According to an article in The Times, the act of apostasy is punishable by death (usually in public) in Saudi Arabia. As you know, Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca, which is the holiest of holy's in Islam, which, as you also know, is the Religion of Peace.
When you consider breaking the law of apostasy, (leaving your religion, party cause etc) is punishable by death, it begs the questions; does Islam still promote religious hate to the point of bringing death to those that convert from Islam? How about those that refuse to convert TO Islam?
| dictionary.com wrote: |
a·pos·ta·sy /əˈpɒstəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pos-tuh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sies.
a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc. |
Could a Muslim please explain this to me? Civilly, of course. 
We understand your views on Islam. Let it be or go to a forum which supports your ideology.
I agree. Bobby Hill is a grade A hater. He thinks his bowel secretions smell like bakery fresh cinnamon buns.
| Billy Hill wrote: |
Could a Muslim please explain this to me? Civilly, of course. |
No, because you only can/want to understand ideas which are at sync with your obsession. Further I agree with above posters. | Billy Hill wrote: |
| Civilly, of course. |
Is this what prevents you from explaining it to me? Because you simply can't do it civilly?
Is there a non-muslim in the house than can explain this contradiction to me? I'd really like to continue expanding and updating my view of Islam and Muslims and how they separate themselves from radical Muslims and terrorism.No. It's just that you have about seven or eight threads floating around based upon pretty much the same idea, and I think at least three of them were made this week. If all the discussion about it were in one place, them maybe some discussion might go on. This is like when the DOES GOD EXIST debate bled out of the DOES GOD EXIST thread, and pretty much every thread, no matter how unrelated it was, became a God related debate. I'll admit that some of that was my fault, but then as soon as you returned from your absence from the forum, it was back to Islam-Islam-Islam.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| No. It's just that you have about seven or eight threads floating around based upon pretty much the same idea, |
And all I've gotten so far is "that's not Islam" with nothing to prove it but words. Don't tell me, show me!
So explain this to me. Is that Islam or not? (And I'm not talking about RADICAL Islam this time either. ) Explain to me how you can justify the statement(s) that Islam is peaceful and tolerant while there are laws in place that indicate otherwise?
Last edited by Billy Hill on Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:39 pm; edited 1 time in totalDid you even read your own article?
| Quote: |
| A Nigerian woman and a Pakistani man were executed in the Muslim holy city of Mecca today for drug trafficking, the Saudi interior ministry said. |
| Quote: |
| Ghulam Nawaz was beheaded by the sword after being found guilty of drug smuggling in the ultra-conservative kingdom, the ministry said in a statement carried by the official SPA news agency. In a separate statement, the ministry said Tawa Ibrahim, the Nigerian, was beheaded for cocaine trafficking. |
And your whole apostasy statement comes from where? Here:
| Quote: |
| Rape, murder, apostasy, armed robbery and drug trafficking can all carry the death penalty in the oil-rich Gulf Arab country, where executions are usually carried out in public. |
One word at the end of a totally unrelated article.
I've lived in Saudi Arabia for 9 years, and if you're getting your ideology from watching The Kingdom, I suggest you do some more research. Most/many of my friends there are Christian, too. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
Did you even read your own article?
| Quote: | | A Nigerian woman and a Pakistani man were executed in the Muslim holy city of Mecca today for drug trafficking, the Saudi interior ministry said. |
| Quote: | | Ghulam Nawaz was beheaded by the sword after being found guilty of drug smuggling in the ultra-conservative kingdom, the ministry said in a statement carried by the official SPA news agency. In a separate statement, the ministry said Tawa Ibrahim, the Nigerian, was beheaded for cocaine trafficking. |
And your whole apostasy statement comes from where? Here:
| Quote: | | Rape, murder, apostasy, armed robbery and drug trafficking can all carry the death penalty in the oil-rich Gulf Arab country, where executions are usually carried out in public. |
One word at the end of a totally unrelated article.
I've lived in Saudi Arabia for 9 years, and if you're getting your ideology from watching The Kingdom, I suggest you do some more research. Most/many of my friends there are Christian, too. |
Yes, and that doesn't answer the question.
Even though I think death for drug trafficking is a bit extreme, I can understand it.
Changing religion and getting the death penalty for it is a bit over the top IMO.Okay, thats you're opinion and there's not much I can do about it. But, is it particularly smart for a Christian to walk into Vatican City and tell everyone that they're converting away from Christianity? Are they going to get a pleasant response?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Okay, thats you're opinion and there's not much I can do about it. But, is it particularly smart for a Christian to walk into Vatican City and tell everyone that they're converting away from Christianity? Are they going to get a pleasant response? |
Well, I'll let you know on this one. I am currently in the process of doing just that. I'm not walking into the Vatican - I'm dealing with my local diocese in Liverpool - but otherwise the picture is correct. I have long found it objectionable that I am recorded as a Catholic due to a decision taken by my parents long before I was able to make my own mind up. I also have deep-rooted objections to the Catholic church for a variety of reasons I won't go into here. I am, therefore, requiring my diocese to acknowledge that I am in no way associated with Catholicism or Christianity in general and specifically to destroy records of my baptism.
Whilst I anticipate a certain resistance to my requests (particularly the second) I do not seriously think my life is in danger as a result. If, however, I suddenly stop posting then maybe the 1st Battalion Jesuit Special Forces will have silenced me.BH, I didn't read your first post (ours overlapped).
Look, you have to admit the Vatican did their fair share of crap once-upon-a-time too, didn't they? But Christianity is the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, neither of which they were following. Muhammed and the Quran do not tell people to kill UNLESS the opponent is the aggressor. I love Jesus and Moses and their Testaments as much as I love Muhammad and the Testament he was given, and I don't find it right that when I talk about a certain COUNTRY doing something, you combat it by talking about a RELIGION doing something.
The Quran, Tankah, and Bible are pretty much the same idea, the Quran just hasn't been edited by man since it was first "delivered".
If a country takes something too far, why blame it on a RELIGION? I know your opinion on Muhammed, and that's derived from HADITH BOOKS, for God's sake. Those were commissioned by Muhammad's ENEMIES.
The Quran even states that the (forged) Hadith books are NOT a source of truth and that the Quran is the full source of guidance.
The forged Hadith books are just as accurate as someone, 2000 years later, making up scenes of Jesus' life out of the top of their head.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| BH, I didn't read your first post (ours overlapped). |
Thank you for "discussing" this. It's an honest (but tough) question.
| Quote: |
Look, you have to admit the Vatican did their fair share of crap once-upon-a-time too, didn't they? But Christianity is the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, neither of which they were following. |
True. But that's in the past now. Humans have become more civil since.
| Quote: |
| Muhammed and the Quran do not tell people to kill UNLESS the opponent is the aggressor. I love Jesus and Moses and their Testaments as much as I love Muhammad and the Testament he was given, and I don't find it right that when I talk about a certain COUNTRY doing something, you combat it by talking about a RELIGION doing something. |
Saudi Arabia is a religious country. It's rules are based on religion. Therefore, with all due respect, it seems even more likely (IMO) that Islam does not promote peace and tolerance when it comes to converting FROM Islam. In fact, that's as far from tolerant as you could get.
| Quote: |
| The Quran, Tankah, and Bible are pretty much the same idea, the Quran just hasn't been edited by man since it was first "delivered". |
The Bible is not (usually) taken literally. From what I can understand, Muslims must follow the Quran literally. Is that not true?
| Quote: |
| If a country takes something too far, why blame it on a RELIGION? |
Again, if that country is a religiously run country like Saudi Arabia... it's a religious issue.
| Quote: |
The Quran even states that the (forged) Hadith books are NOT a source of truth and that the Quran is the full source of guidance.
The forged Hadith books are just as accurate as someone, 2000 years later, making up scenes of Jesus' life out of the top of their head. |
Ok, but does that mean that converting FROM Islam is NOT punishable by death?
Again, thank you for talking rationally and civilly, we'll get a lot further this way. Excellent. Rational debate is always preferrable to flame wars.
Here's a couple of points which may be relevant.
Saudi Arabia is an extremely repressive state. The main 'strand' of Islam in SA is Wahhabism which is an extremely conservative form of Islam. Although any comparisons are inevitably going to be flawed to some extent, the best comparison with Christianity would probably be with those sects which take the bible literally (7 day Adventists, some Pentecostalists, Creationists and other fundamentalist Christian sects).
The way SA is run is as a monarchistic dictatorship supported in large measure by the US. The ruling family (the Sauds) has absolute power and tend to keep it 'in the family'. The regime is deeply unpopular with many Muslims but it is extremely dangerous to speak-out against the government.
True. So if you know something is not allowed in a country, why do it?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| True. So if you know something is not allowed in a country, why do it? |
That is a poor defence. If you happen to be born in that country then you have little choice. Something being 'not allowed' is not the same as something being morally wrong.I do realize that it is morally wrong and shouldn't be done. They were executed for smuggling drugs, and it's quite clear that doing that will get you in some deep trouble. So I ask, as wrong as it is, if you know you're going to get punished for it, why do it? I can understand if they were trying to do something right, but got punished for it, but this was their fault...
People do 'wrong' all the time. It's part of being human. The issue here is whether the punishment is reasonable. People are generally 'born' into the faith they currently hold. Why should it be punishable by death to question the tenets of a faith which you had no real choice about joining in the first place? That seems entirely unreasonable to me.
But this was a Nigerian and a Pakistani; obviously they were not born into Saudi Arabia so they came through their own free will and did something forbidden in the country.
My question is, WHY? You went there, and you know you're going to get punished for doing this, and its up to you to smuggle drugs or not, so WHY do it?
I think we are talking about two different things. I was talking about the thread title - Apostacy - not drug smuggling.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| I do realize that it is morally wrong and shouldn't be done. They were executed for smuggling drugs, and it's quite clear that doing that will get you in some deep trouble. So I ask, as wrong as it is, if you know you're going to get punished for it, why do it? I can understand if they were trying to do something right, but got punished for it, but this was their fault... |
Chris is right. This is NOT about the article I linked to. The article is where I first realized that it was punishable by death to convert FROM Islam.Okay. If you want to convert away from it, first off don't do it in the country where the religion started and where the Holy City is located, and don't make a spectacle of it either. If they want to convert away from it, its up to them, but WHY do it in the part of the world where that religion is most prominent and people with lash the most?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| People do 'wrong' all the time. It's part of being human. The issue here is whether the punishment is reasonable. People are generally 'born' into the faith they currently hold. Why should it be punishable by death to question the tenets of a faith which you had no real choice about joining in the first place? That seems entirely unreasonable to me. |
It seems to be unreasonable to me (but then again, I don't practice Islam, so the perspective isn't there). But we all know the real reason this thread was made...just by reading between the lines.Seriously. He just sugars it up so it doesn't get locked/deleted.
Well, BH has said that he intends to conduct himself differently in these discussions and I, for one, am prepared to take him at his word.
The question itself is a reasonable one and should be asked. Islam is not the only religion which I believe should be questioned in this regard. Here in the UK, for example, we have laws (Blasphemy, for example) which clearly discriminate on religious grounds (Blasphemy only applies, legally, to the Church of England). Fortunately this law is being examined critically now and there are signs that it may soon be done away with.
Personally I am opposed to any legal system or laws which are based on religion.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Okay. If you want to convert away from it, first off don't do it in the country where the religion started and where the Holy City is located, and don't make a spectacle of it either. If they want to convert away from it, its up to them, but WHY do it in the part of the world where that religion is most prominent and people with lash the most? |
Again, HBP, you refuse to answer the question.
The question is not how to get around being put to death for changing religion, the question is how do you justify your claims that Islam is peaceful and tolerant, when there are very clear signs that it is not?
I can tell by your own repeated refusal to address the real question and your constant skirting of the issue that you simply cannot justify it. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Okay. If you want to convert away from it, first off don't do it in the country where the religion started and where the Holy City is located, and don't make a spectacle of it either. If they want to convert away from it, its up to them, but WHY do it in the part of the world where that religion is most prominent and people with lash the most? |
Is it reasonable to force people who were born in a particular country to have to leave that country in order to opt out of a faith which they never consented to join in the first place?Christianity and Judaism claim to stone your own family if they ask to worship another God.
Judaism classifies a woman going through the period as "filthy", and anything she touches is "filthy until evening".
Women really asked for that one too, right?
| Quote: |
| Deuteronomy 21:18: If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or his mother even when they punish him, (19) his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you. |
| Quote: |
| Deuteronomy 13:6-8: If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him. You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow. Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death. |
| Quote: |
| Numbers 5:14, 13: If a husband becomes suspicious that his wife has had sex with another man, though he did not catch her in the act, even if she is innocent and his jealousy and suspicions are groundless, he will bring his wife before the priest. The priest will put some holy water in an earthen vessel and put some dust from the floor into the water. The priest will unbind the woman's hair, put her on oath, and say to her, "If no other man has had sex with you, may this bitter water do you no harm. But if you have had sex with a man while under your husband's authority, may this water enter your bowels and make your belly swell and your sexual organs shrivel." Then he will make the woman drink the water. If she has not made herself unclean, then she will be unharmed and will be able to bear children. |
| Quote: |
| Deuteronomy 22:13-20: If a man marries a woman and has sex with her, and then turns on her and publicly accuses her, saying, "I married this woman, and when I had sex with her, I found no evidence of virginity," the girl's father and mother must take the evidence of her virginity and show it to the elders of the town, saying, "Here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity." 'The elders will then have the man arrested and flogged, and fine him 100 silver pieces, giving this money to the girl's father. The woman will remain the man's wife as long as he lives, and he may not divorce her. But if the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman's virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town. |
| Quote: |
| Deuteronomy 21:10: When you go to war against your enemies and you take prisoners, put the entire male population to death. |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
Judaism classifies a woman going through the period as "filthy", and anything she touches is "filthy until evening".
|
Yeah, we call that "Kooties". My wife has them right now so I stay away from home as much as possible to be safe. 
Are any of these practices actual law? And if so, are they still in place as the law about Apostasy is in the Islamic country of Saudi Arabia??I have to agree with BH on this. This is not a matter of scriptural interpretation, this is a matter of civil law. There are many things in the bible which I find ridiculous, even criminally insane, but they are not reflected in the civil law which governs our life.
Nobody can be 'stoned' for adultery (or for anything else) in the UK, regardless of what the bible might say. Women cannot be legally discriminated against, whether or not they happen to be having their period, in UK law.
Under Sharia law, however (if my understanding is correct) then you can be put to death for apostacy. That is a completely different thing.
I lean on HBP's side for some moral reasons, and him defending the details is natural. I believe that though Saudi Arabia is run by religious men who want things to go their way and so they use the Qu'ran to their advantage. The key word is religious men. Like HBP said, the catholic church had its time of very wrong doings, but they were not true to their religion. It was not the religion's fault. It is the men who corrupted the word of God's fault. This is the same with Saudi Arabia. Just because a man kills a woman in the name of Islam does not mean Islam is meant to give you the privilege of killing women. Therefore you cannot say any atrocities committed by men in SA is Islam's fault.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Look, you have to admit the Vatican did their fair share of crap once-upon-a-time too, didn't they? But Christianity is the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, neither of which they were following. |
True. But that's in the past now. Humans have become more civil since. |
America and England and Australia has become more civil since. (No offense to other countries I didn't want to name all the civil ones). But there are still tribal and nomadic communities everywhere. Africa, Asia, South America. Just because one culture has gotten past it's hard times does not mean every other culture will follow in suite. Truth is SA is taking steps towards making things more moral and humanly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/21/wsaudi121.xml
Saudi Arabia to lift ban on women drivers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/60minutes/main682565.shtml
People are speaking out. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| I lean on HBP's side for some moral reasons, and him defending the details is natural. I believe that though Saudi Arabia is run by religious men who want things to go their way and so they use the Qu'ran to their advantage. The key word is religious men. Like HBP said, the catholic church had its time of very wrong doings, but they were not true to their religion. It was not the religion's fault. It is the men who corrupted the word of God's fault. This is the same with Saudi Arabia. Just because a man kills a woman in the name of Islam does not mean Islam is meant to give you the privilege of killing women. Therefore you cannot say any atrocities committed by men in SA is Islam's fault. |
I do not say so (ie I do not blame the attrocities in SA on Islam per se). I do, however, question whether any society should have laws (let alone a legal system) derived from or based on religion, as is the case with Sharia Law in some Muslim countries. The problem is not the possible perversion of Islam, the problem is the incorporation of that into the civil legal system.
The same problem occurred in the West not too long ago. Throughout the Dark Ages and much of the Medieval period, the Church had tremendous secular power and many religious concepts from Cannon Law were incorporated into the legal system - heresy, blasphemy etc. It was only with the later development of common law, and a secular judiciary, that these laws were relegated to unimportance, if not totally abandoned. This resulted in a secular legal system which (for the most part) does not rely on religious concepts and beliefs.Well at this point yes government should be separate totally from religion. Religious men or women could argue that these blasphemies are crimes and should be punishable by so. But the Bible teaches that men are not to be judged by men, they will be judged by God himself. So really, unless a man is a danger to the people around him, his sins are his own and we are not to judge him nor punish him, lest we are totally free of sin, which we are not.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
America and England and Australia has become more civil since. (No offense to other countries I didn't want to name all the civil ones). But there are still tribal and nomadic communities everywhere. Africa, Asia, South America. Just because one culture has gotten past it's hard times does not mean every other culture will follow in suite.
|
I guess that's why many of us consider it a war against "Western Civilization".
| Quote: |
| Truth is SA is taking steps towards making things more moral and humanly. |
I've seen that, and I notice that the changes that are made are somehow directly related to pressure from "civilized" countries.The obvious question that arises is can we have a Democratic Islamic state?
It is a question to which I have no answer, only observations.
Turkey has long been held up as a potential template for such a state. This is/was, however, largely because Islam and Government were kept apart (more accurately, Islam is subordinate to the state and controlled by it).
The government of Turkey has been secular by design since the founding of the republic in 1923. It has been democratic since 1950 (with 3 brief interruptions for military coups). The institutions of government and the judiciary are secular (no Sharia Law).
The problem is that Islam is seen by many as more than simply a religion. With Sharia Law it represents an entire political and religious system. This view is called Islamism and supporters of this view are called Islamists.*
Turkey is now an interesting case-study. Since 2002 it has been ruled by the AKP which is a largely Islamic party headed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. There were initially fears that this represented a slide towards Islamism and that this would herald a 4th military coup in order to prevent this happening. This fear seems, however, to have been unfounded. Turkey is keen to get full membership of the EU and some think that this has moderated any potential slide to Islamism. Others point to the secular tradition in government. Whatever the reason, Turkey seems to have remained a largely secular state with a large majority Muslim population (99.8%).
Could Turkey represent a model for Democratic Islam? Perhaps. It is a unique case in many respects, however, and it would be dangerous to over-generalise. The key point, for me, is the separation of Islam as a religion from the state. It goes without saying that you cannot have an Islamist Democracy** - it is a contradiction in terms - but Turkey seems to show you can have an Islamic Democracy.
* For those of you reading this, who have been debating the meaning of such words in various threads, take it from me - that is the correct definition of an Islamist (one who believes that Islam is not just a religion but is an entire political system by which a country or countries should be run).
** It will be no suprise to most people that I am against Islamism
