Re: Islam always plays fair in conversions, others dont
- From: khan.naimat@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 6 Apr 2006 03:28:21 -0700
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Yes, beheading for refusal seems quite fair to me.
Back to the Koran- Who are the "Dhimmies." And
what conduct must non-Muslims must adhere to?
Yield way to a Muslim, convert or pay taxes or
suffer death, without the benefit of the 72.
Letter in Dawn, April 1
THIS refers to the letters by Mr Muhammed Idris and
Ms Samina Shah Durrani regarding the Afghan
convert to Christianity (March 27).
Mr Idris should note that the Muslim preachers of the
"Tablighi Jamaat" do benefit from the freedom to proselytise
in most parts of the world but they never capitalize on the
poverty of the prospective converts and rely entirely on
the appeal of Islam's message.
A proof of this is that most western converts to our
religion are well-educated and financially sound.
On the contrary, as also pointed out by Ms Durrani,
Christian aid organizations undertake rehabilitation in
Afghanistan and other calamity-struck zones for
converting the local people to their faith.
A glaring example of this is Pakistan itself where the
poor and illiterate villagers undergoing conversion since
1947 has climbed to nearly five million.
The drought-hit Somalia, war-torn Sudan and tsunami-struck
Indonesia are some other ones.
In India, the RSS and some other extremist Hindu
organisations have forced thousands of Muslims and
Christians to revert to the religion of their forefathers
because they have openly stated that "these Muslims
and Christians cannot be thrown into the sea so they
must be Indianized (read Hinduized)."
However, nearly all western leaders are pressuring the
Afghan government but ignoring the Indian RSS, etc.,
perhaps because they find it easy to twist the arms of the
Kill the Apostate
By yamin zakaria
Published: March 29, 2006
"Whoever changes his religion (Islam), kill him" (Bukhari)
"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 (retribution) for murder, a married person who
commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam
(apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Bukhari)
The case of the apostate facing trial in Afghanistan, with the remote
prospect of being sentenced to death, has brought swift reaction from
the West. It is truly amusing to see the heads of European states
reacting to the possible death of one man while they find it easy to
aid the murder of thousands of Iraqis. What kind of twisted moral
barometer causes such a reaction in one case, but not the other?
This week we learnt that American marines murdered 15 members of an
Iraqi family in cold blood, including a three year old child. No
problem, say the leaders of Europe, but the trial of the Afghan
apostate is too much for them. You can't kill an apostate, but kill
as many Muslims as you need to improve the balance sheet of the party
donors! This is the source of their moral barometer, as the apostate
case is opposing secular values of freedom of religion, while the
occupation and murder of Iraqis is conforming to secular interests of
spreading freedom and democracy!
Many individuals in the Secular West find it hard to understand that
capital punishment prescribed for changing religion, because religion
has no importance in the West, it is reduced to one of personal taste,
and the principle of freedom of religion facilitates easy apostasy. Of
course this is also rooted in European history, where religious
intolerance by the Church was immense.
In Islam, society is supposed to be governed by religion; where
apostasy is the secular equivalent of treason not a matter of personal
choice for Muslims. Many Christians and Jews have jumped on the
anti-Islamic bandwagon, and have joined hands with their secular
colleagues, without realising that such penal codes also exists in
I wish someone would tell these Zionist-Christians and the Muslim
moderates that: freedom of religion is not a religious notion, it is a
secular notion. Can the God of any religion say to its subject, believe
in me as long as you are happy, but if you are not happy then move over
to the next religion? In that case the religion is clearly stating that
it does not hold the ultimate truth. If a religion does not have
conviction in its own values, its followers are certainly not going to
have conviction either. Now what kind of religion is that?
As expected, the moderates have responded by giving dubious
interpretations to claim that the law of apostasy is not part of Islam,
and to look acceptable, they promote the idea that Muslims have freedom
of religion. Do they? I thought once you subscribe to Islam you are
bound by the laws of Islam, so where is the freedom. The world is
divided between the sick moderates and healthy radicals. These sick
moderates work hard to make Islam appealing to non-Muslims, in such a
manner that it becomes fully compatible with liberal democracy. What
is the significance of Islam, if it is interpreted to make it
compatible to everything else?
Their (moderates) view is not shaped by Islam but as a result of the
media onslaught; for them the problem of negative representation of
Islam can only be solved by representing it correctly, which translates
to satisfying the hostile critics. So they 'reinterpret' the Quran,
which in turn is used to remove and/or reinterpret the clear evidences
from the Hadiths, hoping they would arrive at a point, when the attack
from the West would cease. Not true, the west does not need an excuse
to attack Islam and Muslims, as the recent cartoon incident showed, and
they need even less of an excuse to murder Muslims, as the murder of
the Iraqis continues to demonstrate. In fact the West has been
demonising Muslims, for centuries, and it has nothing to do with the
conduct of the Muslims or even the values of Islam.
Unable to defend the Islamic penal code, moderates start to deny sound
evidences from Hadiths, take selected verses out of context and offer
an explanation that negates centuries of scholarship, going back to the
companions of the Prophet (SAW). The majority view of the Scholars
(Ulemas) is that: apostasy is punishable by death, but there is a
minority view which says it is only punishable by death, if the
apostate has committed actions of a belligerent nature against the
Islamic state and the Muslims.
The moderates raise the Quran, as evidences from the examples (Sunnah)
of the Prophet (SAW) are very clear on this issue, as is the early
examples of His companions. So let us look at how they provide a false
interpretation using the Quran, with a few examples.
They selectively quote the verses and one of the most popular one is
from the Chapter of Baqarah: "There is no compulsion in religion"
(2:256, AL-Quran). But if they looked further they would also see the
verse: "Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will not be
accepted from him, he will be the looser in the hereafter" (3:85,
Al-Quran). One of the basic rules in interpreting Quranic verses is
that you must take into account all the verses on the same theme, so
that they synchronise and are consistent, and not contradictory.
If Muslims have freedom of religion to apostasise according to the
first verse (2:256), as the moderates argue, but clearly they do not
according to the second verse (3:85). This verse clearly states that by
apostatising they would be the losers, meaning they will be in
hellfire, punished. Hence to apostasise is an illegal act (Haram).So
how does Allah (SWT) say in one place you are free to choose any
religion and then tells the Muslims if you choose another religion you
will be punished, surely that would be a contradiction? You can not be
free to choose if the only choice you have is Islam!
Of course many would have deduced that the two verses, are not
addressing the same category of people, or addressing the same subject.
The first verse (2:256) is in only addressing the non-Muslims as
rationally only they have the choice to accept or reject Islam but not
the Muslims. But once the non-Muslims accept Islam, they are bound by
its rules and the verse 3.85 becomes applicable to them. Just like you
are free to join the army but once you join you can't walk out
freely, you are bound by the rules.
The moderates partially cite verses where Allah (SWT) is informing that
we are 'free' to do what we like on earth, while they omit that we
will be held accountable for our actions because our choice is supposed
to be exercised in a particular way - well in that case there is no
real freedom. In this sense neither Muslims nor non-Muslims are free to
choose anything other than Islam. As verse (3:85) clearly states, no
choice except Islam. In fact even according to the verse (2:256) the
non-Muslims they only have a choice because Allah (SWT) has not
compelled them through the Sharia laws to become Muslims, they should
enter Islam willingly. As the sentence after "There is no compulsion
in religion" (2:256), states: "truly the right way has become
clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the
Taghout and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest
handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing."
clearly pointing out, if they do not choose Islam they will be
accountable and face the consequence in the hereafter.
The moderates in fact make the confusion between freewill and having
the freedom to choose legally per the Islamic law, i.e. a legal permit.
They selectively cite verses like 2:256 and this: "Say (Muhammad it is)
truth from Lord of all. Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever
will, let him disbelieve." [18:29] to claim that we have freedom of
religion as Muslims. Nope, we are not free to choose we have the
ability to choose! The idea of freedom in the verse 18:29 is clearly
referring to freewill; it is a description of the reality that we have
been given the ability to exercise our freewill; this ability to
exercise freewill is not a legal permit. Hence, it is not evidence of
permission from Allah (SWT), for Muslims to apostasise using the bogus
claim that Islam caters for freedom of religion!
If the Muslims had the right to apostasies by making dubious
interpretations of selected verses, and proclaiming freedom of
religion, then they would have the right to do anything else, by that
same argument. Therefore, we can take another example, we as Muslim
have the ability to use our sexual organs in anyway we please as Allah
(SWT) has given us the ability and free will (not the right) to use it
in any way we please and commit fornication. But clearly we do not have
the right from Islam to do that, as Allah (SWT) has prohibited
Apostasy is one thing, trial and execution of the apostate is another
matter entirely. This can only be done by a legitimate Islamic State,
the Caliphate. The defendant has to be brought and tried by an Islamic
court. Clearly in the absence of the Islamic state, this is neither
possible, nor permissible. For sure if a genuine Islamic state existed,
the Afghani apostate would not have returned as an apostate from
Germany, as he would know the consequence.
This means that he knows that he will not face the penal codes, as the
rulers in the country - Karazai & Co are the biggest apostates and
criminals according to Islamic laws; because, they aided the Kafir
(American forces and its allies) to murder their fellow Muslims, in
Afghanistan. Those rulers nether have the Islamic legitimacy, nor do
they have the backbone to make decisions that are not approved by their
anti-Islamic masters; indeed they would appear first before any
convened Islamic court, if there was real justice. The whole episode is
nothing more than a tragicomical theatre piece!
- Islam always plays fair in conversions, others dont
- From: Mirza Ghalib
- Islam always plays fair in conversions, others dont
- Prev by Date: Re: Telugu - Articles on the origin of Telugu and History of the Andhras
- Next by Date: India must ban Christian name changing
- Previous by thread: Islam always plays fair in conversions, others dont
- Next by thread: Indians like to Stick to office till they die.