Thanks for sharing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My initial response when reading this
BS article was:
(which obviously shows how unobjective and emotional I am by having a brain-vomit response)
But below are some of the thoughts I had when reading it.
There seems to be a problem with many "modernist and liberal" Muslims out there who would like to "sugarcoat" the religion of Islam by distorting what it really teaches. There are those that go at length to deny that Islam teaches that apostates must be killed. They either deny the explicit hadith that speak about this or reinterpret it to only refer to those apostates that would fight the Muslims.
Sound salafi or HT much? Sounds verbatim vomit from some people I've known in the past, only slightly rephrased.
Before I proceed, let me make it clear that when I speak about apostates that must be killed I am only referring to those apostates who live under an Islamic theocratic state and have openly declared their apostasy. What this means is that no Muslim has a right to go to America or Europe for example and start killing ex-Muslims, for he has no such authority to do so...
...First of all, Muslims do take his intentions into account and this is precisely why we won't go ahead and have the apostate killed immediately. The authorities will bring the apostate in for questioning and ask him to lay out all the doubts that he has regarding Islam. Muslim scholars will be appointed to answer his questions. If he is not convinced and it appears to the scholars that his reasons for leaving are not valid (usually they are not valid, most people leave Islam for emotional reasons) they would then have him executed.
Well, thank fuck I live in Australia. Thank fuck the khilafah hasn't been resurrected. Thank fuck it's unlikely to be resurrected, well not in my life-time anyway. But fucked up business for those living under Islamic sorts of regimes/governments. If one doesn't get done for apostasy, one could be done for blasphemy.
If someone tells you that the state executed a man who was guilty of murdering someone by stabbing him repeatedly, would you shout "This is injustice! Why did you execute this man! His crime wasn't that great!"?
I believe that many of us would not say so. I believe many of us would say that the murderer deserved to be executed because of the gravity of his heinous crime. Not too many of us would sympathize with such a man. This man made his innocent victim suffer greatly each time his knife penetrated his flesh. He caused him so much physical pain that the man suffered greatly even though it was only for a matter of a few minutes.
Not everyone agrees with the death penalty for someone who murders someone by stabbing them. What if it was in self-defense? And what if it was a one time thing, not all murderers go onto becoming serial killers. Besides, isn't forgiveness of the murderer by the family of the victim encouraged and blood money to be paid instead?
Really fucking bad argument and comparison.
And one has to consider the fact too, that despite a person murdering someone by stabbing them repeatedly (assuming they did it maliciously or for the fun of it without it being self-defense) what is to gain by executing them? This is all based on the premise that the justice system is solely about punishment, which it isn't and shouldn't be, punishment for a crime is only one aspect of the justice system. Other aspects of the justice system include: rehabilitation, protection of the public from further harm, deterring citizens from committing crimes by making appropriate sentencing, etc... Studies have shown time and again that prisoners can be rehabilitated if they are willing to work hard on rehabilitation and get the help they need to do so (such as with sex offenders who are willing to change as opposed to being forced to attend therapy and receive over 129 hours of therapy specific to sex crimes have a very low rate of re-offending).
Now let us come to the apostate. A person who would openly declare his apostasy affects the people around him. The people around him might ask themselves "Why on earth did this Muslim leave Islam? Is he out of his mind? Or maybe he discovered something wrong with Islam? Maybe Islam isn't that clear after all!" These people would then start to doubt their religion. If they seriously doubt their religion, they cease to be Muslims. If they cease to be Muslims that would very likely land them up in the blazing fire of Hell for eternity.
Yep, and the whole "no compulsion in religion" thing goes straight out the window.
One obviously has no right to use their brain, one must close one's eyes, not think, and one must at all costs shun the apostate or doubter where-ever he/she may be or else you might become one of us and end up in the blazing fire of Hell for eternity.
Using one's brain is the greatest sin of all.
With all honesty, which crime is worse? Stabbing a person for a few minutes or making him burn for eternity? The answer is obvious and we know that it is the latter. If the latter crime is much worse, why are we insisting that it is difficult to grasp why Islam would call for the killing of apostates then?
So people using their brains is wildly dangerous? How does exactly an apostate force someone to leave Islam? How does an ex-muslim force those around him to doubt or use their brains? Is it really the crime of the apostate, or is it the crime of those around him/her who start to use their brains instead of following like a lost puppy? How is leaving Islam and telling those around oneself that one has left Islam making other people burn for eternity?
In this case, Allah is the ultimate perpetrator for giving us brains to start with. Execute Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem for crimes against humanity. He is the one making us burn for eternity by pre-determining our paths. He is after all the All-Seeing, who knows the past, present and future.
Many Muslims with weak faith still fail to fully comprehend the seriousness and gravity of kufr (disbelief). They fail to recognize its deadly results (i.e. Hellfire) because the crime of the apostate towards his victims won't be displayed or shown in this life, but in the after life (i.e. you would only realize the pain that the apostate will go through in the next life and not in this one, thus you don't see the seriousness of apostasy with your own eyes now), therefore they find it difficult to accept the fact that apostates must be punished in this life. However, if one has strong faith (especially in the fact that apostates will go to hell if they don't repent) and the correct understanding of the seriousness of Kufr then it only takes common sense to figure out why apostates must be killed.
Let me make some victims!
So let me get this straight: in purporting this type of argument, it stands to reason then that pretty much any muslim who encourages kufr in another person by his actions and his words, should be executed, 'cause he's causing other muslims to end up in jahannam. What a slippery slope of kufr we have here... no wonder the takfiris have such a field day with this type of thing.
So according to some interpretations of what makes up kufr in using this argument:
The muslim who denies that Allah has a hand and face (or to add to Allah's attributes) must be executed, and the muslim who denies parts of the Qu'ran or sahih hadith (or changes the meaning - such as with 'Aisha's marriage to Mo at 6 years of age and sex with him at 9) must be executed, anyone who stops praying and refuses to continue or who rejects the fard (salaah, zakaat, hajj etc...), anyone who deems halal that which is haram or vice versa, any muslim who prays to anyone but Allah even if he is following the traditions of his forefathers and praying to a dead sufi sheikh, and the muslim who denies any of the aspects of the aqeedah must be executed... it's all "kufr" and talking about it, acting on any of these things and many more could make other muslims to do the same and all end up in jahannam. How far shall we take this? How much of the muslim population shall be left when we are done?
You non-Muslims say that people should be free to practice their religion. Our religion states that apostates must be killed. So allow us to "freely practice our religion". If you don't allow us to, you are contradicting your selves then.
Completely ignoring the fact that freedom of religion has the limit that one may not kill another person for leaving the religion. Where is the contradiction exactly?
Muslims would hate it if apostates were allowed to be free to run around publicly displaying their apostasy and see their loved ones getting affected by it. Why should Muslims suffer by standing back and watching this all happen? Why do non-Muslims insist that they don't get affected while Muslims must? These are double standards.
Oh yes, pull out the mercy card will ya?! Thank fuck we have you to protect the muslims from suffering. Oh you're pain and suffering is so great and obvious. Claiming victimization is a fucking awesome response, yep, by killing ex-muslims, you are relieving the awful pain and suffering the Ummah has to endure. Blame non-muslims and ex-muslims for everything, it seems to always do the trick.
Do yourself a favour and alleviate your own suffering by changing the way you view things, taking some fucking responsibility for the way you deal with your loved one's apostasy, and your pain and suffering will end. Why does the answer have to be to murder a person for his/her apostasy? How exactly will that end the suffering of the Ummah or the apostate's family?
You say that "religion is only between God and the person", fine so if someone apostatizes let him keep it between God and himself in private and not publicly display it. If he chooses to go public with it and start affecting others, then he hasn't made his religion only between himself and God but involved others as well. If he involved others as well, then others (i.e. the Islamic state) have the right to intervene.
Double standard buddy! Swallow the medicine you gave in the paragraph (reason) before this one: it's a double standard that muslims should be allowed to walk around publicly proclaiming their religious beliefs and an ex-muslim (or a christian or jew) are not allowed to do the same and should be executed for such.
If he is not convinced and it appears to the scholars that his reasons for leaving are not valid (usually they are not valid, most people leave Islam for emotional reasons) they would then have him executed.
Yeah, and no matter what "good" or valid reason one could give the scholars or 'ulema as to why one has left Islam, unfortunately they'd consider any reason invalid, hence deserving execution. One could not win. The only option left to a person would be to fake being a muslim again so that one does not end up dead, and one would probably end up dead any way upon returning home if one's family felt they'd been shamed/lost face (and the authorities would turn a blind eye).
Should we implement the law to please God and displease the apostate or should we remove the law to displease God and please the apostate? It is definitely not the latter.
Yes, by all means, you have to keep Allah happy.
Don't want to end up on the other end of the stick as far as kufr is concerned by stating that the execution of apostates isn't important, 'cause otherwise you could end up in jahannam next to us evil ex-muslims.
Both Muslims and Christians believe in the Divine Command Theory, which teaches that our morals are derived from God's commands. One cannot presuppose that something is moral or immoral and then judge whether something is moral or immoral. Rather, one has to know what is moral and immoral by knowing what God has said about the matter.
Generalize much?
Dr. William Lane Craig himself states:
So the problem isn't that God ended the Canaanites' lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn't that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it's not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God's commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God's command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.
WTF is up with quoting some christian now? I thought we weren't supposed to emulate the christians or jews... and what does some christian guy's opinion have to do with the matter? Is the only reason you quote William Lane Craig because he supports the Kalam cosmological argument?
I would love to know what this William guy's opinion is on Islam and the death penalty for those who leave Islam to convert to christianity.
So when non-Muslims say that Islam's ordering for the killing of apostates is immoral, they are begging the question that Islam is false and is not the ultimate standard of morality to follow.
Suprise, suprise. Or maybe it's a call for reformation, or different interpretations of Islam that don't demand the execution of the apostate?
1) Internal critique:
This is criticizing someone or something by pointing out its internal inconsistencies. This is usually a strong argument. Now, have non-Muslims put forth an internal critique against the killing of apostates? Actually, they haven't. They have not shown how this law contradicts other Islamic principles.
Has this guy even researched the topic or arguments muslims and non-muslims have put forth criticizing execution of apostates via internal inconsistencies? How the fuck then have some 'ulema come up with the view that execution of the apostate is not permissible? Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation, but of course in a black and white world view like this fucker's (completely ignoring the fact that Abu Hanifah himself didn't agree with execution of female apostates and others like Sufyan Al-Thawri believed that only imprisonment for the apostate, and still yet others like Jamal Badawi states that apostates shouldn't be executed unless they go out of their way to harm the muslim community), there is no room for interpretation.
2) External critique:
This is using an external standard to judge somebody or something in order to critique that person or thing.
There are two types of external critique:
i) Universalist external critique:
This is appealing to universal standards and beliefs (e.g. raping a little child is wrong according to everyone) as a standard. However, have non-Muslims shown that killing of apostates violates universal standards? Of course not. One can appeal to early Christians who have ordered the killing of apostates as well.
Was raping a little child wrong according to Mo?
ii) Ethnocentric external critique:
This is appealing to one's own cultural or religious beliefs as a standard for critiquing. Philosophers have stated that this form of argumentation is weak unless one can prove that the standard that he is using should be binding upon everyone.
Now, this is the kind of critique that non-Muslims are launching.
They must be using a moral law in order to judge whether the killing of apostates is moral or not. If they are using a moral law, then that implies that there is a moral law giver that they are appealing to.
Yeah, so I don't murder people on the street randomly simply because Allah/god/FSM told me not to? So? What is the logic in this train of thought regarding execution of apostates? Execution of apostates is based on following the supposed orders of a moral law giver, what about not executing them?
People in general in this day and age don't eat each other neither, but many don't do it out of a moral obligation to some fairy man up in the sky, rather people don't generally do it because the evolution process has programmed us against destroying our own species.
If the person arguing is an atheist then this is not a problem. One who does not believe in God does not have an objective standard of morality to abide by anyways. So he might be using his culture or personal opinions and feelings as a standard to critique the law of killing apostates. If that is the case, then this argument is not threatening at all because it is not based on an objective standard, but a subjective emotional one.
So atheists don't have an objective standard of morality and it's a subjective emotional one and religious people (particularly 'ulema etc...) do have an objective standard of morality? Right...
So sick of this fucking argument. Regurgitate. Regurgitate. Regurgitate.
If the person arguing is a Christian we are going to assume that his moral law giver is the God of the Bible. Have they proven that the law of killing apostates cannot possibly be a law put forth by God? No they cannot. One can easily appeal to the Old Testament and point out verses that order the killing of apostates.
These Christians might argue back that this law was a long time ago, but now we are in the 21st century. However, this response is weak because God's laws are not supposed to adapt with the times, but vice versa.
Thank fuck for clearing this up for me!
I now finally understand why the injeel had to come before the Qu'ran and the Tawrat, makes so much fucking sense...
Wait...
I'm confused again, why would Allah send books prior to the Qu'ran if Allah's laws are not supposed to adapt? And why did Allah change the direction of prayer (amongst many, many other things) if His laws are immutable?
Secondly, even if Christians were able to prove that this law violated Biblical standards for morality then SO WHAT?
Why should I care if a particular Islamic law did not live up to the moral standards of the Bible? Have Christians shown us that the Bible is the complete true word of God and that it is binding upon us? The answer is no.
EXACTLY. Why the fuck did you bring christianity into this in the first place?
In conclusion, non-Muslims cannot provide an INTELLECTUAL AND RATIONAL argument against the Islamic law regarding the killing of apostates. They can only provide EMOTIONAL and SUBJECTIVE arguments.
However, Muslims let their rationality overcome their emotions and don't fall for these silly appeal to emotion arguments. That is probably the main reason why we are Muslims.
In conclusion, the Muslim should keep his head up and confidently say:
OF COURSE APOSTATES SHOULD BE KILLED!
Thanks a fucking lot. You're definitely on my
Christmas Eid card list.
Imagine all the grief if you finally leave Islam. Imagine swallowing this last statement whole if you find yourself on the other end of the stick matey.
Don't worry, I'll be your cheering squad should you find yourself in my position some day, I certainly won't tell you that you should be executed, in fact if I found out that you'd become one of us, I wouldn't even mention it.
May you never experience the horror you wish on us ex-muslims.
Topic: Of Course Apostates Should be Killed!