Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Insaanistan]

I'm starting to realize the term apostate in Islam is effectually meaningless.

Islamically speaking there are 2 types of apostates:
People who simply leave Islam after practicing it (there’s no actual punishment for this).
People who leave Islam after practicing it then instigate violence against those who still practice (punishments differ depending on which Hadiths you follow).

[Diarcesia]

I'm starting to realize the term apostate in Islam is effectually meaningless.

Islamically speaking there are 2 types of apostates:
People who simply leave Islam after practicing it (there’s no actual punishment for this).
People who leave Islam after practicing it then instigate violence against those who still practice (punishments differ depending on which Hadiths you follow).

Then the Taliban and ISIS and the Saudis inherently equate "leaving Islam" as "violence against the ummah"

[Genivaria]

I'm starting to realize the term apostate in Islam is effectually meaningless.

Islamically speaking there are 2 types of apostates:
People who simply leave Islam after practicing it (there’s no actual punishment for this).
People who leave Islam after practicing it then instigate violence against those who still practice (punishments differ depending on which Hadiths you follow).

Seems like the underlined shouldn't need more to it.

[Tarsonis]

I'm starting to realize the term apostate in Islam is effectually meaningless.

Islamically speaking there are 2 types of apostates:
People who simply leave Islam after practicing it (there’s no actual punishment for this).
People who leave Islam after practicing it then instigate violence against those who still practice (punishments differ depending on which Hadiths you follow).

Sure, but that's not what I'm getting at. While it may have a formal definition it gets thrown around thrown around so much that it's meaningless. Kind if like "Heretic" in Christianity

[Diarcesia]

Islamically speaking there are 2 types of apostates:
People who simply leave Islam after practicing it (there’s no actual punishment for this).
People who leave Islam after practicing it then instigate violence against those who still practice (punishments differ depending on which Hadiths you follow).

Sure, but that's not what I'm getting at. While it may have a formal definition it gets thrown around thrown around so much that it's meaningless. Kind if like "Heretic" in Christianity

This

[Jolthig]

Yeah, there are two types of "apostasy" in Islam as Insaanistan said.

Though I believe there are also "two types of Muslim".

1. Muslim by birth in the sense of, in contrast to the Christian concept of original sin, all humans are born sinless. It is their environment that pollutes their character.

2. Muslims who adhere to the Shariah of Muhammad (saw).

That's the way I always saw it.

[Insaanistan]

Islamically speaking there are 2 types of apostates:
People who simply leave Islam after practicing it (there’s no actual punishment for this).
People who leave Islam after practicing it then instigate violence against those who still practice (punishments differ depending on which Hadiths you follow).

Sure, but that's not what I'm getting at. While it may have a formal definition it gets thrown around thrown around so much that it's meaningless. Kind if like "Heretic" in Christianity

Yeah, that’s true.
Same thing with the word “kaffir” (in the Arabic sense, not the Afrikaans sense).

[A m e n r i a]

Yeah, there are two types of "apostasy" in Islam as Insaanistan said.

Though I believe there are also "two types of Muslim".

1. Muslim by birth in the sense of, in contrast to the Christian concept of original sin, all humans are born sinless. It is their environment that pollutes their character.

2. Muslims who adhere to the Shariah of Muhammad (saw).

That's the way I always saw it.

Innocent =/= Muslim

Sure, but that's not what I'm getting at. While it may have a formal definition it gets thrown around thrown around so much that it's meaningless. Kind if like "Heretic" in Christianity

Yeah, that’s true.
Same thing with the word “kaffir” (in the Arabic sense, not the Afrikaans sense).

Ikr? The far-right throws the word "kafir" at people like feminists throw "rape" around. Listening to music? You're kafir! Holding your girlfriend's hand? Kafir! Supporting Jokowi? Kafir! At this point anything remotely fun, sensible, or normal is haram to the far right.

[Redeemed Britannia]

I'm starting to realize the term apostate in Islam is effectually meaningless.

I was thinking on this last night and also had some thoughts on the matter. If Islam treats conversions to the faith as reversions instead, it can thus be logically assumed all non-Muslims are apostates, which means under most forms of Shariah that non-Muslims can be freely killed for apostasy which would mean that despite their barbaric methods and whatnot that ISIS and friends aren't inherently being un-Islamic when they massacre Yazidis or whatever.

I mean, all non-Muslims are kaffir, that's how kufr works. Some kaffir just get to pay protection money and live as third-class citizens instead of being wiped out or forced to convert at sword point en masse. Whether ISIS and friends were being islamic or not when they committed genocide is a different matter of course.

[A m e n r i a]

I was thinking on this last night and also had some thoughts on the matter. If Islam treats conversions to the faith as reversions instead, it can thus be logically assumed all non-Muslims are apostates, which means under most forms of Shariah that non-Muslims can be freely killed for apostasy which would mean that despite their barbaric methods and whatnot that ISIS and friends aren't inherently being un-Islamic when they massacre Yazidis or whatever.

I mean, all non-Muslims are kaffir, that's how kufr works. Some kaffir just get to pay protection money and live as third-class citizens instead of being wiped out or forced to convert at sword point en masse. Whether ISIS and friends were being islamic or not when they committed genocide is a different matter of course.

Dzimmi pay taxes like any other countries impose on their citizens and they're not third class. The difference between secularism and Shariah is the former forces it's citizens to follow the same laws regardless of their values and beliefs and the latter to non-Muslims is just "go make your own religious laws, but pay your taxes and we're good". What about Muslims? We have zakat, another tax under a different name. Genocide and forced conversions are inherently un Islamic.

[Lady Victory]

The difference between secularism and Shariah is the former forces it's citizens to follow the same laws regardless of their values and beliefs and the latter to non-Muslims is just "go make your own religious laws, but pay your taxes and we're good".

Yeah, that's an outright lie.

Under Sharia non-Muslims can't even publicly practice their religion. Can't wear symbols of their religion in public, men can't marry Muslim women, can't proselytize their religion, can't even teach their kids their religion or stop them from converting to Islam. In the past they couldn't even own Muslim slaves and historically most often they had to pay much more through jizya than Muslims did through zakat. Among many other restrictions that basically made it impossible to actually practice their true faith. Non-Muslim families spent centuries pretending to be Muslim just so they could have normal lives while practicing their true religion in secret and many of the lands conquered by the Caliphate remained largely non-Muslim until the 16th and 17th centuries saw Muslim rulers cracking down on false converts.

Stop trying to whitewash history because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[Immortan Khan]

1. Muslim by birth in the sense of, in contrast to the Christian concept of original sin, all humans are born sinless. It is their environment that pollutes their character.

I would just like to point out that not every Christian denomination believes humans are born already with sin. In denominations following the Western concept and teaching of original sin this is true, but there are those who reject it and denominations that have a different understanding of original sin.

[Tarsonis]

1. Muslim by birth in the sense of, in contrast to the Christian concept of original sin, all humans are born sinless. It is their environment that pollutes their character.

I would just like to point out that not every Christian denomination believes humans are born already with sin. In denominations following the Western concept and teaching of original sin this is true, but there are those who reject it and denominations that have a different understanding of original sin.

Not to debate it here, but I've made it a point to argue in the CDT that the Eastern criticisms of Original Sin are usually wrong because they stem from a misconception of the doctrine.

[Diarcesia]

I also have a lot of criticism on how Muslim states treat their religious minorities.

The difference between secularism and Shariah is the former forces it's citizens to follow the same laws regardless of their values and beliefs and the latter to non-Muslims is just "go make your own religious laws, but pay your taxes and we're good".

Yeah, that's an outright lie.

Under Sharia non-Muslims can't even publicly practice their religion. Can't wear symbols of their religion in public, men can't marry Muslim women, can't proselytize their religion, can't even teach their kids their religion or stop them from converting to Islam. In the past they couldn't even own Muslim slaves and historically most often they had to pay much more through jizya than Muslims did through zakat. Among many other restrictions that basically made it impossible to actually practice their true faith.

In the middle ages the pagan Lithuanians and Mongols were some of the only entities to my knowledge who are more tolerant of their non-believers.

Non-Muslim families spent centuries pretending to be Muslim just so they could have normal lives while practicing their true religion in secret and many of the lands conquered by the Caliphate remained largely non-Muslim until the 16th and 17th centuries saw Muslim rulers cracking down on false converts.

Stop trying to whitewash history because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Is this a criticism on Islam or the Muslim rulers in particular? Because in more places than not if you ain't part of the dominant religion you are a second-class citizen. Also, what's not mentioned is that earlier in that timeline, the Muslims actually discouraged conversion because, surprise, jizya is more profitable.

[Vistulange]

I wanted to ask the Muslims of NSG that is it offensive for non-Muslims to greet Muslim using “As-salamu alaykum” in respect and good faith?

Not at all.

When I do dawah out and about, I occasionally get people that say this to us and it makes us happy.

Sorry, you accost people on the street asking them about their religious beliefs and if they'd like to join your religion?

And, on the topic of apostasy and capital punishment...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_ ... th_penalty

Such tolerance.

[Zarulia]

Was just searching for what Singapore is called in the NS world till I stumbled across this, real islam in Indonesia is just like other, it's not tolerant at all
Ever heard of the new order?

It's quite clearly not tolerant at all in terms of western standards, but it's more like how evangelical Christianity isn't "tolerant" (and often times Indonesian moderates they're are more tolerant than some right-wing Westerners). And in my opinion such condition is already adequately conducive to things like nation-building, civil tolerance, and economic activities. Especially considering that most Indonesian Muslims that identifies as "moderates" almost always identify as a "nationalist", meaning that they're more likely to be tolerant to different religions.

This is in stark contrast with the emerging fundamentalist doctrines that mostly came from Saudi Arabia in the 80s-90s, which has been really bad for a multireligious state (that is, a state where people of different religion and ethnicity are concentrated on different places, thus a tinderbox of separatism and civil conflicts). When the government banned the largest radical Islamist organization last year, for example, they (quite savvily) showed a recording of its leader giving murderous genocidal orations during the 1999 religious civil wars in the eastern regions.

In fact the two largest moderate Muslim organization was founded a century ago specifically to fight off the influence of Islamist fundamentalists (who also came from the Middle East lmfao) that are causing quite a mess in society. Especially since Islam in Indonesia was spread through trade and assimilation that utilizes local culture, not conquest, resulting in a conflict with said 19th-20th century Arabic scholars.

Suharto's New Order military dictatorship is quite interesting, since I think it lay bare how the ruling class historically view religion: a tool. When the military was genociding the communists in the 60s, they mobilized Islamic (and in Bali, Hindu too, lol) mass elements to do the job for them. Then they subtly crackdown said religious elements out of relevance, and stacked the military leadership with Christians. But the Christian generals eventually became too powerful, so Suharto utilized the rising conservativism following the Iranian Islamic Revolution to strengthen his rule. The 2019 elections also reflect this "religion is a tool" mentality, with the VP candidate of the Secular-Nationalist Coalition being an influential cleric while the presidential candidate of the Islamist Coalition being a wine-drinking, pro-American, secular-nationalist ex-general.

It has to be noted that my support for these moderate elements is almost a necessity, considering 60% of the youth now self-identify themselves as "puritan" and "ultraconservative". (OTOH, the liberal-moderates are also increasingly getting more... radicalized in their liberalism, though).

this is interesting to say the least, i did not know the existence of coalitions despite me being indonesian (citizen) myself because i always thought that everything is determined by their party or their thoughts instead of coalition, because i really thought that indonesia's flawed democracy is so fragmented that there are multiple parties associated with islamism instead of just one.

speaking of the liberal pro american islamist, who is that? i think i missed something very interesting from the 2019 elections

even by pancasila standards, true islam is not tolerant and fair to differing identities.
pancasila does not embrace "Freedom of religion" but it actually oppress said "Freedom of religion" because there is only 5 recognized religions that you must follow or else you'll have identity issues or even imprisonment. Such cases are: native polytheistic religions from the deeper parts of indonesia have to adopt hindu gods to be recognized as hindu (one of the 5 recognized religion), jews in indonesia have to register as christians (i remember such christian domination that embrace kosher and jewish stuff but i forgot), and people actually getting a decade of imprisonment for being atheist/agnostic.
even I myself as an agnostic indonesian from chinese descent have to keep it to myself because its really that bad if you talk about it in public. I believe this rhetoric of anti-atheism was fueled by the new order because "communists are atheists" which is true amongst communist liberalism in general but remember that sukarno himself is a socialist that is extremely religious, i myself as a meritocratic (or shall i say technocratic) economically right liberal is an agnostic doing things in life so the "all unbelievers are leftist asshats" statement is not entirely true

some of the muslim organization from a century ago who claimed to be "moderate" still is a big issue for chinese indonesian, i guess thats because the stereotype back then was that chinese indonesians are "middlemen" to the "dutch imperialist" so i cant blame them for being braindead as hell, glad that they realized that theyre wrong after indonesia got independence.

and the "religion is tool" statement is correct, in the bible it is very clear that people should not misuse god's names for personal gains like in politics but im not sure about the quran, please @ me if one of you know alot about quran, this statement also implies to every religious identity too including non religious because just like you said, the candidate from the islamist coalition is a liberal pro-american trying to gain votes from younger generations so this statement is not off-limit to islam or christian, it also implies to anything about religion and religiousness.

on the side note about islamist fundamentalism, aceh is not as rich and developed as singapore despite having many capabilities to do so (central government control is way more decentralized meaning that regional laws specific on aceh special administrative region is alot more free from central government red tapes and approval, and strategic trade routes) now, people would think that the most logical way to utilize the special rights of a special province is to enact free market laws and be singapore 2.0 right? no they didn't, they still slap people with cables. singapore have corporal punishment too but they arent as proud as their islamist fundamentalist counterparts.

another side note to consider is that this "60% of the youth identifies as puritan and ultra conservative" may have been inflated by societal pressure, what do i mean by "societal pressure"?
well the thing is that people pretend to be religious and view irreligious people negatively while they themselves are not religious, such case is that one FPI member was caught liking tweets from an NSFW twitter page (politicians are dumb enough that they didnt realize that their "liked" page is public to anyone xd), i myself pretend to be religious but actually no

i think pancasila is really overlooked by the fact that islamist parties still exist, these islamist parties (some are not as fundamental as FPI but still) potrays an opposition against pancasila but still got away with it. and the new order dictatorship broke many of the constitution like equality and other stuff so yeah, pancasila is basically unenforcable and it is a badly designed ideology because you cant just make an ideology based off of 5 simple stances.
so it is basically like this: to the leftists, the 5th stance of pancasila (Social justice for all the people of Indonesia) is interpreted as forced wealth equality at all cost but to the rights it is interpreted as equal rights based on merits. i believe that pancasila is nothing more than the indonesian version of socialist nationalism when it was written by the founding fathers.

so yeah, to make pancasila a reality: indonesia have to become a socialist one-party democratic state. but you know what happens with most forms of socialism = it always fails at efficiency and will throttle human development and innovation. then again it can be viewed differently so it is basically impossible to enforce pancasila.

[Insaanistan]

Not at all.

When I do dawah out and about, I occasionally get people that say this to us and it makes us happy.

Sorry, you accost people on the street asking them about their religious beliefs and if they'd like to join your religion?

And, on the topic of apostasy and capital punishment...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_ ... th_penalty

Such tolerance.

From Yaqeen Institute:

The way that the early Muslim community seems to have understood apostasy differs strikingly from the decisive rulings of the later schools of law. This is most clear in the rulings of the Prophet ﷺ himself. There is no reliable evidence that the Prophet ﷺ ever executed anyone for apostasy, as was observed by the famous scholar of Cordoba, Ibn al-Ṭallāʿ (d. 1103).[30] When one of the Companions, ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh left Islam and became Christian while the Muslims were seeking refuge in Ethiopia, the Prophet ﷺ did not order him punished.[31] The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya, which the Prophet ﷺ concluded with the Quraysh, stated that if anyone decided to leave the Muslim community in Medina no harm would befall them. There was no mention of a punishment for apostasy. In fact, when a man who had come to the Prophet ﷺ just the day before to pledge his loyalty to Islam wanted to be released from his oath, the Prophet ﷺ let him go.[32] Imam al-Shāfiʿī himself notes how, during the Prophet ﷺ’s time in Medina, “Some people believed and then apostatized. Then they again took on the outer trappings of faith. But the Messenger of God did not kill them.”[33]

[Diarcesia]

Sorry, you accost people on the street asking them about their religious beliefs and if they'd like to join your religion?

And, on the topic of apostasy and capital punishment...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_ ... th_penalty

Such tolerance.

From Yaqeen Institute:

The way that the early Muslim community seems to have understood apostasy differs strikingly from the decisive rulings of the later schools of law. This is most clear in the rulings of the Prophet ﷺ himself. There is no reliable evidence that the Prophet ﷺ ever executed anyone for apostasy, as was observed by the famous scholar of Cordoba, Ibn al-Ṭallāʿ (d. 1103).[30] When one of the Companions, ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh left Islam and became Christian while the Muslims were seeking refuge in Ethiopia, the Prophet ﷺ did not order him punished.[31] The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya, which the Prophet ﷺ concluded with the Quraysh, stated that if anyone decided to leave the Muslim community in Medina no harm would befall them. There was no mention of a punishment for apostasy. In fact, when a man who had come to the Prophet ﷺ just the day before to pledge his loyalty to Islam wanted to be released from his oath, the Prophet ﷺ let him go.[32] Imam al-Shāfiʿī himself notes how, during the Prophet ﷺ’s time in Medina, “Some people believed and then apostatized. Then they again took on the outer trappings of faith. But the Messenger of God did not kill them.”[33]

So what's the process behind the mainstream consensus of the Muslim states after Muhammad that death penalty is to be applied as an ultimate punishment for apostasy?

[Immortan Khan]

Not at all.

When I do dawah out and about, I occasionally get people that say this to us and it makes us happy.

Sorry, you accost people on the street asking them about their religious beliefs and if they'd like to join your religion?

"Accost". Most of the missionaries, whether Christian or otherwise, I've encountered in public are far from accosting people. Having a stand on a corner and just holding out a small pamphlet for people to potentially take if they are interested is far from accosting.

[Insaanistan]

From Yaqeen Institute:

So what's the process behind the mainstream consensus of the Muslim states after Muhammad that death penalty is to be applied as an ultimate punishment for apostasy?

Partially Europeans, as they did impose blasphemy laws and the like on their colonies.

[Diarcesia]

So what's the process behind the mainstream consensus of the Muslim states after Muhammad that death penalty is to be applied as an ultimate punishment for apostasy?

Partially Europeans, as they did impose blasphemy laws and the like on their colonies.

Eh, that seems to be a thing among Muslims way before that.

[Arvenia]

I also have a lot of criticism on how Muslim states treat their religious minorities.

Yeah, that's an outright lie.

Under Sharia non-Muslims can't even publicly practice their religion. Can't wear symbols of their religion in public, men can't marry Muslim women, can't proselytize their religion, can't even teach their kids their religion or stop them from converting to Islam. In the past they couldn't even own Muslim slaves and historically most often they had to pay much more through jizya than Muslims did through zakat. Among many other restrictions that basically made it impossible to actually practice their true faith.

In the middle ages the pagan Lithuanians and Mongols were some of the only entities to my knowledge who are more tolerant of their non-believers.

Non-Muslim families spent centuries pretending to be Muslim just so they could have normal lives while practicing their true religion in secret and many of the lands conquered by the Caliphate remained largely non-Muslim until the 16th and 17th centuries saw Muslim rulers cracking down on false converts.

Stop trying to whitewash history because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Is this a criticism on Islam or the Muslim rulers in particular? Because in more places than not if you ain't part of the dominant religion you are a second-class citizen. Also, what's not mentioned is that earlier in that timeline, the Muslims actually discouraged conversion because, surprise, jizya is more profitable.

Is it true that jizya is more profitable?

[Insaanistan]

Partially Europeans, as they did impose blasphemy laws and the like on their colonies.

Eh, that seems to be a thing among Muslims way before that.

True, but the way the Europeans went about it is a lot like the way they went about the Hindu caste system.
The caste system was originally social classes rather than set castes and over time began to form into castes. The trend had already gotten under way when rather than steer it back to wha tus was before, the British just effectively made it worse and solidified it.

[Insaanistan]

I also have a lot of criticism on how Muslim states treat their religious minorities.



In the middle ages the pagan Lithuanians and Mongols were some of the only entities to my knowledge who are more tolerant of their non-believers.



Is this a criticism on Islam or the Muslim rulers in particular? Because in more places than not if you ain't part of the dominant religion you are a second-class citizen. Also, what's not mentioned is that earlier in that timeline, the Muslims actually discouraged conversion because, surprise, jizya is more profitable.

Is it true that jizya is more profitable?

Under certain empires, jizya tax was higher than zakat tax, the the point there were periods in Ottoman history where they didn’t want people converting to Islam because they wanted more revenue.

[Immortan Khan]

Is it true that jizya is more profitable?

Historically it generally was as it was much higher than zakat and in many places formed the bedrock of the tax system.