submit onself without reservation to God.
I intepret the following verses as mandating tolerance for diversity. It illustrates the attitude we are required to adopt in interactions with non-Muslims or non-believers. Again, this is proof that apostasy and blasphemy laws are inconsistent with the Quran :
"If it had been your Lord's will, all who are in the earth would have believed. Will you, then, force the people to become believers?" (10:99)
"To each of you God has prescribed a Law and a Way. If God would have willed, He would have made you a single people - professing one faith (and following one law). But God's purpose is to test you in what He has given each of you, so strive in the pursuit of virtue (good deeds), and know that you will all return to God (in the Hereafter), and He will resolve all the matters in which you disagree (5:49)
I'm going to be clear and open so please be attentive ...
It is good to hear that you want "Muslims to be as peaceful as the religion stands for" - but and this is a big BUT ... you don't actually understand the premise of peace that Islam stands for, which is why you raise such contentions hoping that Muslims will become not peaceful but pacifistic.
**It may appear as a big blow to some here but the phrase "There is no compulsion in religion" is a bit misleading.
The phrase in Arabic is "La ikraha fiddeen" - No (don't) compulsion in (to) the Deen -
Now Deen is not just any word ... it is the order of Islam ... So the phrase here is "There shall be no compelling people to accept Islam" ... It doesn't technically say that "There shall be no compelling Muslims to remain Muslims" ...
**
What is quite annoying is that you want us to recognise some sort of contradiction and take your idea of a positive take on that ... I actually think it is the best way to be ... Islam is harsh on it own adherents and very lenient on others ... It allows people to accept it on their own accord, but there is a great warning - that if they so choose it, then to be sure they really want it - because leaving it will not be tolerated.
And it is not tolerated ... otherwise the religion would become a game ... Farcical!
It is more important to be consistent ... than portray ourselves to be something that we are not ... Yes, we prefer "peace" - it is the state of peace that people gain with respect to their relationship with their Lord ... There will always be dissent - voices who want evil to prosper for selfish gain ... Such people have to be stopped with force - that force appears like hatred or opposing peace - but it is not ...
Having said that ... I couldn't find the actual Apostasy Bill/Act 2006 of Pakistani Legislation - Can you care to dig it out for us all to read?
Damn... I can't believe the lengths to which you will go to twist islam to your liking. And you wonder why people have a negative perception of islam. When supposed educated folks who grew up in the west have such mentality, you can only guess what jahil mullahs, who by the way make the majority of muslim clergy, are teaching in the name of islam.
It has everything to do with education, where you have no education people will be led by the faintest of extremes. Without education even people without religion will act the same way.
Lot of us condemn Modi. Unfortunately justice was not done in his case. Fact remains that India does not have blasphemy laws. So IMO situation bit different.
Lots here also support the blasphemy law unfortunately. While it may be convenient to fall back on the Modify factor, OP makes a good point that re: legality IMO.
There is no Quranic basis for punishing apostates. None in the Prophet's history, either. Apostasy does not equate to political treason. Interpreting "there is no compulsion in religion" as 'you are free to enter, but you cannot leave' is opportunistically selective. Religion is not a mouse-trap, unless you want to turn Islam into Scientology. It should be obvious to any rational individual that submission is meaningless without free will. Choice/liberty is a divine gift, and this choice/liberty includes the ability to submit to God or to refuse to do so (consequences in the Hereafter notwithstanding).
A verse addressed to the Prophet :
"But if they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, know that] We have not sent thee to be their keeper: thou art not bound to do more than deliver the message [entrusted to thee]." (42:48)
So even the Prophet does not have the right or power to coerce people. i.e. If he is not a warden over us, nobody else is either - no individual or state. Being enslaved or subjugated by another human being is fundamentally inconsistent with the duty to submit onself without reservation to God.
I intepret the following verses as mandating tolerance for diversity. It illustrates the attitude we are required to adopt in interactions with non-Muslims or non-believers. Again, this is proof that apostasy and blasphemy laws are inconsistent with the Quran :
"If it had been your Lord's will, all who are in the earth would have believed. Will you, then, force the people to become believers?" (10:99)
"To each of you God has prescribed a Law and a Way. If God would have willed, He would have made you a single people - professing one faith (and following one law). But God's purpose is to test you in what He has given each of you, so strive in the pursuit of virtue (good deeds), and know that you will all return to God (in the Hereafter), and He will resolve all the matters in which you disagree (5:49)
Peace chaibiskut
I think this post is unfair. No one is saying that coercion or force to accept a religion is allowed ... My earlier point was in order to mitigate religion being made a farce a certain level of intolerance needs to be exercised to prevent people from leaving it or for that matter accepting it in the first place.
The mouse trap example is hence not fair to this scenario - because a mouse trap is a lure where the outcome is deceptive and imprisonment - whereas what I was arguing was openness - ***should you enter then it has to be for life - if you have doubts then stay away ...
***Do you see how different these are? We do not say "you are free to enter" ... we say "be warned it is not easy being a Muslim are you sure that is what you want to do?" And we also do not say "Be Muslim" or you are dead" because that again is compulsion.
Encouraging people using tiered means to remain in the religion that they chose is not equal to death penalty either ... It would be better for such people to live elsewhere. I hope my position is clearer.
I think this post is unfair. No one is saying that coercion or force to accept a religion is allowed ... My earlier point was in order to mitigate religion being made a farce a certain level of intolerance needs to be exercised to prevent people from leaving it or for that matter accepting it in the first place.
The mouse trap example is hence not fair to this scenario - because a mouse trap is a lure where the outcome is deceptive and imprisonment - whereas what I was arguing was openness - ***should you enter then it has to be for life - if you have doubts then stay away ...
***Do you see how different these are? We do not say "you are free to enter" ... we say "be warned it is not easy being a Muslim are you sure that is what you want to do?" And we also do not say "Be Muslim" or you are dead" because that again is compulsion.
Encouraging people using tiered means to remain in the religion that they chose is not equal to death penalty either ... It would be better for such people to live elsewhere. I hope my position is clearer.
who has the authority of 'warning' people that being a Muslim is not easy. It is the individual's free will to enter or leave Islam. No one has the right to judge anyone's heart.
If you're afraid the person will accept Islam and then later on rejects it .. why does it matter ? Rejecting faith is as much of a freedom as accepting it. Just like how you can't force someone to accept Islam, you cant force anyone to stay in Islam. A person born in Muslim family has the freedom to leave Islam if his heart is not satisfied.
You'll end up seeing a huge chaos if you decide to kill anyone who decide to stay Muslim but choose different sect in Islam. Sunnis killing shias, shias killing sunnis.. deobandi, ismaeli, wahabi.. all killing their people for leaving their sets of beliefs..
There are more attacks on Islam by non muslims than there are by people who accept and then reject Islam. You do not kill them for their freedom of choice in faith, for God sake!
What's rather strange is that Muslims in their countries are free to do anything, but cannot tolerate if the same law is applied by the Christian world on them in their countries. You are very strict and very aggressive towards minorities in your country when they preach their religion.. but you cry when the same is done to you by majority of Christians, when you are the minority in their countries. You demand equal rights in their countries as a minority.. but when the same demand is made by minorities of your countries, you show your true face.
I think this post is unfair. No one is saying that coercion or force to accept a religion is allowed ... My earlier point was in order to mitigate religion being made a farce a certain level of intolerance needs to be exercised to prevent people from leaving it or for that matter accepting it in the first place.
The mouse trap example is hence not fair to this scenario - because a mouse trap is a lure where the outcome is deceptive and imprisonment - whereas what I was arguing was openness - ***should you enter then it has to be for life - if you have doubts then stay away ...
***Do you see how different these are? We do not say "you are free to enter" ... we say "be warned it is not easy being a Muslim are you sure that is what you want to do?" And we also do not say "Be Muslim" or you are dead" because that again is compulsion.
Encouraging people using tiered means to remain in the religion that they chose is not equal to death penalty either ... It would be better for such people to live elsewhere. I hope my position is clearer.
Unfair? Perhaps it is difficult to reconcile your interpretation of God's will with the verses I cited. I'm simply going by your posts here. The "certain level of intolerance" you described earlier amounts to coercion and hostility. It also selectively applies to people leaving, not entering. You (reluctantly) argue against compulsion, and for "openness." Then you insist "leaving will not be tolerated," and that "should you enter then it has to be for life." Says who? What a dogmatic, stultifying approach to spiritual growth. You do realize ultimatums = compulsion? How does it make moral, spiritual or practical sense to compel someone to believe something their heart and mind does not agree with? Is this not a transgression of God's will? Even prayer is discouraged if the spirit is not in it. The only difference between a private apostate and a public one is that the latter has integrity. You equate a change of heart with a mockery of religion - that in itself is a mockery of the spirit of belief. It is a mockery of human agency, of free will. Cults rely on threat and force to keep their followers from leaving. If you have faith in the Truth, you'd let it speak for itself.
Fact is that India is among many many countries where blasphemy law exists.
Indian penal code has section from 295-298 covering this matter.
Thank you for the correction. I was not aware of this law dating back to 1860 protecting ALL religions. Unbiased and honest folks would readily realize that this law does not just protect the faith of the majority. Cutting and pasting info from wikipedia.
India
Main article: Hatespeech laws inIndia Since Hinduism, India's dominant religion does not have the concept of blasphemy; [19][20] such laws are absent in tradition. In 1860, British rule codified Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which punishes as hate speech insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of any citizen with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage their religious feelings. These laws are applied to all religions including Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity and Islam. [21]
Central Government Act Section 295A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 295A. 5 Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.-- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 6 citizens of India], 7 by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise] insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 8 three years], or with fine, or with both.]
I believe numbers 6 7 8 etc are references. Max is 3 yrs prison and/ or fine.
^ Sure. Hence MFH had to run out of India. Is that a fact also that there are no Hindu fanatics in India? :)
Anyways:
I have said before and will repeat:
Two concepts in terms of blasphemy.
1- Freedom of speech concept in terms of First amendment of US constitution.
2- Rest of the countries which do not have this concept of freedom of speech and obviously do not have first amendment to US constitution.
Many countries belong to the second concept and have some form of punishment for this 'crime'. Even Germany has carried out punishment under this blasphemy law to a man.
Moreover,
A- It is not realistic to think abolition of blasphemy law altogether in Pakistan but amendment to the law should be sought first with removal of death penalty and or life imprisonment.
B- Punishment for false accuser also needs to be implemented and justice needs to be swift and clean regardless of which religion the person belongs to.
C- Media should play a responsible role and educate people periodically about tolerance and avoiding knee-jerk response to every little mistake by anyone.
I trust you have a very good mind to discern the truth from that what is not the truth. I also trust you not to be selective, as Muslims we trust the whole Qur’an to be the Word of God.
Verse 42:48 - who are “they” this verse is referring to?
Verse 10:99 - which “people” should not be compelled? the disbelievers or the believers?
In this context read on …
And in verse 10:101 -
**Say, “Observe what is in the heavens and earth.” But of no avail will be signs or warners to a people who do not believe
**
Who are being instructed to observe? The disbelievers of the believers?
Verse 5:49 - What is striving in the pursuit of good?
In this is the fuller context on how we can glean the treatment of apostates and hypocrites. It is not presented in a single verse.
According to this hadith we can see further evidence for what I say:
Jabir ibn `Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin pledged allegiance to Muhammad for Islam (i.e. accepted Islam) and then the Bedouin got fever whereupon he said to Muhammad “cancel my pledge.” But Muhammad refused. He (the Bedouin) came to him (again) saying, “Cancel my pledge.” But Muhammad refused. Then he (the Bedouin) left (Medina). Muhammad said, “Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good.”[SUP][10]](Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia)
[/SUP]In this hadith is further evidence for what I say … Here RasoolAllah (SAW) just did not allow the man to give up his allegiance … He (SAW) resisted it - he showed his (SAW) intolerance to the idea … But the man walked away exiling himself … RasoolAllah (SAW) approved of that …
Also read this:
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.
Does this not show that there is a level of compulsion for the ones who are already Muslim?
Again I say the Arabic about “There is no compulsion in Deen” is stating that “We cannot force people to accept Islam”
But at the same time we are expected to uphold our allegiances and we are expected to give dawah … Some people may even consider giving dawah as a form of coercion. You know this is not true - I hope!
Even through reason … An army chief has no authority over the general public … but if one of his officers disobeys him or wants to leave the army - it is resisted … WHY?
It is resisted because they do not want it to become a joke …
I hope this is enough for you to at least acknowledge that I’m not making this stuff up … there are many more references and the more you read up on this topic you will begin to see that indeed “intolerance towards Muslims leaving Islam” is present and documented. Of course you are in your freedom to disagree with my stance, but please give me this much that I indeed have a basis.
How in the world did you come to the conclusion that I or the article implied there are no Hindu fanatics in India?
Very simple.
*Even if there was no concept of blasphemy in Hinduism or any religion, fanaticism based on overzealous love for religion still does exist.
*
One cannot shrug off the impact of open disregard of the sentiments of religious people; admittedly there would be some who may be too sensitive.
Hence stating the other way, *lack of concept of blasphemy in Hinduism means absolutely nothing when Hindus still showed uproar and anger on what MFH depicted in his art and it was enough that he had to go on exile.
*
No offence. I did note that honest and unbiased folks would see the significant difference between the 2 laws. You are however entitled to your views, reasonable or otherwise.
No offence. I did note that honest and unbiased folks would see the significant difference between the 2 laws. You are however entitled to your views, reasonable or otherwise.
1- What do you mean by honest and unbiased?
2- Which two laws are yo referring to?. I think I am lost here.
I think you need to be honest and unbiased as well as realistic to admit that emotional sentiments by religious people are valid. Hence there are laws against that in many countries.
Even if there is free speech in regards to religion, one should not exercise this freedom just to incite them or hurt their feelings deliberately.
I already said there maybe people who are fanatics, overzealous and too sensitive and those are present in every culture, country and religion. Where do you see me dishonest or biased?
It appears, that your bias is making you deny or question the presence of Hindu fanatics in India who despite the alleged lack of blasphemy concept were irritated by MFH.
"I hope this is enough for you to at least acknowledge that I'm not making this stuff up ... there are many more references and the more you read up on this topic you will begin to see that indeed "intolerance towards Muslims leaving Islam" is present and documented. Of course you are in your freedom to disagree with my stance, but please give me this much that I indeed have a basis."
Peace psyah,
Indeed you are not making this up. "intolerance towards Muslims leaving Islam" is indeed a part of traditional Islam. But the point is that , for muslims, traditional Islam should not be beyond criticism using the same sources from which it derives its own conclusions. None of the Quranic verses you cited are conclusive proof. And the hadith you cited can be countered by several ahadith where the Prophet let people opt out of Islam. In fact, in the link I quoted earlier, over 100 Islamic scholars have differed from the mainstream traditional position using strict Quranic and hadith-based arguments. And, this disagreement goes back centuries. Also, much of the traditional scholars associated apostasy with treason, which is highly questionable, especially in the present context.
Ulitamately, religion cannot even be possible unless certain self-evident facts about human nature are accepted. Human free will is one such pre-requisite. It is implicit in the very act of communication. Act of becoming a muslim cannot involve surrender of free-will because a muslim does not cease to be a human. Faith is utterly meaningless if it under compulsion. It is an insult to God Almighty to suggest that He would compel us to profess faith against our free-will after having granted us free-will in the first place.