Islam and punishment

[acid rain]

But you said "many" how do we quantify "many" because last I checked, Islam was still the fastest growing religion in the world. Those who feel they want to leave despite having read the revelations in the Quran ( they are free to do so, for it is them who are truly the losers in that exchange).

Also when you are talking about Islam it concerns me as a "Muslim" regardless who you direct your comment towards...

Many means more than one..anyways..I don't think I will get my answers from you..so will refrain from replying to you.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

There's no equation like 1 leaves it and 1000's join it. Apostasy is growing quite fast ...and plenty are disillusioned muslims as well who become apostates by heart but are afraid of their immediate society or their country laws to declare it..

Islam is growing even much faster rate than your imaginary apostate friends

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...kQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNF2nwvUS_D7_CICCyUsQzdKYzV84A


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...4QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGtBCB3JIcvngAHvGVyHrG5uvj7bQ

 

[RescueRanger]

Islam is growing even much faster rate than your imaginary apostate friends

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...kQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNF2nwvUS_D7_CICCyUsQzdKYzV84A


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...4QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGtBCB3JIcvngAHvGVyHrG5uvj7bQ

Don't feed the troll eventually it will die of starvation.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

whether the majority has the right to impose its practices on all under their control, with the authority of the State, including punishments

if your country can do exactly that(homosexual right to get married) why cant others if the majority wills it (in pakistans case they do)

 

[syedali73]

Don't feed the troll eventually it will die of starvation.

But why OP is not!

if your country can do exactly that(homosexual right to get married) why cant others if the majority wills it (in pakistans case they do)

Because all those rights and privileges are patented by West and Islamophobes.

 

[VCheng]

Allow me to respond step by step:

May I attempt to expand on this if you will allow me a moment. What a lot of observers seem to fail to notice is that Islam vis-a-vis all the other major religions is relatively new, and it has seen it's growth and expansion in relatively modern times, from the renaissance of Europe to the revolution of industry and the information super highway.

These "harsh" punishments you refer to in your thread, are these limited to Islam alone? I feel the reason Islam is always in the news for these headlines is because to put it simply: Islam is still growing and so are the communities that practice Islam. I would like to bring your attention to Purim and the Book of Esther ( was this not considered Jihad and barbaric?) similarly consider the outrageous practices of Christianity in the Middle Ages what with the witch hunts, anti science and art movement and finally not forgetting the fact that most of the worst forms of torture and capital punishment were developed by Christian nations in the middle ages.

Actually, other scriptures have much harsher punishments for a broader ranges of crimes, and the article clearly appreciates the fact that the Quran is actually far more benevolent than the other major scriptures. The question that is posed is why should countries that follow Islam are the ones that have in reality harsher punishments when in fact the Quran is more benevolent. You posit that it is due to the relative youth of the religion, but, it is more likely that the reason is twofold as the OP mentions: 1) The intertwining of state and religion, and 2) The political instability that plagues the Islamic world, which predispose the governments to use Islamic law according to their interests.

In other words, it is not Islam at fault, but its use by governments and State by intertwining matters and using them for political goals.

Now the thrust of my argument is simple, the nations and cultures who practice Islam are still developing, they are in the news because Islam is still an enigma to most in the west and elsewhere, there is an stoic beauty to many concepts in Islam, but why is it that only the negative aspects of Islam are always highlighted and discussed?

Your argument is actually along the lines of what I have just posted above, that it is not Islam at fault, but its use by governments and State by intertwining matters and using them for political goals. OF course Islam has many positive aspects, but the present thread is about punishments being meted out in its name not only by the IS, but by many Islamic countries as well, when clearly the reason is not the religion, but the political process, or rather, the lack thereof.

Why do posters such as yourself not discuss the positives? Like the fact that Muslims are considered to contribute more to charity than any other religious denomination:

Charity is a well attribute of Muslim societies, and it is widely recognized. Recently, Muslims also raised $30,000 for reconstruction of black churches burnt down in southern USA. Those threads have their place, as do threads that look at other aspects critically. One cannot look at the shiny side of a coin all day.

Furthermore you have to understand that only 15% of the world's Muslims are Arabs, so whilst now there is this need to look to Saudi for religious guidance, as the nations that practice Islam mature and debate flourishes ( don't say it doesn't) people will start to spend more and more time thinking the actual meaning of the words uttered by the Angel Gabriel "Iqra", and there will be lesser reliance on Saudi to pass edicts to guide us.

Trying to follow Arab culture because it has been admixed with religion has caused a multitude of problems in countries like Pakistan and Nigeria. And yes, debate is important. But then why is it that the CMBs here are trying to shut this thread down by personal attacks and petty vilification, rather that intelligent counter-debate? Where is the rational discussion on whether Pakistanis should be following the Arab model of religion, or not?

The Quran is open to interpretation that much is true, we have to use logic and reasoning in applying the teachings of Islam. If it was permissible to fight tooth and nail with broadswords at the time then how come the keeper of the two mosques and his armies have modern equipment... Because one must adapt with the times.

Same can be said for Islamic laws and their application, in so much that their interpretation and application requires a modern re-think and not from Saudi since like I said before, only 15% of the world's Muslims are Arabs, we don't need them dictating how we should be practising our faith.

I agree with this completely. Of course, one must adapt with the times or risk becoming outdated and irrelevant. But how or where is it possible to have a discussion as to how this adaptation must occur when the emphasis is to shut down any inquiry or questioning?

Please note that the modern re-think you say is needed does not mean ditching religion. Every zealot goes off in a huff at the very mention of re-thinking or adaptation claiming that the liberal and seculars are trying to destroy religion. That is intentionally disingenuous to rile up the following faithful, and counter-productive in the long run. You clearly state that we do not "need (the Arabs) dictating how we should be practicing our faith" but why is that we are in reality? Just look at the present government and the majority of the religious schools of thought and what they are doing.

Finally and my closing statement is simple: Give Islam a chance, at present we are considered the global boogey man, the Media has always been great at this game, We have had everything from the Nazi's to USSR to Korea and now it's Islam's turn.

The only thing is that with Islam, you are not so much trying to criticise a political system or thought process, you are criticising people's way of life. And please don't give me any BS about free speech... Just type something anti-Semitic on Facebook see how quickly you get blocked, but you are free to post anything to defame Islam, are we then the children of a lesser god?

If Islam is the present bogeyman, would you also agree that what its followers are doing in large swathes of the world has something to do with it? Islam as a way of life for hundreds of millions i perfectly fine and respected. The only discussion is how to minimize its conflicts with the rest of the world, not to destroy it.

 

[VCheng]

* @Syed.Ali.Haider Read this thread Racist Uygur Mob violently attacks single woman in Turkey. | Page 3

That thread is closed, but I read it. Not much to say about the topic, really.

if your country can do exactly that(homosexual right to get married) why cant others if the majority wills it (in pakistans case they do)

There is a difference between ensuring legal equality for all, and the imposition of the will of the majority on everyone without regards to the the rights and beliefs of all to be protected equally.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

and the imposition of the will of the majority on everyone without regards to the the rights and beliefs of all to be protected equally.

in every country majority decides under what system they will live turks wants secularism they have it americans want freedom to do everything they can have it no one can stop them because the majority wills it so when some nations want to be follow a different approach they should be allowed and ultra liberal attitude toward them should stay in its limits
and what tells you that will not happen surely they will have their rights but their will be limitations both on them and the majority (like every where else)
the system will be decided by the state and religious leaders laws will be derived from fiqh and hadiath and not by fatwas of some random mullahs when the state decides to enforce a law it wont allow some random nut job with no legal authority to take law in his own hand

 

[VCheng]

in every country majority decides under what system they will live turks wants secularism they have it americans want freedom to do everything they can have it no one can stop them because the majority wills it so when some nations want to be follow a different approach they should be allowed and ultra liberal attitude toward them should stay in its limits
and what tells you that will not happen surely they will have their rights but their will be limitations both on them and the majority (like every where else)
the system will be decided by the state and religious leaders laws will be derived from fiqh and hadiath and not by fatwas of some random mullahs when the state decides to enforce a law it wont allow some random nut job with no legal authority to take law in his own hand

Good points, but the real problem is the lack of any intelligent discourse that decides what precisely is this legal system derived from Islam should look like since there are so many varying interpretations, in a country that cannot even decide on one day for celebrating Eid.

 

[TankMan]

You have described the problem well, but what could be a possible solution to this situation? How does a society begin the deal with the demons it itself has unleashed?

He already gave you the solution: Complete reformation of Islam.

No, @Norwegian . No reformation of Islam is needed. Only a reformation of how we look at it. Why do we consider Political Mullahs' opinions, even those that clearly go against Islamic texts and principles, to be part of Islam itself? Since when did they become parts of Islam? They aren't and never were. People think they are. That needs to change.

First of all, we need to determine and agree upon the very core of Islam, principles that every sect of Islam will agrees with. Peripheral elements can be sorted out later.

For that, we need honest dialogue between the different sects and groups. Honest, as in uninfluenced by political or personal issues of the scholars.

 

[VCheng]

No, @Norwegian . No reformation of Islam is needed. Only a reformation of how we look at it. Why do we consider Political Mullahs' opinions, even those that clearly go against Islamic texts and principles, to be part of Islam itself? Since when did they become parts of Islam? They aren't and never were. People think they are. That needs to change.

First of all, we need to determine and agree upon the very core of Islam, principles that every sect of Islam will agrees with. Peripheral elements can be sorted out later.

For that, we need honest dialogue between the different sects and groups. Honest, as in uninfluenced by political or personal issues of the scholars.

Great post, but how do we stop following the political Mullahs, and how do we initiate an honest dialogue between different sects to agree upon a common core? Who gets to sit at the table? The same Mullahs who cannot even agree on the day of Eid? Besides, such attempts have been made many times before, including the one where the Ahmedis were declared to be non-Muslims. ll the peripheral issues have assumed such a huge importance now that we have lost sight of the core commonalities.

Besides, these steps imply that the path forward involves this common core to be State enforced. Is that really a good idea given the situation that we find ourselves in? As the OP states, the problem may be due to the governments tending to use Islamic law according to their political interests.

May be the idea of separating religion from matters of the State should be seriously considered at least as part of this debate.

 

[Norwegian]

The same Mullahs who cannot even agree on the day of Eid? Besides, such attempts have been made many times before, including the one where the Ahmedis were declared to be non-Muslims.

Yeah, its the irony isn't it? Same mad Mullahs who cannot even agree on the days of fastings, eid etc miraculously agreed to declare Qadianis Kafir. There was a good debate going on about Caliphate in Islam which was miraculously deleted as well just recently. This is how Muslims 'agree' on things these days...

@TankMan @Jaanbaz @Ehsan @Pakistani Exile @mpk1988

 

[TankMan]

Great post, but how do we stop following the political Mullahs, and how do we initiate an honest dialogue between different sects to agree upon a common core? Who gets to sit at the table? The same Mullahs who cannot even agree on the day of Eid? Besides, such attempts have been made many times before, including the one where the Ahmedis were declared to be non-Muslims. ll the peripheral issues have assumed such a huge importance now that we have lost sigh of the core commonalities.

Exactly. The peripheral elements have assumed too much importance.

The solution to this is not something simple that can be done by a few people. It requires that people stop following Mullahs who argue religion for the sake of politics, and requires a few honest scholars to gain public support, with which they then attempt to pressurize other scholars and the political Mullahs (it's important not to confuse these people with scholars) into honest dialogue.

Now, an effective government in a country like Pakistan could set things in the right direction. Bodies like the CII can be cleaned up and used to promote honest dialogues. It will obviously require that the government take some difficult steps and purge political Mullahs from it - difficult, but doable.

However, if countries like Pakistan, instead of attempting to fix the issues among Muslims decide to run away from them by disassociating themselves from the religion and becoming secular, the issues will remain and actually become worse - since political Mullahs will gain ideological ammunition against the states, and people will flock to them since the state won't be doing anything to counter their narrative.

The political issues in the Muslim world will also remain. The only difference will be that the difference between religious disunity and political disunity will become a little more obvious - but secularism on part of states will not stop groups like ISIS from using religion, so it is entirely possible that nothing changes from that perspective.

Essentially, adopting secularism isn't a solution, it's just running away from the problem by taking away the responsibility states and governments have in solving it.

Besides, these steps imply that the path forward involves this common core to be State enforced. Is that really a good idea given the situation that we find ourselves in? As the OP states, the problem may be due to the governments tending to use Islamic law according to their political interests.

You misunderstood the meaning of common core. That is mostly ideological aspects - it can't be 'enforced'. It is just us deciding what the religion of Islam actually is, and then using that core to decide on what the peripheral elements should be.

Let me give you an example: the oneness of God is a core aspect of Islam, wearing a Burka is not (it can be argued that modesty is, but that's another debate). Now, nobody is suggesting we 'enforce' the oneness of God.

But, some people do argue that modesty is a core aspect, they the conflate Burkas with modesty, therefore making Burkas a part of the core of Islam, even though they're not. That's how we end up with people saying that women ''can't be good Muslims unless they wear a Burka''.

Now, to separate the core from the peripherals, we'll need to analyze Islamic texts, the Quran and Hadith, and use some simple logic to understand them. I won't attempt to do that here, since that's what needs to happen in this honest dialogue between scholars we've been talking about.

The problem is not because of governments using 'Islamic Law', it's because of people confusing peripheral elements with core elements of Islam and not accepting differences of opinion about the peripheral elements - that creates division, and political mullahs exploit those divisions to gain followers in the form of reactionaries, i.e people who form a sect simply to oppose a certain opinion, which then also becomes a sect.

The difficulty and flaws in the implementation of Islamic Law on a governmental level are the result of the problems I have explained above, not the cause.

May be the idea of separating religion from matters of the State should be seriously considered at least as part of this debate.

You can consider it, but it won't help much, as I have explained above.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Yeah, its the irony isn't it? Same mad Mullahs who cannot even agree on the days of fastings, eid etc miraculously agreed to declare Qadianis Kafir. There was a good debate going on about Caliphate in Islam which was miraculously deleted as well just recently. This is how Muslims 'agree' on things these days...

@TankMan @Jaanbaz @Ehsan @Pakistani Exile @mpk1988

Oh bhi we have this habit of Muslim bashing as if non Muslim don't disagree with each others on different secular principles or they dont differ about implementations of certain rules/laws and regulation. They also differ to each others and debate over it , oppose or support each others views .. differences are normal but its not ok to kill each others because of these differences

 

[VCheng]

The problem is not because of governments using 'Islamic Law', it's because of people confusing peripheral elements with core elements of Islam and not accepting differences of opinion about the peripheral elements - that creates division, and political mullahs exploit those divisions to gain followers in the form of reactionaries, i.e people who form a sect simply to oppose a certain opinion, which then also becomes a sect.

The difficulty and flaws in the implementation of Islamic Law on a governmental level are the result of the problems I have explained above, not the cause.

So what you are saying is that a certain number of scholars having an honest dialogue will solve these problems? Is it really as simple as this? Can you suggest a list of such scholars that a majority would be willing to accept as the arbitrators of defining this common core? Who can put together such a trustworthy group?

And if that cannot be realistically achieved, then my suggestion of separating matters of religion from matters of state remains the only viable way forward.