posted
I'm wondering where all this talk of people getting killed if they convert out of Islam is coming from. I read a lot of people allude to it and I would simply like some evidence...
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Found these articles: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1470584,00.html http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16829 Seems like the term Muslim Apostasy is what is referred to the most. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy This article is very interesting and goes into details about how different religions handle apostasy. In Islam In Islam, apostasy is called "irtidãd" ("turning back") and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult. Sources are divided on whether Muslim apostasy deserves punishment. The Hadith (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad) includes statements taken as supporting the death penalty for apostasy, such as: "Kill whoever changes his religion" (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, book 84, number 57, narrated via Ibn Abbas) and "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." (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, book 83, number 17, narrated via Abdullah) On this basis, in Islamic law or Shari'a as traditionally interpreted, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam, then the penalty for male apostates is the death penalty, or life imprisonment for women. However, this view has been rejected by some Muslim scholars both medievil (eg Sufyan al-Thawri) and modern (eg Hasan at-Turabi), who argue that the hadith in question should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general[1] (http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/05/Article01a.shtml). These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient confirmation of harsh punishment; they regard apostasy is a serious crime, but undeserving of the death penalty. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares in article 18 that every human being has the freedom to choose his or her religion or, indeed, to change it. The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, a rival charter put forward in 1981, is deliberately vague when it comes to the subject and has no mention of a person being able to change their religion, the crucial issue. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community). Some Islamic countries, such as Mauritania, consider apostasy cause for execution or divorce.
Muslim mainline -- Each sect thinks of itself as the mainline: an attitude no different than that found in Judaism or Christianity.
People of the Book -- Those who share the OldTestament: Muslims first&foremost, then Jews and Christians. There is no particular distinguishment between Jewish or Christian sects. They're all off / "misguided" but not enough to be viewed as antithetical to the Faith, so there isn't much point.
"People of the Book" -- Those who believe in monotheism: eg Hindus who believe that the gods are Aspects/manifestations of the OneGod. Problem being that recognition of a group as being one of the "People of the Book" is more political whim than permanent recognition. eg Purely pacifist Sikhism flourished as one of the "People of the Book", until one of the Mogul rulers decided that they were no longer one of the "People of the Book". And a genocide was launched against the Sikh which killed their primary religious leader. The surviving Sikh responded with religious rules requiring easy self-identification within a crowd -- long hair kept under turbans, and beards on men -- and militant self-protection: hence the religious requirement that all Sikh males (including boys) carry the kris (curved knife) at all times. Again the whimsical shifts between tolerance and genocidal intolerance is no different than that found in other regions strongly dominated by one religion. And has far far less to do with the dominant religion than rulers/politicians and their followers using "religion" as excuse to loot an "overly"successful group.
Soft theists/atheists -- Basicly those who don't believe that the existence/non-existence of God is particularly relevant to a human's Fate or UltimateFate. ie Those who believe people choose their Fate/UltimateFate through their own actions; eg Buddhism.
Muslim heretics -- Many sects believe that most other sects are heretical; the difference being in degree. Again an attitude no different than that found in Judaism or Christianity.
Polytheists -- Those who believe in more than one god or God: eg animism; Good God vs Evil God Dualism such as Zoroastrism exterminated in Persia/Iran by Muslims, and Manicheanism exterminated in Europe by Christians; pantheism such as some forms of Hinduism.
Hard Atheists -- Those who believe in Atheism as their religion (though they won't admit that their belief is religious): eg the Soviets
Muslim Apostates -- Those born into the Muslim faith or who have accepted Allah through the Muslim faith, then rejected that Blessing.
posted
Jay: Just passing through Hatrack. Thanks for the link to frontpagemag.com. I had forgotten how enlightening Horowitz can be pointing out the fallacies of left the thinking. Krank
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horowitz is merely another narcissist in the long line who've found that the not-to-bright are much better paid for lying than for telling the truth.
posted
This isn't evidence, it's merely anecdotal. Fahim and I discussed Muslims converting to other religions - not because he's going to convert, but because I wanted to understand.
He's told me that it varies from culture to culture. He's a Sunni Muslim, as are most in this country, and here, if a Muslim converted to another religion, that person would not be killed. Shunned, ignored, disowned, probably, but killed, no.
I know some Muslims who converted to Christianity, or the LDS faith, to be more specific. They were Malays, which in Sri Lanka, means Muslims from Malaysia, but have a lot of mixed blood. Apparently, from what they tell me, it's not a bid deal. The Malays are much more relaxed about such things.
About Muslims being killed for converting to other religions - I've heard rumours of it happening in other countries, but I have no hard evidence. Where it's rumoured to have happened tends to be countries with a Muslim majority.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it seems to be the usual line Muslims give for turning down a Book of Mormon or getting a quick good-bye from the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Though a friend our family gave a Book of Mormon to went ahead and accepted it, with the assurance that he could bribe the Saudi customs agents into turning the other way.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
