I've ran across some former Muslims that say that the punishment for Apostasy in not death. They have claimed that the Qu'ran never suggests the death penalty for those that leave the Islamic faith. I tried to corner one of them to get a reason why they say this. I gave some examples and why I reject the notion, but I didn't get a refutation. I'm happy to hear it, I simply don'e know except for what I can read on my own. So if anyone can tell me why this is wrong, please do so.

My reading:

"But if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever you find them” Chapter 4 Verse 89
In Hadiths spoken by Mohammed, "If somebody discards his religion, kill him.’” Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260 Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’” Vol. 9, Book 84, Number 57

Historically it's noted that in the time of Mohammed thousands were killed for leaving Islam. If this wasn't what he wanted, why did he not correct the behavior?

This is a wiki quote under the Execution section. "some jurists, scholars and writers of other Islamic sects, have argued or issued fatwas that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars"

It seems pretty clear to me, but what am I not understanding?

Views: 331

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"In my opinion, not many people in the US make a big deal out of the "under God" thing in the US pledge of allegiance."

Made me wonder about something:

In your opinion, if tomorrow a decision was passed in Congress to start preparatory work for a law amending the FA and instituting Christianity as official state religion of the US, what would the eventual outcome be if it ends up being decided by the religious belonging of representatives and supreme court justices? And what are the chances it would end up being a religious vote?

In your opinion, if tomorrow a decision was passed in Congress to start preparatory work for a law amending the FA and instituting Christianity as official state religion of the US, what would the eventual outcome be if it ends up being decided by the religious belonging of representatives and supreme court justices? And what are the chances it would end up being a religious vote?


Arcus - I cannot imagine in my wildest imagination something like that happening. Then again, I could not have imagined in my wildest imagination, what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, and what happened during hurricane Katrina, in terms of the lack of preparadness and response.


Even so, I don't see that ever happening in the US (Christianity as the official US state religion). I can much easier imagine Spanish becoming the official language of the US.


The US seems to give more consideration to minorities' demands than it does to religious demands, although sometimes the line can become quite fine as to what the difference is between the two.   


If a Muslim kills an x-Mulsim because he (the x-Muslim) left the faith of Islam, and this becomes known to the law authorities in the country where it happened; I would judge how much control the letter of apostacy in Islam has in that country, by how and what consequences are dealt out to the killer.


You didn't really try to imagine... :)

Let's do a little historical twist: Imagine you are back in September 2008 when the economy collapsed. Imagine 2 highly plausible events occuring within a few weeks before the elections: First another Katrina, shortly followed by "the big one" hitting California with some of the effects recently seen in Japan.

Instead of Obama, the McCain/Palin ticket gets elected.

(If too far fetched, imagine 2012 with Huckabee/Palin and another Mississippi flood and big tornadoes scenario.)

It's time for atheists in the US to mobilize when that's not a completely far-fetched scenario. 

If it's in the holy book, there is no argument.
Exactly, that's what the religious say. What I meant was there isn't an argument in the sense of holy scripture; it's god's word thus it is unalterable. There is no room for maneuver, no leeway, no give or take, there is no compromise because these are holy words. To change them is to throw out the whole thing.  A religious person will always resort back to this line of thinking. They put up this impenetrable wall. God's wall. Reason can chip away and even make some sizeable dents, but overall, the wall will remain standing because it is unalterable, just like scripture. Therefore there is no argument in their minds.
It is far easier to "have faith" than to read, study, learn, digest, etc.  ANY believer is saying to us atheists, "I'm too stupid or lazy to bother to be human.  Leave me alone.  Of course, I can't leave YOU alone, because of my faith."
No, we don't need faith. People can believe in things, be it concepts or other people, but faith is just belief without evidence. That makes it extremely dangerous.
We are out of replies on a thread that deserves talking about.. maybe.
Arcus, I don't know you well enough to know how playful you are, but I'll go defensive anyways because your assertion is common. Your quote:

"My sincerest apologies for hurting your sensitive feelings and providing such ample evidence of my prejudice against the great history of the deeply cultural nation you belong to.
As evidence, you may now overwhelm me with quotes from all the famous US historians from any time before the 18th century. :)"

"Deeply Cultural nation" People often discount America as not being cultural. I find this notion odd. Being from Prague, there is no doubt that you are aware of Superstar, big Brother, and other shows that Czech's have co-opted? Our styles of malls have even made it to Prague. You have a memorial to American soldiers in Prague. Tell me, what gets more airplay in Czech. English or Czech music? It seems odd to me that your culture would be happy to borrow heavily on our cultural ideas and acknowledge our people but then slam them at the same time. I'm keenly aware of the differences in our culture in a tangible sense because my wife is from Litvinov.

It should be noted that I'm not from Prague, merely ex-patting for the last 1.5 years. Being from a much younger nation, I find the history and deep culture of the place fascinating and vastly more extensive than my own country's. There's no shame in admitting that certain countries have more and deeper culture than other countries, and this is generally reflected in the length of history.

To be perfectly honest I was not aware of that, but I find it logical that those shows would be here too. I don't own a TV, I don't speak Czech, and even if I did I haven't really followed reality shows since the first season of Norwegian "Survivor", which is a Swedish concept. I believe Superstar is British and Big Brother Dutch. So much of the radio music here (30% by subjective standards) is in Czech that I don't really listen to radio. I'd say about half of the music is American, but mostly music . Currently there is 1 song overlapping from the top 10 charts I can see.

There are plenty of memorials to soldiers of a whole host of countries, including the USA. In fact, I live about 10 minutes from the old Radio Free Europe building, one of the greatest legacies of US influence.

I am not slamming the little American culture which has been able to root itself. However, the vast majority of Americans have no relationship to the land they grew up on. Would you define yourself as a Native American and sharing that culture, or are you of European decent and share most European cultural traits whence your ancestors came from?


I am both Native (Lummi, a small fishing tribe) and German/Danish.

It would be very interesting to hear how your ties to native community shaped your Weltanschauung through your exposure to its written and oral history, but I believe it would be going completely off topic.

'but mostly music'-->'but mostly music by the Black American minority'


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service