• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Fellow liberals, why do we defend Islam?

Discussion in 'Debate Other Religions & Faiths' started by Sm412, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:23 AM.

  1. Sm412

    Sm412 New Member

    56
    +26
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    I've noticed that my atheist and agnostic liberal friends are hostile toward Christianity, but totally sympathetic to Islam, and I'm baffled as to why. It's to the point where they absolutely will become angry with you, accuse you of "racism," and declare that you are "misrepresenting" Islam when you criticize it. My best guess is that liberals with latch onto, make allies with, and defend anyone whom they view as oppressed.

    I spent a great deal of time learning about Islam earnestly and open-mindedly while exploring religion. I spent considerable time at a mosque over the course of about 6 months, praying with them, chatting with numerous Muslims, reading the Quran front to back more than once, and studying the Hadith (teachings and sayings of Muhammad). Here is what I learned:

    First, the positives. Muslims believe in freedom of religion; religion is not compulsory. Any Muslim society that follows the Quran and Hadith truly will allow Christians and Jews to practice freely. Also, they abhor racism. To Muslims, race does not matter. Mosques are multi-ethnic, and all Muslims are brothers and sisters. Racism is viewed as hatred of Allah's creation, which is a great sin. Of course, racism will still seep into some Muslim circles, as it does with every religion and even no religion. But the general view is anti-racist. These two things are where liberalism and Islam agree, and after this, there are no similarities whatsoever.

    Now, a few points of contention.

    The Islamic perspective is almost completely antithetical to secular and Christian liberalism. Moderate Islam is more extreme than even the most conservative brand of fundamentalist Christianity. On many social and religious issues, Islam is about 8 centuries behind the secular world, and that's not an exaggeration.

    Part of accepting Islam is accepting Sharia in it's entirety, literally interpreted, with minimal changes to adapt to modernism. Sharia is Islamic religious law and government. This is true of ALL muslims, and I say this from my own experience. Ask any one of them if they accept Sharia, and they will tell you yes. No exceptions. This isn't a misconception at all. Sharia is laid out in the Quran and Hadiths of the prophet extensively, and the Quran teaches explicitly to obey the teachings of the prophet. The Quran and the Hadith lay out a blueprint for Islamic rule, and command that it be established and followed. This command is taken very seriously.

    The liberal support of Islam is NOT reciprocated, generally. The Islamic world has a very low view of secular liberalism, and often identifies with conservatism, in spite of harsh criticism from Western conservatives. From the Islamic perspective, secular law leaves God out of governance, and disobeys His laws and governmental system as laid out explicitly in the Quran and Hadith. This is seen as a great evil. If you don't believe me, go to a mosque and ask them how they feel about secularism and Sharia.

    Punishment for apostasy is death. This is clear and unambiguous in the Quran and Hadith. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Views on homosexuality are more extreme than the religious right in the US. It is a grave sin, on par with murder, and can be punished by death. The best you can hope for if you are caught in homosexual acts under Sharia is a beating, and this is in more moderate Muslim circles.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. Believe me, there is much, much more. And lest I am accused of misrepresenting, pick up any translation of the Quran and see for yourself. Talk to the Muslim community and see for yourself. Look up the Hadiths and see for yourself. It's all right there, clear as day. After learning about Islam to the extent that I have, and seeing that most of the criticisms of it are true, I cannot bring myself to support or defend it. Frankly, I'd rather live under a Pat Robertson dictatorship than any form of Islamic law.

    EDIT: When I bring these things up to my liberal friends, they point to passages of the Bible that condone some of the same things. I'll address this point right now: Christianity and Judaism have both adapted to the modern world. For the most part, Islam has not.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018 at 3:33 AM
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Tolworth John

    Tolworth John Well-Known Member

    +1,778
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I'm curious why you identify with 'fellow liberals'?
    Christianity is not a 'liberal' belief, sin is sin despite what we might want to believe.

    As for why liberals are as you say 'hostile' to Christianity. This is partly because it shows them up in a very bad light and partly because this is a spiritual battle and as agents of the devil they are atacking that which is right. ( agents of the devil, because they are not followers of Jesus, rescued from the kingdom of darkness they are still his followers. )
     
  3. Sm412

    Sm412 New Member

    56
    +26
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    Why am I a liberal?

    I don't know. Maybe because I take issue with paying for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by gutting healthcare for seniors.

    Or maybe as a follower of Christ, I take issue with the "greed is good" mentality and the worship of money.

    Or it could be because I doubt the holiness of a man who cheats on his third wife with pornstars and buys their silence through illegal use of campaign funds.

    I really feel like even my atheist/agnostic friends are more Christian than all that.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  4. Tolworth John

    Tolworth John Well-Known Member

    +1,778
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    So not a 'liberal Christian' but a Christian who takes Christianity seriously.
     
  5. FenderTL5

    FenderTL5 Well-Known Member

    +2,366
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    In American politics, I would suppose it's an over-reaction to the systemic adoption of evangelical/protestant Christianity in government.
    Constitutionally, government is to be neutral and uninvolved toward religion. Over time, that is no longer the case.
     
  6. Aryeh Jay

    Aryeh Jay Veteran Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +6,342
    United States
    Married
    You forgot to mention Zakat or alms as a positive in Islam.
     
  7. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,565
    Private
    In my experience, it is because Christianity is generally understood to refer to a religious group.

    Also, "Muslims" and "Jews" (and perhaps to a lesser extent, "Islam" and "Judaism"), on the other hand, are ignorantly seen as, and taught to be, descriptors for specific racial groups rather than religious groups.

    IMO this dissonance goes beyond liberals, and also affects conservatives. It's just that their responses to the religion vs (supposed) racial groups are different.
     
  8. com7fy8

    com7fy8 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,385
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    One guy identifying as Muslim said he is moderate. But if sodomy is a capital offense under Sharia Law, then this would mean moderates are not really about Sharia, if they don't practice all the death penalties.

    By the way, the Law of Moses, also, prescribes execution for sodomy. A number of the Sharia capital offenses are also in the Law of Moses.

    Of course, you can call yourself whatever you please, and you mean what you mean, of course. I would say you can not use one label to guarantee what is really true about more than one person. And that label might not tell you anything significant about the one person you use that label for.

    in my opinion :)

    And how about killing an unborn being who is human? Do you believe that God considers an unborn to be a person? If the unborn is a person, then it is murder to kill him or her, and it does not matter how we have convinced ourselves about this. We can pick and choose what we want to say is wrong, for various motives, then point at others.

    By the way, I remember how ones were guaranteeing that Barack was going to bring America under Muslim rule. But I knew Barack is in favor of gay stuff, while Sharia practicers execute men for sodomy. So, I did not buy that Barack was into Islam. And establishing other Sharia capital offenses was not an obvious item that would come up when he was mentioned.
     
  9. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,293
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    I think its down to sympathy for perceived oppressed groups.

    There are non-fundamentalist and non-racist critics of Islam in the US and Europe. It's just something one has to be careful about, because Islamaphobia is a real thing.
     
  10. Sm412

    Sm412 New Member

    56
    +26
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    The abortion thing is certainly an exception. I consider myself pro-life. However, I don't take conservatives particularly seriously on their pro-life stance, for four reasons.
    1. They vehemently oppose and seek to cut or abolish all social programs that would help a mother and her child post-birth (and even pre-birth with neonatal care)
    2. They oppose universal healthcare and in some circles, although a minority (usually libertarian conservatives), they would go so far as to repeal protections for those with pre-existing conditions.
    3. I remember vividly back in 2003 conservatives CLAMOURING for war in Iraq. This war led to more than 100,000 civilian deaths (innocent men, women, and children) along with countless deaths of our young men and women in uniform. I find conservatives are generally pro-abortion, so long as those abortions come in the form of bombs dropped under a Republican President onto countries and people they don't like. And note that I am aware that Obama dropped his fair share of bombs, and believe me, I was and am APPALLED by that. Gravely disappointed, and take serious issue with him for that.
    4. Their hostility toward refugees. Asylum is a legal process, well within the confines of the law. These people, men, women, and children, are fleeing violence, and face death, exploitation, and suffering if not granted safety.

    I am pro-life in all respects, not just on abortion, but with healthcare, social programs, asylum, and foreign policy. This is why even though they are pro-abortion, an anti-war, pro-universal healthcare, pro-asylum, and pro-welfare politician will get my pro-life vote.

    Does that make sense?

    Also, based on the teachings and acts of Christ and His apostles, I take issue with "greed is good," sink or swim social Darwinism, hatred for the poor, reverence for the rich, rugged economic individualism, disproportionate wealth distribution and tax cuts that benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, and other such things common in conservative circles.

    The statistics don't lie. Income growth is stagnant for the working/middle class and has been for decades. Income growth for the wealthiest Americans has EXPLODED and increases as a percentage every year. Our income stagnates in the face of increased inflation and cost of living, which means we're getting poorer. Poverty rates climb with each passing year. Wealth is being siphoned from the lower/middle class and funneled to the top. This is happening. Check it out for yourself. Any unbiased evaluation of economic trends will tell you this.

    Corporate profits soar. Income for the wealthiest Americans soars. Adjusted for inflation, both are wealthier than they've ever been in the history of our country. Conservatives tell us they need a tax cut to start creating jobs. Then they tell us to offset the deficit created by that tax cut, we have to cut social security and medicare.

    As a Christian, I take issue with that.

    Frankly, I can't see why a Christian WOULDN'T be a liberal.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018 at 3:07 AM
  11. Niblo

    Niblo Muslim Supporter

    980
    +271
    Muslim
    Married
    [QUOTE="Sm412, post: 73455398, member: 414939"
    Punishment for apostasy is death. This is clear and unambiguous in the Quran... [/QUOTE]

    Where in the Qur'an does it state that the punishment for apostasy is death?
     
  12. Sm412

    Sm412 New Member

    56
    +26
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    Where in the Qur'an does it state that the punishment for apostasy is death?[/QUOTE]

    4:89 in the Quran
    Bukhari 52:260 in the Hadith
     
  13. Niblo

    Niblo Muslim Supporter

    980
    +271
    Muslim
    Married
    4:89 in the Quran
    Bukhari 52:260 in the Hadith[/QUOTE]

    You quote Al-Nisa, verse 89 as a justification for the killing of apostates.

    Every verse must be considered in its context. Verse 89 is shown in red:

    ‘(Believers), why are you divided in two about the hypocrites, when Allāh Himself has rejected them because of what they have done? Do you want to guide those Allāh has left to stray? If Allāh leaves anyone to stray, you (Prophet) will never find the way for him. They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate (to Medina) for Allāh’s cause. If they turn (on you)*, then seize and kill them wherever you encounter them. Take none of them as an ally or supporter. But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink from fighting against you or against their own people, Allāh could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then Allāh gives you no way against them. (Al-Nisa: 88-90)

    * The intended meaning is clear from the context; it is to ‘turn with aggression’; to ‘attack’.

    Verse 89 refers to those ‘hypocrites’ who sought to turn the Muslims away from faith; to become like them. Of itself, this action does not merit punishment. Only if the hypocrites go on to attack the Muslims may they, in turn, be fought against.

    In verse 90 the Muslim are warned that they must not fight against those hypocrites who have sought refuge among people who have a treaty with the Muslims. In addition, those hypocrites who offer peace – who cease their aggression – are to be left alone; regardless of their hypocrisy – their apostasy.


    Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘As for those who believe, then reject the faith, then believe again, then reject the faith again and become increasingly defiant, Allāh will not forgive them, nor will He guide them on any path. (Prophet), tell such hypocrites that a grievous punishment awaits them.’ (Al-Nisa: 137-138).

    If death is the ordained punishment for apostasy, then why do these verses not say so? Indeed, they are rendered nonsense by the notion that one who rejects their faith must be killed; for how can a dead person accept what he once rejected; reject it again; and grow in defiance?!!

    Although the Qur’an speaks of apostasy more than a dozen times; nowhere does it authorise an earthly punishment for abandoning faith. On the contrary, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) reserves for Himself the right to judge such behaviour; and to do so on the Day of Judgement.

    Some would have us believe that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) required the death sentence for apostasy. According to these folk a number of aḥādīth support of their claim; the best known is this:

    ‘Ibn Abbas said: The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”’ (Sahih Al-Bukhari).

    I opine that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said no such thing; and that this ḥādīth – and others like it – was fabricated to support corrupt rulers and governments; and is now being employed for that very purpose.

    Here are my reasons:

    The Qur’an was revealed throughout the Prophet’s life. At no time was he given permission to judge, or to execute, apostates. On the contrary, the Qur’an makes it perfectly clear that his role was to convey the message – to preach and teach the Faith, as expressed in the Qur’an – and nothing more. He was NOT to impose it by force:

    ‘Allāh bears witness that there is no god but He, as do the angels and those who have knowledge. He upholds justice. There is no god but Him, the Almighty, the All Wise. True Religion, in Allāh’s eyes, is (devotion to Him alone). Those who were given the Scripture disagreed out of rivalry, only after they had been given knowledge - if anyone denies Allāh’s revelations, Allāh is swift to take account- if they argue with you (Prophet), say: “I have devoted myself to Allāh alone and so have my followers.”

    ‘Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one: “Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?” If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, YOUR ONLY DUTY IS TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE. Allāh is aware of His servants.’ (Al-‘Imran: Verses 18-20); and again: ‘Obey Allāh, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the SOLE DUTY of Our Messenger is to DELIVER THE MESSAGE clearly.’ (Al-Ma’ida: Verse 92).

    The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was given no authority to enforce belief; no authority to kill a person simply for changing his religion. Given the restrictions placed upon him by his Lord, it is unthinkable that he would assume authority for himself – that he would usurp the Exalted’s role as sole judge in this matter. This is why I discount all aḥādīth that suggest the contrary (and by the way, I am not a Qur’anist!). My argument is supported by the fact that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not order the death of a single person for apostasy alone.

    Let me repeat: The Qur’an stresses freedom of conscience as one of Islam’s fundamental tenets:

    ‘There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allāh has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allāh is all hearing and all knowing.’ (Al-Baqara: Verse 256); and again: ‘(Prophet), follow what has been revealed to you of your Lord’s Scripture: there is no changing His words, nor can you find any refuge except with Him. Content yourself with those who pray to their Lord morning and evening, seeking His approval, and do not let your eyes turn away from them out of desire for the attractions of this worldly life: do not yield to those whose hearts We have made heedless of Our Qur’an, those who follow their own low desires, those whose ways are unbridled. Say: “Now the truth has come from your Lord”: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so.’ (Al-Kahf: Verse 29).

    Apostasy laws are enforced for political rather than religious reasons. Autocratic religious states (and organisations) have always used the threat of punishment as a means of control. When the Church was a power to be reckoned with – when it controlled every aspect of a believer’s life – it did not hesitate to punish apostasy (and heresy) with death.

    Only when the Church lost its secular powers were people free to think, and to do, as they pleased.

    All Muslims consider the Qur’an to be the very the word of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). This is why it is considered to be the primary and supreme source of jurisprudence in Islam. The Sunnah (the practice of Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) comes next. Both leave no doubt that apostasy – of itself – is not punishable by death. The only justification for punishing an apostate is when that person goes on to commit a criminal offence – such as murder; theft; treason or some form of war crime.

    It amuses me to see Islamophobes (I do not regard you as one) and extremists at odds with the Qur’an on this issue. In order to portray their own perverted theological, or political, viewpoint both go to great lengths to misrepresent its clear verses. Both regurgitate the same fallacious arguments, and offer them as ‘authentic’ Islam.

    Apostasy laws have been borrowed from older scriptures. They have no basis in the Qur’an or Sunnah. This is why clerics who espouse such extremist beliefs show continued reluctance to debate Muslim scholars and intellectuals on this issue.

    The Qur’an upholds Freedom of Conscience in the clearest of terms. It is the duplicity - and political insecurity - of extremist clerics, and of the corrupt governments they support, that gives excuse for oppressive regimes to punish dissent (apostasy).
     
  14. A_Thinker

    A_Thinker Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,541
    Christian
    Married
    We don't ...
     
  15. Sm412

    Sm412 New Member

    56
    +26
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    News to me. Most liberals I've interacted with are fervent defenders of Islam. When I posed this question in a liberal group I'm a part of, I was relentlessly attacked. One such person was a gay atheist. He thought Muslims were his friends. I tried to no avail to explain to him how his sexuality and lack of faith were viewed and treated in the Islamic world.

    We appear to have a Muslim on the thread right now. Let's ask him. Yo Niblo, what do you guys do to gay people under Islamic law?
     
  16. Sm412

    Sm412 New Member

    56
    +26
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    You quote Al-Nisa, verse 89 as a justification for the killing of apostates.

    Every verse must be considered in its context. Verse 89 is shown in red:

    ‘(Believers), why are you divided in two about the hypocrites, when Allāh Himself has rejected them because of what they have done? Do you want to guide those Allāh has left to stray? If Allāh leaves anyone to stray, you (Prophet) will never find the way for him. They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate (to Medina) for Allāh’s cause. If they turn (on you)*, then seize and kill them wherever you encounter them. Take none of them as an ally or supporter. But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink from fighting against you or against their own people, Allāh could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then Allāh gives you no way against them. (Al-Nisa: 88-90)

    * The intended meaning is clear from the context; it is to ‘turn with aggression’; to ‘attack’.

    Verse 89 refers to those ‘hypocrites’ who sought to turn the Muslims away from faith; to become like them. Of itself, this action does not merit punishment. Only if the hypocrites go on to attack the Muslims may they, in turn, be fought against.

    In verse 90 the Muslim are warned that they must not fight against those hypocrites who have sought refuge among people who have a treaty with the Muslims. In addition, those hypocrites who offer peace – who cease their aggression – are to be left alone; regardless of their hypocrisy – their apostasy.


    Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘As for those who believe, then reject the faith, then believe again, then reject the faith again and become increasingly defiant, Allāh will not forgive them, nor will He guide them on any path. (Prophet), tell such hypocrites that a grievous punishment awaits them.’ (Al-Nisa: 137-138).

    If death is the ordained punishment for apostasy, then why do these verses not say so? Indeed, they are rendered nonsense by the notion that one who rejects their faith must be killed; for how can a dead person accept what he once rejected; reject it again; and grow in defiance?!!

    Although the Qur’an speaks of apostasy more than a dozen times; nowhere does it authorise an earthly punishment for abandoning faith. On the contrary, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) reserves for Himself the right to judge such behaviour; and to do so on the Day of Judgement.

    Some would have us believe that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) required the death sentence for apostasy. According to these folk a number of aḥādīth support of their claim; the best known is this:

    ‘Ibn Abbas said: The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”’ (Sahih Al-Bukhari).

    I opine that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said no such thing; and that this ḥādīth – and others like it – was fabricated to support corrupt rulers and governments; and is now being employed for that very purpose.

    Here are my reasons:

    The Qur’an was revealed throughout the Prophet’s life. At no time was he given permission to judge, or to execute, apostates. On the contrary, the Qur’an makes it perfectly clear that his role was to convey the message – to preach and teach the Faith, as expressed in the Qur’an – and nothing more. He was NOT to impose it by force:

    ‘Allāh bears witness that there is no god but He, as do the angels and those who have knowledge. He upholds justice. There is no god but Him, the Almighty, the All Wise. True Religion, in Allāh’s eyes, is (devotion to Him alone). Those who were given the Scripture disagreed out of rivalry, only after they had been given knowledge - if anyone denies Allāh’s revelations, Allāh is swift to take account- if they argue with you (Prophet), say: “I have devoted myself to Allāh alone and so have my followers.”

    ‘Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one: “Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?” If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, YOUR ONLY DUTY IS TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE. Allāh is aware of His servants.’ (Al-‘Imran: Verses 18-20); and again: ‘Obey Allāh, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the SOLE DUTY of Our Messenger is to DELIVER THE MESSAGE clearly.’ (Al-Ma’ida: Verse 92).

    The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was given no authority to enforce belief; no authority to kill a person simply for changing his religion. Given the restrictions placed upon him by his Lord, it is unthinkable that he would assume authority for himself – that he would usurp the Exalted’s role as sole judge in this matter. This is why I discount all aḥādīth that suggest the contrary (and by the way, I am not a Qur’anist!). My argument is supported by the fact that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not order the death of a single person for apostasy alone.

    Let me repeat: The Qur’an stresses freedom of conscience as one of Islam’s fundamental tenets:

    ‘There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allāh has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allāh is all hearing and all knowing.’ (Al-Baqara: Verse 256); and again: ‘(Prophet), follow what has been revealed to you of your Lord’s Scripture: there is no changing His words, nor can you find any refuge except with Him. Content yourself with those who pray to their Lord morning and evening, seeking His approval, and do not let your eyes turn away from them out of desire for the attractions of this worldly life: do not yield to those whose hearts We have made heedless of Our Qur’an, those who follow their own low desires, those whose ways are unbridled. Say: “Now the truth has come from your Lord”: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so.’ (Al-Kahf: Verse 29).

    Apostasy laws are enforced for political rather than religious reasons. Autocratic religious states (and organisations) have always used the threat of punishment as a means of control. When the Church was a power to be reckoned with – when it controlled every aspect of a believer’s life – it did not hesitate to punish apostasy (and heresy) with death.

    Only when the Church lost its secular powers were people free to think, and to do, as they pleased.

    All Muslims consider the Qur’an to be the very the word of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). This is why it is considered to be the primary and supreme source of jurisprudence in Islam. The Sunnah (the practice of Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) comes next. Both leave no doubt that apostasy – of itself – is not punishable by death. The only justification for punishing an apostate is when that person goes on to commit a criminal offence – such as murder; theft; treason or some form of war crime.

    It amuses me to see Islamophobes (I do not regard you as one) and extremists at odds with the Qur’an on this issue. In order to portray their own perverted theological, or political, viewpoint both go to great lengths to misrepresent its clear verses. Both regurgitate the same fallacious arguments, and offer them as ‘authentic’ Islam.

    Apostasy laws have been borrowed from older scriptures. They have no basis in the Qur’an or Sunnah. This is why clerics who espouse such extremist beliefs show continued reluctance to debate Muslim scholars and intellectuals on this issue.

    The Qur’an upholds Freedom of Conscience in the clearest of terms. It is the duplicity - and political insecurity - of extremist clerics, and of the corrupt governments they support, that gives excuse for oppressive regimes to punish dissent (apostasy).[/QUOTE]

    Your views are not shared by all. Not even close. Even if I am wrong, you follow a prophet of questionable morality whose prophethood is laughably false.

    The Quran reads like it was written by a 3rd grader. It reflects Muhammad's rudimentary knowledge of Abrahamic scripture and repeats itself senselessly. It tells the exact same story of Moses, what, seven times? Got it the first time, brah. It also conveniently "divinely" endorses Muhammad's will and personal desires. It doesn't even compare to the New Testament. Not even close.
     
  17. A_Thinker

    A_Thinker Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,541
    Christian
    Married
    You're talking to atheists. What do you expect ???
     
  18. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +3,353
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I think liberals tend to defend people from discrimination and stereotyping. In the US context, where a majority of Muslims (though not all) have adopted American values, it's natural for us to want to defend them.

    But religions are capable of many interpretations. This is true of both Christianity and Islam. Particularly internationally, Islam is often interpreted in ways to encourage or at least tolerate intolerance and violence. For this reason speaking of liberal approaches to Islam is misleading, because there's no one Islam. We can encourage acceptance of Muslims that have adopted our values while still being concerned about the ones that are violent, treat women badly, etc.

    Indeed even individuals don't always act in ways we find acceptable not unacceptable.
     
  19. Niblo

    Niblo Muslim Supporter

    980
    +271
    Muslim
    Married

    Have a nice day, and thank you for your time.
     
  20. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Newbie

    +540
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    They are preparing to be loyal Dhimmis. Muslims get mighty mad if you criticise the Prophet or Islam and maybe if they are loyal enough they will be tolerated in the Muslim majority Europe of the future.

    I am being a bit snarky but the Islamophilic nature of many liberals leads me to believe they are in denial over the nature of Islam and religion itself. I respect Islam as a political and religious force which is why I'm adamantly against it's presence.

    For my part a Liberal who defends Islam but is adamantly against traditional western Christianity has no grasp on where their liberalism came from.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018 at 7:37 AM
Loading...