Like I said, to my understanding, it depends on the situation whether it would be a situation of treason or not and whether the punishment would be carried out or not, and God knows best.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Islam doesn't condone terror
- Thread starter razeontherock
- Start date
- Status
Like I said, to my understanding, it depends on the situation whether it would be a situation of treason or not and whether the punishment would be carried out or not, and God knows best.
AskTheFamily
Junior Member
- Mar 14, 2010
- 2,854
- 195
- 39
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Muslim
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Changing religion and speaking about it, is something that we would advocate non-Muslims to do. Are they committing treason when they convert and speak about their choice in public? If they are not committing treason, why do you think it's treason for a Muslim to convert to another religion and announce it. It's not treason to change religion.
Upvote
0
Thank you for the 11 PM's. Information over-load.
If you've got information specifically about these two verses that would be helpful to the current discussion.
I feel like the issue of abrogation itself should be tackled first, and an understanding developed of how it's largely based on scholarly ijtihad which is prone to error. After we understand how it works and varies within the different schools of jurisprudence, THEN we can try to look up what different scholars said about different examples of abrogation.
Upvote
0
My understanding is because the Islamic state is a theocracy? So, if you are a citizen of the theocracy then to publicly and knowledgeably denounce the basis of the theocracy is treason to the political state you are a citizen of. I may be wrong, but that's what I understood. There's probably a lot more to it, too. But, I'm pretty sure that it's not because of the person's religious preference that they would ever be executed.
Note.. not something I studied.. just heard bits here and there about.
Upvote
0
S
Servant of Jesus
Guest
Just to get all the Muslims on this Christian site, who are debating about matters that concern Islam, back on topic, let me provide more evidence that Islam promotes violence.
From the BBC today:
TV boss Muzzammil Hassan gets prison for wife's death
TV boss guilty of beheading wife
A New York television executive has been given the maximum sentence of between 25 years to life in prison for murdering his wife in 2009.
A jury last month found Pakistan-born Muzzammil Hassan guilty of stabbing Aasiya Hassan and beheading her six days after she filed for divorce.
Hassan argued she had abused him and that he had acted in self-defence.
Hassan founded Muslim-oriented Bridges TV in 2004 in an effort to counter negative portrayals of Muslims.
----------------------------------
I think he failed in his mission.
From the BBC today:
TV boss Muzzammil Hassan gets prison for wife's death
TV boss guilty of beheading wife
A New York television executive has been given the maximum sentence of between 25 years to life in prison for murdering his wife in 2009.
A jury last month found Pakistan-born Muzzammil Hassan guilty of stabbing Aasiya Hassan and beheading her six days after she filed for divorce.
Hassan argued she had abused him and that he had acted in self-defence.
Hassan founded Muslim-oriented Bridges TV in 2004 in an effort to counter negative portrayals of Muslims.
----------------------------------
I think he failed in his mission.
Upvote
0
Found this, AsktheFamily. http://www.defendtheprophet.com/on-...islamic-voices-affirming-the-freedom-of-faith
It has one more example of a bedouin who apostated during Prophet Muhammad's life and he was left to leave, narrated in Bukhari.
Also, it includes statments regarding this from great early Sunni scholars like Ibrahim Al-Nakha'i (2nd generation Islam), 'Umar ibn 'Abdul-'Aziz, and many others.
It has one more example of a bedouin who apostated during Prophet Muhammad's life and he was left to leave, narrated in Bukhari.
Also, it includes statments regarding this from great early Sunni scholars like Ibrahim Al-Nakha'i (2nd generation Islam), 'Umar ibn 'Abdul-'Aziz, and many others.
Upvote
0
AskTheFamily
Junior Member
- Mar 14, 2010
- 2,854
- 195
- 39
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Muslim
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-NDP
When your converting to Islam, your going against the basis of secularism because you believe in theocracy. It doesn't make it treason either way. Going against the basis of the state is not treason. Changing religion is not treason. Having a different ideology is not treason.
Upvote
0
AskTheFamily
Junior Member
- Mar 14, 2010
- 2,854
- 195
- 39
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Muslim
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-NDP
As I stated and linked to scholar stating it, it's conditional that it means those whom fight you. It's understood that those mentioned in that verse are those whom fought the Prophet (saw). The conditional verses make it clear on what basis you can fight. Therefore this verse needs to be seen in light of that. You can only fight those whom fight you. This is clear in Quran.
Upvote
0
AskTheFamily
Junior Member
- Mar 14, 2010
- 2,854
- 195
- 39
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Muslim
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-NDP
I will paste part of the discussion on conditional and unconditional verses:
A- Conditional Verses and Unconditional Verses This term is a very important one, and I wish to explain it to you, for otherwise it will be difficult for you to grasp the full meaning of the verse under discussion. Any command (even a human command) can be given in one place with no conditions, and then again in another situation with a condition attached. In such a case, we immediately realize that whoever issued that command, introduced that law, meant the same thing in both instances. Now, having realized this, what are we to do? Are we to adhere to the unconditional command and assume that the conditional was given for that special instance? Or should we interpret the unconditional as the conditional which means adhering to the conditional?
Let me cite a simple example. On two separate occasions, for instance, we are given a command by someone having the authority to do so and whose commands we respect. On one occasion, we are told that we must respect such and such person, which is an unconditional command. In another he commands us to do the same thing, saying that we must respect that person if he does such and such a thing, like taking part in our meeting. The second time the command contains an "if." The command is now conditional. The person giving the command did not simply state that such and such a person is to be respected. The first command had no condition; we were simply told to respect him, and assuming we had ears and heard this command. it would have meant to us that we were to respect that person whether he came to the meeting or whether he was too lazy to bother. But when we hear the other command, we understand that we are to respect the person provided he comes to the meeting, and, if he refrains from doing so, we are not to respect him.
The ulema say that the rule requires us to interpret the unconditional as the conditional, meaning that we must assume the aim of the unconditional to be exactly that of the conditional.
Now, among the unconditional and conditional verses of the Quran pertaining to jihad, is one which we have seen:
«Fight ye those who have not faith in God, nor in the hereafter and (who) forbid not what God and His Prophet have forbidden»
In another verse, we are told:
«Fight in the way of God those who fight you» (2:190).
What are the meanings of these verses? Do they mean that we must fight these people regardless of whether they are about to attack us? Is the command unconditional so that we must fight them whether they intend or not to attack us, whether they are guilty of aggression or not?
A- Conditional Verses and Unconditional Verses This term is a very important one, and I wish to explain it to you, for otherwise it will be difficult for you to grasp the full meaning of the verse under discussion. Any command (even a human command) can be given in one place with no conditions, and then again in another situation with a condition attached. In such a case, we immediately realize that whoever issued that command, introduced that law, meant the same thing in both instances. Now, having realized this, what are we to do? Are we to adhere to the unconditional command and assume that the conditional was given for that special instance? Or should we interpret the unconditional as the conditional which means adhering to the conditional?
Let me cite a simple example. On two separate occasions, for instance, we are given a command by someone having the authority to do so and whose commands we respect. On one occasion, we are told that we must respect such and such person, which is an unconditional command. In another he commands us to do the same thing, saying that we must respect that person if he does such and such a thing, like taking part in our meeting. The second time the command contains an "if." The command is now conditional. The person giving the command did not simply state that such and such a person is to be respected. The first command had no condition; we were simply told to respect him, and assuming we had ears and heard this command. it would have meant to us that we were to respect that person whether he came to the meeting or whether he was too lazy to bother. But when we hear the other command, we understand that we are to respect the person provided he comes to the meeting, and, if he refrains from doing so, we are not to respect him.
The ulema say that the rule requires us to interpret the unconditional as the conditional, meaning that we must assume the aim of the unconditional to be exactly that of the conditional.
Now, among the unconditional and conditional verses of the Quran pertaining to jihad, is one which we have seen:
«Fight ye those who have not faith in God, nor in the hereafter and (who) forbid not what God and His Prophet have forbidden»
In another verse, we are told:
«Fight in the way of God those who fight you» (2:190).
What are the meanings of these verses? Do they mean that we must fight these people regardless of whether they are about to attack us? Is the command unconditional so that we must fight them whether they intend or not to attack us, whether they are guilty of aggression or not?
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
Montalban, if you were forced to embrace Islam publicly, would you lovingly assist those who forced you and be an asset to the Muslim community, or would you hate those who forced you and be even more dangerous as an enemy from within? It makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever to think one can force people to change their religion. Second of all, there is a famous hadith of Prophet Muhammad which says, 'Religion is sincerity'. How can a person be sincere in their religion if they were forced?
I acknowledge that some very knowledgeable scholars have stated that the verse 'there is no compulsion in religion' was abrogated, but I believe that that group of scholars was wrong in this matter, and that those who found other ways to resolve between the texts were more accurate in their analysis, and God knows best.
Please read all 11 PMs on abrogation that I sent.
When Islam took over the Iberian Peninusla did they do so thinking that everyone would love them for doing so?
If they didn't why did they still invade?
Answering these might guide you to seeing what is a rather strange question of yours.
The purpose of Islam is to make the world submit.
Upvote
0
I have not yet studied that time period in our history... I expect to within a year or two, iA. It's on my to-do list.
All I can say at this point, regardless of what actually happened at that time, we should only cite as evidence examples mentioned in the Qur'aan and Sunnah (and also for a Sunni.. we can include matters of consensus among companions of Muhammad.) What later Muslims did is not necessarily indicative of what Islam teaches.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
Muhammed himself answered this when he said that a better revelation was revealed.
Koran 2:106
Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari (d. 310 H.) said:
Allah means with (Such of Our revelations as we abrogate): we abrogate the ruling of a verse by another to change and replace this ruling. This is by making Halal to become Haram and vice versa or to let what is permissible to become impermissible. Thus, abrogation is only concerned with matters of commands and rulings such like: permissibility and impermissibility, prohibition and Halal etc. Therefore, previous nations news and stories have no abrogation [Tafsir Ibn jarir (jamie Al-Bayan):1/521]
Ibn Kathir said as well: Ibn Abi Talha narrated Ibn Abbas saying: (Such of Our revelations as we abrogate) means: what we replace of verses.
Ibn Jarir reported from the way of Mujahid: This part means: the verses we erased and Ibn Abi Najeh from the way of Mujhaid narrated Mujahid said: we confirm the verse and its place in Quran but we replace its ruling. This is what the companions of Ibn Masoud narrated as well. [Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 1/207]
Al-Qurtubi in his book Al-Jamie Li Ahkam Al-Quran while he was talking about the verse of abrogation:
Having knowledge about this matter is needed and its benefit is great, to the extent that all scholars need to know about abrogation because only the ignorant would deny abrogation since abrogation is needed to know the rulings of what is Haram and halal [Al-Jamie Li Ahkam Al-Quran: 2/61]
2) {And when we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.} [Al-Nahl: 101]
Ibn Jarir Al Tabari said:
Allah the exalted says: We abrogate the ruling of a verse by replacing it with another ruling in another verse. In regards the part where it says {And Allah knoweth best what He revealeth}; Allah says there: what Allah abrogates and replaces is for the best of benefit to his creation as He knows the best. The part {revealeth they say: Lo! thou art but inventing} means: those, who associate someone with Allah in worshiping and disbelieving in the messenger, say to the messenger: O Muhammad you are inventing this which means that you claiming that Allah said that while he did not. So Allah replies to what they said: indeed, most of them are ignorant about the fact that what you Muhammad- bring them i.e. abrogated verses and verses that abrogate another verse are all from Allah.
Scholars of interpretations said exactly as what we said about the above verse. And some of those who mentioned that are: [..chain of narration..] Mujahid said about this verse: it means Allah lifts up a verse and replace it with another
[..chain of narration..] Mujahid said: Allah abrogates verses, replace them , lift them up and confirm another verse in abrogated verses.
[..chain of narration..] Qutada said: the context of the verse {. as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten,} is same as {we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation}.
[.. chain of narration ..] Ibn zaid said about the part where Allah says {we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation}: they; disbelievers, said to Muhammad you bring something then you say otherwise. So Allah says: this replacement is an abrogation because whenever a verse is replaced by another then it has to be an abrogation. [tafseer Ibn Jarir: Jamie AlBayan: 7/646] and for further readings: Ibn Katheer: 2/774] and AlJamie Li Ahkam AlQuran by Al Qurtubi: 10/157]
I took this resarch from a Moslem discussion site here
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
You don't have to have studied it. The problem is more general that that. To assume that invaiding a place people will love you is a nonsense.
Islam did this. Muhammed himself took the war to Mecca.
Did he say "Oh, I better not do this because that will make people hate me?"
Of course he didn't
So making people submit unwillingly to Islam (and Islam is about 'surrender') is not outside logic.
Forced conversions aren't just the bane of Islam, for sure -which further undermines your notion that it wouldn't happen.
Upvote
0
Dude ,I would refuse and let them behead me.Goodbye cruel world hello Jesus.
The only time Jews are allowed to basically commit suicide, something heavily forbidden, is when we know for sure that we will be forced to convert. Sadly, it has happened to some villages.
Upvote
0
I'm not denying abrogation outright. I only asked you to read what I sent before we discussed it, so you could become more understanding/appreciative of the complexities of scholarly ijtihad in this area.
As for the verse I quoted (60:8), I have not read that it is among the verses that any scholars judged as abrogated... but then, I'm sure I haven't heard everything.
Upvote
0
I did take a class on the history of the first four Caliphs about eight years ago. My memory on it is fuzzy, but this is what I remember.
During 'Umar and 'Uthmaan's times, the Muslim empire expanded greatly through military means. This is true. One thing that was common was for rulers of conquered lands that were liked by their people and did a good job were allowed to keep their positions, just be under the supervision of the Muslim Caliph.
Now, you may have your own view on this, but, for us, we see a 6th/7th century world where women, slaves, etc. had no rights.
Perhaps you complain that Muslim women only inherit 1/2 that which her brother inherits, for example, but recall that, in those days, women outside the Islamic empire didn't get to inherit anything at all, so Islam brought a lot of good for the people, and that is just one small example. These Muslim caliphs improved living conditions throughout the empire.
It's true that non-Muslims who resided in the empire had to pay different taxes, and, yes, it is reported that 'Umar asked that at least some of them distinguish themselves from the Muslims, but that's in line with what we know of his personality as seen throughout the story of his life. He was the 'tough guy'. The people (the Muslims) were scared to death when Abu Bakr appointed him as the next Caliph. If you see 'Umar's inauguration speech, you see him telling the people not to worry.. that he wouldn't be as harsh as they'd known him to be in the past. He told them that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Abu Bakr had been 'softies' and that he had to be the 'tough guy' that showed the other perspective to things.... because they had always been the 'good cops', he had to act the 'bad cop'. He told them that now, since they were gone, he knew he had to learn to be softer. He made a famous prayer, I believe that same day, in which he said, 'Oh, Allah, I am hard, please soften me.' I remember that as a kid, I would frown upon 'Umar's harshness... but as I grew and read more and more of his biography, I saw a man whose words oozed sincerity. A man who stood up for what he felt was right and just. A man who changed A LOT during his life.. and always for the better. Stories narrated from the end of his life show a much milder 'Umar, very unlike the harsh 'Umar of his younger years. Perhaps age and maturity had something to do with it, but I also believe that as he grew in faith, he grew in exemplary conduct... and now I am totally off-topic.
So, yeah... Islam spread through the military, but no one ever had a sword put up to him and was told, youd better become a Muslim or you die.
Also, just think. The Islamic empire spread like no other... in only two decades it spanned from China to Morocco, I think. Do you really think that ALL those people were oppressed and that the little Muslim army of Muhammad's followers were forcing them to submit to their command?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
