The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[The Eternal Aulus]

On the history of the Ka'abah

Upon apostasy in Islam

[Kubumba Tribe]

>Tfw enforcing Allah's law is oppression

Your two statements here are contradictory.

Actually I have a God-given right do to so. In fact, to rule by anything else is haram.

I know, that is allowed in Al-Islam. They have to answer to Allah SWT for that, not man.

Either, you have a God given right to enforce what you believe to be God's Law, or we answer to God, not man.


Which is it?

The and post is about apostasy, not Shari'ah in general. Yes, Muslims have a God-given right to enforce Shari'ah. Apostasy laws aren't part of it.

[Tarsonis]

Your two statements here are contradictory.









Either, you have a God given right to enforce what you believe to be God's Law, or we answer to God, not man.


Which is it?

The and post is about apostasy, not Shari'ah in general. Yes, Muslims have a God-given right to enforce Shari'ah. Apostasy laws aren't part of it.

viewtopic.php?p=34750570#p34750570

Wrong

[Kubumba Tribe]

The and post is about apostasy, not Shari'ah in general. Yes, Muslims have a God-given right to enforce Shari'ah. Apostasy laws aren't part of it.

viewtopic.php?p=34750570#p34750570

Wrong

https://abuaminaelias.com/freedom-of-religion-and-apostasy-in-islam/

Upon apostasy in Islam

[Tarsonis]

viewtopic.php?p=34750570#p34750570

Wrong

https://abuaminaelias.com/freedom-of-religion-and-apostasy-in-islam/

Upon apostasy in Islam

Seemed convincing until I got to the end:
“Islam pioneered freedom of religion a thousand years or more before the Christian world;”

Nothing like revisionism.

[Saranidia]

Seemed convincing until I got to the end:
“Islam pioneered freedom of religion a thousand years or more before the Christian world;”

Nothing like revisionism.

so your dismissing claims that go against your prejudices despite it citing it's sources.
#Muslimswinagain

[Tarsonis]

Seemed convincing until I got to the end:
“Islam pioneered freedom of religion a thousand years or more before the Christian world;”

Nothing like revisionism.

so your dismissing claims that go against your prejudices despite it citing it's sources.
#Muslimswinagain

Actually no. I cited the same Muslim source that he has cited which expressly states that the punishment for apostasy is death.

He countered with a different source. I reviewed the source and found that it’s presenting a revisionist perspective. Thus I default back to the authoritative source I cited before, which states the punishment for apostasy is death.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Seemed convincing until I got to the end:
“Islam pioneered freedom of religion a thousand years or more before the Christian world;”

Nothing like revisionism.

https://legacy.quran.com/2/256, https://legacy.quran.com/109

[Tarsonis]

Seemed convincing until I got to the end:
“Islam pioneered freedom of religion a thousand years or more before the Christian world;”

Nothing like revisionism.

https://legacy.quran.com/2/256, https://legacy.quran.com/109

That's proselytization not apostasy. You keep trying to present them as the same thing, they are not.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Seemed convincing until I got to the end:
“Islam pioneered freedom of religion a thousand years or more before the Christian world;”

Nothing like revisionism.

Islam is younger than Christianity by 600 or so years though, so that statement makes no goddamn sense from the get go.

[The Grims]

Seemed convincing until I got to the end:
“Islam pioneered freedom of religion a thousand years or more before the Christian world;”

Nothing like revisionism.

Islam is younger than Christianity by 600 or so years though, so that statement makes no goddamn sense from the get go.

Sure it does. If in Islamic nations there was freedom of religion from 700 AD or so, while that onky became true in the christian nations around 1700 AD the statement is correct.

But note the ifs.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

There are no closed threads in NSGeneral.

Yup. There are no closed threads. And a lot of them use that as an excuse to just stick their nose in everything with their self-righteous vibe. But that's ok, because there are no closed threads in NSGeneral.

The Islamic Discussion Thread isn't just some echo chamber for fellow Muslims to pat eachother on the back all day long, it is also a thread that allows non-Muslims to counter Muslims with secular thought.

If you are so convinced about the infallibility of Islam, then you people shouldn't be so nervous at the thought of arguing with the cackle of non-Muslims trying to debunk it.

[Kubumba Tribe]

https://legacy.quran.com/2/256, https://legacy.quran.com/109

That's proselytization not apostasy. You keep trying to present them as the same thing, they are not.

Wasn't talking about that. I was talking about freedom of religion in Al-Islam.

[Jolthig]

Doesn't that come down to how "compulsion" is defined? I mean, extracting the jizya also compels people to convert to Islam if just for economic reasons; it's not compulsion at gun-point sure, but it's nevertheless compulsion just the same, only to a lesser degree, and Quranically sanctioned.

You've misunderstood what Jizya is. It isn't a tax to convert people to Islam. It's a tax that is levied on non-Muslims in exchange for protection. It's not different than all of us paying taxes to our respective governments. Any government that you're under, paying a tax is inevitable. Jizya is no different. I will provide evidence from the Quran abd ahadith to answer your objections, Alterrum.

Again, a later verse strikes a different tone regarding forced conversion:

9:29: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

So you are to fight the unbelievers for their lack of faith until they either pay the jizya (a form of soft compulsion to convert) or directly convert, yet you cannot supposedly compel them to convert. Language games much, since fighting to spread your religion is effectively compulsion of a kind one way or another.

It wasn't to "force" Islam on non-Muslins. They chose to join Islam because of their own reasons. Not because of Jizya. Jizya wasnt even as heavy of a tax as Zakat which is obligatory on Muslims. I can even prove that in Hadith.

Narrated `Amr bin Maimun:

`Umar (after he was stabbed), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying, "I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability."

This hadith proves Jizya isn't to force Islam on non-Muslims and your referral to 9:29 doesn't mention anything about forcing Islam on non-Muslims. Look at the verse closely.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The Arabic is quite clear that the submission, and subduing does not refer to a conversion to Islam. It refers to agreeing to live under a Muslim government.

Matter in fact, here's what the translation I mainly use provides the translation as:

Fight those from among the People of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection.

This is a better translation. Otherwise if it referred to converting to Islam, it would've used the word, Islam itself, which also means submission, but in a religious context.

God could of course have been clearer by what he means by compulsion, giving concise definitions of what acts are forbidden for spreading Islam, but it seems like he left it as another part of the Qu'ran where making a human interpretation to make sense is just inescapable. Considering the generally negative and dehumanizing appraisal of non-Muslims based on their lack of the correct faith alone (they will after all suffer eternally in Hell just for that - no matter if they were Mother Theresa or any other figure with outstanding character), the Qu'ran certainly makes it easier to justify amping up the conversion of non-believers rather than treating them with respect and leaving them at peace to practice their own beliefs.

Nowhere in the Quran does it treat non-believers with disrespect as you assert. As a matter in fact when the Quran says in Surah 5:82 (83 in the translation I'm using):

Thou shalt certainly find the Jews and those who associate partners with God to be the most vehement of men in enmity against the believers. And thou shalt assuredly find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ to be the nearest of them in love to the believers. That is because amongst them are savants and monks and because they are not proud.

Do note that this is coming from one of the last chapters revealed during Muhammads life so we can therefore conclude that 2:256 refers to any form of religious compulsion to force Islam on non-Muslims. History disagrees with your continued assertions that Jizya was to somehow progressively make non-Muslims convert to Islam when they themselves chose to convert out of their own reasons and not because of Jizya. As I've demonstrated from Sahih Bukhari, Jizya wasn't the burden the non-Muslims. It was a tax put on them in exchange for their protection under the Islamic Caliphate. It's not any different than anybody living in a secular government.

If the choice is between discomfort, even to a great degree, that is at least finite and suffering that is infinite, any moral person should know what the correct choice is, and this happens to be the logic behind ISIS' actions too. Of course, a moral person should also keep updating their priors as new evidence arises, but the Qu'ran does not take kindly to that.

And I've demonstrated to the contrary why the Quran does not match up your arguments. Your referral to 33:36 instead, refutes your arguments when paired up with the verses I've presented to you.

Therefore, we can conclude that Jizya wasn't to somehow make the non-Muslims convert to Islam to financially compel them to do so when it wasn't even burdensome and not as expensive as Zakat was on the Muslim taxpayers. Once again, history disagrees with your premises in your argument. I would hope that my reply is informative enough for you to understand Jizya.

If Jizya was to force non-Muslims into Islam, then why did the Jews and Christians and even Zoroastrians still lived alongside Muslims up to this day (excluding the more extreme Muslim rulers when this was not intended by Muhammad and the early Khalifeen?

[Kubumba Tribe]

Yup. There are no closed threads. And a lot of them use that as an excuse to just stick their nose in everything with their self-righteous vibe. But that's ok, because there are no closed threads in NSGeneral.

The Islamic Discussion Thread isn't just some echo chamber for fellow Muslims to pat eachother on the back all day long

>Muslims
>Echo chamber

[Tarsonis]

That's proselytization not apostasy. You keep trying to present them as the same thing, they are not.

Wasn't talking about that. I was talking about freedom of religion in Al-Islam.

If we're going purely on scripture, then Christianity has you beat by 3500 years. If we're going by practice, Islam is still wrestling with the concept.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Wasn't talking about that. I was talking about freedom of religion in Al-Islam.

If we're going purely on scripture, then Christianity has you beat by 3500 years.

Debatable

If we're going by practice, Islam is still wrestling with the concept.

*Muslims, not Al-Islam

[Tarsonis]

Islam is younger than Christianity by 600 or so years though, so that statement makes no goddamn sense from the get go.

Sure it does. If in Islamic nations there was freedom of religion from 700 AD or so, while that onky became true in the christian nations around 1700 AD the statement is correct.

But note the ifs.

Depends on your point of view. From the Christian perspective, our religion is the true Hebrew religion, so our religion is far older than Christ.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Sure it does. If in Islamic nations there was freedom of religion from 700 AD or so, while that onky became true in the christian nations around 1700 AD the statement is correct.

But note the ifs.

Depends on your point of view. From the Christian perspective, our religion is the true Hebrew religion, so our religion is far older than Christ.

Friendly reminder that Christianity effectively began as a fringe Jewish sect...

[Tarsonis]

Depends on your point of view. From the Christian perspective, our religion is the true Hebrew religion, so our religion is far older than Christ.

Friendly reminder that Christianity effectively began as a fringe Jewish sect...

And?

[Jolthig]

Wasn't talking about that. I was talking about freedom of religion in Al-Islam.

If we're going purely on scripture, then Christianity has you beat by 3500 years. If we're going by practice, Islam is still wrestling with the concept.

Christianity didn't exist 3500 years before Islam. That is Judaism and it can even be argued from Jesus hinself according to scripture as "Christian" wasn't seen until the book of Acts.

[Jolthig]

Sure it does. If in Islamic nations there was freedom of religion from 700 AD or so, while that onky became true in the christian nations around 1700 AD the statement is correct.

But note the ifs.

Depends on your point of view. From the Christian perspective, our religion is the true Hebrew religion, so our religion is far older than Christ.

Actually according to most scholars of your faith, Christ is 4000 years older than Christianity because he existed with God.

[Suhkkot]

For brothers: I noticed that we criticize sisters for not wearing hijab, but I see that many of us are lacking in our own fitrah. Who here grows a beard? I have one.

[Jolthig]

For brothers: I noticed that we criticize sisters for not wearing hijab, but I see that many of us are lacking in our own fitrah. Who here grows a beard? I have one.

A beard isn't mandatory, but still Sunnat; so yes I have one.

Though I don't criticize sisters for not wearing hijab as it isn't my responsibility. If I did, then I'd be hypocritical because I'm not supposed to look at a woman. I need to keep my eyes lowered; hijab or not.

[Suhkkot]

For brothers: I noticed that we criticize sisters for not wearing hijab, but I see that many of us are lacking in our own fitrah. Who here grows a beard? I have one.

A beard isn't mandatory, but still Sunnat; so yes I have one.

Though I don't criticize sisters for not wearing hijab as it isn't my responsibility. If I did, then I'd be hypocritical because I'm not supposed to look at a woman. I need to keep my eyes lowered; hijab or not.

It is wajib for men.

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/17716